Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Host
Why do you think that the 9/11 commission "left out" the tesitmony of a "key" official....Norman Mineta...?
|
I imagine that they either correctly decided that the testimony by Mineta was not worth including in the report or they made an error and left out relevant information from the report. Hard to say, really. Do you have reason to believe that Minetas comments were important and should have been included?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Host
Why did the commission accept the demands of the POTUS and the VP to limit it's questioning of both of them to a joint, private appearance, before only a select few members of the entire commission, that was not conducted while they were sworn to tell the truth.
|
An error on the commission's part, clearly. There is no good reason, from my perspective, why the President should have received this special treatment. I share your disapproval of this presidential exemption from any meaningful testimony, but remain unconvinced that it is a sign of a vast 9/11 conspiracy involving the President and members of the 9/11 commission, as you seem to be implying.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Host
Why did the commission not examine, in depth, and report on President Bush's two ridiculous statements about "watching the first plane, on TV", crashing into WTC1, <b>before</b> Bush went into an elementary school classroom, to sit for at least 22 minutes, including seven minutes <b>after</b> Andrew Card whispered to him. "on camera" that a second airliner had crashed into WTC2, at a bout 9:15 am. ? Both of Bush's statements about what he was doing and thinking, were lifted from and linked to whitehouse gov web pages.
|
Another clear instance of the President failing to act as a responsible commander-in-chief. There is no justification for his slow reaction to the news. That said, what would have been the purpose of including this in the report? "This commission has decided that the President's reaction time was at least six minutes and thirty seconds slower than it should have been. Had he reacted faster, the terrorist attacks would not have been affected in any way. But damn, seven minutes is a long time." Sure, they could have noted the President's improper hesitation, but I fail to see how this is relevant to an investigation of the attacks themselves.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Host
Cheney's statement, to Tim Russert, on Sept. 16, 2001, that <b>"The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was..."</b>, lifted and linked from the whitehouse gov site, as well, makes a convincing case that Bush knew before he left his motorcade, to go into the Sarasota elementary school, that a large plane had crashed into WTC1, since it happened at 8:48 am, and that there were FAA reports received from Boston TRACON, as early as 8:20 am, that a possible airliner hijacking was being investigated.
|
The President was informed that there had been a severe plane crash. His chosen response was to continue with his day as planned. What do you think would have been a more appropriate reaction? Should he have immediately dropped everything to hold a press conference about an isolated plane crash? My sources say no.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Host
Was there ever a time when you were curious about any of these things, these "gaps" in the commission's investigating, and in it's report, politicophile.....or are you incurious about Bush's peculiar statements, and his behavior at the school, during the attacks and shortly afterward?
|
As I said above, there were mistakes made both by the commission and by the President himself. This is extremely evident to anyone who has studied the facts. What I do not see from this mistakes, however, is a pattern that leads me to believe there was a coverup undertaken that the commission was careful not to disturb.
I see errors, ommissions, and inappropriate conduct. I do not see conspiracy, Presidential criminality, or willful deception. How about you?