Excerpt of article written by Joe Conason of the New York Observer: "Earlier this month, Thomas Kean-the former New Jersey governor who has chaired the commission since Mr. Kissinger recused himself-explained why the commission needs more time. As the genial Republican told The New York Times, he is only permitted to read the most important classified documents concerning 9/11 in a little closet known as a "sensitive compartmented information facility" (or SCIF). He cannot photocopy the documents, and if he takes notes about them, he must leave the notes in the SCIF when he leaves. Other recent statements by Mr. Kean, which he subsequently modified, suggest that the White House has ample reason to worry about what the commission's report will say. In December, he told CBS News that he believes the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented-and that incompetent officials were at fault for the failure to uncover and frustrate the plot. Following the creation and staffing of the commission, many months passed before the administration agreed to let Mr. Kean look at any of those crucial documents. The commission still has hundreds of interviews to conduct, and millions of pages to examine, before its members begin to draft their conclusions. But the President's political advisers, concerned about the political impact of the commission's report, are unsympathetic to its requests for additional time-and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who would have to approve an extension, is perfectly obedient to his masters in the White House. According to Newsweek, the administration offered Mr. Kean a choice: Either keep to the May deadline, or postpone release of the report until December, when its findings cannot affect the election. Mr. Bush doesn't want his re-election subject to any informed judgment about the disaster that reshaped the nation and his Presidency. But why should such crucial facts be withheld from the voters? What does the President fear? Perhaps inadvertently, Mr. Kean provided a clue to the answers in his Times interview. Asked whether he thinks the disaster "did not have to happen," he replied, "Yes, there is a good chance that 9/11 could have been prevented by any number of people along the way. Everybody pretty well agrees our intelligence agencies were not set up to deal with domestic terrorism . They were not ready for an internal attack." Then, asked whether "anyone in the Bush administration [had] any idea that an attack was being planned," he replied: "That is why we are looking at the internal papers. I can't talk about what's classified. [The] President's daily briefings are classified. If I told you what was in them, I would go to jail." But the commission's final report may well indicate what the President was told in his daily briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, when he was sunning himself in Crawford, Tex.-as well as the many warnings he and his associates were given by the previous administration. That kind of information could send him back to Crawford for a permanent vacation."
I don't now what Colin Powell said or what he thinks, except that he is pretty good at getting himself favorable ink by backhanded criticism of policies he endorsed at the time. Say that reminds me of another politician...John Kerry. I was not a big fan of the war at the time, but I could see a reasonable case for it. I can still see a reasonable case. The inspectors were a joke. They were being dicked around by Saddam's henchmen, and it was pretty clear they were not going to find anything. In fact, given the European financial ties to Saddam, they were no doubt under orders from their governments not to find anything. We had troops massed on the border, and they couldn't stay there forever. Hot weather was fast approaching. We either had to fish or cut bait. Under the circumstances I'm not prepared to say it was an "error" to go in. I think it is something reasonable people could, adn did, differ over, but that doesn't make Bush an incompetent or corrupt. The world, and us, are clearly better off to have Saddam gone. Obviously, the occupation was not well planned, and the cost in lives has been way too high. I mark this down largely to the administration's bending over backwards to placate the international left and the UN and not be seen as imposing a harsh occupation. I agree, and have stated, that Tenet should have been canned long ago. The CIA badly needs a nonpartisan professional spymaster, not a former Democrat Senate staffer, as Director. The Washington Times just completed a series on the urgent need to reform the CIA. The only problem is I don't see how an administration that fouled up Homeland Security and the TSA can do it. I don't think Bush has been a particularly good president, but the choice will not be between him and some latter day Ronald Reagan. It will be between him and someone from the Democrat party who will have a long record of backing disastrous policies, who is soft on security, who is a closet socialist and who favors high taxes. It really doesn't matter who they nominate, as that description fits all the candidates. So just as four years ago, Bush's strongest argument for reelection will be that he's not as bad as the other guy.
can you be fair and balanced on your policy outlook when you admit HATING the people that compose one of the two dominant political ideologies in the United States? Mav is the only one I have read here who says he hates a mainstream group within the USA Maverick is not reporting the news, he is reporting his opinions, so he certainly is not impartial. And he is one angry man. "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE" sorry Mav - that was a NYC Jew pinko newsman. NYCJewpinkonewsman. Gets me so angry I want to post a poll!
Your post makes absolutely no sense. What mainstream group do I hate? This should be really interesting. Unless you are calling Al Qaida a mainstream group. And who said I was reporting the news or opinion? Since when was I a reporter? And what set of FACTS are you using to determine that I am one angry person? If you want to see the definition of angry, look no further then Al Franken and Michael Moore. But I certainly would not say I'm angry. And what the hell are you talking about NYC Jew pinko newsman? Am I on the right thread here?
So how did you make the logical leap from discussing Bill O'Reily's apology to then talking about NYC jews? Are you having a Jesse Jackson moment?