Forums

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I believe she did give testimony.

So do I. I wish it had been sworn, and I wish she wasn't sitting on the commission. I think there is much more that she could and should be speaking of, along with Reno. And, no, not so that we can point fingers at Reno, or Clinton, or anyone - because this is the stuff that really gets to the heart of why our intelligence functions failed so badly for so many years. We need to understand where our attempts at balancing rights and security could be fine-tuned to plug holes.

And why do you think this is a significant focus of the investigation? What reason is there to believe that "the wall" had much to do the the FBI's failure to do its job pre-9/11 -- as opposed, say, to the national office's failure to authorize subpoenas, and the limits of Rule 6(e)?

Lord. Now who's being trollish? Okay, why do I believe this? Well, first, I don't know that I do or not - I would like the chance to have the full testimony on this. I would like the testimony, and the questioning, to be free of the "fellow commision member" taint.

My quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partisanship? I"d say the only partisanship comes from those who now want to impede, minimize, and walk away from the investigation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, Republican leadership.

Wrong again. I think that, naturally because of the subject and the timing, the more rabid Dems were just about pre-orgasmic at the chance to run these public hearings so soon before the elections, thinking they were going to be a huge coup. I don't think they've worked out that way so far - they have been surprisingly mellow and purposeful, in spite of the sporadic rabid attempts from both sides. I've been more impressed with that than I thought I would have been. But, the people who thought these hearings were going to be one long demolition of Bush are disappointed, and what they do NOT want is a set of conclusions that call for someone defense-oriented, vigilant, and . . . well, certainly not Kerry. That's what's going to happen, though, and so the next best outcome is to fight this Gorelick thing tooth and nail, and leave the whole set of conclusions tainted with the "THEY ruined it" brush (for both sides.) Honestly, that's the only reason I can see that anyone with half a lick of legal training would not recognize that she should not be sitting on the commission. (To be fair, there are a few others who should be gone, too.)

Here, tellingly, you assume the "conclusion" will be for public consumption, not (e.g.) for the legislature or executive branch to act on.

I did to begin, but, as I said above, I have been more impressed that I expected to be with the direction this was taking.

I suspect you'll see a lot of recommendations that have more to do with the organization of the FBI and the CIA than what Bush did. And you seem to be forgetting that half the commission is composed of Republicans. If they're criticizing the President, maybe there's something to it.

Everyone is criticizing everyone, fairly equally, which is, I think, the right summary conclusion. I would like for the more specific conclusions to be a bit more in-depth, though, and I think the important witnesses should not be sitting there deciding things.

Oops, sorry, I forgot the bilmore syllogism: Criticism is a function of party loyalty. Therefore, if you criticize the President, you are acting of partisan interest, and your criticism can be ignored. Any Republicans on the commission who criticize the President can be ignored as Democrats in disguise.

You need a new tune. This is what you always fall back on when you can't make your points.

You wish half the country had heard of Gorelick. Because you care more about the political damage that the commission might do to your party's nominee than you do about how they might help us fight this war on terror.

You know, I read your line here, and I misread it at first, but the misreading was the most proper reading, I think. You are fighting the war on terror. Sort of like fighting forest fires. Anything to help your side. What you accuse me of constantly, but what I see as your constant focus.

I don't think anyone is going to come out of this process damaged. I think that the public conclusion is going to be, the system didn't protect us, because the system was protecting other things that, pre-9/11, were more on our minds.

Why do you want her on there so badly? Is it the balance? Would it make a difference if she was replaced by a pro-Clintonite?