Warren Commission II
Now, I believe the Warren Commission got it right. But the secrecy of the proceedings and the refusal to open evidence to the public led to an entire industry of conspiracy theorists that continues unabated to this day.
But while I don't buy the conspiracy theorists when it comes to the Kennedy assassination, I'm not so sure that there isn't a conspiracy going on when it comes to the so-called 9/11 panel. That is, a desire by the Bush administration to so defang the commission and to so limit their access so as to create just the conditions that are certain to lead to wild conspiracy theories as a result. Why? The wilder the theory, the more obfuscation surrounding the administration's culpability.
How else to interpret the administration's foot dragging, feints, and determination to keep Bush and Cheney from testifying. As Bush said on "Meet the Press" about appearing before the commission investigating intelligence failures in Iraq, he'll "visit with" them, but he won't "testify."
That's their approach to the 9/11 panel, according to Scot Paltrow writing in the WSJ.
The White House hasn't yet delivered on significant concessions it announced in recent weeks to help the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, raising the hackles of some commissioners and relatives of victims.
After some wrangling, the Bush administration said this month that the president would appear before the panel privately and answer questions. A commission spokesman said a written invitation to the president asked that he appear before the full commission.
Since then, however, the White House has indicated that the president would agree to meet privately only with a select group of commissioners, rather than the full 10-member panel, commissioners said. Vice President Dick Cheney, also invited to meet with the commission, so far has taken the same position, said a commission spokesman.
In this case, Kean says he won't accept that, but we'll see. In the meantime, Congress still hasn't agreed to extending the deadline for the commission's report, because that politically independent bulldog, Dennis Hastert, is defying the President's wishes to give them more time. Sure.
Similarly, the White House this month yielded to commission pleas for more time to finish its inquiry, saying it would back a two-month extension to July 26. But that extension has been hung up waiting for congressional action.
A significant roadblock has been House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who remains firmly opposed to an extension. The White House has only in the past few days contacted Mr. Hastert's staff to discuss whether he might drop his opposition, Republican congressional aides said, and only after victims' relatives and commissioners expressed unhappiness. Some commissioners and family members complain that the White House hasn't pushed Mr. Hastert hard enough.
And between the commission's reluctance to ruffle adminstration feathers and the very design of the commission, it certainly seems deliberately set to infuse the report with every wacky conspiracy possible.
Some family members and other critics have argued that the delays and lack of full access are largely due to compromises commissioners made previously. Early on, for example, the panel agreed to a White House demand that federal-agency officials be present when investigators interviewed agency employees. And although Congress gave the panel subpoena power, it has wielded it only three times.
More recently, the commission dropped threats to subpoena the daily intelligence briefings received by the president in the months before Sept. 11. Instead, it agreed to an arrangement in which one commissioner and the commission's executive director were allowed to see but not copy the briefings.
Beverly Eckert, whose husband died at the World Trade Center, is among those who have pressed the commission to take a harder line. "It's just been kid gloves all the way," she said. "I think looking back we're all going to regret -- family members, the public, even the commissioners themselves -- that they were not more assertive."
Down the road, the commission faces a struggle in releasing its findings. Much of the information to which it has been given access is classified. That means the White House and Central Intelligence Agency will review its report to determine which parts can't be made public.
Instead of facts, all we'll hear is nonsense:
The W.H. blacked out references to the Saudis, so the royal family must be involved; no Jews reported to work that day; Bush was warned; I got it -- it was the Queen and Henry Kissinger.
Any criticism of the Bush admin's actions -- or, rather, inactions -- in the months leading up to Sept. 11 2001 will be placed in the same bucket as Lyndon Larouche's presidential platform.
But while I don't buy the conspiracy theorists when it comes to the Kennedy assassination, I'm not so sure that there isn't a conspiracy going on when it comes to the so-called 9/11 panel. That is, a desire by the Bush administration to so defang the commission and to so limit their access so as to create just the conditions that are certain to lead to wild conspiracy theories as a result. Why? The wilder the theory, the more obfuscation surrounding the administration's culpability.
How else to interpret the administration's foot dragging, feints, and determination to keep Bush and Cheney from testifying. As Bush said on "Meet the Press" about appearing before the commission investigating intelligence failures in Iraq, he'll "visit with" them, but he won't "testify."
That's their approach to the 9/11 panel, according to Scot Paltrow writing in the WSJ.
The White House hasn't yet delivered on significant concessions it announced in recent weeks to help the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, raising the hackles of some commissioners and relatives of victims.
After some wrangling, the Bush administration said this month that the president would appear before the panel privately and answer questions. A commission spokesman said a written invitation to the president asked that he appear before the full commission.
Since then, however, the White House has indicated that the president would agree to meet privately only with a select group of commissioners, rather than the full 10-member panel, commissioners said. Vice President Dick Cheney, also invited to meet with the commission, so far has taken the same position, said a commission spokesman.
In this case, Kean says he won't accept that, but we'll see. In the meantime, Congress still hasn't agreed to extending the deadline for the commission's report, because that politically independent bulldog, Dennis Hastert, is defying the President's wishes to give them more time. Sure.
Similarly, the White House this month yielded to commission pleas for more time to finish its inquiry, saying it would back a two-month extension to July 26. But that extension has been hung up waiting for congressional action.
A significant roadblock has been House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who remains firmly opposed to an extension. The White House has only in the past few days contacted Mr. Hastert's staff to discuss whether he might drop his opposition, Republican congressional aides said, and only after victims' relatives and commissioners expressed unhappiness. Some commissioners and family members complain that the White House hasn't pushed Mr. Hastert hard enough.
And between the commission's reluctance to ruffle adminstration feathers and the very design of the commission, it certainly seems deliberately set to infuse the report with every wacky conspiracy possible.
Some family members and other critics have argued that the delays and lack of full access are largely due to compromises commissioners made previously. Early on, for example, the panel agreed to a White House demand that federal-agency officials be present when investigators interviewed agency employees. And although Congress gave the panel subpoena power, it has wielded it only three times.
More recently, the commission dropped threats to subpoena the daily intelligence briefings received by the president in the months before Sept. 11. Instead, it agreed to an arrangement in which one commissioner and the commission's executive director were allowed to see but not copy the briefings.
Beverly Eckert, whose husband died at the World Trade Center, is among those who have pressed the commission to take a harder line. "It's just been kid gloves all the way," she said. "I think looking back we're all going to regret -- family members, the public, even the commissioners themselves -- that they were not more assertive."
Down the road, the commission faces a struggle in releasing its findings. Much of the information to which it has been given access is classified. That means the White House and Central Intelligence Agency will review its report to determine which parts can't be made public.
Instead of facts, all we'll hear is nonsense:
The W.H. blacked out references to the Saudis, so the royal family must be involved; no Jews reported to work that day; Bush was warned; I got it -- it was the Queen and Henry Kissinger.
Any criticism of the Bush admin's actions -- or, rather, inactions -- in the months leading up to Sept. 11 2001 will be placed in the same bucket as Lyndon Larouche's presidential platform.
posted by John at 7:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home