Lawmakers say Bush is blocking Sept. 11 investigation
by Helen Dewar, Washington PostOct 12, 2002
Angry lawmakers accused the White House yesterday of secretly trying to derail creation of an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks while professing to support the idea. The White House responded by renewing its pledge of support for the proposal and suggesting an agreement was near.
Angry lawmakers accused the White House yesterday of secretly trying to derail creation of an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks while professing to support the idea.
The White House responded by renewing its pledge of support for the proposal and suggesting an agreement was near.
A day after collapse of an announced deal to create the commission, there was little agreement on anything, including causes of the disagreement. The White House said the remaining disputes involve how many votes from commission members would be required to issue subpoenas and who would appoint the chairman. Lawmakers said the issue is whether the White House really wants a commission.
The proposal would create a 10-member commission of private citizens to consider concerns about the nation's readiness to deal with terrorism, including aviation, border security and immigration as well as intelligence capabilities currently under investigation by the House and Senate intelligence committees. Its membership would be equally divided between appointees of Republican and Democratic officials.
Negotiators plan to meet again next week, but it was not clear whether the dispute would be resolved in time for final action this year.
Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and House Democratic Whip Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) held a news conference to blame what Pelosi called the "invisible hand" of the White House for torpedoing an all-but- final accord on the issue.
"The White House is professing openly to support an independent commission [while] privately they're moving to thwart the commission," Pelosi said.
McCain said senior members of the House and Senate intelligence committees had a written agreement approving the proposal for inclusion in the intelligence authorization bill for this year. But the House Republican leadership weighed in against it and the deal collapsed, he said. It is no secret that "the White House works through the House Republican leadership," McCain said.
"Do you really want to allow this commission to be created?'' Lieberman asked the White House. "And if you don't, why not?"
They were joined by Stephen Push, spokesman for a group representing about 1,300 survivors of Sept. 11 attack victims. He said he believes the White House does not want a commission because it fears what it might find.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer denied that President Bush is trying to sabotage the proposal. "We are very close to getting an agreement on the 9/ 11 commission, and the president thinks it can and should be done," Fleischer said. He cited two points of disagreement — subpoenas and the chairmanship — but said Bush "would be very disappointed if the Congress allowed these issues to keep the agreement from happening."
While lawmakers proposed to allow subpoenas to be issued by five commission members, Bush wants a larger number to ensure bipartisan backing, Fleischer said. "One-party subpoenas are a formula for paralysis," he said.
Also, Fleischer said, with nine of the 10 commission members to be appointed by congressional leaders, Bush wants to appoint the chairman. The lawmakers had proposed presidential appointment of a co-chairman.
McCain described the administration's objections as involving "minutia."
In another complication, Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, denied he had signed off on the agreement.
He said more details need to be worked out, including issues involving committee jurisdiction and whether the commission should investigate Congress as well as executive branch agencies. "I want to see an independent commission," Goss said.
Even if the details can't be worked out this year, McCain and Lieberman vowed to continue pushing for the commission next year. "It's going to happen," McCain said.
Of course not. Nobody will know the answers until there's an open and honest investigation.
But anyone courageous enough to think can see that the pertinent questions for any serious "investigation" were never asked, let alone answered, by the official investigators.
We believe in liberty and justice for all, so of course, we oppose many US government policies. This doesn't mean we're anti-American, redneck scum, pinko commies, militia members, or terrorist-sympathizers. It means we believe in freedom, as more than merely a cliché.
We believe you have the right to live your own life as you choose, and others have the equal right to live their lives as they choose. It's not complicated.
We believe freedom leads to peace, progress, and prosperity, while its opposite -- oppression -- leads to war, terrorism, poverty, and misery.
We believe it's preposterously stupid to hate people because of their appearance, their race or nationality, their religion or lack of religion, how they have sex with other consenting adults, etc. There are far more apropos reasons to hate most people.
We believe in questioning ourselves, our assumptions, each other -- and we especially believe in questioning authority (the more authority, the more questions). We believe obedience is a fine quality in dogs and young children, but not in adults.
Like America's right-wingers, we believe in
individual responsibility,
hard work to get ahead,
and stern punishment for serious crimes.
We believe big government should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most right-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like America's left-wingers, we believe in
equal treatment under law,
war as a last (not first) resort,
and sensible stewardship of natural resources.
We believe big business should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most left-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like libertarians, we believe it's wrong and reprehensible to arrest people for what they think, believe, look like, wear, eat, smoke, drink, inhale, inject, or otherwise do to themselves.
But unlike many libertarians, we're not obsessed with the gold standard, we don't believe incorporation is humanity's highest achievement, and we don't believe everything in life comes down to dollars and cents. We've read and enjoyed Ayn Rand's novels, but we understand that they're works of fiction.
We're skeptical, and we're sick of so-called 'journalists' who aren't skeptical at all.
A reader asks, what are our solutions? We propose no solutions except common sense, which is never common. We like the principles of democracy, and the ideals broadly described as 'American'. The US Constitution is a fine and workable framework for solutions, when it's actually read and thoughtfully understood by intelligent statesmen and women. So, no manifestos from us. We don't dream that big, and if there's one thing the world doesn't need it's yet another manifesto.
Our suggestion is: think. A fact-based instead of faith-based approach leads to solutions for most of the recurring issues of our time, from abortion to global climate change, pollution to universal health care, careful but real regulation of industry and economy, hunger, war, terror, human rights for humans not for corporations, science not religious doctrine in public schools, equal protection and prosecution under law, etc. Approach problems without glorifying stupidity, without demonizing intelligence, and answers usually come into focus.
These pages are published by Harry and Helen Highwater, happily married low-income nom de plumes and rabble-rousers from Madison, Wisconsin (with a few friends scattered around the world helping out).
We try to spotlight news that hasn't gotten enough (or appropriate) attention in American media, along with our opinions and yours.
We bang our keyboards against the wall, because it doesn't hurt as much as banging our heads.
