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?