Questions about the 9/11 commission... - The Orange Mane

Taco John · 07-25-2004, 01:31 PM

This whole thing still makes no sense to me...

1. Why wouldn't Bush testify under oath?

I don't understand this at all. I can't figure out why bush would only speak to the commission on the basis that he wouldn't be under oath, the conversation not be recorded, and Dick Cheney be at his side throughout the "conversation." It perplexing to me beyond words. At the very least, it makes me very suspicious... and rightfully so, I might add.

2. Why did the commission not include a timeline of events in the report?

The absence of this timeline of events is very peculiar to me. Without it, I find this report to be wholly useless. There is a lot of really odd things that did and didn't happen during this entire event. Most notably, the scrambling of jets. The minute Payne Stewart's flight went off course, there were jets scrambled. I cannot for the life of me understand why that wasn't the case here. A timeline of events would have helped to answer some of these questions.

3. Where the hell was Rumsfeld and Rice during the attacks?

Why is it that the two most important people in our nations' security infrastructure could not be found during this event? Both Rice and Rumsfeld should have tendered their resignations in utter disgrace after this event. It's hard to say that they are the worst defense duo in the history of the United States... It's easy to say that they are terrible at their jobs. Both are a disgrace. Both should live in shame for the rest of their lives knowing that thousands died because of their incompetence.

This report is pretty weak.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 07-26-2004, 01:21 AM

The commission was nothing but a sham whose purpose was to create an appearance of accountability (rather than genuine accountability) with the aim of assuaging the American people.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 07-26-2004, 01:26 AM

Why wouldn't Bush testify under oath?

The Oil Emperor testify under oath?

Why should he have to do that, TJ?

You make it sound like the worst attack on American soil in history is as serious as sex w/ an intern or something.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 07-26-2004, 01:31 AM

Is it just me, or wasn't more money and time spent investigating Bill Clinton's d*ck than investigating the murder of 3,000 Americans?

Didn't Congress also do a more thorough job of such?

Henry Hyde (R-adulterer, family-wrecker) screamed, "The flag is falling," when the
'emergency' was Clinton's c*ck, but now that we're in a never-ending World War III that made Pearl Harbor look like a bad Sunday morning, we stopped asking the tough questions and gave the guilty every break imaginable.

Clinton's deposition was aired live on TV, but D*ckhead and Bunnypants were allowed to be interviewed together without it being recorded?

Hey, don''t forget - they weren't even under oath.

They were free to lie their asses off on something this ****ing serious, yet Bill Clinton was put under oath to talk about where his c*ck might have been.

The whole country is just accepting this handjob in exchange for justice.

Tommy Chong went to prison for selling clear PCV pipes.

Osama got a free pass from Bush for trying to murder New York.

Clinton sorta lied about sex, and that makes him a bad man.

Bush lied about war, and has destroyed almost a thousand families forever, but he's a "good Christian" so we pretend and look the other way.

Exile_In_SJ · 07-27-2004, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

They were free to lie their asses off on something this ****ing serious, yet Bill Clinton was put under oath to talk about where his c*ck might have been.

Bill Clinton was giving a deposition in a lawsuit, einstein, so he had to be under oath. He was in the lawsuit.

In the 9/11 commission, neither Clinton nor Bush were under oath.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 07-26-2004, 06:06 PM

Exile_In_SJ · 07-27-2004, 06:31 AM

And did Clinton testify under oath? Nope.

Exile_In_SJ · 07-27-2004, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John

3. Where the hell was Rumsfeld and Rice during the attacks?

Why is it that the two most important people in our nations' security infrastructure could not be found during this event? Both Rice and Rumsfeld should have tendered their resignations in utter disgrace after this event. It's hard to say that they are the worst defense duo in the history of the United States... It's easy to say that they are terrible at their jobs. Both are a disgrace. Both should live in shame for the rest of their lives knowing that thousands died because of their incompetence.

It's a fine thing in this country that everyone iis entitled to their opinion.

Exile_In_SJ · 07-27-2004, 07:34 AM

The Wall Street Journal calls, again, for the release of the memo that Sandy Berger had chosen to purloin from the National Archives.
On Sunday, Commission Chairman Tom Kean said that Mr. Berger's padded hosiery did not affect the Commission's final report. Mr. Kean says he believes Commissioners had all the documents. The problem is this: He has no way of knowing for certain what he might not have seen. Remember, it was Mr. Berger who was assigned the task of selecting which documents--and which drafts of which documents with which marginal notations--to send up on behalf of the Clinton Administration.

kind of like sending the fox to guard the henhouse....what did Berger steal and how embarassing to the Clintons were they? He wouldn't risk jail to steal innocuous documents,

Rohirrim · 07-27-2004, 08:18 AM

This Commission is a whitewash. It's like Arson investigators coming out with a report saying, "We know how the house burned down." And when you ask them who is responsible, they say, "We're not going to get into that because of partisan politics." Wimps.

Exile_In_SJ · 07-27-2004, 11:04 AM

I've always believed that the 9/11 commission was just a joke. Politicians love commissions. Chance to get face time and make a name for themselves. There were/are other commissions investigating 9/11 this one was just another one. We saw the ppartisan politics come into play when Richard Clarke showed up with his just released book...

Spider · 07-27-2004, 11:08 AM

See I disagree , I think the 9-11 commision did alot of good ............

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 07-27-2004, 04:48 PM

Bill Clinton was giving a deposition in a lawsuit, einstein, so he had to be under oath. He was in the lawsuit.

What difference does that make? Another circular winger argument.

The GOP and Hardon Kenny didn't have to pursue such a suit in the first place. A decisive majority of Americans made it clear that they didn't want their tax dollars to be squandered on such a ridiculous, transparent, partisan witch hunt/charade in the first place.

At any rate, the point is, Clinton is compelled to testify under oath--and on live TV--about a private matter while Smirk and Dick are allowed to testify re: a matter of grave importance to national security behind closed doors and without taking an oath.

Gigglekill, after much foot-dragging, finally sent his NSA to testify--under oath--before the commission--a purely political/CYA move.

In the 9/11 commission, neither Clinton nor Bush were under oath.

What part of "the attacks didn't happen on Clinton's watch" don't you understand?

Let us not forget, if Smirk and Dick had had their way, there would never have been a 9/11 Commission in the first place. BushCo did its best to stonewall the commission for months before finally caving to political pressure.

Clinton, on the other hand, was completely forthcoming in answering to the commisssion. He even provided documents which he wasn't legally required to provide.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 07-27-2004, 05:57 PM

watermock · 07-27-2004, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Taco John

3. Where the hell was Rumsfeld and Rice during the attacks?

Why is it that the two most important people in our nations' security infrastructure could not be found during this event? Both Rice and Rumsfeld should have tendered their resignations in utter disgrace after this event. It's hard to say that they are the worst defense duo in the history of the United States... It's easy to say that they are terrible at their jobs. Both are a disgrace. Both should live in shame for the rest of their lives knowing that thousands died because of their incompetence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are alot of assumptions there. I would say the CIA and FBI. It's cute that the report wants to make yet another level of security.

Why should of they tendered their resignations? You think they couldn't of pulled it off during the Clinton Administration? The planning OCCURED during the Clinton Adminsistration of the same George Tenet.

To me, Rummy should of listened to Mock, I knew when they ran off like cockroaches it was a mistake not to put a security force in action immediately. That I do blame Bush for. The rest is a bunch of crap. I would of blown up more and broken their will like Sherman, then move in to secure control rather than think that the Shia would bend over after decades of oppresion from all sides.

Iraq will be Bush's downfall just like it was his fathers.

I'm out of this crap pile of cut and paste.

07-25-2004, 01:31 PM	#1
Taco John 24/7 Broncos In Elway I Trust Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 49,706 Adopt-a-Bronco: Peyton Manning	Questions about the 9/11 commission... This whole thing still makes no sense to me... 1. Why wouldn't Bush testify under oath? I don't understand this at all. I can't figure out why bush would only speak to the commission on the basis that he wouldn't be under oath, the conversation not be recorded, and Dick Cheney be at his side throughout the "conversation." It perplexing to me beyond words. At the very least, it makes me very suspicious... and rightfully so, I might add. 2. Why did the commission not include a timeline of events in the report? The absence of this timeline of events is very peculiar to me. Without it, I find this report to be wholly useless. There is a lot of really odd things that did and didn't happen during this entire event. Most notably, the scrambling of jets. The minute Payne Stewart's flight went off course, there were jets scrambled. I cannot for the life of me understand why that wasn't the case here. A timeline of events would have helped to answer some of these questions. 3. Where the hell was Rumsfeld and Rice during the attacks? Why is it that the two most important people in our nations' security infrastructure could not be found during this event? Both Rice and Rumsfeld should have tendered their resignations in utter disgrace after this event. It's hard to say that they are the worst defense duo in the history of the United States... It's easy to say that they are terrible at their jobs. Both are a disgrace. Both should live in shame for the rest of their lives knowing that thousands died because of their incompetence. This report is pretty weak.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-26-2004, 01:21 AM	#2
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	The commission was nothing but a sham whose purpose was to create an appearance of accountability (rather than genuine accountability) with the aim of assuaging the American people.

07-26-2004, 01:26 AM	#3
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	Why wouldn't Bush testify under oath? The Oil Emperor testify under oath? Why should he have to do that, TJ? You make it sound like the worst attack on American soil in history is as serious as sex w/ an intern or something.

07-26-2004, 01:31 AM	#4
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	Is it just me, or wasn't more money and time spent investigating Bill Clinton's dck than investigating the murder of 3,000 Americans? Didn't Congress also do a more thorough job of such? Henry Hyde (R-adulterer, family-wrecker) screamed, "The flag is falling," when the 'emergency' was Clinton's cck, but now that we're in a never-ending World War III that made Pearl Harbor look like a bad Sunday morning, we stopped asking the tough questions and gave the guilty every break imaginable. Clinton's deposition was aired live on TV, but Dckhead and Bunnypants were allowed to be interviewed together without it being recorded? Hey, don''t forget - they weren't even under oath. They were free to lie their asses off on something this **ing serious, yet Bill Clinton was put under oath to talk about where his cck might have been. The whole country is just accepting this handjob in exchange for justice. Tommy Chong went to prison for selling clear PCV pipes. Osama got a free pass from Bush for trying to murder New York. Clinton sorta lied about sex, and that makes him a bad man. Bush lied about war, and has destroyed almost a thousand families forever, but he's a "good Christian" so we pretend and look the other way.

07-26-2004, 06:06 PM	#6
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694

07-27-2004, 06:31 AM	#7
Exile_In_SJ Ring of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,169	And did Clinton testify under oath? Nope.

07-27-2004, 07:34 AM	#9
Exile_In_SJ Ring of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,169	The Wall Street Journal calls, again, for the release of the memo that Sandy Berger had chosen to purloin from the National Archives. On Sunday, Commission Chairman Tom Kean said that Mr. Berger's padded hosiery did not affect the Commission's final report. Mr. Kean says he believes Commissioners had all the documents. The problem is this: He has no way of knowing for certain what he might not have seen. Remember, it was Mr. Berger who was assigned the task of selecting which documents--and which drafts of which documents with which marginal notations--to send up on behalf of the Clinton Administration. kind of like sending the fox to guard the henhouse....what did Berger steal and how embarassing to the Clintons were they? He wouldn't risk jail to steal innocuous documents,

07-27-2004, 08:18 AM	#10
Rohirrim Partisan Human Cannonball Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater Posts: 48,847	This Commission is a whitewash. It's like Arson investigators coming out with a report saying, "We know how the house burned down." And when you ask them who is responsible, they say, "We're not going to get into that because of partisan politics." Wimps.

07-27-2004, 11:04 AM	#11
Exile_In_SJ Ring of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,169	I've always believed that the 9/11 commission was just a joke. Politicians love commissions. Chance to get face time and make a name for themselves. There were/are other commissions investigating 9/11 this one was just another one. We saw the ppartisan politics come into play when Richard Clarke showed up with his just released book...

07-27-2004, 11:08 AM	#12
Spider Mr Diplomacy I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane Join Date: May 2001 Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder Posts: 84,438 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	See I disagree , I think the 9-11 commision did alot of good ............

07-27-2004, 04:48 PM	#13
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	Bill Clinton was giving a deposition in a lawsuit, einstein, so he had to be under oath. He was in the lawsuit. What difference does that make? Another circular winger argument. The GOP and Hardon Kenny didn't have to pursue such a suit in the first place. A decisive majority of Americans made it clear that they didn't want their tax dollars to be squandered on such a ridiculous, transparent, partisan witch hunt/charade in the first place. At any rate, the point is, Clinton is compelled to testify under oath--and on live TV--about a private matter while Smirk and Dick are allowed to testify re: a matter of grave importance to national security behind closed doors and without taking an oath. Gigglekill, after much foot-dragging, finally sent his NSA to testify--under oath--before the commission--a purely political/CYA move. In the 9/11 commission, neither Clinton nor Bush were under oath. What part of "the attacks didn't happen on Clinton's watch" don't you understand? Let us not forget, if Smirk and Dick had had their way, there would never have been a 9/11 Commission in the first place. BushCo did its best to stonewall the commission for months before finally caving to political pressure. Clinton, on the other hand, was completely forthcoming in answering to the commisssion. He even provided documents which he wasn't legally required to provide.

07-27-2004, 05:57 PM	#14
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694

07-27-2004, 07:36 PM	#15
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	Originally Posted by Taco John 3. Where the hell was Rumsfeld and Rice during the attacks? Why is it that the two most important people in our nations' security infrastructure could not be found during this event? Both Rice and Rumsfeld should have tendered their resignations in utter disgrace after this event. It's hard to say that they are the worst defense duo in the history of the United States... It's easy to say that they are terrible at their jobs. Both are a disgrace. Both should live in shame for the rest of their lives knowing that thousands died because of their incompetence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are alot of assumptions there. I would say the CIA and FBI. It's cute that the report wants to make yet another level of security. Why should of they tendered their resignations? You think they couldn't of pulled it off during the Clinton Administration? The planning OCCURED during the Clinton Adminsistration of the same George Tenet. To me, Rummy should of listened to Mock, I knew when they ran off like cockroaches it was a mistake not to put a security force in action immediately. That I do blame Bush for. The rest is a bunch of crap. I would of blown up more and broken their will like Sherman, then move in to secure control rather than think that the Shia would bend over after decades of oppresion from all sides. Iraq will be Bush's downfall just like it was his fathers. I'm out of this crap pile of cut and paste.