Worse than that, the dimson white house was openly bragging about their ABC policy: Anything But Clinton (if Clinton was doing it, they were against it).
3 Likes
Perhaps you’re hard of hearing. You’re the last person to try to inform me of the failures of the Bush admin. However, that doesn’t give you license to make shit up. We leave that to rapey racist supporters of Diaper Don.
That’s just SOP. The worse part was their invention of ‘fact’ to support the invasion of Iraq. The fallout from that pales in comparison to the effects of 9/11 IMO.
1 Like
“Not Your Grandma’s GOP”
Well, actually, they ARE your grandma’s GOP, if your grandma happened to be Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS.
1 Like
Or just Nixon and Lee Atwater.
1 Like
Here’s the fix:
- Make Senate cloture on debates (filibuster) go into effect automatically unless 41 Senate members vote to affirmatively continue it.
- Require all Senate debate to be done live and in person.
- End all non-germane debate. (No more reading Green Eggs and Ham)
- The House and Senate vote to empower a former president from each party to jointly select a non-partisan commission that would investigate the treason riot of Jan. 6th. (Keep Moscow Mitch out of the process entirely.)
- Congress approves the new commission and fully funds it.
1 Like
That doesn’t quite express the situation clearly.
The administration deliberately deprecated and ignored the Al Qaeda working group and the warning.
So while “asleep at the wheel” is fairly accurate, it fails to point out that he didn’t accidentally drift off. He settled in to take a nap, while driving.
1 Like
The fact is, he did change our posture.
He ignored Islamist terrorism entirely, including the Cabinet level involvement that Clinton established. And refused to allow the Al Qaeda team to present anything to NSC.
We can’t be certain that the outcome would have been different. We know, that after ignoring warnings from the previous administration, 9/11 happened.
We can guess, that had it not been ignored, events would not have unfolded identically.
1 Like
You are of course being way to assertive in claiming facts regarding your claim they were PROACTIVELY ignoring the threat. There’s no evidence of that, that’s just your opinion. My posts stand as written.
We can guess, if Gore had won the election… but that’s just guessing.
“Now, that doesn’t mean that he did everything he should have done, but the president of the United States was active on these issues in the Clinton administration. The president of the United States was not active on these issues prior to 9/11 in the Bush administration,” Clarke said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna4619346
It’s a distinction.
I guess you could say that believing Clinton’s focus on Al Qaeda was foolish and should not be continued isn’t the same as actively ignoring it.
2 Likes
Here’s the work-around. Congress appoints two former presidents, one from each party, to assemble the Jan.6 Commission. Since The Parasite won’t be the the GOPster the commission can be taken seriously.
There’s only one other living former gop president, and he ain’t the brightest dimson in the basket, if you get my drift. That also likely means cheney, who seems to not yet have run out of surrogate hearts.
Both Obama and Bush the Fool are on the democracy side of the divide. Neither would appoint a villian.
1 Like
I don’t know how to form a commission interested in the truth. But this article https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/11972 by Harvard historian Ernest R. May gives a great look at how the 9/11 Commissioners agreed to work together, and adopted a historically narrative form for their report rather than a “findings” format, which made all the difference in the success of what they wrote.
What about restricting the selection to past governors and Senators with the Democrats picking Republicans and the Republicans picking 3 Democrats? Each side can then add two of their own selection.
1 Like
There are two facts involved.
-
Whether or not the attack could have been prevented. (This is probable but not settled but needed to be investigated.)
-
Whether the commission would be allowed to investigate 1). It is common knowledge/ conventional wisdom that the fact is that they were not allowed to so.
This is not actually how it is done but should factor in.
The President should make the appointment and he in turn is appointed by the American people. The Majority in the House would also be a good stand in for the majority of the people.
Excellent.
Because a fucking republicans today are stupid as 
!
“A key ingredient of the 9/11 commission was its bipartisanship, which lent its findings credibility.”
Something more basic is currently missing on the part of the GQP: a willingness to acknowledge factual truth, honesty and good will.
No, it must be as close to apolitical as possible, not simply bipartisan. For a 1/6 commission to have any chance, it must be led by a trio of retired federal judges, chosen from those who have been nominated by a majority of both Republicans and Democrats. Only those who have majority support from both parties will be considered. They should be allowed to staff the commission as they see fit, and have subpoena power.