Quantcast

Why is it okay for Bush to block reports?

Jr_Bullit

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!
Sep 8, 2001
2,028
0
North of Oz
The Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
By Robert Scheer, AlterNet. Posted October 19, 2004.

It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the Congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be delivered. "We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report," she said. "We are very concerned."

According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17- month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been "stalled." First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush.

The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress.

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."

By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. Yet neither Goss nor McLaughlin has invoked national security as an explanation for not delivering the report to Congress.

"It surely does not involve issues of national security," said the intelligence official.

"The agency directorate is basically sitting on the report until after the election," the official continued. "No previous director of CIA has ever tried to stop the inspector general from releasing a report to the Congress, in this case a report requested by Congress."

None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation into how the security of this nation was so easily breached. In Bush's much ballyhooed war on terror, ignorance has been bliss.

The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure was applied by a grassroots movement led by the families of those slain.

And then Bush refused to testify to the commission under oath, or on the record. Instead he deigned only to chat with the commission members, with Vice President Dick Cheney present, in a White House meeting in which commission members were not allowed to take notes. All in all, strange behavior for a man who seeks re-election to the top office in the land based on his handling of the so-called war on terror.

In September, the New York Times reported that several family members met with Goss privately to demand the release of the CIA inspector general's report. "Three thousand people were killed on 9/11, and no one has been held accountable," 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser told the paper.

The failure to furnish the report to Congress, said Harman, "fuels the perception that no one is being held accountable. It is unacceptable that we don't have [the report]; it not only disrespects Congress but it disrespects the American people."

The stonewalling by the Bush administration and the failure of Congress to gain release of the report have, said the intelligence source, "led the management of the CIA to believe it can engage in a cover-up with impunity. Unless the public demands an accounting, the administration and CIA's leadership will have won and the nation will have lost."

linky
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,749
7,982
it's because we must "stay the course" behind our leader since it's wartime. :rolleyes:
 

biggins

Rump Junkie
May 18, 2003
7,173
9
because he is a corrupt bastard with too much to hide that doesnt want to add another failure to his ever growing list
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
biggins said:
because he is a corrupt bastard with too much to hide that doesnt want to add another failure to his ever growing list
you gunna EVER add anything of substance to this forum?
 

biggins

Rump Junkie
May 18, 2003
7,173
9
well burly what would you like to hear?i mean there is no clear evidence as to why he is doing this other than making sure it does not get released until after the election cause then he is secure is his second and final term. i mean duh a little job security never hurt right? also couple years ago there was a very large homeland security document that was distributed and wasnt like 80 pages of that blacked? I mean i really dont understand how anyone can support this shady shady character. when you can provide a reason for him to be blocking the report until after the election i dont feel as though i need to provide one as to why he should not be allowed to block it. fair enough?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
biggins said:
well burly what would you like to hear?i mean there is no clear evidence as to why he is doing this other than making sure it does not get released until after the election cause then he is secure is his second and final term. i mean duh a little job security never hurt right? also couple years ago there was a very large homeland security document that was distributed and wasnt like 80 pages of that blacked? I mean i really dont understand how anyone can support this shady shady character. when you can provide a reason for him to be blocking the report until after the election i dont feel as though i need to provide one as to why he should not be allowed to block it. fair enough?
Well, first off, did you even bother to look where that article came from? Did you bother to look at what the other side said?
I dont know how anyone can support anyone but Bush this time around, with that scumbag kerry running.
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,428
0
Charlotte, NC
biggins said:
when you can provide a reason for him to be blocking the report until after the election i dont feel as though i need to provide one as to why he should not be allowed to block it. fair enough?



BurlySurly said:
Well, first off, did you even bother to look where that article came from? Did you bother to look at what the other side said?
I dont know how anyone can support anyone but Bush this time around, with that scumbag kerry running.

I do not see where you answered Biggins' question :monkey:
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
I do not see where you answered Biggins' question :monkey:
Well if you could comprehend simple english, you'd see that I was trying to teach him to fish, no just give him a single dead one.
 

biggins

Rump Junkie
May 18, 2003
7,173
9
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
I do not see where you answered Biggins' question :monkey:
yup. i didnt see it either. last time you wanted substantial evidence i posted facts from about 6 sources in a mega long response and y6ou never responded to the thread after that. i dont really thinnk im gonna bother now either.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
biggins said:
i dont really thinnk im gonna bother now either.
Well there's no surprise. I mean usually you just say "bush sucks" and that's about it. Why bother debating when you got that? I mean hell, you'd do better than kerry with that line.
 

Lexx D

Dirty Dozen
Mar 8, 2004
1,480
0
NY
biggins said:
when you can provide a reason for him to be blocking the report until after the election i dont feel as though i need to provide one as to why he should not be allowed to block it. fair enough?
Come on now, all :monkey: 's know that BS backs up everything he posts with "FACTS". We know they are "FACTS" because he says so.
A real rep. never listens to this liberal shyt. It's all lies it can't be true because they say it's not. Everything libs say is propaganda and everythinbg he says is "FACT" I've come to accept it :think:




Stay the sourse bitches :thumb:
 

biggins

Rump Junkie
May 18, 2003
7,173
9
BurlySurly said:
Well there's no surprise. I mean usually you just say "bush sucks" and that's about it. Why bother debating when you got that? I mean hell, you'd do better than kerry with that line.
you still have not answered the question. every time i make a comment you want me to back it up, well this time i pass the torch on to you friend.
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,428
0
Charlotte, NC
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
I do not see where you answered Biggins' question :monkey:

BurlySurly said:
Well if you could comprehend simple english, you'd see that I was trying to teach him to fish, no just give him a single dead one.
I comprehend English (that is with a capital "E" college boy) very well. No one asked for a fishing lesson, he asked a specific question to which you could not answer.

:dancing: :dancing:
 

Lexx D

Dirty Dozen
Mar 8, 2004
1,480
0
NY
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
No one asked for a fishing lesson, he asked a specific question to which you could not answer.
He does not need to answer your little questions. He has the "FACTS"(now if only he could remember where he put them).
 

biggins

Rump Junkie
May 18, 2003
7,173
9
Lexx D said:
He does not need to answer your little questions. He has the "FACTS"(now if only he could remember where he put them).
they are burried under saddams weapons of mass destruction of course
 

biggins

Rump Junkie
May 18, 2003
7,173
9
actually burly had "intentions" of producing facts and the capability "to acquire" facts as well, good thing we intervened
 

Lexx D

Dirty Dozen
Mar 8, 2004
1,480
0
NY
biggins said:
actually burly had "intentions" of producing facts and the capability "to acquire" facts as well, good thing we intervened
And America is safer because of it. :thumb:
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
No one asked for a fishing lesson, he asked a specific question to which you could not answer.
Well that's a run-on sentence, but who wants to play grammar bitch? And I dont care what you or he asked for, Ill post how and what I wish. But most of the time, I try to offer some basis for my beliefs, Biggins, however just name-calls. I was asking for something more. If he doesnt want to give it, fine, my opinion will stay the same.
Notice I did not say anything to JrB about her post of the original issue. Get it yet?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
biggins said:
im name calling cause im over backing up my opinions
Im just saying posts like this

because he is a corrupt bastard with too much to hide that doesnt want to add another failure to his ever growing list
add nothing of substance to a debate, and they are the norm for you.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Blimey, girls' night in this thread clearly.

It's not that Bush is allowed to block stuff, he can block it because he's put his people in the right places. It's smart government. The more pertinent question is (if it is true that he's blocking it) why?
 

ridecruz88

Chimp
Oct 20, 2004
90
0
Fort Collins, CO
Quote:
because he is a corrupt bastard with too much to hide that doesnt want to add another failure to his ever growing list
ya especially considering that this is a time when our nations under war and terriorism threats...what wouldve happend if back in WWII after pearl harbor we all criticized our president for declaring war and spending money on the war....its tought times and im grateful i have a steady job and am not dead from some terrorist attack, id say hes done pretty good
 

Lexx D

Dirty Dozen
Mar 8, 2004
1,480
0
NY
ridecruz88 said:
Quote:


ya especially considering that this is a time when our nations under war and terriorism threats...what wouldve happend if back in WWII after pearl harbor we all criticized our president for declaring war and spending money on the war....its tought times and im grateful i have a steady job and am not dead from some terrorist attack, id say hes done pretty good
Except the attack then was by a country so we knew who to go after. I'm not gong to debate our reasons for going to war with iraq, but did they attack us? Did they say they planned to attack us? Where are the WMDs? I am yet to see any good reasons for attacking Iraq when we did.
 

Echo

crooked smile
Jul 10, 2002
11,819
15
Slacking at work
Lexx D said:
I am yet to see any good reasons for attacking Iraq when we did.
It's because all the oil is over there. And we use more oil than the rest of the world combined. If Kerry becomes president, he will realize how much we are dependent on oil from the Middle East. And he will realize that the only way to keep them from charging us out the ass for it is to make sure they know we can kick their asses at any time. It's a sad and harsh reality, and Kerry will probably never understand it because he most likely won't become president.
 

Lexx D

Dirty Dozen
Mar 8, 2004
1,480
0
NY
Echo said:
It's because all the oil is over there. And we use more oil than the rest of the world combined. If Kerry becomes president, he will realize how much we are dependent on oil from the Middle East. And he will realize that the only way to keep them from charging us out the ass for it is to make sure they know we can kick their asses at any time.
Thank you. Now if only Bushy would admit it I may have some respect for him.
 

biggins

Rump Junkie
May 18, 2003
7,173
9
watch out or kerry might start attacking tomato producing countries when he is the president. i have an idea, why dont we quit consuming so much damn oil? just an idea. it'll never fly though cause that would people would have to make sacrifices and thats not gonna happen. and ask yourself this wuestion, are we really safe from terrorist attacks now?
 

Kevin

Turbo Monkey
Sorry to ask but if yall think Bush is such an ass, (which I agree on offcourse...) then what the hell do you call US citizens? (since half of m are voting for GW)
I think a lot of ppl outside the US are wondering why the hell this ass is getting so much votes.
I can pretty well gues why complete morons are voting for Bush, (no offense ;)) but anybody in their right mind can see why you shouldnt vote for the guy...
 

Lexx D

Dirty Dozen
Mar 8, 2004
1,480
0
NY
Kevin said:
Sorry to ask but if yall think Bush is such an ass, (which I agree on offcourse...) then what the hell do you call US citizens? (since half of m are voting for GW)
I think a lot of ppl outside the US are wondering whu the hell this ass is getting so much votes.
I can pretty well gues why complete morons are voting for Bush, (no offense ;)) but anybody in their right mind can see why you shouldnt vote for the guy...
I ask myself these questions on a daily basis.
 

Echo

crooked smile
Jul 10, 2002
11,819
15
Slacking at work
Kevin said:
Its not like Im pro Kerry or anything but clearly Id vote for him over Bush anyday.
Bush walks in and steals your TV at gunpoint.

Kerry sneaks in and steals your TV while you are sleeping.

Either way, your TV is gone.

I seriously want out of this stupid worthless f*cked up country. This system of government is a complete failure, and we're trying to push it on everyone else. It's embarrassing to be American in this day and age.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,371
2,479
Pōneke
None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation into how the security of this nation was so easily breached. In Bush's much ballyhooed war on terror, ignorance has been bliss.
In the face of more and more evidence of cover-ups, half truths, and more unexplained weirdness from GW and crew, why does no-one believe that 9/11 could have possibly had something to do with the neo-con/Israeli agenda?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Changleen said:
In the face of more and more evidence of cover-ups, half truths, and more unexplained weirdness from GW and crew, why does no-one believe that 9/11 could have possibly had something to do with the neo-con/Israeli agenda?
No one believes it because we're not predisposed to automatically yel "conspiracy" anytime the US govt does anything, like you. If some proof came out to support your notion, then I could see it. Thus far, all we get is speculation, and hell, you can speculate just about anything. Its just as likely that the planes were hijacked by aliens as the US govt IMO, because Ive seen equal proof for both.
 

Lexx D

Dirty Dozen
Mar 8, 2004
1,480
0
NY
Changleen said:
In the face of more and more evidence of cover-ups, half truths, and more unexplained weirdness from GW and crew, why does no-one believe that 9/11 could have possibly had something to do with the neo-con/Israeli agenda?
A better question is why in light of all the cover ups, half truths, etc... why do people still support GW. I'm not asking why they don't like kerry, i'm wondering how people could follow this guy.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,749
7,982
fluff said:
It's not that Bush is allowed to block stuff, he can block it because he's put his people in the right places. It's smart government. The more pertinent question is (if it is true that he's blocking it) why?
so a totalitarian govt would be the smartest of all? hmm
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,371
2,479
Pōneke
BurlySurly said:
No one believes it because we're not predisposed to automatically yel "conspiracy" anytime the US govt does anything, like you. If some proof came out to support your notion, then I could see it. Thus far, all we get is speculation, and hell, you can speculate just about anything. Its just as likely that the planes were hijacked by aliens as the US govt IMO, because Ive seen equal proof for both.
Burly, Every time I show you proof (or evidence), you instantly go into threadjack mode. You ignore the substance of what I post and pick on small small detail which you then argue the toss about. Just like here.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Changleen said:
Burly, Every time I show you proof (or evidence), you instantly go into threadjack mode. You ignore the substance of what I post and pick on small small detail which you then argue the toss about. Just like here.
You dont post any evidence at all. You post conjecture and speculation by inadequate sources, or you post evidence of missing information, which doesnt prove your point, it only asks a question, yet you take it as evidence becuase you've brainwashed yourself into thinking the US planned Sept. 11 for its own purposes. There's a reason people like that are looked upon as wierd.
 

Skookum

bikey's is cool
Jul 26, 2002
10,184
0
in a bear cave
And therefore we de-focus past a legitimate gripe of evidence of negligence by the Bush administration that get's glossed over. Yet another example of evading accountability within government. Not only does nothing get done about it, but no mistake is EVER acknowledged.