Bush and Clinton May Be Summoned Before 9/11 Commission, page 1

Bush and Clinton May Be Summoned Before 9/11 Commission, page

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 6-7-2003 @ 01:49 PM by MiStErBeLLaTrIx

Will President Bush be summoned before the independent commission investigating 9/11? It now appears very likely. John Lehman, Ronald Reagan's Navy Secretary and one of five Republicans on the 10-member panel, told TIME that he wants both President Bush and former President Clinton to meet with the commission and discuss matters that could include what their Administrations knew about the al-Qaeda terrorist plots—and what was done to combat them—before the 9/11 attacks.

Time Online

[Edited on 6-7-2003 by MiStErBeLLaTrIx]

reply posted on 6-7-2003 @ 01:58 PM by ultra_phoenix

MiStErBeLLaTrIx, I can't wait to hear what they'll say to the Commission.

[Edited on 6-7-2003 by ultra_phoenix]

reply posted on 6-7-2003 @ 02:14 PM by ilovepizza

I cant wait either. I wonder what clinton will have to say.

reply posted on 6-7-2003 @ 07:26 PM by MaskedAvatar

Unfortunately:

* nothing under Oath
* even Oaths are meaningless to Bush
* Bush will be so under scrutiny and so prepared that he will know exactly when to say nothing, to avoid any more of his stupid gaffes and cowboyisms
* the Commission is not provided with an approved Truth Serum.

I would be interested to know if Clinton says anything that loosely implicates the next administration, but I think he will not.

In fact, neither of them will be required to front. For a while yet.

reply posted on 6-7-2003 @ 09:47 PM by ultra_phoenix

Originally posted by ilovepizza
I wonder what clinton will have to say.

" It wasn't me "

" I wasn't there "

" What are you talking about ? "

" Don't tell it to my wife "

" Are you friend with Starr ? "

[Edited on 7-7-2003 by ultra_phoenix]

reply posted on 6-7-2003 @ 10:00 PM by Abraham Virtue

It is well known that politicans lie and get away with it. This situation will be no different. These two men have too many contacts and too many people in their hands to be threatened by such a futile case. This will not be anything really damaging to their characters. Besides they have done enough damage themselves. I don't see how this commission would fair any better in this respect. However I am not familer with those on the commission. Is anyone else???

If so please let us know who is on this investigative committee and please provide any information about these people that you may know. Also, does anyone know if this hearing will be aired???

Thanks

Abe

reply posted on 6-7-2003 @ 10:04 PM by David

Bush and Clinton May Be Summoned Before 9/11 Commission

reply posted on 6-7-2003 @ 10:05 PM by Seekerof

I don't know on it being aired AV, but I would doubt it, though, it would be interesting to see.

regards
seekerof

reply posted on 6-7-2003 @ 10:16 PM by MaskedAvatar

There have already been two enquiries of varying intensity. Results of the second one have been embargoed, or repeatedly censored/covered up, by the Bush administration.

There is a certain report due to be declassified today (July 6 US time). Remains to be seen what is of interest in it.

After these enquiries stop dancing around, there is still a citizen-led Truth Commission to be conducted exhaustively. That will be far more interesting.

AV, I'm not sure the "We all know politicians lie" defense is held as a moral tenet by thinking Americans contemplating the worst terrorist attack in US history.

reply posted on 6-7-2003 @ 10:17 PM by David

*Watching the skies*

Nope, no piggies flying yet.

reply posted on 6-7-2003 @ 10:25 PM by Colonel

I can't wait til Bush gets nailed. Too much evidence points to him being culpable. Maybe now he won't mention 9-11 in his speeches EVERYTIME he talks to gain empathy.

reply posted on 6-7-2003 @ 11:16 PM by Tyriffic

I like the flying piggy scenario.

reply posted on 6-7-2003 @ 11:20 PM by David

Everyone does Tyrrific....

Pork Delivery Service....mmm

reply posted on 6-7-2003 @ 11:41 PM by Tyriffic

I don't think anybody's bacon is gonna fry do you?

reply posted on 7-7-2003 @ 02:13 AM by RobertBurns

No one will be fried, this is no different then the Court Martialling of the Admiral at Pearl Harbor.

He was court martialed because he failed to be prepared for an attack, even though the warning came 1 hour after the attack began...

Blaming Bush is the same situation.

Clinton however, a man who KNEW that Ossama was out there, who repeatedly had the chance to capture him but decided not to...

reply posted on 8-7-2003 @ 08:59 AM by astrocreep

Maybe..

www.newsmax.com.../7/6/232621

www.newsmax.com...

"Former President Bill Clinton and President George Bush are both expected to be called before the independent commission investigating the Sept.11, 2001, attacks.
But the burden of blame for America's worst disaster may fall largely on the shoulders of Clinton.

Commission members, no doubt, will seek answers to serious questions from the former president, including why he stopped the CIA from recruiting spies within terrorist networks.

Also, the commission may want to know how the al-Qaeda terrorists easily penetrated the U.S. during Clinton's watch. The INS, which reported to Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, was negligent.

Once inside the U.S., the FBI under Bill Clinton appeared handcuffed. Agents warned of a coming terrorist disaster as specific intelligence of Muslims training to fly jets was ignored."

[Edited on 8-7-2003 by astrocreep]

reply posted on 8-7-2003 @ 09:33 AM by Grommer

to me it doesnt matter if they're up there or not. It will be all in the quality of the questions...what former ties to the bin Laden family do you have? why didnt the secret service whisk you away when the country was under "attack". I hope they stump the # out of them so everyone sees the lies spewing from BOTH of their mouths.

reply posted on 8-7-2003 @ 09:50 AM by Peace

"Under his watch" the President isn't God, this business about Clinton is stupid. "why he stopped the CIA from recruiting spies within terrorist networks.

Also, the commission may want to know how the al-Qaeda terrorists easily penetrated the U.S. during Clinton's watch. The INS, which reported to Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, was negligent.

Once inside the U.S., the FBI under Bill Clinton appeared handcuffed. Agents warned of a coming terrorist disaster as specific intelligence of Muslims training to fly jets was ignored."

Fair enough, Clinton messed up, and maybe he should be held accountable. If Clinton was truthful i think he would point the finger. SOMEBODY DIDN'T WANT BIN LADEN CAUGHT, and i hardly think you can solely balme Clinton, the secret services know why and we never will 100% for sure.
But, i could personally rip Bush to shreds with questions solely regarding his actions on the day, what he was told? when? by whom? and what actions he took to protect the homeland? i would also ask him about the
I'm sorry, but i don't know much about Clinton's guilt, but as far as Bush goes

I pray the investigators aren't intimidated and ask penetrative questions. Bush had a very interesting day
www.cooperativeresearch.net...

and the enquiry we have just had in the UK? i will let my favourite political journalist Andrew Rawnsley explain the sham to those who want to know.
observer.guardian.co.uk...

i hope some heads roll. Bush and Clinton just take orders.

reply posted on 8-7-2003 @ 10:07 AM by astrocreep

Hey, I didn't write the article merely offered it as more information on the topic. How can we vere fully know the answer to whos at fault if we keep refusing to hold EVERYONE involved accountable for their actions? I don't defend Bush and really want to know if there is something to the allegations but I don't want Clinton sheilded either so if he was negligent in tearing down our national security and using them to go after legal gun-owning Americans while terrorist plotted un threatened by police, I think we should know that too....unless defense of politics is more important than the truth and I can't imagine that would be the case would it now?

reply posted on 8-7-2003 @ 10:23 AM by nyeff

Bush probably doesn't have that much to worry about. I figure the attacks were planned before Bush was in the White house.

But Clinton may have to twist his words and responses like he did with the grand jury.like what is the definition of "is". Clinton had the chance to get Osama,and he cut back our intel. He has some explaining to do.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^