WMD - Why does Bush have to give "permission" for an investigation - did

[patricia92243]

Clinton have to give permission to have himself investigated? It doesn't make sense to me. Also, Bush after 1 1/2 years had to give "permission" for an investigation of 911.

What am I missing here?

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Clinton had an objective cabinet, Bush does not.

Janet Reno had no problem sinking Clinton.
Ashcroft would take a bullet before sinking Bush.

[asjr]

2. I have wondered

the same thing. If he chooses who will be on the panel we know how it will turn out. Has he been acting as a dictator so long the people around him think he is? I can't remember any president having this sort of power.

[Auntie Bush]

3. Because the Republicans control congress and

they won't vote to have an investigation unless Bush gives permission. Clinton had a Rep. congress and they probably would investigated whether he wanted them to or not. IMHO

[tridim]

4. Next up, "Bush wins election with 100% of the vote"

Just like that other evil dictator, Saddam.

[TomNickell]

5. Unfortunately, he's probably being smart...

It's called 'pre-emption'.

By setting up an investigation himself, he gets to control -some- of the conditions. Just has to make it -look- legit.

Political pressures will probably force even the Repub Congress to set up a panel. Bush just might lose control of that.

[maggrwaggr]

6. We ALL need to get on the phone tomorrow

call our congresspeople and demand a truly independent investigation that will investigate why we were LIED TO.

This is just ridiculous. Once again we're letting them frame the debate, frame the investigation, call the shots the whole damn way to hell.