911- Hearings
- Thread starter waggie945
- Start date
I also agree that Giuliani performed beyond expectation that day as well and I became Rudy fan in ways that I once was not.
Just to play devils advocate for a moment though, Rudy could be reasonably certain that he, the mayor of NYC was not a likely specific target of terrorists, where as with the Pentagon plane just missing the White House and it did appear likely that the Pres WAS a target (and of course simple logic would make the Pres a more likely target then a NYC mayor). Thus I believe that the Pres has a greater responsibility to the nation to stay away from the action and to ensure an operative executive branch then say the mayor.
JB
Three thousand died, yet President Bush and National Security Advisor Rice have little or no time for the commission investigating the national tragedy.
By Gerald S. Rellick
Thomas H. Kean, commissioner of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, also known as the 9/11 commission, convened its eighth public hearing yesterday, March 23. The Commission will hear testimony over the next two days from senior officials from both the Clinton and the Bush administrations on the topic of terrorism, bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Those testifying will be former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright; current secretary of state, Colin Powell; former secretary of defense, William Cohen; current secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld; the director of central intelligence, George Tenet; former national security adviser, Samuel Berger; and former national counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke.
Conspicuously absent from the Bush administration team is national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who has refused to testify on grounds of executive privilege. In his opening remarks, commissioner Kean stated that the commission was âdisappointed that [Ms. Rice] is not going to appear to answer our questions about national policy coordination.â
It is difficult not to view Riceâs refusal to testify as anything less than an attempt to evade difficult and potentially embarrassing questions about the performance of her duties as head of Bushâs national security team during the period leading up to 9/11. A number of family members of victims of 9/11 have expressed their personal outrage over Riceâs stonewalling tactic.
To add to the furor, President Bush informed the commission that he would meet only with chairman and co-chairman of the committee and only for one hour. Appearing on âMeet the Pressâ on March 14, Rice attempted to defend her and the presidentâs actions under questioning from NBCâs Tim Russert.
MR. RUSSERT: Will you testify under oath in public about September 11?
DR. RICE: Tim, this is not a matter of preference; this is a matter of principle. It has long been a legal and constitutional principle that assistants to the president, the presidential staff, do not testify before legislative bodies. But this is not a matter of preference. I have spent more than four hours with the commission going through the details about 9/11. I'm prepared to spend more time with the commission in discussion about whatever they'd like to know about September 11, but as a matter of principle, we cannot breach this wall between the legislature and the executive.
MR. RUSSERT: On September 11, there is a commission now in place which the administration originally resisted and also resisted extending the deadline. They now want to interview the president. He has said he'll only sit down with the chairman and co-chairman of the committee for one hour. Will the president meet with the full commission and will he do it for longer than an hour?
DR. RICE: The president, of course, is the president, and he does have a schedule to keep, but he has said that he will sit with the chairman and with the co-chairman and that he will answer whatever questions they have. And I'm quite certain he will take as long as they need to answer those questions.
MR. RUSSERT: Several hours, a day if they need?
DR. RICE: Well, I would hope that they would recognize that he's president and that people would be judicious in the use of his time.
MR. RUSSERT: John Kerry said, âThe president has time to go to a rodeo but not spend time with the commission.â
DR. RICE: As I've said, Tim, I believe the president is prepared to spend whatever time they need to answer their questions, but I hope that people will be judicious with his time.
Three thousand people died on U. S. soil on 9/11/01 and the commission wants to find out what the country might do to prevent this from happening again, just as a similar commission learned from Pearl Harbor. But Condoleezza Rice and George Bush both sound more concerned with protocol and precedent. Or, does it sound more like two people who really screwed up and now want to conceal the truth rather than disclose it?
(Posted Wednesday, March 24, 2004)
Gerald S. Rellick, Ph.D., worked as scientist in the aerospace industry for 22 years. He now teaches chemistry part-time in the California Community College system.
By Gerald S. Rellick
Thomas H. Kean, commissioner of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, also known as the 9/11 commission, convened its eighth public hearing yesterday, March 23. The Commission will hear testimony over the next two days from senior officials from both the Clinton and the Bush administrations on the topic of terrorism, bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Those testifying will be former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright; current secretary of state, Colin Powell; former secretary of defense, William Cohen; current secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld; the director of central intelligence, George Tenet; former national security adviser, Samuel Berger; and former national counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke.
Conspicuously absent from the Bush administration team is national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who has refused to testify on grounds of executive privilege. In his opening remarks, commissioner Kean stated that the commission was âdisappointed that [Ms. Rice] is not going to appear to answer our questions about national policy coordination.â
It is difficult not to view Riceâs refusal to testify as anything less than an attempt to evade difficult and potentially embarrassing questions about the performance of her duties as head of Bushâs national security team during the period leading up to 9/11. A number of family members of victims of 9/11 have expressed their personal outrage over Riceâs stonewalling tactic.
To add to the furor, President Bush informed the commission that he would meet only with chairman and co-chairman of the committee and only for one hour. Appearing on âMeet the Pressâ on March 14, Rice attempted to defend her and the presidentâs actions under questioning from NBCâs Tim Russert.
MR. RUSSERT: Will you testify under oath in public about September 11?
DR. RICE: Tim, this is not a matter of preference; this is a matter of principle. It has long been a legal and constitutional principle that assistants to the president, the presidential staff, do not testify before legislative bodies. But this is not a matter of preference. I have spent more than four hours with the commission going through the details about 9/11. I'm prepared to spend more time with the commission in discussion about whatever they'd like to know about September 11, but as a matter of principle, we cannot breach this wall between the legislature and the executive.
MR. RUSSERT: On September 11, there is a commission now in place which the administration originally resisted and also resisted extending the deadline. They now want to interview the president. He has said he'll only sit down with the chairman and co-chairman of the committee for one hour. Will the president meet with the full commission and will he do it for longer than an hour?
DR. RICE: The president, of course, is the president, and he does have a schedule to keep, but he has said that he will sit with the chairman and with the co-chairman and that he will answer whatever questions they have. And I'm quite certain he will take as long as they need to answer those questions.
MR. RUSSERT: Several hours, a day if they need?
DR. RICE: Well, I would hope that they would recognize that he's president and that people would be judicious in the use of his time.
MR. RUSSERT: John Kerry said, âThe president has time to go to a rodeo but not spend time with the commission.â
DR. RICE: As I've said, Tim, I believe the president is prepared to spend whatever time they need to answer their questions, but I hope that people will be judicious with his time.
Three thousand people died on U. S. soil on 9/11/01 and the commission wants to find out what the country might do to prevent this from happening again, just as a similar commission learned from Pearl Harbor. But Condoleezza Rice and George Bush both sound more concerned with protocol and precedent. Or, does it sound more like two people who really screwed up and now want to conceal the truth rather than disclose it?
(Posted Wednesday, March 24, 2004)
Gerald S. Rellick, Ph.D., worked as scientist in the aerospace industry for 22 years. He now teaches chemistry part-time in the California Community College system.
I agree - there must be secret service protocol set up to protect the President during emergencies, and he followed it. that is logical and rational given the situation.
what is not clear is why simply following that protocol should deserve some special commendation or praise, which the post above seemed to imply he deserves.
>what is not clear is why simply following that protocol
>should deserve some special commendation or praise,
>which the post above seemed to imply he deserves.
I don't think that you or I can be sure whether he was following some set "protocol" that day or whether he was calling the shots about when and where, most likely it was some combination.
More than even Pearl Harbor (which was after all a military installation and attack) the events of 9/11 were a perfect opportunity for the President and country to crack under pressure
You are welcome to hold whatever opinion you wish but I can tell you that in spite of Gore being my man in the election and my many reservations and disagreements with a host of Bush policies then and now, I publicly stated that day that I was glad that it was Bush as President during that period rather than Gore. Simply put I felt safer with Bush.
JB
>should deserve some special commendation or praise,
>which the post above seemed to imply he deserves.
I don't think that you or I can be sure whether he was following some set "protocol" that day or whether he was calling the shots about when and where, most likely it was some combination.
More than even Pearl Harbor (which was after all a military installation and attack) the events of 9/11 were a perfect opportunity for the President and country to crack under pressure
You are welcome to hold whatever opinion you wish but I can tell you that in spite of Gore being my man in the election and my many reservations and disagreements with a host of Bush policies then and now, I publicly stated that day that I was glad that it was Bush as President during that period rather than Gore. Simply put I felt safer with Bush.
JB
I find it ironic, that the patriot act can deny our privacy, and when the ACLU and other people complain, the typical neocon response is:
"If you are doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Yet when Condi refuses to testify under oath, it is cool and she is just protecting confidentiality and national security.
What a joke.
"If you are doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Yet when Condi refuses to testify under oath, it is cool and she is just protecting confidentiality and national security.
What a joke.
This commission is a joke and everyone knows it. Why should Bush waste his time with them? What does Rice have to add anyway?
This whole thing has turned into a partisan witchhunt, just as many feared it would. Of course, the Commission is "balanced" politically, but that doesn't stop people from trying to score points.
Frankly, I'm not impressed with the record of the Clinton administration but it's unfair to blame them. Bush had not been in office long. You might recall that Al Gore tied up things for weeks on end trying to get the Florida courts to overturn the election. That delayed getting people in place. So it's certainly unfair to blame Bush for 9/11.
The only things this Commission can come up with are things that are just dead obvious in hindsight. Yes, it would have been a good idea to have impenetrable cockpit doors. The airlines didn't want to spend the money and no one in government forced them to. It would have been a good idea not to let Saudi's and other Arabs to just come here and hang out as long as they wanted with no obvious reason for being here. It would have been a good idea to take security screening seriously. It would have been a good idea to keep an eye on foreigners taking flight lessons. It would have been a good idea to push for warrants to wiretap or search suspicious Arabs and not to be overly legalistic about them. It would be a good idea for intelligence services to share info and not compete.
That's about all they can say. In a perfect world, a lot of people would have been forced to resign. Airline execs, FAA bigshots, intelligence directors. That doesn't happen anymore. Instead we get the spectacle of this Clarke asshole using the Commission to flog his book.
This whole thing has turned into a partisan witchhunt, just as many feared it would. Of course, the Commission is "balanced" politically, but that doesn't stop people from trying to score points.
Frankly, I'm not impressed with the record of the Clinton administration but it's unfair to blame them. Bush had not been in office long. You might recall that Al Gore tied up things for weeks on end trying to get the Florida courts to overturn the election. That delayed getting people in place. So it's certainly unfair to blame Bush for 9/11.
The only things this Commission can come up with are things that are just dead obvious in hindsight. Yes, it would have been a good idea to have impenetrable cockpit doors. The airlines didn't want to spend the money and no one in government forced them to. It would have been a good idea not to let Saudi's and other Arabs to just come here and hang out as long as they wanted with no obvious reason for being here. It would have been a good idea to take security screening seriously. It would have been a good idea to keep an eye on foreigners taking flight lessons. It would have been a good idea to push for warrants to wiretap or search suspicious Arabs and not to be overly legalistic about them. It would be a good idea for intelligence services to share info and not compete.
That's about all they can say. In a perfect world, a lot of people would have been forced to resign. Airline execs, FAA bigshots, intelligence directors. That doesn't happen anymore. Instead we get the spectacle of this Clarke asshole using the Commission to flog his book.