Bush to appoint investigators

[WillowIX]

I agree with Cerek. Assigning democrats will not help. An investigation like this should be non-political. Like that's ever going to happen anywhere. I would like to put forward Timber to lead this investigation. Anyway what really gave me a laugh was that the results weren't to be released until after the election. Paint me guilty. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

The article Chewie posted by Cohen had some interesting points about common sense human behavior (water cooler, pleasing bosses, etc.), but this bit I found incorrect:

It's not that I think the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community are blameless. Something clearly went way wrong -- not just with Iraq but with Sept. 11 as well. Two such massive intelligence failures in a single presidential term are something that history, although not necessarily this meek Congress, will hold George W. Bush accountable for.

I find this incredible -- as in not credible. I think everyone was amazed and awed and bewildered on 9/11. I think we could have not have seen it coming -- especially to the level where anyone could be held accountable for failing to predict and/or stop the tragedy. Placing blame on the intelligence community for failing to stop 9/11 is the unfair result of modern day namby-pamby "somebody musta screwed up" thinking. Sometimes, there is no one to blame -- get over it.

To this day, there are still Area 51 conspiracy theorists out there who think Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen. I submit to you that people thinking 9/11 could SHOULD have been predicted will be seen the same way historically.

Willow wrote:

Anyway what really gave me a laugh was that the results weren't to be released until after the election.

Yeah, and the "expected" capture of Bin Laden is scheduled for the first week of November.

And, Barry, I was thinking the opposition was "saving face," I was simply thinking that some people have their minds made up no matter what. On both sides.

[ 02-03-2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I can already see any efforts will meet the same fate that the recent Blair investigation met: claims of a whitewash. There's just no pleasing some folks. Such is life.

That could easily be avoided by having a multi-party panel overseeing the inquiry, rather than appointing your own man... [/QUOTE]I doubt that, Skunk - although I agree it would lessen the number of such allegations and would certainly make the proceedings appear more impartial. Many of the liberals are already accusing the Democrats in Congress of "rolling over and playing dead" when it comes to opposing Bush...and MANY are convinced that Bush is guilty before the investigation starts.

So even if he DID assign a multi-party panel to head the investigation, ANY verdict other than guilty will lead to accusations of a whitewash by those that feel Bush is guilty no matter what. [/QUOTE]I'm contently amazed at he incredible double standards, in respect to presidential accountability, coming out of the Right. Just imagine the Hugh and cry we would have heard from the republicans and the 'liberal' media if Clinton had stated he was going to appoint his own commission to look into Whitewater, Vincent Foster, and Monica. Ours ears would still have been ringing.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I doubt that, Skunk - although I agree it would lessen the number of such allegations and would certainly make the proceedings appear more impartial. Many of the liberals are already accusing the Democrats in Congress of "rolling over and playing dead" when it comes to opposing Bush...and MANY are convinced that Bush is guilty before the investigation starts. So even if he DID assign a multi-party panel to head the investigation, ANY verdict other than guilty will lead to accusations of a whitewash by those that feel Bush is guilty no matter what.

I'm contently amazed at he incredible double standards, in respect to presidential accountability, coming out of the Right. Just imagine the Hugh and cry we would have heard from the republicans and the 'liberal' media if Clinton had stated he was going to appoint his own commission to look into Whitewater, Vincent Foster, and Monica. Ours ears would still have been ringing. [/QUOTE]That's a fair criticism, Rokenn. I was just voicing my agreement with Timber that some members here (and in the general public as well) would believe George Bush was guilty even if Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy headed the investigation.

I agree that an independent council should be appointed, but I believe it was Willow that correctly pointed out the non-existence of such a beast. Also, this Congress and Senate BOTH are controlled by the Republicans..so even if Bush DIDN'T appoint the investigator himself, there would still be cries of "whitewash" from Bush's opponents.

I also think it is ironic that the results of the investigation won't be known till after the election. The way it looks right now, the results may well be a moot point.

Anyhow, I seriously doubt that George Bush would hesitate to place the blame on the intelligence he recieved if the heat got to be too bad for him. I'm sure his hand-picked man has instructions to deflect the blame in any direction he can should the need arise.

[skywalker]

Ya know?

It is pretty well known here that I have little support for George Bush and his group, but I would like to think that if a truly independent group investigated and found no wrong doing on their part, I would accept it.

I do not support a lot of the things he has done, but that doesn't mean I would want him found guilty of something that he did not do.

Now maybe these insinuations are not leveled at me, but it smacks of disrespect to some of us who would like to know the truth and like to see a NON-partisan group review the facts.

You can believe what I've written above or not, but I do not tend to lie. Screwing someone over with false accusations doesn't sit well with me.

On the other hand I hope that those who are sure that the Bush Administration are innocent would accept the obverse outcome as well.

Mark

[quietman1920]

Special Prosecutor

Accept No Substitutes.

[Davros]

There seems to be more politicisation of any potential enquiry in the US. Remember that in UK, the other side of politics were not against the war - they would have signed up faster than the poodle. In the UK the investigation has been more centered on the actual actions of the PM and its relationship to the suicide of a journalist.

The Hutton enquiry smacks of whitewash because the evidence gathered simply does not match well with the conclusions generated. If the UK poll figure I saw of 75% belief in whitewash is still holding, you would do well to reflect that Blair swept something like 60-70% of popular support in the last election. There adds up to a whole lot of his supporters who have stopped trusting him.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Davros: The Hutton enquiry smacks of whitewash because the evidence gathered simply does not match well with the conclusions generated. If the UK poll figure I saw of 75% belief in whitewash is still holding, you would do well to reflect that Blair swept something like 60-70% of popular support in the last election. There adds up to a whole lot of his supporters who have stopped trusting him.

I'm see much the same trend here regarding President Bush. Many of us who staunchly supported him last March are finally beginning to get fed up with his Steamroller Style of diplomacy. I honostly don't care that no WMD's have been found...I think Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power on general principle and I'm glad we were able to accomplish that.

But things like the Patriot Act and the complete annihilation of the universal, global support the U.S. had after 9/11 really have me concerned with what could happen with 4 more years of the same administration.

But the scariest concept to me is that Presidents that win a 2nd term generally become even more focused on their own "pet projects" and really show their true priorities. After all, they aren't eligible for re-election again, so it doesn't matter if the voters are happy with them or not.

Clinton is a perfect example. While there were some scandals regarding him and Hillary during his first term, MOST of the criticism aimed at him was generated from his 2nd term when he was less careful about his actions.

But a George Bush has been under almost constant criticism from Day One of his administration. And his response to a lot of the criticism has been to either shield himself from it or simply ignore it. If he is that callour regarding differing opinions NOW, I honostly shudder to think how he will act if given 4 more years to act when he doesn't have to worry about voter opinions AT ALL.

As for me, I'm giving a VERY close look at the Demo candidates now. I like Clark the most, because military personnel tend to be conservative, and that fits with my ideals the best. I'm interested in Dean, but don't really like Kerry. Can't give a definite reason, just something about him I don't like.

Edwards is a Senator from my home state and I've been happy with the job he has done here, so he would get my vote in a heartbeat. Chances are, his growing popularity might get him the VP nod and I WOULD vote for a Kerry/Edwards ticket (although I would RATHER vote for Edwards/Kerry ).

Anyway, I was tempted to make the prediction that George Bush would have a very decisive victory in November - so that there wouldn't be 4 more years of claims that he "stole" the election. Now, however, I think it far more likely that he will be the former President by this time next year.