Okay - Here It Comes Folks: THE 9/11 STORY IN WSJ

[TNOE]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB105761621655138900-H9jeoNplah2nZunbH6Gba2Gm4,00.html

I hope this link works.

White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation

Snip:

...But from the commission's inception, commissioners and others at the White House has put obstacles in its way.

...the White House blocked the commission's access to that report until two months ago. The commission expects to issue a report on its progress on Tuesday.

Also a poll on the page.

[Jacobin]

1. Gee, are Smirky's puppet masters getting upset with him?

These are Smirk people through and through. They haven't allowed anything vaguely negative about Smirk to appear on their pages from day one....

What's up with that?
:shrug:
edit typo

[TNOE]

3. Yep, I agree

This hit the FRONT PAGE of the WSJ - me thinks they are about ready to cut him loose - and God, we can hope!!!! I just want the truth to come out - the sooner the better.

Get a load of this from the article:

Mr. Bartlett, of the White House, says that the administration has good reason for wanting the probe to move expeditiously. "The quicker we learn the inforamtion that can come from the commission, the better we can protect America from another 9/11," he says.

Ahhh, 2 years later - yea, that's really quick!!!

and then some more: got to love this:

The White House doesn't want the commission's work to drag late into the presidential campaign, he adds, because "the last thing we want is for the 9/11 commission to become politicized.".

Ha - man, HOW DO THEY DO IT?????

[sandnsea]

7. More concerned with a campaign than the facts?

Seems to me the second they said that, they politicized it.

[dusty64]

12. It does seem to be

looking that way. What would replace the chimp though, it makes ya wonder (could it possibly be worse).

[RC]

2. Related pole

Do you feel the federal government has been sufficiently forthcoming about the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks?


Yes
417 votes (30%) No 984 votes (70%)


1401 people have voted so far
Your vote was No on 7/8/2003 5:31 pm


http://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=wsjvoices&nav=messages&msg=2900

[Jacobin]

4. Worth a click

The WSJ readers will naturally freep the hell out of it. Might as well get in a few licks.

[proud patriot]

5. Wow

71% say the federal Gov has not been forthcoming enough .

[TNOE]

6. That is good news but ya know

how can anyone honestly say they have when NONE, ZERO, NOT ONE report has been issued - and oh, remember that evidence we sent to Tony Blair?????? And he's the only one that has it???? Uhhh, looks like Tony has already lost all his credibility.

[Robbien]

8. When I first heard * would be out of the country, my first thought

was "get ready for negative news releases'. Remember this happened when * went to the G8 conference. By the time he got back, the fervor died down and nothing happened.

[ComerPerro]

9. My first thought

was that there might be a "terra" attack. You know how Smirky loves to run and hide whenever there is trouble.
At least this time he isn't using small children as human shields.

[On the Road]

10. Look at the Discussion on the Poll

Interesting. Here's my contribution:

How can anyone consider the administration forthcoming when it has revealed as little as possible about the events on and before Sept 11?

There are dozens of very odd things about the attacks. I have been looking for them to be addressed in the press ever since, and they've been neglected. A few examples:

Who placed and then abandoned the massive airline shorts?

Why were the warrants requests on Zacarias Moussaoui blocked at upper levels of the administration?

And most curiously, why was the flight that hit the Pentagon not intercepted given the long lead time and nearby Air Force bases?

I don't claim to know the answers. I do know that the White House has hid behind cries of "classified data" and acted like it's none of the public's business.

[neuvocat]

11. I just have one question:

what is the official White House excuse that this keeps getting delayed?

Thanks to anyone who can answer.

[sandnsea]

13. And NYT story - 'monitors' present - ????

"Mr. Kean said that commission members were unhappy that some agencies — they cited the Justice Department in particular — had insisted on having monitors present at all commission interviews with their respective officials. That can foster a chilling sense of "intimidation" among witnesses, Mr. Kean said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/politics/08CND-TERR.html?ex=1058328000&en=9e034091002cddd2&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Wow, monitors present? Sounds a little familiar, doncha think? Has anyone ever heard of something like this in other investigations?

[mainer]

14. This on top of the WSJ's bashing of Ann Coulter

As a longtime but disgusted subscriber to the print WSJ, I'm amazed by what I've read there this past week. First, Barbara Rabinowitz absolutely slams Coulter's book TREASON on the editorial pages. And now this.

While WSJ is indeed a rightwing rag, they still maintain some journalistic ethics. (Remember THE INSIDER? Where the WSJ was the only paper that broke the scandal about tobacco companies?)

This front-page article shows me they are indeed doing their job.

[ShaneGR]

15. Telling quote, and other thoughts

Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey who serves as chairman of the commission, says that he intends to meet the deadline next May, although it will be difficult. He has ruled out asking for an extension because, he says, "the White House has made it known they don't want it to go into the election period."



If there is a Republican I have faith in, it's John McCain (I have faith in a man who spent so much time in a small cage during Vietnam, almost beat * for the nomination, and refused to vote for the last tax cut.) And if Max Cleland and Bob Graham are both on this committee.... all is well with the world. The truth will eventually be known.