Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bush Blocking 9-11 Inquiry. WHY?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Withholding funding and documentation, the Bush Administration is the major roadblock for the 9-11 Commission. Why?
By Frederick Sweet

President George W. Bush is obstructing the investigation of the 9-11 terrorist attack against the United States. Ever since the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also called the 9-11 Commission, had been set up to investigate the biggest crime of the twenty-first century, Bush and his administration have kept getting in its way...

...New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer recently accused the Bush administration of intentionally impeding the probe for political reasons. The Senator called for an independent investigation of the matter, including whether witnesses have been intimidated. The Bush administration dismisses Schumer's charges.

The White House has placed conditions on access to and usage of some documents, and such disagreements have yet to be resolved. The CIA, which failed to effectively predict the Al Qaeda threat, has been slow to provide documents on management and budget issues from before the Sept. 11 attacks.

One 9-11 Commissioner complained, ''The Department of Homeland Security has been unhelpful. If we don't get these issues resolved, the public is not going to have the report it deserves.''

Attorney Genreral John Ashcroft's Justice Department has also been a source of frustration for the commission. The Commission objects to the department's insistence that an official accompany employees being interviewed by the commission. ''It's some intimidation . . . to have someone sitting behind you,'' Kean said.

Read the rest at:
www.interventionmag.com...


You see how these thugs operate? What is Crime Boss BUSH trying to hide about 9-11? Where is that impeachment????




posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Well it's simple, they have enough to hide, and they are afraid peoples will see their true faces...



posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Can any repugnant tell me of any member of the Bush Crime Family that HASN'T been involved in criminal activity, supporting genocide, whatever. JUST NAME ONE!



posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Bush Clamping Down On Presidential Papers
Incumbent Could Lock Up Predecessor's Records
www.washingtonpost.com...

By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 1, 2001; Page A33

The Bush White House has drafted an executive order that would usher in a new era of secrecy for presidential records and allow an incumbent president to withhold a former president's papers even if the former president wanted to make them public.

The five-page draft would also require members of the public seeking particular documents to show "at least a 'demonstrated, specific need' " for them before they would be considered for release.

Historians and others who have seen the proposed order called it unprecedented and said it would turn the 1978 Presidential Records Act on its head by allowing such materials to be kept secret "in perpetuity."

Under the order, incumbent and former presidents "could keep their records locked up for as long as they want," said Bruce Craig, executive director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History. "It reverses the very premise of the Presidential Records Act, which provides for a systematic release of presidential records after 12 years."

Other critics voiced concern about the impact of the order "in the post-September 11 world," with its wartime atmosphere.

"The executive branch is moving heavily into the nether world of dirty tricks, very likely including directed assassinations overseas and other violations of American norms and the U.N. charter," said Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Graham. "There is going to be so much to hide."

Bush is expected to sign the order shortly. A White House aide said the Supreme Court held in 1977 that former presidents can continue to assert various privileges for their records and the order will simply establish "a procedure by which they can protect their rights." The aide said "great deference" will be paid to their wishes.

"The majority of former presidents have released virtually all of their records," the aide added. "This executive order does nothing to change that."

The proposed order, dated Oct. 29, grew out of a decision by the Bush administration early this year to block the release of 68,000 pages of confidential communications between President Ronald Reagan and his advisers that officials at the National Archives, including the Reagan library, had wanted to make public.

Relying on an obscure executive order that Reagan issued just before leaving office, White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales prescribed a series of delays so that Bush could decide whether to invoke "a constitutionally based privilege or take other appropriate action."

The papers in question, some dealing with Reagan-era officials who now have high posts in the Bush administration, were to have been disclosed last January under the 1978 law, which said that the documents could be restricted at the most for 12 years after Reagan left office.

The new executive order would replace the 1989 Reagan decree and cover not only confidential communications between a president and his advisers but, as Graham put it, "almost anything in the White House files."

For 12-year-old documents that are not covered by "constitutionally based privileges" but are subject to requests under the Freedom of Information Act, the order states that the archivist "must withhold" them if possible.

For records that might be privileged as state secrets, confidential communications, attorney-client communications, or "deliberative process" materials, a requester must establish "specific need" for them "as a threshold matter."

A former president would then review them and tell the archivist whether they should be withheld or made public. The incumbent president or a designee would then look at them to see if he or she agrees with the ex-president's decision. Unless both agree they should be made public, the records will remain secret unless "a final court order" should require disclosure.

"Absent compelling circumstances," the incumbent president will concur in the former president's privilege decision, the draft order states. But if the incumbent president does not agree on a former president's decision to grant access, "the incumbent president may independently order the archivist to withhold privileged records."

The order would work "like a one-way ratchet," said Scott Nelson, an attorney for the Public Citizen Litigation Group. "If the former president says the records are privileged, they will remain secret even if the sitting president disagrees. If the sitting president says they should be privileged, they remain secret even if the former president disagrees."



posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Another Question

Why did Bush promise $11million in funding (which is low) to the 9-11 commission

then he only funds it $3million

When watergate got $25million, and the Columbia Disaster got $40million

OFCOURSE HE IS HIDING SOMETHING

3000 people + died........WE DEMAND ANSWERS!



posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Do to the fact he has people like this, giving him intell!




If you don't recognize this guy it's because he is CIA.



posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:01 AM
link   
And of course, the repugnants are skulking in the shadows.



posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:13 AM
link   
that's some great disinfo. Colonel. "Intervention Magazine"? riiiiiiiight.

I know Dems are all about the 'funding' - but, hey, give the commission the money, I guess I am agreeing.

Though, I'd prefer to read a story in a more reputable new outlet:

1) "Frederick Sweet is Professor of Reproductive Biology in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis." (OBGYN by day, political analyst by night?)
2) No attempt to aqcuire a comment from the White House.

crappy journalism, imho.



posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:14 AM
link   
The Bush administration has never wanted an inquiry into the intelligence and law-enforcement failures that led up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and it is doing its best to make sure we never get one. Even the tame commission of Washington insiders, led by men of the president's own party, is now complaining that its work is being hampered by foot-dragging from the Pentagon and Justice Department in producing documents and witnesses, in an effort to run the clock out on it before it can complete its work.

The commission's leaders have taken the extraordinary step of accusing the White House of witness "intimidation," insisting that sensitive witnesses testify only in the presence of a "monitor" from their agency. The parallel to Saddam Hussein's refusal to let Iraqi scientists talk to U.N. weapons inspectors without a similar monitor is too glaring to miss and begs the obvious question: What has Mr. Bush got to hide?

The crudeness of his tactics suggests that whatever it is, it must be pretty bad. The Internet is full of wild theories -- that Mr. Bush knew in advance of 9/11 and allowed it to happen so he could exploit it to get his way in domestic and international politics is the most notable -- and while cyberspace is the natural home of the improbable and the far-fetched, the administration's stonewalling only lends credence to those who believe a cover-up of something is going on.

September 11 was the most traumatic incident in recent American history. Three thousand people died in New York, billions in property was destroyed, the national economy tanked and Americans' sense of security was shattered. The men responsible for the attacks are still at large and openly threaten to attack us again. Yet the commission's budget is only $3 million, a pittance compared to the $100 million that was wasted getting to the bottom of Bill Clinton's Whitewater investment and his extramarital affairs. The hearings in the Republican-dominated Congress were a perfunctory affair that attracted even less attention from a sensation-oriented media than is being paid to this commission.

The American people deserve a thorough investigation. They want to know why the fighter jets weren't scrambled after the first plane hit the tower, what the Clinton and Bush administrations knew about threats from al-Qaida and what they were doing about them, what citizens of our allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan financed Osama bin Laden and his hijackers, how the FBI and CIA missed obvious clues and let suspects they were following slip away, why airline security was so lax, what is the meaning of a suspicious pattern of stock transactions that occurred before the attacks, whether law enforcement efforts were subordinated to diplomatic priorities and the needs and desires of American oil companies.

Americans want the answers to two basic questions: What went wrong? And what is being done to make sure it never happens again? They should be satisfied with nothing less than an honest effort to get those answers, no matter who they embarrass, and the White House should not stand in the way.



posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
that's some great disinfo. Colonel. "Intervention Magazine"? riiiiiiiight.

I know Dems are all about the 'funding' - but, hey, give the commission the money, I guess I am agreeing.

Though, I'd prefer to read a story in a more reputable new outlet:

1) "Frederick Sweet is Professor of Reproductive Biology in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis." (OBGYN by day, political analyst by night?)
2) No attempt to aqcuire a comment from the White House.

crappy journalism, imho.


The power of denial amongst the repugnants in defense of this insane boy in the White House is profound. Everyone of any credibility from intelligence experts,military men, and the like have come out agianst this Chimp in CHief and you still deny. Truth after truth after truth come out and yuo still deny. Legitimate quesoitns have been asked about this president's vedracity and you stil deny.

The republicans aren't a party. Its a CULT.



posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:36 AM
link   
colonel, I am not disagreeing! give the 'commission' the money....(provided everything in that 2 bit article is accurate and factual)

OK?



posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
colonel, I am not disagreeing! give the 'commission' the money....(provided everything in that 2 bit article is accurate and factual)

OK?


OK



posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Do to the fact he has people like this, giving him intell!




If you don't recognize this guy it's because he is CIA.


Not true! He was given intel on planes being used as weapons....it was dismissed.
He was told the Niger/Iraq info was false & verified false in Oct.........yet he purposedly used it to create the illusion that Iraq was a nuclear ready threat. Don't allow the scapegoating of George Tenent, though he is a scumbag, he did his due dillegence on that issue.



posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 11:54 AM
link   
This government and our media are run by people who are clearly insane by any stretch of the imagination and its filtering down to a large portion of the populace. It needs to be stopped. America needs help! SOS!



posted on Jul, 16 2003 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
This government and our media are run by people who are clearly insane by any stretch of the imagination and its filtering down to a large portion of the populace. It needs to be stopped. America needs help! SOS!



Good day Colonel.......
PLease keep in mind that those "funds" for the commission are being blocked also by members of the Democack party.......and that the "people" that you refer to in your above statement are not inclusive to the "Repugnants" but also embody those of Democrack affiliation(s).........

Another "skewed" view and opinion......not only regulated to those here but in the media as well.

regards
seekerof





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join