How not to get to the bottom of something !

[MattHatter]

I'll let you draw your own conclusions for motives in this case.

Also note this is NOT the new commission bush has set up, but the one that is investigating 9/11.

This is sourced from the front page of the NYTimes Wed, Jan 28, 2004.

"9/11 Comission Says it Needs More Time To Complete Report" by Philip Shenon.

"The independant commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks announced Wednesday that it was seeking an extension of it's deadline to complete the investigation until at least July"

"The White House and Republican congressional leaders have said they see no need to extend the congressionally set deadline of May 27, and a spokesman for speaker J. Dennis Hastert said tuesday that Mr. Hastert would oppose any legislation to grant the extension."

"But commission officials cite there was no way to finish thier work on time, a situation they attribute in part to delays by the bush administration in turning over documents and other evidence."

"The administration initially opposed creation of the 10-member independant comission formally knownas the National Comission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States."

"White House confirmed news reports last year that an Oval Office intelligence summary presented to mr bush shortly before the attacks suggested that terrorists might be planning an attack using passenger planes."

" "It smacks of Politics"... Republican congressional aide... speaking on condition of anonimity. "The democrats will spin and spin." "



It would seem to me that allowing a request for more time to do a good job investigating the worst terorist attack on US soil ever would be a no brainer, politics or no, it's just too important to not get it right.

For some, expediancy seems more crucial than getting the truth.



Matt

[bigpooch]

Doesn't something reek?

You should hope it's just politics!

[Wake up CALL]

Perhaps you should have posted a more current quote from the NY Times by Philip Shenon:

The president is pleased to support the commission's request, and we urge Congress to act quickly to extend the timetable," said Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary.

dated Febuary 5th 2004

Of course I suppose it is natural since you have an agenda.

[MattHatter]

And a few paragraphs down in the same article we find that:

Bush, in Reversal, Supports More Time for 9/11 Inquiry - Philip Shenon (Feb 5, 2004)

"Despite the White House request that Congress extend the commission's deadline, Republican leaders there suggested Wednesday that they might not agree. In a radio interview with Michael Smerconish, a conservative talk show host on WPHT in Philadelphia, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said he was adamantly opposed to an extension.

" "I want to have everything out in front now and let them finish this thing," Mr. Hastert said. "They've had a year to do their investigation. They've probably found everything they have to find." "


So it remains to be seen if there will indeed be an extension despite what the president says.

It would be convenient if mr bush could wash his hands of responsibility for cutting the inquiry short. I cannot say if this is the case, but it would be a great political move.

It just doesn't do much good for the security of the nation.

Nor does it adress the bigger question:
Why would they oppose it in the first place?

The things the president says are coming under more and more scrutiny these days.



Of course I suppose it is natural since you have an agenda. - wake up call

My agenda is only to inspire thought and debate, nothing more sinister than that.


Matt

[MattHatter]

Just like to mention I did not intentionally leave out the Feb 5 article, I hadn't read it.

I live in canada and buy a lot of newspapers, at least 1 'fat' one (sometimes more on a slow day /images/graemlins/wink.gif) and the local.. I try to mix it up.

I had always hesitated to read the NYTimes online cause you have to register, but I must thatnk you for providing me the impetus to finally register online. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Matt

[ThaSaltCracka]

hmmmm.... Matt I don't really know what your agenda is here but.... I agree with you. I want to get to the bottom of this whole 9/11 information debacle. I want some heads to roll. BTW, Matt can you possibly provide a link for that article.

ps I see you choose not to be part of the continuing war with syria? too bad /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MattHatter]

I had it.. but I closed the window.

I don't think the link would work anyway cause you have to register.

NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com)

But when you do register the best way to find both these articles is the search function. You can search for the authors articles (byline) within a specific date range. /images/graemlins/wink.gif


Matt

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Just like to mention I did not intentionally leave out the Feb 5 article, I hadn't read it.

I live in canada and buy a lot of newspapers, at least 1 'fat' one (sometimes more on a slow day /images/graemlins/wink.gif) and the local.. I try to mix it up.

I had always hesitated to read the NYTimes online cause you have to register, but I must thatnk you for providing me the impetus to finally register online. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

Now your post makes more sense. I never considered someone would actually pay for the Times when it only takes 30 seconds or so to register then read it online for free! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I do agree a complete investigation is proper, the problem is that the Criminaliberals only want an aura of impropriety to continue far enough into the election cycle to help retake power with little or no concern for the actual truth.

[Taxman]

WUC seems to take it personally whenever anyone disapproves of a conservative. I know he is strong in his views and I don't mean to offend, but I've found you must take what he says with a grain of salt. Thought and debate are two of the best "agendas" to strive for IMHO.

[Wake up CALL]

Taxman what you should have found if you were objective is that you know nothing about economics yet tried to discuss the subject as if you were an expert. As far as politics it is all personal opinion. It just so happens that my opinion has greater value than yours. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

funny...... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Taxman]

And what you should have found if you ever read my posts fully was that I was making conjectures and challenging you to back up your own opinion, which you never did to my satisfaction. I fully admited lacking a complete understanding of the economic subtleties, but you did not present anything better. You of course never admitted gaps of knowledge, so I must assume that you are unaware that you possess them (or perhaps you simply are on a different level than me?). Trust me, nobody's opinion is more important than mine (execpt my girlfriend's /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

[ThaSaltCracka]

aha now we know who wears the pants in the relationship /images/graemlins/grin.gif, who wears the panties? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[MattHatter]

"I do agree a complete investigation is proper, the problem is that the Criminaliberals only want an aura of impropriety to continue far enough into the election cycle to help retake power with little or no concern for the actual truth." -Wake up CALL


I think it's important to note that the only reason mr hastert provides for why he would want to stand in the way of an extension is that they "probably" had enough time to do thier job. You can judge for yourself, but there doesn't seem to be too much "concern for the actual truth" there.

Again politics or no, the extension seems like a no brainer.

Perhaps both the parties are interested in spinning for political leverage? I think we can assume thats true.

But the question remains why stand in the way of the extension in the first place?


Matt

PS: Calling liberals names won't get to the bottom of it.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
PS: Calling liberals names won't get to the bottom of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matt you have joined the forum since I was asked to coin a term for a specific group of liberals so as not to refer to respectable liberals such as AndyFox, John Cole and others whom I respect. So you see it is for a matter of differentiation not just to be calling names. I find it very specific, useful and accurate. I am sure all the non-criminaliberals appreciate your concern.

Wake

[MattHatter]

Oh. Ok.

lol. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif


Matt