WHO does this chimp think he IS? "Bush won't walk out" on 9/11 questioners

[Stephanie]

So bush, who was AWOL on 9/11 but exploits the dead anyway in his propaganda ads, says he will grant a small favor to the 9/11 panel members who get only one hour to question him.

He won't walk out.

Has there ever been a ruder, more belligerent, disrespectful, childish, ignorant, churlish, otiose and offensive politician in memory?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4467791

In what appears to be an attempt to defuse some of the controversy, NEWSWEEK has learned, White House officials have privately signaled to the commission that Bush will not rigidly stick to the one-hour time limit. When time is up, Bush won't walk out if there are still more questions, an aide said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

"RUSSERT: Will you testify before the commission?

BUSH: This commission? You know, I don't testify. I mean, I will be glad to visit with them. I will be glad to share with them knowledge. I will be glad to make recommendations, if they ask for some."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[wryter2000]

1. Hmmm

You forgot "churlish."

[Stephanie]

2. thanks

added

[buycitgo]

6. hahahahahah!

how bout some more adjectives?

small-minded?

tardive dyskenisic?

fatuous?

preening?

delusional?

sociopathic?

what's the adjective for "mook?"

[Arugula Latte]

27. mookish?

:shrug:

[kayell]

12. And arrogant

also presumptuous

[buycitgo]

14. mendacious

truculent

blithering

lachrymose

[buycitgo]

15. a personal favorite

otiose

[buycitgo]

16. faineant!

as for otiose, it's even better than I remember:

''adj 1: serving no useful purpose; having no excuse for being;
"otiose lines in a play"; "advice is wasted words" 2: producing no result or effect; "a futile effort"; "the therapy was ineffectual"; "an otiose undertaking"; "an unavailing attempt" 3: disinclined to work or exertion; "faineant kings under whose rule the country languished"; "an indolent hanger-on"; "too lazy to wash the dishes"; "shiftless idle youth"; "slothful employees"; "the unemployed are not necessarily work-shy" ''

[maggrwaggr]

29. what an absolutely perfect word to describe him!

I wish people knew what it meant so I could use it.

[Stephanie]

18. yes

thanks

[belle]

63. flatulent.

[Cleita]

3. Perhaps an orange jumpsuit and shackles might make him a

little more cooperative. There is enough evidence of treason in the Iraq mess and enough Democrats in Congress, even though they are a minority, to put this guy up on the witness stand. Why aren't they doing it? For God's sake the Repukes did it to Clinton over shit. His Constitutional tresspasses are far more serious.

[alcuno]

4. I listened to that interview twice and to be fair it should read like this

"You know. I don't. Testify? I mean I will be glad....." There is a reason why many consider him to be incoherent. But to be fair, he did not say "I don't testify."

[polmaven]

8. You listened to that twice????

Were you being punished?

You have a stronger constitution than I, my friend....God bless ya!

[markses]

13. No. That's precisely what he said

And it wasn't just stupid, it was a deliberate statement of policy. Nixon said the same thing relating to Watergate. "The President doesn't testify." The point is to protect presidential privilege and - in theory - maintain the separation of powers. That's why Bush said "I don't testify...I'll be happy to visit with them." The distinction between testimony from a President and advice or a visit from a President is crucial, especially in the corrupt world of Bush II, where any and all Presidentail privilege will be leveraged against investigations. These guys are as phony as a three-dollar bill.

[9215]

23. He may as well have said the Moon is made of

chimpshit. His ambiguity at every turn means he's a liar, a sleaze and needs his ass hauled before a special prosecutor. When he said I don't testify he meant that he thinks he is above the law. That's all I need to know.

[maggrwaggr]

30. I disagree. He clearly said "I don't testify."

IMHO

Maybe a poll is in order. :)

[Rex]

5. Bush is a traitor! Make that low-life scum testify!

Bush needs to be forced to testify under oath! He makes Benedict Arnold look like a saint.

G*DD*M F**KING ASS**LE! I HATE GEORGE BUSH*!

[nostamj]

7. hmmm....

Has there ever been a ruder, more belligerent, disrespectful, childish, ignorant, churlish and offensive politician in memory?

uh, NO!

[enough]

9. "...if there are still more questions."

That could be a long meeting.

[nostamj]

10. here's 23 pertinent questions to start with....

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

The Family Steering Committee Statement and Questions Regarding the 9/11 Commission Interview with President Bush

February 16, 2004

The Family Steering Committee believes that President Bush should provide sworn public testimony to the full ten-member panel of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Collectively, the Commissioners are responsible for fulfilling the Congressional mandate. Therefore, each Commissioner must have full access to the testimony of all individuals and the critical information that will enable informed decisions and recommendations. Before an audience of the American people, the Commission must ask President Bush in sworn testimony, the following questions:

1. As Commander-in-Chief on the morning of 9/11, why didn't you return immediately to Washington, D.C. or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack? At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you of this fact?

2. On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence?

3. What defensive action did you personally order to protect our nation during the crisis on September 11th? What time were these orders given, and to whom? What orders were carried out? What was the result of such orders? Were any such orders not carried out?

4. In your opinion, why was our nation so utterly unprepared for an attack on our own soil?

5. U.S. Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the Director of the White House Situation Room, informed you of the first airliner hitting Tower One of the World Trade Center before you entered the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Please explain the reason why you decided to continue with the scheduled classroom visit, fifteen minutes after learning the first hijacked airliner had hit the World Trade Center.

6. Is it normal procedure for the Director of the White House Situation Room to travel with you? If so, please cite any prior examples of when this occurred. If not normal procedure, please explain the circumstances that led to the Director of the White House Situation Room being asked to accompany you to Florida during the week of September 11th.

7. What plan of action caused you to remain seated after Andrew Card informed you that a second airliner had hit the second tower of the World Trade Center and America was clearly under attack? Approximately how long did you remain in the classroom after Card's message?

8. At what time were you made aware that other planes were hijacked in addition to Flight 11 and Flight 175? Who notified you? What was your course of action as Commander-in-Chief of the United States?

9. Beginning with the transition period between the Clinton administration and your own, and ending on 9/11/01, specifically what information (either verbal or written) about terrorists, possible attacks and targets, did you receive from any source?

This would include briefings or communications from:

* Out-going Clinton officials
* CIA, FBI, NSA, DoD and other intelligence agencies
* Foreign intelligence, governments, dignitaries or envoys
* National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
* Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar

10. Specifically, what did you learn from the August 6, 2001, PDB about the terrorist threat that was facing our nation? Did you request any follow-up action to take place? Did you request any further report be developed and/or prepared?

11. As Commander-in-Chief, from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you receive any information from any intelligence agency official or agent that UBL was planning to attack this nation on its own soil using airplanes as weapons, targeting New York City landmarks during the week of September 11, 2001 or on the actual day of September 11, 2001?

12. What defensive measures did you take in response to pre-9/11 warnings from eleven nations about a terrorist attack, many of which cited an attack in the continental United States? Did you prepare any directives in response to these actions? If so, with what results?

13. As Commander-in-Chief from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with UBL, an agent of UBL, or al-Qaeda? During that same period, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with any foreign government, its agents, or officials regarding UBL? If so, what resulted?

14. Your schedule for September 11, 2001 was in the public domain since September 7, 2001. The Emma E. Booker School is only five miles from the Bradenton Airport, so you, and therefore the children in the classroom, might have been a target for the terrorists on 9/11. What was the intention of the Secret Service in allowing you to remain in the Emma E. Booker Elementary School, even though they were aware America was under attack?

15. Please explain why you remained at the Sarasota, Florida, Elementary School for a press conference after you had finished listening to the children read, when as a terrorist target, your presence potentially jeopardized the lives of the children?

16. What was the purpose of the several stops of Air Force One on September 11th? Was Air Force One at any time during the day of September 11th a target of the terrorists? Was Air Force One's code ever breached on September 11th?

17. Was there a reason for Air Force One lifting off without a military escort, even after ample time had elapsed to allow military jets to arrive?

18. What prompted your refusal to release the information regarding foreign sponsorship of the terrorists, as illustrated in the inaccessible 28 redacted pages in the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry Report? What actions have you personally taken since 9/11 to thwart foreign sponsorship of terrorism?

19. Who approved the flight of the bin Laden family out of the United States when all commercial flights were grounded, when there was time for only minimal questioning by the FBI, and especially, when two of those same individuals had links to WAMY, a charity suspected of funding terrorism? Why were bin Laden family members granted that special privilege � a privilege not available to American families whose loved ones were killed on 9/11?

20. Please explain why no one in any level of our government has yet been held accountable for the countless failures leading up to and on 9/11?

21. Please comment on the fact that UBL's profile on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives poster does not include the 9/11 attacks. To your knowledge, when was the last time any agent of our government had contact with UBL? If prior to 9/11, specifically what was the date of that contact and what was the context of said meeting.

22. Do you continue to maintain that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda? What proof do you have of any connection between al-Qaeda and the Hussein regime?

23. Which individuals, governments, agencies, institutions, or groups may have benefited from the attacks of 9/11? Please state specifically how you think they have benefited.

The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission

http://www.911independentcommission.org /

[Malva Zebrina]

11. He is impressed with his sock inflated, cod piece

and thinks it shows the world he has "balls" LOL

and should be admired by all he has graced with this wanton, proud display of "cod"


Well it ain't working George. We are not impressed with your cod piece. It says nothing except maybe that that is the place where you do your thinking and think that is how every one else thinks.

If so, well, it cannot compete with the human brain even though you seem to think it gives you some priveledged place in the minds of others.

[buycitgo]

17. did you mean 'cock-inflated sod piece?'

?

[joanski01]

20. I thought that it was

"sock-inflated". That is, his pants were stuffed with socks. I really don't think that there is much to him after all that drinking and druging.

[buycitgo]

22. I/m LSDyslexic

or something

[allalone]

19. faineant

I love it!

[buycitgo]

21. as in faineantelligence?

[salinen]

24. He must stay away from

placing his hand on the bible.

[Stephanie]

25. AND, Bush uses fake firemen in his exploitation pix

Just like when he pretended to serve the turkey that was actually a centerpiece, and when he lied about who was responsible for the ill-advised "Mission Accomplished" banner, even Bush's exploitation of New York's heroes in his ads is FAKED.

From the same article:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4467791

Another less-publicized aspect of the ad flap: the use of paid actors—including two playing firefighters with fire hats and uniforms in what looks like a fire station. "Where the hell did they get those guys?" cracked Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, which has endorsed John Kerry, when he first saw the ads. (A union spokesman said the shots prompted jokes that the fire hats looked like the plastic hats "from a birthday party.") "There's many reasons not to use real firemen," retorted one Bush media adviser. "Mainly, its cheaper and quicker."

[Ksec]

26. Has there ever been a ruder, more belligerent, disrespectful, childish, ig

Has there ever been a ruder, more belligerent, disrespectful, childish, ignorant, churlish, otiose and offensive politician in memory?
**

Nope. Never .

[Stephanie]

28. that's what I thought

So why is he still there?

[maggrwaggr]

32. I don't know. I've been posting this until I'm blue in the face

and sending it out to everyone I can find, congresspeople and media alike, and so far nothing.

Maybe I'm impatient.

But it seems this is clearly enough to get Bush impeached and sent to jail:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/vv/20040220/lo_laweekly/51202&cid=891&ncid=1501

so yes. Why is he still there? I am utterly mystified.

[Stephanie]

33. Sen. Kennedy's speech yesterday mentioned her

And then Daniel Shorr asked K. if Bush's actions amounted to High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So don't despair. It's out there.

[maggrwaggr]

34. Cool!

I did not know that.

I'm gonna see if I can find a transcript.

[Stephanie]

37. Transcript is here:

http://kennedy.senate.gov/index_high.html

<excerpt>

The evidence so far leads to only one conclusion. What happened was not merely a failure of intelligence, but the result of manipulation and distortion of the intelligence and selective use of unreliable intelligence to justify a decision to go to war. The Administration had made up its mind, and would not let stubborn facts stand in the way.

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, a recently retired Air Force intelligence officer who served in the Pentagon during the buildup to the war, said: "It wasn't intelligence -- it was propaganda…they'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, usually by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together."

[maggrwaggr]

40. so why doesn't he get her in front of the Intelligence Committee??

I don't understand this.

[Stephanie]

41. You'll have to fill me in -

Has she been kept from testifying before the committee?

[maggrwaggr]

52. I think she's been largely ignored thus far

even though it seems to me she's the silver bullet that could get Bushco impeached and put in jail.

I just don't understand why she hasn't been put in front of congress and questioned. And why she hasn't been on 60 minutes. That sort of thing.

[Stephanie]

55. I hope that happens

As it is her coverage in MoJo and LA Times was widely read. If Kennedy is quoting her then they are well aware of her. Patience grasshopper!

[maggrwaggr]

56. thanks. I need someone to tell me "patience"

because it's infuriating to know something and have it just sit there.

I've e-mailed every senator on the intelligence committee, some of them more than once, about this.

[Stephanie]

58. I just posted this forTenet - he pretends to be unaware of OSP

Maybe some of the articles would be useful to you:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,999669,00.html

The spies who pushed for war
Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force
Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian

<snip>

In the days after September 11, Mr Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, mounted an attempt to include Iraq in the war against terror. When the established agencies came up with nothing concrete to link Iraq and al-Qaida, the OSP was given the task of looking more carefully.

William Luti, a former navy officer and ex-aide to Mr Cheney, runs the day-to-day operations, answering to Douglas Feith, a defence undersecretary and a former Reagan official.

The OSP had access to a huge amount of raw intelligence. It came in part from "report officers" in the CIA's directorate of operations whose job is to sift through reports from agents around the world, filtering out the unsubstantiated and the incredible. Under pressure from the hawks such as Mr Cheney and Mr Gingrich, those officers became reluctant to discard anything, no matter how far-fetched. The OSP also sucked in countless tips from the Iraqi National Congress and other opposition groups, which were viewed with far more scepticism by the CIA and the state department.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html

Only weeks after 9/11, the Bush administration set up a secret Pentagon unit to create the case for invading Iraq. Here is the inside story of how they pushed disinformation and bogus intelligence and led the nation to war.

By Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest

It's a crisp fall day in western Virginia, a hundred miles from Washington, D.C., and a breeze is rustling the red and gold leaves of the Shenandoah hills. On the weather-beaten wood porch of a ramshackle 90-year-old farmhouse, at the end of a winding dirt-and-gravel road, Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski is perched on a plastic chair, wearing shorts, a purple sweatshirt, and muddy sneakers. Two scrawny dogs and a lone cat are on the prowl, and the air is filled with swarms of ladybugs.

<more>



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?
Issue of 2003-05-12
Posted 2003-05-05

They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. In the past year, according to former and present Bush Administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community. These advisers and analysts, who began their work in the days after September 11, 2001, have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq. They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi. By last fall, the operation rivalled both the C.I.A. and the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the D.I.A., as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda. As of last week, no such weapons had been found. And although many people, within the Administration and outside it, profess confidence that something will turn up, the integrity of much of that intelligence is now in question.

<snip>

According to the Pentagon adviser, Special Plans was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

THE STOVEPIPE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq’s weapons.
Issue of 2003-10-27
Posted 2003-10-20

<snip>

Part of the answer lies in decisions made early in the Bush Administration, before the events of September 11, 2001. In interviews with present and former intelligence officials, I was told that some senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.

<snip>

The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic—and potentially just as troublesome. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.

“They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information,” Pollack continued. “They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information.”

The Administration eventually got its way, a former C.I.A. official said. “The analysts at the C.I.A. were beaten down defending their assessments. And they blame George Tenet”—the C.I.A. director—“for not protecting them. I’ve never seen a government like this.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=51202

FEBRUARY 20 - 26, 2004
Soldier for the Truth
Exposing Bush’s talking-points war
by Marc Cooper

After two decades in the U.S. Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, now 43, knew her career as a regional analyst was coming to an end when — in the months leading up to the war in Iraq — she felt she was being “propagandized” by her own bosses.

With master’s degrees from Harvard in government and zoology and two books on Saharan Africa to her credit, she found herself transferred in the spring of 2002 to a post as a political/military desk officer at the Defense Department’s office for Near East South Asia (NESA), a policy arm of the Pentagon.

Kwiatkowski got there just as war fever was spreading, or being spread as she would later argue, through the halls of Washington. Indeed, shortly after her arrival, a piece of NESA was broken off, expanded and re-dubbed with the Orwellian name of the Office of Special Plans. The OSP’s task was, ostensibly, to help the Pentagon develop policy around the Iraq crisis.

She would soon conclude that the OSP — a pet project of Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld — was more akin to a nerve center for what she now calls a “neoconservative coup, a hijacking of the Pentagon.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=110&topic_id=80#4051">PNAC Links Archive

[calimary]

53. I've been posting this TOLL FREE number til I'm blue in the face

THIS SHOULD BE USED, FIRST THING IN THE MORNING, TO CALL CONGRESS!!

Dear DUers - PLEASE DO IT!

We need to hear this story, this woman, and these realities over and over and over. If Ted Kennedy can bring it up, then we need to call his office and thank him and urge him to do more than just bring it up in a single speech. MUCH more. If Daniel Schorr is asking him about it, then we need to write, call and/or email the media - see the listings in www.takebackthemedia.com and demand they look into it! PLEASE, guys!

Then use the TOLL FREE number to call your congress/senate person, and maybe somebody else's congress/senate person. PLEASE!! This HAS to be PRIORITY ONE!!! We need to have the Office of Special Plans in the news because otherwise, people will just keep buying the crap about "bad intelligence."

[Ksec]

47. steph. If Kerry would be doing this would the right be upset?

Hidin from the questions......

This point should be put in the light and be made bushs big contribution to Terrorism

[Stephanie]

49. Kerry would never need to hide

Because I can't imagine anyone else in history, except certain historical war criminals, who have as much to hide as bush does.

It's patently obvious that bush is unable to tell the truth to the Commission because if he did they would have to Frog March him straight to jail.

BushCO already had the PNAC plan to dominate the ME in 1998. All they needed to get it rolling was their "new Pearl Harbor."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=110&topic_id=80&mesg_id=80

They began planning the Iraq invasion the moment they took office. That's why Cheney won't release the Energy Panel documents.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact

They ignored multiple warnings of impending attacks and instead went on vacation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1205901

They did everything possible NOT to prevent the attacks, and once they were underway, worried only about themselves.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1199702

And now they don't want to talk about it. Small wonder.

[yellowcanine]

31. Well isn't that special?

As the church lady would say.

[lumpy]

35. Bush has agreed to a 1 or 2 hour

'talk' with only 2 members of the commission; supposedly.

[jackstraw45]

36. No oath, no point....

Every answer will be a lie, as usual.

If only he was under oath...the man in unable to say anything truthful.

[djg21]

39. In all fairness . . .

No sitting president in history has ever testified under oath before Congress, and no sitting president has ever testified under oath regarding the performance of his duties as president.

When Clinton testified, he did so in the context of a civil lawsuit regarding conduct that he allegedly engaged in before being elected. My recollection is that he was the first president to ever offer sworn testimony.

In that context, it's a little unfair to object that Shrub will not be swearing an oath. That being said, he has a way of coming off lie a smug asshole!

[bagnana]

42. just questioning him in public would be enough.

The "lie" that everyone remembers of Clinton's are NOT the lies he told during his depositions -- his finger pointing "I did not have improper relations with that woman" is the lie everyone remembers. If Bush had to get up in front of Congress or anyone, in public, and answer for his actions re: Iraq, with close questioning from someone willing to demand a follow up answer, he would be through. He could not justify his actions.

[Cronus Protagonist]

45. He would also blow up

At the questioner's audacity. Wre all know he's VERY thin skinned.

[mrdmk]

44. This is very true, thank you for pointing this out!

The real problem is the time constraint a.k.a. the one hour given to the commission. Mr. Bush Jr. thinks it is more important to stick to a unreal time schedule than to have a flexible schedule to give a subject the appropriate time that is needed. A sure sign of mental illness!

[Stephanie]

46. A sure sign of GUILT

"If the president has nothing to hide, why is he hiding?" - William "Vegas" Bennett, 2/1/1998

http://www.chron.com/cgi-bin/auth/story.mpl/content/chronicle/page1/98/02/02/clinton.html

[mrdmk]

48. I really think this whole administration

is full of distructive people. No more, no less!

There are enough post on this board to make this statement true.

[Dr Fate]

38. Why is he afraid to go under oath???

It makes it look like he is hiding things.

I thought that you had to be under oath for it to be valid- I mean, part of the underlyinh question is whether people LIED about WMDs or not, after all...

I dont know, Bush's refusal to put his cards on the table and go under oath seems sneaky to me...

[Cronus Protagonist]

43. I know who he thinks he is (pic)

http://bushspeaks.com/home.asp?did=161

[DemLikr]

50. I hope shrub* does have to get up and walk out to end the questions

What better ammo do we need to support the argument that he doesn't WANT to provide information?

[Q]

51. Most Americans don't seem to understand (or care)...

...that no other president has been allowed to get away with this type of behavior. Bush* has set the parameters on everything from who was on the commission to how they could conduct their investigation. Now he's saying that he 'might' stick around if they have one or two more questions that wouldn't fit within HIS time frame.

- Every other president in his position have been FORCED to testify or be subject to hearings or prosecution. But President Gilligan* acts like a king...above the law and the checks and balances of government. He seems to think 'war' is an excuse for everything...even refusing to testify UNDER OATH.

- I blame the criminal 'justice' department for not doing their jobs...and the Democratic party for not upholding the law.

[sangh0]

59. More silliness

The "criminal justice department" you refer to is known as the Dept of Justice, and it's headed by John Ashcroft. It's not Dems job to enforce the law, it's the DOJ's. And Congressional investigations are unlikely to get the 51 votes they need for approval in the Senate when the Dems are a minority.

So aside from pointing out how much smarter you are compared to most citizens, why don't you share that wisdom with us and explain what could be done, and how that could be achieved?

Or will take time away from your telling us how everyone else is so screwed up?

[sangh0]

60. Kerry Says Bush Is 'Stonewalling'

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0308d.html

Los Angeles Times: Kerry Says Bush Is 'Stonewalling'
The Democrat accuses the president of delaying probes of 9/11 attacks and Iraq intelligence.

March 08, 2004

Los Angeles Times
By Matea Gold

Tougaloo, MS —


Democratic presidential challenger Sen. John F. Kerry accused President Bush on Sunday of blocking the investigations into the intelligence failures surrounding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the build-up to the Iraq war, suggesting the administration is trying to duck a politically volatile subject..."

[sangh0]

61. This president has not fully cooperated..."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0221a.html

Statement from John Kerry Regarding Bush’s Radio Address


February 21, 2004

For Immediate Release


“It’s nice to hear President Bush say we’re doing everything we need to do in the war on terrorism. But, unfortunately, this president has lost credibility with the American people, and the truth is there are serious issues George Bush has failed to address. What he’s telling us is a fantasy-land, bedtime story that just doesn’t square with reality.

"This president has not fully cooperated with the serious business of investigating our government’s intelligence failures. He’s failed to provide our soldiers in Iraq the equipment they need. Families are literally being forced to log onto the Internet to buy body armor for their loved ones. And, of course, we’re still looking for the weapons of mass destruction George Bush promised were there.
"The American people are tired of being misled by the Bush Administration. I’m running for president because I want to bring change to American, and get our country back on track."

[sangh0]

62. Urges President to Tell the Truth about September 11th Intelligence

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_0716b.html

John Kerry Calls on Bush Administartion to Address the Preparedness Gap
Urges President to Tell the Truth about September 11th Intelligence

July 16, 2003




(I) STOP SLOW ROLLING THE 9/11 COMMISSION AND TELL AMERICANS THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11th.

The only winners from President Bush stonewalling the bipartisan 9/11 Commission are the terrorists. Until we know what went wrong, we can’t fix it. President Bush needs to show some leadership and tell John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge to quit stalling and provide the Commission with the information they need. This is about people, not politics --- policy, not partisanship.

Until we know what went wrong before and on September 11, 2001, we won’t be able to fix it. That is why John Kerry and others in Congress listened to the 9/11 victims and survivors and forced President Bush to accept the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

The bipartisan leadership of the 9/11 Commission has recently reported that President Bush, his Attorney General and other senior officials are slow rolling requests for information required by the law. Without adequate information, the 9/11 Commission can’t do its job.

Every day that goes by without the 9/11 Commission completing its investigation, is another day that all Americans are at increased risk.

President Bush should immediately direct every member of his Administration to make it a priority to comply with every lawful request made by the 9/11 Commission and he should fire any member of his Administration who endangers America by not complying.

(II) THE BUSH PREPAREDNESS GAP

The Bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations Report Led by Republican Senator Rudman Concludes Nation is Woefully Unprepared. The United States has not reached a sufficient national level of emergency preparedness and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear agent, or coordinated high-impact conventional means.

The major findings of the report include:

1) Fire Departments Don’t Have Enough Equipment or Firefighters. On average, fire departments across the country only have enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and the necessary breathing equipment for one third. Only 10 percent of fire departments in the United States have the personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse.


2) Police Don’t Have the Gear They Need. Police departments in cities across the country do not have the protective gear to safely secure a site following an attack using weapons of mass destruction. We saw in the World Trade Center attacks that local emergency responders will rush to the scene of an incident even if they do not have the tools they need to do their jobs safely. It is unconscionable to ask policemen and firemen across the country to potentially respond to a terrorist attack without working radios, sufficient breathing apparatuses, enough protective suits, and other life-saving equipment.

3) Our Hospitals and Public Health Labs Aren’t Fully Equipped to Respond to an Attack. Public health labs in most states still lack basic equipment and expertise to adequately respond to a chemical or biological attack, and 75 percent of state laboratories report being overwhelmed by too many testing requests. We must strengthen our laboratories, disease tracking, information sharing, and training for terrorism-related public health emergencies. We must also strengthen the very heart of our public health system: our nation’s hospitals to expand and enhance their capacity to respond to events.

4) Our Nation’s Ports Aren’t Protected. More than 6 million marine containers enter U.S. ports each year. The Customs Service physically inspects only about 2% of the containers. Many port areas have vulnerabilities to terrorist attack because of their size, easy accessibility by water and land, proximity to urban areas, and the tremendous amount of cargo they handle.


(III) BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO MAKE AMERICA SAFER SINCE 9/11.

673 days have now passed since 9/11, and we are just now learning how unprepared we are to prevent future acts of terrorism, how much rhetoric President Bush has devoted to combating terrorism and just how little President Bush has really done to prevent it.

President Bush has failed to seek proper funding for virtually every aspect of terrorism preparedness. President Bush has neglected America’s First Responders (police, firefighters and paramedics). Bush has cut COPS and firefighters at the same time many of them are off to serve in Iraq in the Reserves.

The Bush Administration has been slow to get money out the door into the communities that need it.

Starving the state government causing states to cut back on first responders. Because of large tax cuts and Bush neglect of the economy - the states are in the worst fiscal condition and are being forced to cut back on funding.


(IV) KERRY PLAN TO CLOSE ‘THE PREPAREDNESS GAP’.

Making sure our frontline troops have the protection and training the need to do the job right. Today, John Kerry makes the following pledge to the Nation and its first responders: We don’t send soldiers to war without the training and equipment they need to fight John Kerry won’t send the foot soldiers in the war on terrorism here in America: police, fire fighters and paramedics without the training and equipment they need.

KERRY PLAN TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE ON THE FRONT LINE ON THE WAR ON TERRORISM. John Kerry has proposed reinvigorating the successful COPS program which funded over 100,000 new community police officers ahead of schedule and under budget and a new Father Judge Fund which will pay for 100,000 new professional firefighters and the training and equipment which they need. That means:

Giving those on the front lines the tools they need to get the job done. First responders will be provided the equipment and training they need to get the job done. This is the least we can do for the women and men who put their lives on the line for us every day. We do it for our uniformed services we can do it for our first responders.

o Stop trickling resources through bureaucracies and get to those on the front lines. Federal money will rapidly move from Washington to the agencies which need it no stops in state capitals or with any politicians. NYFD money will go directly to the NYFD.

o National standards to assure that every American receives a basic level of security. Every American is entitled to a basic level of security, and national standards will allow us to define how to prepared and every jurisdiction should develop a road map for getting us there without unfocused and inefficient spending.

o A targeted alert system. An alert system that works and is applied in a sensible and localized manner. When there is intelligence that there is a terrorist threat in one place, that is the only place we will raise the alert level. No more national Orange Alerts unless there truly is a threat across the Nation.

o No more unfunded mandates. When Washington raises the threat level and requires a greater law enforcement response, it cannot just leave states to foot the bill again and again.

[dusty64]

54. Can anyone imagine

for a moment if our last elected President pulled this shit, the outrage from Pravda would be deafening.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

57. "I don't testify- I will be glad to make recommendations." What arrogance!

n/t

[opihimoimoi]

64. He jus don get it. Theyt want ANSWERS not recommendations, fuck that.

[Stephanie]

65. Come, the tide is turning

We fish for mahi mahi in the moonlight