chegitz' beats his zombie horse!

chequita guevara · May 5, 2003, 16:11

The Secrets of September 11
The White House is battling to keep a report on the terror attacks secret. Does the 2004 election have anything to do with it?

NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE

April 30 — Even as White House political aides plot a 2004 campaign plan designed to capitalize on the emotions and issues raised by the September 11 terror attacks, administration officials are waging a behind-the-scenes battle to restrict public disclosure of key events relating to the attacks.

AT THE CENTER of the dispute is a more-than-800-page secret report prepared by a joint congressional inquiry detailing the intelligence and law-enforcement failures that preceded the attacks—including provocative, if unheeded warnings, given President Bush and his top advisers during the summer of 2001.

The report was completed last December; only a bare-bones list of “findings” with virtually no details was made public. But nearly six months later, a “working group” of Bush administration intelligence officials assigned to review the document has taken a hard line against further public disclosure. By refusing to declassify many of its most significant conclusions, the administration has essentially thwarted congressional plans to release the report by the end of this month, congressional and administration sources tell NEWSWEEK. In some cases, these sources say, the administration has even sought to “reclassify” some material that was already discussed in public testimony—a move one Senate staffer described as “ludicrous.” The administration’s stand has infuriated the two members of Congress who oversaw the report—Democratic Sen. Bob Graham and Republican Rep. Porter Goss. The two are now preparing a letter of complaint to Vice President **** Cheney.

===================

Read the whole article (available through the link in the title).

I TOLD YOU SO!

orange · May 5, 2003, 16:14

Disturbing

SlowwHand · May 5, 2003, 16:22

As I knew, Che beating a dead horse, just like he titled.

chequita guevara · May 5, 2003, 16:28

Yes, but this horse seems to not stay dead.

Imran Siddiqui · May 5, 2003, 16:31

You know, you nominated Red Mars. You could at least join the raging discussion on it

.

JohnT · May 5, 2003, 16:37

Ditto.

SlowwHand · May 5, 2003, 16:39

Again, Che.
Let's rehash this whole thing, again.

Let's assume Bush was told there WOULD be a terrorist strike, somewhere in the U.S.
So what?
What would you do.
You're big on after the fact crap, what would you have done BEFORE the fact?

Nothing. Nothing TO do.

But, beat on.

JohnT · May 5, 2003, 16:40

There were intelligence warnings that the Feds missed prior to 9-11?

Gosh, really?

Che, has the thought that promoting stuff like this, you know, helps to promote the "Patriot" acts ever occurred to you?

gsmoove23 · May 5, 2003, 16:43

We don't know exactly what Bush was told, thats the point isn't it Sloww. Why does he want to keep the report secret?

MRT144 · May 5, 2003, 16:47

Originally posted by gsmoove23
We don't know exactly what Bush was told, thats the point isn't it Sloww. Why does he want to keep the report secret?

well find out in 50 years...

Sirotnikov · May 5, 2003, 16:54

Imagine Bush trying to promote the Patriot act in August.

Bush: "We have evidence of a serious terrorist plot against our country. We need this"

Lefties: "Nonsense. It's all a rightwing conspiracy to get Oil money from... erm... secretly spying on people."

More lefties: "Let's send UN inspectors to search for terrorists in the NY streets. Give them a couple of years and it would surely work."

rah · May 5, 2003, 17:08

One question Che.
Pick 20 activities that you do every day.
Imagine that you are told by different sources that one of those activities MIGHT be the cause of your death sometime in, let's say, the next two years. (remember Clinton was aware of similar threats)

What do you do about it?
Not do any of those 20 activities for the next two years?

RAH

Agathon · May 5, 2003, 17:09

It's quite plausible that the administration knew that an attack was planned. What this doesn't say is that they intentionally did nothing and let it happen for political gain (which has been immense).

If they did do that, then they and their political allies are finished.

Perhaps someone should just leak the report overseas.

Agathon · May 5, 2003, 17:10

Originally posted by rah
One question Che.
Pick 20 activities that you do every day.
Imagine that you are told by different sources that one of those activities MIGHT be the cause of your death sometime in, let's say, the next two years. (remember Clinton was aware of similar threats)

What do you do about it?
Not do any of those 20 activities for the next two years?

RAH

If that's all it was then there would be little reason not to release the report.

chequita guevara · May 5, 2003, 17:11

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You know, you nominated Red Mars. You could at least join the raging discussion on it

.

Literary criticism takes a lot more effort. It's not like I haven't contributed.

Siro, they didn't need the PATRIOT Act. They simply needed to not have a leadership which treated anti-terrorist investigations with contempt.

The reports show who know what when and where breakdowns occured. Why are the names of the top Administration officials who received the briefings classified? Exactly how is national security harmed if it turns out that Bush was or wasn't briefed?

Straybow · May 5, 2003, 17:12

Lefties will follow che's example and try to use this as ammo against Bush and Republicans in 2004. Second-guessing is always lame, but it often sways a portion of the undecided.

Of course Bush wants to keep it mum.

rah · May 5, 2003, 17:13

When taken out of context, it would look like something should have been done. You must look at the entire body, and I'll guarentee that reporters would not. They'd glob on to just the ones that were good warnings and ignore all the bad warnings. But I do think that they should release some of the information anyway. MAYBE, just maybe it would show the volume that must be analyzied every day.

RAH

Imran Siddiqui · May 5, 2003, 17:14

Literary criticism takes a lot more effort. It's not like I haven't contributed.

MORE!

For a nominator, I'd expect a response every day

.

MRT144 · May 5, 2003, 17:16

rah, so why not release the entire thing? since when did information hurt anyone. (although there was that man that was killed when an unabridge oxford dictionary fell on him.)

rah · May 5, 2003, 17:19

Originally posted by MRT144
rah, so why not release the entire thing? since when did information hurt anyone. (although there was that man that was killed when an unabridge oxford dictionary fell on him.)

I'm assuming that some of it would compromise agents abroad. But everything else, they probably should release. If Bush is going to take a negative hit, much better now, than closer to the election. It would make dems look bad if they beat this horse for 2 years. Come on, see how silly it's making Che look, and he hasn't even been doing it that long.

RAH

Sava · May 5, 2003, 17:20

I think attacking Bush on this front is only appropriate if he tries to use 9-11 to his advantage somehow. If he stays away from preying off of people's patriotism, then it's only fair we drop this issue. I'm probably the biggest Bush-hater on the planet, yet I'm not about to say it's his fault this happened. There were many, many, many, many, many other people who were in a position to stop or prevent 9-11 from occuring.

Spiffor · May 5, 2003, 20:29

What Sava said

These informations aren't about Bush being personally responsible for Sept. 11. They are about failed intelligence headsmen who could have taken these warning really seriously, and could have make Bush understand something really, really big was to happen this time.

No doubt Bush got warnings about Sept. 11. But did he recieve definitive and exceptionally strong warnings ?

Alexander's Horse · May 5, 2003, 20:54

Yes there is massive amounts of raw data to sift through but I would have thought pilot students from the ME who weren't interested in learning how to take off or land might have rung alarm bells somewhere.

Shi Huangdi · May 5, 2003, 20:59

Let the Dems try to gain political advantage from this. The administration will say the materials contain information vital to national security, and they will look rediculous if they try to imply Bush as being responsible for 9/11

Sava · May 5, 2003, 22:05

they will look rediculous if they try to imply Bush as being responsible for 9/11

only to those brainwashed by the Republican party line

Ted Striker · May 5, 2003, 22:12

A U.S. intelligence official cited international distractions as at least one reason for the delays. “In case you hadn’t noticed, there have been two wars going on,” the official said. The official added: “We’re working this [report] to try to get it out without putting lives at risk and without endangering sources and methods.”

Ted Striker · May 5, 2003, 22:14

And why should I pay attention to dorks like this anyway. Their dorky stance and demeanor screams, "SENSATIONILST" crap. Trying to make something out of nothing:

Sava · May 5, 2003, 22:14

case in point

Urban Ranger · May 5, 2003, 23:10

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Let the Dems try to gain political advantage from this. The administration will say the materials contain information vital to national security, and they will look rediculous if they try to imply Bush as being responsible for 9/11

The same old lame excuse that was used to defend the so called intelligence reports on Iraqi NBC weapons.

Guess what? These reports have to be either fakeries, or so wildly inaccurate they might as well be fakeries.