Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
[<< "Under oath...."] [Archive Index] [>>"9/11 Commission Hearings"]
03/22/2004 Archived Entry: "At odds...."
At odds....
Scott McClellan today:
I think that his assertions that there was something -- or his assertion that there was something we could have done to prevent the September 11th attacks from happening is deeply irresponsible, it's offensive, and it's flat-out false.
A whole bunch of people who think differently:
"This was not something that had to happen.""They simply failed."
— Thomas H. Kean, Chair of the independent commission investigating 9/11. Kean is a Republican appointed by Bush
---
"They don't have any excuse because the information was in their lap, and they didn't do anything to prevent it."
— Senator Richard Shelby, then ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee; member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11
---
"I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to know why they didn't act on it."
— Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11
---
"I cannot say for sure that there wasn't a possibility we could have come across some lead that would have led us to the hijackers."
— FBI Director Robert Mueller
More here.
Replies: 3 people speak up
For what it's worth (probably not much to those who are a bit shortsighted), I don't want anyone to testify who might intentionally or unintentionally divulge intelligence sources or methods. If intelligence agencies are compelled to answer certain questions, it will weaken the current and future intelligence agencies.
The previous administration decimated the intelligence community. The current administration is playing "catch up". The efficacy of intelligence agencies for future administrations may be predicated on how the present ones are handled. Remember, we can't stop what we don't know about and we can't know about anything if the bad guys know how we get our information.
Nutshell: those who possess information regarding intelligence sources and methods should not be compelled to testify - from past OR present administrations. Those who do only serve to weaken future efforts.
Posted by Murphy @ 03/22/2004 09:44 PM NY
Helloooo
All those guys are America hating Liberal who spit on Jesus every morning before taking a bong hit.
Why else would they be saying such terrible things about Dear Leader?
Unless...
Posted by salvage @ 03/23/2004 10:55 AM NY
Considering the Bush administration would like nothing more than to slough off all responsibility for 9.11, placing it at the feet of 'intelligence', I think there is NO ONE possessing ANY pertinent information who should NOT be compelled to testify (including Condi). If said information might reveal the inner workings of the community and, as Murphy says, "...we can't know about anything if the bad guys know how we get our information", then the hearings should be behind closed doors, conducted by a truly independent commission fully vetted to receive classified information.
Frankly, I'm beyond caring who did what... the details are getting to be a bit murky... but if someone failed to do their job, resulting in the loss of innocent lives, I sure as hell want that person held accountable. I'm tired of people in positions of power continually trying to blow smoke up my ass.
Posted by lonestar @ 03/23/2004 11:14 AM NY
