The dialogue page is our "letters to the editor" section.
Email sent to xoxounknown @yahoo.com will be published as dialogue, provided it's at least moderately interesting and in keeping with the spirit of these common sense rules.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published.
If you don't want it published, say so plainly. |
|
When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever.
Archives
Guidelines
Handshakes & howdies
Hate mail
|
|
|
9/11 Commission's Presidential disaster by Heath Honesty, May 2, 2004
Well, I knew that Bush and Cheney were going to testify together like little cowards before the 9/11 commission. I knew that there would be no recording or transcription of the 'interrogation'. LOL. I also knew that despite Bush's allegiance to God, neither he nor Cheney would be swearing to tell the truth. What I didn't know was that the commander and vice commander would field their respective questions from comfy high-back chairs (thrones), beside the fireplace, surrounded by commission members on sofas, in none other than the Oval Office.
Me thinks the commission acceded too much to these dilettantes of law. Were there any demands the commission did not grant these two? Maybe, being that there was no oversight, Cheney had asked his energy buddies to come offer their opinion on what happened on 9/11 (without the environmentalists of course). Perhaps Bush wanted his mommy to hold his left hand while daddy Cheney held his right. Thank you 9/11 commission members for having cojones of soft-boiled juevos. Perhaps it would have been best to complete your investigation without the probing testimony of these two circus acts. I mean really, how will their shit testimony, with all this other shit floating around it, really serve the end report, but to make it a bigger joke than it already was?
After meeting with the commission, Prez W. said of the meeting, "If we had something to hide we wouldn't have met with them (9/11 commission)." To this, I would ask why he didn't want to meet with the commission in the first place? Why was every request made of the president first fought against before being acceded to, including the formation of the commission itself? Hmmmmm ...
UPDATE: The commission is not so full of chicken-shits as I had thought before. Two Democrat commission members, Bob Kerrey and vice-chairman of the commission Lee Hamilton, left separately about an hour before the casual deposition was over. Kerrey left to meet with Republican New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici. Hamilton left to introduce the Canadian Prime Minister at a luncheon. Both engagements were previously planned; what is unclear is whether Kerrey or Hamilton had previously announced these previous engagements. I'm sure its just wishful thinking to think they abruptly got up and walked out of there. But wouldn't that be sooo cool?
More on the boon of having the commission meeting in the oval office, copied and pasted right from the front page of www.drudgereport.com: Commissioners were searched by hand for weapons before they stepped into the Oval Office ...
Their notebooks were taken from them before they left the session, with the White House saying they would be returned to them after they were reviewed for classified information ... All these little nuances are meant to form a clear image. What image is Bush trying for here when he treats men and women who are his peers as if they are peons? What regard does he hold for us genuine peons? If we're lucky, he has no regard for us; unlikely though since nearly 1000 servicemen and 10s of thousands of our neighbors have been killed due to his bidding.
Heath Yes, the joint unsworn non-testimony of President and Vice President was unprecedented, and yes, there were no demands the commission did not grant these two, and yes, having this chat in the Oval Office was designed to subtly intimidate the Commission further, and yes, it's a misnomer -- a flat-out lie -- to call this unsworn chat "testimony," but it's also an exaggeration to call what the Commission is doing "an investigation."
I love ya to death, Heath, but it'll take a lot more than a few suits walking out of some bullshit co-presidential non-sworn non-testimony to earn any respect from me for this sham "Sept. 11 Commission."
The reporters are reporting what happened as if they know (although no reporters were present), and as if what happened mattered. But clearly it doesn't. Your retort was fun, and makes me want to chime in with more:
Bush Cheney et al fought the formation of a Sept. 11 Commission for many, many months.
When it became apparent that the public expected an investigation, Bush Cheney et al fought to have its mandate defined as narrowly as possible.
Bush Cheney et al handpicked some of the Commission's members, and had the power to rule out any members whom they disapproved of, for any reason.
At least three members of this Commission, including its chairman, have blatant, obvious conflicts of interest. LINK, LINK.
Bush Cheney et al have the final say-so over what evidence the Commission is allowed to see, and what evidence they're not allowed to see. Some members aren't allowed to see anything that's classified. LINK
The Commission is pointedly and repeatedly sidestepping the most serious questions about Sept. 11. LINKAnd when the Commission issues its report, it will be vetted by the White House before it's released to the public, no doubt heavily redacted.
This investigation is a crock from beginning to end.
In a sane and free society, there would be an open, honest, above-board investigation into the criminal malfeasance that led to September 11. And a separate investigation into the criminal malfeasance that led to the September 11 Commission. =H&HH=
There's much more than this at Unknown News.
|
|
|
