irateplatypus

Have you read about this?

Apparently (early reports) Bob Kerry left early to meet with a fellow senator.

Lee Hamilton appears to have left early to meet with the Canadian Prime Minister.

What does this say, if anything, about the 9-11 commission?
What does this say about these two person's respect for the office of the Presidency?


There is probably more to this story than we know at this point, but it's hard to imagine many scenarios where they would have a genuinely valid reason to cut a meeting short w/the President.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

shakran

IF it's true (and I don't consider anything on the drudge report to be true until confirmed by a RELIABLE source), then respect of the president has nothing to do with it.

If it's true, then the dems were fucking stupid. You don't leave Bush alone in a room with a bunch of his cronies to "testify" if there are no witnesses. Now they can lie about anything they want. Since the dems so conveniently left them alone for choir practice, they'll all sing the same tune.

irateplatypus

this leads me to believe you wouldn't recognize disrespect for the presidency if you saw it.

do you know who else is on the commission? i can guarantee you that there are a couple who would never be characterized as Bush's cronies... it's hard enough to characterize them impartial.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

MSD

If anythign, it's just rude, and I wouldn't cirticize the President for coming out and asking them to apologize for slacking off in their duties.

HarmlessRabbit

If you're going to lift unconfirmed reports straight from Drudge, you could at least credit him.

http://www.drudgereport.com

Aletheia

Speaking in general, it is very rude and disrespectful to leave a meeting early unless you have a pretty damn good reason to.

shakran

I recognize it. Yeah, it's disrespectful. But hey, this guy hasn't exactly earned respect. In fact, he's done his best to destroy any respect people have for him.

Sorry but insisting that your testimony be secret, with no recordings, and no witnesses, indicates that something smelly is afoot. If they had nothing to hide, why take such extraordinary measures to hide it. I can see why the dems would do it (let's make a point and walk out of this pointless testimony) but I still think it was a mistake. IF they did it.

Superbelt

Perhaps the walkout was in protest to Bush's parameters for meeting with the 9/11 commission. Things are tightly sealed, not allowed to be recorded or be made official, is done in tandem with Cheney and there is a requirement that the 9/11 commission can NEVER call Bush back for testimony.
Not to mention how long it took the 9/11 commission to get even THAT out of him.

The "testimony" was already worthless and the way Bush is doing is was wasting THEIR time, so they go and do something else.
They respect the office of the Presidency, but when the man who holds that office shows no respect to the commission, why should they cow-tow to him and help him make himself look good by "testifying"?

irateplatypus

fair nuff, except you don't know where i heard it from. in fact, i heard this on my drive home today on my local AM station. I realize i asked you all if you had "read about" this rather than "heard about", but i usually get my information from text... so that is just how i phrase things. perhaps that is where that perception comes from.

the radio station probably took it from drudge but didn't cite him while i was listening.

feel free to lodge a complaint with 740 KRMG out of Tulsa.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

irateplatypus

if it happened as it is being reported so far, the supposed walkout says two things to me...

1. the two commission members have little respect for the President and deliberately left the meeting as a political move. as men in the public eye, they would have to know that snubbing the president like that would have implications.

2. the president's testimony wasn't yielding bombshells, and since they couldn't be seen on tv grilling the leader of the free world... they figured there was no point in sticking around.

my own 2 cents: this, to me, is the reason why bush/cheney wanted to have a closed hearing. many of those commission members would love to ask outrageously confrontational and damning questions. you'd hear no end to the "so... when did you stop beating your wife?" sort of inquiries. by eliminating their platform for grandstanding... you're forcing them to ask only questions pertinent to their investigation.

so, since they couldn't get their sound bites or talking points out of it... the purpose for asking to hear from the president became mute to a large extent. if you can't tell, my faith in the commission's sincerity in preventing future attacks isn't that strong. to me, it's being used by both sides to press blame on the other... no matter the cost to truth (or future lives).

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

smooth

You sure seem to have a low opinion of Congress members, while simultaneously holding a very high opinion of the president.

I wonder why you have more respect of one office over the other. I also think I should remind you that these members have to win their seat by a majority of voters--whereas the president doesn't.

They are closer to their constituents, whereas the president is not as accessable or vulnerable to the people he purports to represent.

Basically, I think you are being extremely disrespectful toward these elected officials. In regards to our personal beliefs, we may not hold both offices to the same esteem. But in terms of the way our government is designed, they are at least on equal footing--the president is not above members of Congress.

In situations like this, the president is actually answerable to them. We would be very surprised, I suspect, if people started chastising investigators or judges who leave when they think a witness is wasting their time.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

irateplatypus

there seem to be a lot of misconceptions here smooth...

the commission isn't composed of serving congressmen. in fact, only four of the ten on the commission ever served in congress (hamilton, kerry, roemer and gorton i believe).

i do not have a low opinion of the offices of representatives or senators, but my reverence for that is far outstripped by the office of the Presidency. i'll tell you why i have a higher respect for the President, because he is the only person elected on a national level (not to mention all the power he weilds as the country's chief executive and diplomat). i would argue that the President is most vulnerable (although not most accesible) to those he represents because every action of his is scrutinized and publicized to a degree that isn't applied to congressmen on a daily basis (nor should it be). also, as we all know... the president is elected by votes from the electoral college. many state elections are held on the same principles (i.e. not necessarily won by larger portion of the popular vote)

newsflash: none of the commission members are elected officials however distinguished they all may be... let's be upfront with that. most are lawyers and university administrators whose credentials qualified them to be appointed to this position.

here is a good look at the commission's roster:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bios.htm

you're crazy if you think the president isn't above members of congress, there just isn't an argument to be made there. he may not be above congress as a whole (every single representative and senator combined), but he is certainly WAY above any single individual or segmented group. our government is designed so that the branches are in equal footing. the president, by and large, IS the executive branch... a congressman is way less than 1% of the legislature.

in situations like this, the President IS NOT answerable to a commission unless the commission gets a subpoena for information the executive branch holds. the President chose to meet with the commission out of cooperation, not because he was legally compelled to do so (as in your analogy of judges).

a lot of this is in a civics 101 textbook.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

onetime2

Not knowing all the details here, I will err on the side of the Commissioners who left. I'm sure they weighed the consequences. Sometimes other things take precedence. It's not like they can't see the notes of other commissioners and it's entirely possible that they had already asked their questions. If it was in "protest" then they should be reprimanded. Despite the way it's been handled by many involved this investigation shouldn't be about individuals and party politics.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Sparhawk

I've sat in and watched more than a couple Senate and Congressional hearings, and the committee members are getting up and walking around, going to their own appointments All. The. Time. Usually they let the folks know ahead of time that they have to be somewhere else, at other times they get called out. Without hearing a statement from them or from the chairman of the commission about any reason for a "walkout," I'm going to assume it wasn't politically motivated.

Also, can we please stop spelling Bob Kerrey's last name wrong?

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

onetime2

Ha ha. That's bugged me a bunch of late too. Pretty funny.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

pan6467

ALL elected officials including the President are answerable and should be held accountable to the people. Commissions are a balance for the people to make sure of that. Just as ANY ONE congress man/woman has the right to challenge the President's or Veep's actions.

By saying the President is above a member of Congress is a double edged sword and only half true. Yes, he has more power than that one member, but he has more and should be held to higher standards of responsibility and accountability to the people.

I just find it sad that the same Republicans who wanted Clinton to fry so badly are the same ones so righteous and coming up with all these reasons Bush doesn't need to be held accountable or even questioned in any way.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

irateplatypus

Agreed, but I question the motivation many congressmen harbor when doing do. There is so much to gain from getting your face on TV and raising a conspiracy theory that may or may not have factual basis. Basically, I am distrustful by default of anyone who accuses another of something when the accuser has much to gain by the other's guilt.

Let's keep in mind though that none of the people on the commission are elected officials.

I have no idea how saying that the President is more powerful than a congressman is a double-edged sword... I'm not even sure how that could be made gramatically congruent.

It's not half true, it is completely true. If you'll not cede me that point... we really don't have any common ground in which to discuss this.
fair nuff

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

smooth

I find it strange that you're citing a civics book as your ground but you seem to be missing some basic concepts.

First of all, you are going back and forth between two issues. I'm not confused about the nature of the commission, I was responding to your disdain for members of congress, which you just demonstrated again.

Secondly, the president isn't answerable to the people. They vote, the electoral college decides where their votes will go. Your personal vote does not elect the president. If you have a problem understanding how that makes him less answerable to the public than a member of congress, whose position does depend on each of his or her constituent's vote, re-read your "Civics 101" book.

Lastly, the president isn't the entire executive branch, and he doesn't wield absolute power, in any case. That would be under the section most likely called "Checks and Balances" in the intro textbook you may or may not have read.

I should also add that when something comes out of Congress, given that all members are directly elected officials and given that they have to come to a majority before acting, it actually has more "democratic" weight than when a single person makes a declaration.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

pan6467

Irate,

Did you read the whole paragraph?

My point is, on one edge yes he does weild more power, but on the other edge of that sword, is the fact that being the most visible member of government, he is most representative of us, therefore he should be held more accountable and responsible for his public actions and how he does his job and is accountable and must make responsible actions for every citizen of the US.

A member of Congress is only representative of his district or state and therefore only accountable to them.

That is what I meant.

Smooth, a person's vote does count. Yes, the electoral college votes for President, but they are elected by the majority of the people in their state, and I do not know of any election where the electoral college reps. from a state did not vote for the person the state populace's majority they repped voted for, so it is still the common man voter who puts the president into office. And how that means the President is not answerable to the people, in your opinion, I would like to know.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

smooth

If every one of us voted against the president next election the electoral college could still elect him president. While it hasn't happened yet, that's exactly how our presidential electoral system was set up to ensure the masses wouldn't hold direct power over the national election. You can not remove nor install a president by your vote. You can express your will to the electoral college--but they are entitled to go against that will if they want.

The shift occurs in that the masses can directly elect members of Congress. But then all those members--directly responsible to voters--have to hammer out differences and reach consensus before acting. So even the direct will of the people is tempered by discussion among "learned" men (and now women).

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

assilem

Then why did they not walk out to protest Clinton? He did the same closed door, unrecorded thing with Sandy Berger and Bruce Lindsey. I heard that Kerrey and Hamilton had prior engagements and that the president knew about them. That is why Bush did not ask for an apology. There was nothing to apologize for.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...612309,00.html

__________________
The mother of mankind, what time his pride
Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel Angels

elfstar

I admittedly didn't read through all the previous posts in detail, but it seems that 24 hours later the only source we have is Drudge. I think it's safe to say this is a non-story.

Especially since we have assilem's unconfirmed report to counters Drudge's.

pan6467

While theoritically possible Smooth, I don't ever see that happening.

What happens with the electoral college is that when a state is won the delegates preselected for that nominee go and vote for the man the state and they committed to. Kerry will have a slate of like 21 in Ohio ready and Bush will have his. But in going with your theory, if a state elected one person and their electoral college voted for someone else there would be such an outcry and civil cry that it would definately create severe problems.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

assilem

Agreed. It was a report I heard on the radio.

__________________
The mother of mankind, what time his pride
Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel Angels

smooth

I don't know if it would happen or not, either. But our opinions on the matter aside, none of that makes the president directly accountable to the people. There may be a hue and cry, but no one could legally or morally do anything about it. Any civil unrest would be squelched and not one legal professional, law enforcement, or legitimate activist agency could say squat against it.

This isn't my theory--it's the way our national election is designed. The fact that the electoral college has historically chosen the same candidate as the people is a matter of their choice, not the people's. The president is in no way directly accountable to the people who vote for him or her--unlike members of Congress.

I don't even know how you see this as a debateable issue. The facts are pretty plainly supporting my contention, this isn't my opinion. I already stated in an earlier post that this was seperate from any of our personal opinions on which body of officials should be more powerful.

The simple, written rule is that both branches of the government are equal. I'm also going to re-iterate that Bush is not the "Executive Branch." He's a part of it. As such, no member of Congress owes him any special deferrence. That's my point and I'll leave it at that, unless you think I have been unclear in something I wrote.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman