[<< "Locking the barn door..."] [Archive Index] [>>"Stumbling, badly"]
04/22/2004 Archived Entry: "This is crazy..."
This is crazy...
I'd agree to this - on the condition that Bush and cheney testify seperately.
But seriously - how do Republican senators get to choose who testifies before an independent commission?
Eleven Republican senators called on former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick to testify before the Sept. 11 commission on which she serves.Gorelick was a top deputy to Clinton administration Attorney General Janet Reno. Some Republicans have called on her to resign from the panel, claiming her tenure at the Justice Department amounts to a conflict of interest.
The senators did not ask her to step aside, but said she should testify under oath before the panel.
``It is our firm belief that any committee report or recommendations will be incomplete without public testimony by Ms. Gorelick about her activities while serving as Deputy Attorney General,'' the senators wrote in a letter sent Thursday to commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton.
Replies: 7 people speak up
Fortunately, Kean and others have been highly critical of the people trying to attack Gorelick. Kean was not kind to Ashcroft after his little dog and pony show, so I hope he and the commission have the same response to this little dig.
They're absolutely pathetic.
Posted by justin @ 04/22/2004 09:12 PM NY
on a completely different note, the 2003 cia world fact book is out. its a 30 mb file, but its worth downloading if you have a good internet connection.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
the section on iraq is especially interesting, because most of the categories either say "NA" or "destroyed in the war"
Posted by justin @ 04/22/2004 09:16 PM NY
The White House is just making sure there is no reason to question anything on the grounds of impropriety.
HA.
Posted by IXLNXS @ 04/22/2004 09:54 PM NY
Gee like that won't be slanted testimony.
I checked out the fact book. What they forgot to list was how many inocent women and children have been killed to date or how much money (our tax dollars) has been stolen by the governing council and Brown and Root.
Posted by Demeur @ 04/23/2004 02:18 AM NY
Rethugs are unbefuckinglievable.
They wait for the fuss over some appalling administration POS to die down and then start throwing stones in their glass house. Did I say stones? I meant huge craggy rocks out of a catapult.
If they're asking Gorelick to testify, then a thousand times over they should have demanded that 911 commissioner Philip Zelikow recuse himself, or submit to INTENSE questioning. He was part of BushCo's transition team when the Clinton admin was stressing terrorism as a national security priority. (Plus, he's BushCo's fox in the henhouse on the commission. The 911 families have been intensely against his inclusion on the panel.)
Honestly. I'm running out of vocabulary to express my disgust at this crooked, thuggish administration.
Posted by Peanut @ 04/23/2004 07:15 AM NY
So let me get this straight. The Repugnicans are screaming because Jamie Gorelick has a conflict of interest in serving on the 9/11 Commission, but they're NOT screaming about Scalia's duck-hunting trip?
Nothing pisses me off more than hypocrisy, and my head is thisclose to exploding.
Posted by The Tater @ 04/23/2004 10:29 AM NY
quels especes de merde. the guardian article doesn't detail anymore than bond (protect my state's lawn mower business vs. all of your lungs), chambliss (shining, stinking dead mackerel in the moonlight) and lott (parenthetical entirely superfluous).
yes, the commission is independent. but, yes, too, these gentlemen should feel free to express their beliefs. why not? peanut, however, is absolutely right about philip zelikow. gorelick has information to add to the commission's considerations--and hasn't she done so already?--but no more than almost every other panel member. repeat: no more than almost every other panel member. they were chosen because of their expertise. but expertise vs. conflict-of-interest is another matter entirely. the whole 'wall thing' was a disgraceful ashcroft spotlight redirection. that, plus the bush press conference that evening, neatly did the trick. the wall was and is a mcguffin. but zelikow?... zelikow is as wildly inappropriate to be even associated with this panel as henry rowen is to the presidentially-designated-to-investigate-himself intelligence commission.
(rowen was an under-the-radar stealth appointment, exposed at least contemporaneously by only the san francisco chronicle. everyone else parroted the white house's press release, which cunningly ignored rowen's association with the project for a new american century--the cheney/rumsfeld/wolfowitz cabal that was advocating iraqi invasion as early as four years prior to bush's inauguration--plus, plus his participation on the richard perle-chaired defense policy board, also major advocate for iraqi invasion).
but, despite that both gentlemen are up to their contaminated eyeballs as related to their respective commissions, in zelikow's instance, his work with condoleezza's transition team alone blows his neutrality out of the water and should've disqualified him from participation in the first place. but, not only does he participate, as executive director, he frigging organizes and coordinates the 9/11 commission's work, having major say in who, how, what, when gets investigated, reviewed, interrogated! had the 'jersey widows' known of his background a year ago, they, would've raised such a timely fuss about it, that it would've and should've gone the way of henry kissinger's appointment to chair.
but back to bond, chambliss, and lott. it's not exactly like these guys have cornered the market on hypocrisy; but they're certainly making a really solid effort.
Posted by oldupperwestside LIBERALjew @ 04/23/2004 11:15 AM NY
