Would the 9/11 commission come out with something really damning

[mot78]

against Bush*

We've only heard public testimonies from a few figures, but there have also been private testimonies from a slew of public figures. Not to mention research done by the commission. In their final report, is it possible that the commission could come out with a report damning against *. Not LIHOP/MIHOP, but gross incompetence, and I mean incompetence bordering on LIHOP.

If they do, you can count on on */Rove/RNC to "Clarke" the commission members' integrity until nobody trusts the findings.

[rfranklin]

1. No, because the White House has to "vet" the report....

In other words, they have the option of censoring whatever they don't want you to know.

[mot78]

3. Are you serious?

I thought they only had the power to decide what info to GIVE to the commission.

[never cry wolf]

8. Nope, came out today on MTP

White House gets to vet every line.

:puke:

Remember, it is a presidential commission set up by shrubbie with the mandate and restrictions determined by shrubbie and the commission members half appointed by shrubbie and the other half needing shrubbie's approval.

[FreakinDJ]

4. We need to write our lawmakers

The American public deserve to have the Full Findings of the 911 commission

[never cry wolf]

2. Very doubtful, IMHO.

Half the panel are rebugs, I couldn't see big jim thompson ever allowing anything too scathing. The other half are dems, a couple at least who are very moderate. The only ones to leave the panel are Dems, the repgs will stick to their guns. Plus, they are ALL politicians used to compromise and cutting deals.

The best hope, if there is damning evidence, is for a whistleblower, maybe one of the panel, maybe a staff member.

[Cocoa]

5. no

they explicitly said today that they are not going to do anything that might lead to anyone being held accountable for anything.

[jerryskid]

6. for christ sakes

the thing about these commisions is that the media isnt going to be honest in the least bit. all they are going to do is sugar coat it and make it seem like a "intellingence error." though true it was an intelligence error, they will point the finger and cia, but not the true culprit... our wonderful president george w.

[EstimatedProphet]

9. Welcome to DU fellow Deadhead!

We need more Deadheads here!

[Old and In the Way]

11. There are a few....

:-)

[displacedtexan]

7. Josh Marshall has the skinny on possible bombshells in the report...

and the story behind CONdi's upcoming testimony.

www.talkingpointsmemo.com

[napi21]

10. I don't agree, but I think there will be a fall guy.

I still think it will be George Tenet. I not only listened to the 2 days of hearing last week, but I also read the transcripts of the previous hearings. There are some shocking revelations in those that I read.

I don't think there will be some damning evidence against Bush, but I do think the CIA is going to take a hard hit. A lot of the other major problems, like not getting NORAD notified sooner, and not stopping the 3 planes after the first one hit is going to sit upon someones shoulders. I'm not sure whose at this point.

I happen to think this committee is doing a pretty good job so far.

Wait to see what the results are before you tear them apart.

[Old and In the Way]

12. Not so sure....

Especially with things going to hell in Iraq. Everyone knows that this administration lied to get the war going in Iraq. Perhaps evidence whick might have been overlooked will now have some bipartisan support to make it stick.

It just blows my mind that one administration could be this incompetent and create so much damage in the span of 3 years...

[yardwork]

13. That's fair, but there are several issues that already raise concern.

It's important to keep our concerns in mind as we prepare to hear the results. As the poster above said, the commission was appointed by * and filled with people he either chose or approved. So we know that it tilts conservative to start with.

Next, * controlled the information they received, and the leaders of the commission, which are all * appointees, control what material the rest of the committee sees. Several committee members have complained about this. Fortunately, Clarke's book and testimony created enough pressure for that to be opened up somewhat.

Finally, * will vet every line of the final report. There is no guarantee that the entire commission will get to see the final report, or even drafts, before it goes to the WH to be shredded, er, vetted.

So, yes I am skeptical, but it's a healthy skepticism and it leaves open the possibility that the commission will do a decent job.

I think that Clarke has raised enough questions so that if it is a complete whitewash there will be some public outcry. That would not have happened a month ago.

So Clarke has already done a magnificent service to the country, just by calling attention to the details.

[leftofthedial]

14. no chance

this commission and its process are owned by the bushgang and are designed to whitewash, not to find the truth.