US administration restricts Sep11 investigations
 

The Bush administration is trying to limit how much the government's response to the Sep11 attacks is investigated.

Specifically, the administration is trying to ensure that only investigations producing secret results are being undertaken. The two committees that the administration is favouring would not be able to release their findings to the public.

Some might argue that national security is too important, thus keeping secret why intelligence failures allowed the Sep11 attacks to happen. Others would claim that those failures would be covered up forever, the incompetency of the incumbents remaining unrevealed.

What do you think?

Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...9376-2002Jan30

X.

PS: In (related?) news, the US is now considering using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, abandoning a 24-year old policy.

Just curious - did you intentionally get the month wrong and I'm missing something, or was it just a slip up?

Re: US administration restricts Nov11 investigations
 

Awake for close to 28 hours; I mistyped Sep11 as Nov11.

Possible reason: where I live, the notation of dates is 'DAY-MONTH-YEAR', it feels rather odd for me to type Nov11 or Sep11, but since it appears to be the most commonly accepted way of phrasing it...

The original article has been edited to reflect that correction.

X.

Re: US administration restricts Sep11 investigations
 

Many of these George Jr administration officials are the same people who failed to plan for the end of the Gulf War. Instead they were too busy celebrating and back slapping. The purpose of a military conflict is to return events to the political table - with conditions changed sufficiently to make those polictial discussions productive. That meant when Swartzkopf accepted the Iraqi surrender, Washington politicians had defined the conditions for settlement. Swartkopf was rather dumbfounded that he received no guidelines from George Sr, Cheney and company.

What was Yalta and other such conferences about in WWII. The politicians were preparing to take over WWII from the military. But George Jr's serious advisors under George Sr. did not even understand those basic principals of political science.

This is history that those same people, such as Wolfowitz would rather you not know.

Sen Dan Burton (R-IN) is appauled that he cannot even access documents 40 years ago and long since declassified - all in the name of White House security measures. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is now, for the first time in history, classifying documents. Scientists in virus and bateria research are being ordered not to include how they obtained their conclusions so that all others, including their peers, cannot duplicate the research. Anyone with even basic scientific knowledge knows this will stifle all future science research. But our president certainly understands how scientific research works? Or is he an MBA trained in power manipulation techniques?

George Jr spokesmen are quoted by ABC News as saying they are not apologetic for these restrictions. They say the Clinton Admininstration gave up too much power to Congress. They say they intend to restrict the powers of Congress. Is that not what another extremist leader did with his congressional body. Hitler also had to eliminate the power of the Germany's version of Congress - and did so in the interest of national security.

Why is this administration so paranoid? Is that not a feature of an administration that has insufficient understanding to be in control? Do we have Colin Powell vs a troop of mental midgets. Or is this adminstration simply too extremist to trust the American people with knowledge? Who are we at war with? When did the American public become the enemy? When they did not vote for the man currently in office?

Re: Re: US administration restricts Sep11 investigations
 

If I recall correctly, he did lose the popular vote....so about half of us didn't vote for him. :0)

Interesting fact: The current Secretary of the Army is ex-Enron...a fact that's recently been made *extremely* less promient in his official bio.

For an independent foreign observer, I think that the US is headed into a new era of paranoia, religious fervore, old-style military doctrine and down a spirale of violence, that might mean the end of the US's hegemony.

Don't get me wrong! I have NOTHING againt the US. I just think that the current administration is disasterous for that country, and that foreign oppinion of the US and its foreign policies are at an all-time-low.

The slow, continous and inevitable passage from democracies towards corporatist/fascist states is generating huge problems in all of Western Europe. The fact that the current administration is a republican one, only makes things worse.

NO, I am NOT a anti-WTO protester, nor am I a neo-fascist. I only relate what I see. I just hope I won't get flamed for this.

Don't worry, this isn't fark - logical arguements don't usually get flames =)

It certainly is causing much tension in europe, i mean sure its election time but europe does certainly seem to be getting very antsy about the "war on terror" and arrogrant trade policies won't help. There was an interesting article the other day in the guardian, about the unsustainability of the US 'economic miricle', namely its reliance on a growing trade deficit and dropping unemployment. Every nation has its centuary, i think the US's is starting to come to a close.

Reminds me of the empire in foundation.

Depends on what is being referred to as the "economic miracle." After all, the US is just coming out of a mild recession. The unemployment rate has stabilized recently, after reaching 5.8% in December. It ran as low as 3.9% in October 2000.

That being said, I don't agree with the US imposing tariffs on foreign steel. I fear that it could lead to a trade war with our allies.

Why?

Because they are conservative, have a long history of interference with the internal matters of other states, bullying and more tempted to jump to religion-based moral discourse. (blatant and gratuitous use of word like "Evil").

Just an opinion.:rolleyes:

Re: Re: Re: US administration restricts Sep11 investigations
 

He scored over $100 Million out of that deal if I recall correctly.

Wish <b>I</b> could be Secretary of the Army. :)

Sigh.

Don't you love broad generalizations? I sure do. So do all those hook-nosed, fat-bellied Jews. And those camel-riding towel-head jihad-declaring sand niggers. And those bleeding heart Democrats. They all love broad generalizations too.

Hey, Republicans also have a nice long history of holding this nation together and ending slavery.

Oh, wait, that was just Lincoln that did that.

And what you're talking about hardly applies to all Republicans.

I'm a Republican. I'm hardly conservative - fuck banning books from school libraries. I think they should be there. Fuck the DMCA. Fuck the SSSCA (proposed by a <b>Democrat</b>, by the way). Fuck you, I want my freedoms, and like Charlton Heston, you can have 'em when you pry 'em from my cold dead hands.

More tempted to jump to religion-based moral discourse? Fuck God. Wanna know why I can say that? Because he doesn't exist to me.

My shirt's untucked, I'm not afraid to say that I like fucking and I think that Microsoft and the RIAA and the MPAA can go fuck themselves.

Yes, those totally conservative Republicans... they're almost as bad as those ignorant dirty Romanians.

Now, since we've gotten all of our broad generalizations out of the way, can we argue about the <b>man</b> and his <b>policies</b> instead of grasping at straws and attacking his political party?

There, there dhamsaic! That wasn't my point.
I really don't care about your internal politics. You don't care about Romania's either.

The idea was that Romania's economic and social welfare is visibly linked with the decision of the US.

Romania is trying to join the EU and NATO and integrate in other western-world organisations. Traditionally, the republican party in power meant bad news for us.

I personally, find myself disgusted by such ideas as "faith-bases initiative" and the new nuclear weapons protocol.

Also, unwillingly, the US has become a "trend-setter" for much of the rest of the world, especially for the 3rd world (Romania might fit here).

So, as a Romanian intelectual (I'm NOT a nationalist, but for now, I do live here), I am very resentful of the way people here imitate and try to suck up to western leaders, especially the US.

And if they must suck up, at least they should do it to someone that deserves it. I don't consider the American Republican Party or the president to be such a good model.

Think Kyoto (it will hurt the economy, but we are the no.1 economy in the world), faith-bases initiatives (say bye-bye to state-church separation), NMD (national missile defence ... this may be good, as US/NATO might want to place missiles in Romania), antagonizing everybody (EU, China, Russia, arabs, *) AND etatism (steel protectionism, ironically, from the champion of free trade, the US).

I know. And I get your point. But you seem to have missed mine. I'll state it clearly:

Broad generalizations will weaken your argument. They will make it look like you cannot argue based upon the merit of your facts and therefore have to resort to stereotypes.

I have said this before, a long time ago. I will say it again.

In 2016, I will run for President of the United States of America. My goal? An impossible one: secure the spot of Republican Nominee while running on a platform that supports, among other things, the legalization of drugs and prostitution. Yes, I am a <b>Republican</b> that thinks <b>drugs and prostitution</b> should be <b>legal</b>.

My <b>point</b> is that you cannot simply judge someone by their political party. You cannot label a Republican President "bad" because they're a Republican, just the same as you cannot label a Democrat "bad" because they're a Democrat. Let's argue our points by relevant facts and try to keep the broad generalizations out of it, eh?

Really?

How odd that you feel this way, when we consider that the policies of a Republican president accelerated the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, and enabled your country to give Nicolae Ceausescu the old heave-ho back in '89. You probably don't remember the Communist party, intellectual that you are, but I'll bet your parents do.

Well... good thing you don't live here, isn't it?

The collapse of the Eastern block is not relevant in this matter.
I was talking about the post-communist era, the one in wich we are now. And now, republicans mean bad news to us, in my humble opinion.

I DO remember communism. Totalitarian regimes have a "je ne sais qui" wich you won't soon forget :)

Also... When I say "republican" I mean "republican administrations", NOT "republican party members".
Anyway, if you are pro-drugs and pro-prostitution (go Amsterdam!), how can you call yourself a Republican. What's the point? What's a republican, if he doesn't stick to party policy?

That's my point - there really isn't a "party policy". When I registered as a Republican, I didn't sign something that said "I will do this and that but not these things." You are a Republican if you call yourself one.

George W Bush's presidency is too young to judge it. So is Clinton's. Let's wait 10 years after he's out of office before we start deciding if it worked or not.

I see. When you said "traditionally", I thought you meant in the "traditional" sense of the word. My mistake.

Of course, the "post-Communist" era in Romania didn't start until the PDSR and their buddies got wiped out in the 1996 elections...

... so, ummm, which "traditionally bad for us" Republican administrations were you referring to?

..............................Faith based inatives may be limited to the US but nukes are a global issue. I love it when the US tries to push its brand of globalisation down everyone's thraot then tells the to get stuffed when the us takes its toys and goes home because it doesn't like waht people are saying (i'm not pointing ot hubris boy as 'america' just a general thing) Nuclear testing ,weapons manufacture and the spread of weapons of mass destruction are not something the US can honestly tell the rest of the world it doesn't effect them.



.........I thought there was kinda an element of allignment of views...i mean if i cann myself a communist then join opus die(far right).....i'm not really communist. Same applies really, you're very libertarian, pretty right wing, doesn't make you republician.

btw everyone www.politicalcompass.org try i'm curious to see what people get. It evaluates how authortarian/libertarian you are as wel las left/right wing. I got very libertarian, slightly left, i've forgotten the numbers.

The parties have their "party line"--what they stand for. You can consider yourself a member of that party, although you don't subscribe to all those beliefs. By the same token, you can subscribe to most of those beliefs while not a member of that party.

I am registered as a Democrat, primarily b/c I generally vote for their candidates and support their views (and b/c I like to vote in primaries). However, I don't call myself a Democrat...I generally call myself a liberal. I tend to lean harder left on social issues than most Democrats.

Hmmm...I lean left-center, more towards libertarian (-3.75 and -5.38). *shrugs*

Mine comes up:

Economic Left/Right: 2.75
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -5.74

A centrist libertarian, pretty much right on. But I saw a lot of weirdities in the test.

For example, they ask you whether science will find a cure for homosexuality. I said "Agree"; I believe we'll eventually understand the brain so well as to be able to really do some weird things with it. But I wouldn't call it a "cure" under any circumstances, even if both the patient and the physician call it such. So was the question evaluated on whether you believe homosexuality has a biological basis... or because you want it "cured"?

The people of PDSR, which left in 1996, returned in 2000.
Pretty decent administration and all. We could do better, but instead of brain-washing my compatriates, I spend my time here ;-)

yea the homosexuality question is ambigious. I took it as "we can cure it - its a disease" i think that is who it is meant to be interpreted. Not "will science be able to do it".

I had to skip a few questions and maybe should have skipped more. An underlying assumption of the whole test was the primacy of the state. It was interesting that they dumped a bunch of loaded slogans in there, like "my country right or wrong" or "think globally act locally." Although the latter one is generally a copyrighted slogan of the left (somewhat ironic in the states where the left generally supports highly centralized government) a rightist could easily adhere to it as well. I guess my question is how much weight are they giving to what is basically a feeling about a particular style of rhetoric? It felt like they were trying to keep people in their normal political herd, in this case Labor or Socialist rather than Tory, by making the choice class or nation. I wonder if they'd have a better test (maybe not for their purposes) if they asked a lot of these questions in terms of legislation? Of course my brother had a similiar reaction to the copy of the worlds smallest political quiz, which I dropped on him in the middle of a drunk, with all roads leading to libertarianism. Interestingly, it did end up leading a social worker, at the party, out of the clutches of the Democratic Party.

Okay enough qualifiers, Economic Left / Right 4.00 and Authoritarian / Libertarian -4.77 Pretty much a paleo-libertarian score although, I don't know how legitimite the test is with such fuzzy questions.Looks like I'm not an off the chart nutter, but it sure is quiet over here.

Oh yah, I was gonna comment on Gabs view of the Republican Party. Its unfortunate that the Republicans learned from the Democrats the value of overseas adventurism in the polling booth. That said, the GOP is a lot more than the bunch of religious nuts portrayed in our overwhelmingly Democratic press. At its core, you'll find small business people who want the party to defend economic liberty, and support law and order. If they were to get a little more idealistic about reducing government, supporting individual rights, and becoming less militaristic, I could get on board, but they won't so I can't.

One net.wag took "Think Globally, Act Locally" one more step to "Think Universally, Act Selfishly". Changes the meaning a bit...

--MTR, radical libertarian loon.

Any comments on the book choices for each quadrant? They essentially equate Thatcher and Lenin while calling Galbraith a left libertarian, language is a funny thing.

Yea the book choices are...interesting. The site, or the questions are far form perfect, but they are interesting, and i think the best political indicator i've come across.

waitaminnit
 

Where are we getting these numbers everyone's bandying about?

I want numbers too. And I want to know what they mean so I know who to put on my terminate
list come the revolution. ;)

I call myself Republican even though I do not always agree with the powers that be.
I support the legalisation of prostitution, but not drugs (old argument).
I tend to shy away from religion but believe in a Greater Being anyway.:eek:

I am too relevant!

Brian

I wonder if George Lucas ever took one of these quizzes? If you need a weatherman to show which way the wind blows, he might be the guy.

'Lucas explained, “All democracies turn into dictatorships – but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it’s Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolph Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea… what kinds of things push people and institutions into this direction.” '

http://www.cinescape.com/0/Editorial...es&action=page

hmm that only applies to elective democracies, not participatory.

I'd say his vision is clouded by being too close a certain one time constitutional republic which appears to be headed in that direction. Between Whig/Republican merchantilism and Democratic socialism it was only a matter of time before we built a death star. We're just too big and too centralized for democracy....

This was posted in Feb 2002:
And it still goes on. In the Washington Post of 12 Apr 2006: Xugumad was that accurate back then.

Why would an administration need secrets everywhere - just like Richard Nixon? When crimes must be hidden. When the president is a crook. So when did this administation start hiding everything? Documented here is 'fear of honesty' in 2002.

Remember why so many good Americans such as the Jersey Girls became so mad at George Jr: That same article so many years ago can now include this quote from the 2002 memo: The truth! You can't be trusted with the truth! Does that Jack Nicholson character remind you of George Jr? It should. He has been lying that often to promote an extremist political agenda and his religious extremist supporters.

"Liars are US" somehow confuses the United States with 'us right wing anti-American extremists'. Same principles - fear of honesty - that created and justified Vietnam. Same reason why good Americans had to leak the Pentagon Papers. Same reason why Nixon claimed before the Supreme Court that his power was based in a supreme English monarch and therefore Nixon was above the law. Outright subversion of honesty (and illegal wiretapping to protect that president) is a greatest threat to the Constitution of the United States ... because we cannot be trusted with the truth.

We could not be trusted to know that facts were being withdrawn. We could not even be trusted to know who was doing it. Why must names even be hidden? George Jr is an extremist - who would even take revenge on Amb Wilson and out a CIA agent (treason) in order to promote his agenda. Therefore he fears honesty. No wonder he so supported religious extremists in Dover PA when they even lied in court - as documented in the judge's opinion. Extremists fear honesty - hide the facts. Demonstrates why Urbane Guerilla routinely rewrites history to promote his Rush Limbaugh agenda.