personally i think its so transparent and obviously wrong, that im shocked it hasnt blown up in their faces and that its not really being covered my major news outlets. the fact alone the white house gets to edit based on what it feels is relevent completely blows the idea of objectivity and full disclosure out of the debate, pretty much sanatizing anything to the point of irrelevancy.

for those that dont know the independant commission that is in charge of the 9.11 investingating reached a deal with the white house to see a selection of important documents. the documents are based around the presidential daily briefs, which only bush and the most top staff get everyday. the issue being that only 4 members of the 10 member committee can see the documents, and the documents will have been edited or truncated by white house discretion. furthermore, any notes taken by the committee will have to be approved and/or edited by the white house. the head of the commission, thomas kean, is likely the one who struck the deal and likely one of the four that will see the documents. kean was personally chosen by bush to run the committee.

one of the key members of the committee, senator max cleland said this on wolf blitzer a few days ago:
"The 9-11 Commission deal with the White House on 9-11 documents is a sham, it's disgusting, America is being cheated."

the other side of the coin being that the white house suggests it's editing the briefs and selecting specific members out of the committee is to insure that sensitive information will not be exposed to the general public or be used for political purposes. also that the daily briefs contain information on other countries or issues.

also of note is that it is already known that one of the briefings in august 2001 contained a warning that al qaida was planning some kind form of attack, which has been played down for its supposedly vague and irrelevant nature.

in idealist practice it makes sense to limit the commissions research to that of its topic, but trust is something that is scarce, especially in politics, and even more especially in something that could potentially implicate one of the parties. i think anything other than complete full disclosure is a waste of time and will render any investigation results flawed. there are measures of saftey you could impose for any security concern, but this goes beyond that and limits the power of the committee. the committee is obliged to fulfill its charter, which by the way is "to conduct a full and complete investigation". under these circumstances, its not happening

Source, plz.

here are dozens:

http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&edition=ca&q=9%2F11+commission+deal

I bet you're so far gone that by now you think Rumsfeld and Bush planned the event so as to attack other countries because they like war.

Your government treats you like chumps.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I bet you're so far gone that by now you think Rumsfeld and Bush planned the event so as to attack other countries because they like war.

no. let me clarify now that i dont think that. i have pondered it, but it seems too far fetched to be realistic. but i do think that 9.11 was a huge failure and that its not a blameless situation. something went wrong, and it did for a reason

Originally posted by Enzed
Your government treats you like chumps. For not allowing top secret documents to come into public view? Sure.

let me clarify further that i havent ruled out such a huge form of foul play in this though. i dont believe that the planes were flown by radio control, or that jews were evacuated, but i also laugh at the official version. in any case the public version of things can almost never be trusted, and at least you should liberate yourself to question any possibility. i do have a suspicion and concern for this. ill stay back from really getting into this because its an enourmous topic, but on typical grounds of motive, opportunity, prior conduct, etc, its easy to make a case. speaking of prior conduct, and this is relevant:

ABC NEWS - US Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html)

Copy of actual document (http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-i.htm)

sleeper -- this seems interesting but I really can't understand what you wrote. Will you narrow it down a bit?

there is a independent 9.11 commission investigating the events of 9.11

the commission was excluded from a large portion of sensitive documents

the commission recently struck a controversial deal that grants limited access, to limited portions of the documents, to limited people on the committee and with limited reporting ability of said documents

Originally posted by jczeroman
sleeper -- this seems interesting but I really can't understand what you wrote. Will you narrow it down a bit? Some people think that the Independent Investigavtive Team for 9/11 should have access to all documents. The White House said no. Then they struck a deal where 4 of the 10 member comittee can see some documents, but they have been edited to purportedly remove sensitive materials not pertaining to 9/11.

Originally posted by sleeper
there is a independent 9.11 commission investigating the events of 9.11

the commission was excluded from a large portion of sensitive documents

the commission recently struck a controversial deal that grants limited access, to limited portions of the documents, to limited people on the committee and with limited reporting ability of said documents

I see... that's what I thought. I think that any government sponsored committee to investigate itself is flawed from the get go. That's not conspiracy crazieness, it's just simple human nature. A lot of union officials live/work with the very corporate executives they are supposed to be "fighting" against. Of course a husband and wife are going to have fights, but ultimately they still sleep together.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Some people think that the Independent Investigavtive Team for 9/11 should have access to all documents. The White House said no. Then they struck a deal where 4 of the 10 member comittee can see some documents, but they have been edited to purportedly remove sensitive materials not pertaining to 9/11.

the issue is that what is edited and what is considered sensitive is let to the discretion of a party that could potential be implicated. this is a important matter, and only full disclosure will do. anything less than that allows room for the will of others. like i said there are measures you could put in place to gaurantee that no sensitive material will be used wrongly, but you cant fill in the gaps of information that isnt present.

Originally posted by jczeroman


I see... that's what I thought. I think that any government sponsored committee to investigate itself is flawed from the get go. That's not conspiracy crazieness, it's just simple human nature. A lot of union officials live/work with the very corporate executives they are supposed to be "fighting" against. Of course a husband and wife are going to have fights, but ultimately they still sleep together.

you raise an interesting and valid point: the will of the committee. i was looking at the will of the white house and the possibility of them limited or hurting the investigation, but the will of the committee is also to note. i dont think either can be trusted fully, so maybe that is the heart of the issue. can objectivity truly be had in such an investigation? maybe not, but even still, there is room for improvement

Originally posted by sleeper

can objectivity truly be had in such an investigation?

no, not unless an investigation is commissioned by the people themselves or by people directly accountable to the people (not appointees).

"From Nero burning Rome to Hitler burning the Reichstag, power-mad leaders across the decades have manufactured crises in order to present the public with situations where their Police State solutions "make sense". "Give up your rights -- it's for your safety..."


http://www.infowars.com/resources.html

interesting. ill have to contemplate this further. i think what we can trust, though, is time. time has a brilliant clarifying and revealing effect on things. in 20 years things will be a lot clearer than they are now. they will be objectively and purely clear. i can wait

Originally posted by spa ced
"From Nero burning Rome to Hitler burning the Reichstag, power-mad leaders across the decades have manufactured crises in order to present the public with situations where their Police State solutions "make sense". "Give up your rights -- it's for your safety..."


http://www.infowars.com/resources.html

there is too much to consider to rule out government involvment, and i wouldnt dare do it, but i would say to be questionable of everything. all sources. george bush's mouth as well as supposedly independant or objective media. there really is so much information that could implicate its amazing to consider.

Originally posted by sleeper


there is too much to consider to rule out government involvment, and i wouldnt dare do it, but i would say to be questionable of everything. all sources. george bush's mouth as well as supposedly independant or objective media. there really is so much information that could implicate its amazing to consider.

Of course. I don't blindly accept anything.

Originally posted by spa ced
"From Nero burning Rome to Hitler burning the Reichstag, power-mad leaders across the decades have manufactured crises in order to present the public with situations where their Police State solutions "make sense". "Give up your rights -- it's for your safety..."


http://www.infowars.com/resources.html

The sad thing is, this isn't the first time I've heard someone parrallel Bush and Hitler. What is it about the man that makes people who appose him wish to villify him as one of the top 10 most evil men of the last 100 years? I for one am not a huge Bush supporter, but it's not because I think he's going to bring about the appocolypse.

Originally posted by Egadsman


The sad thing is, this isn't the first time I've heard someone parrallel Bush and Hitler. What is it about the man that makes people who appose him wish to villify him as one of the top 10 most evil men of the last 100 years? I for one am not a huge Bush supporter, but it's not because I think he's going to bring about the appocolypse.

I don't think I'd compare Hitler & Bush as far as the number of people they're responsible for killing.
The underlying point of that quote I posted states that to be able to do what you want to in politics you do need the support of the public to some extent and to do that you sometimes need to cause events in order to get that public support you need.

Originally posted by spa ced
"From Nero burning Rome to Hitler burning the Reichstag, power-mad leaders across the decades have manufactured crises in order to present the public with situations where their Police State solutions "make sense". "Give up your rights -- it's for your safety..."


http://www.infowars.com/resources.html

Exactly. Create a problem so you can solve it. This is why the socialists in power support unions and taxes, they know it will bring the country to it's knees and socialism will be the answer.

Originally posted by jczeroman


Exactly. Create a problem so you can solve it. This is why the socialists in power support unions and taxes, they know it will bring the country to it's knees and socialism will be the answer.

i think he was referring more to the machiavellian tactics employed by the right. we all know how powerful fear is as a controlling device, probably the most effective, so its no surprise it powers are in full use now.

Originally posted by sleeper


i think he was referring more to the machiavellian tactics employed by the right. we all know how powerful fear is as a controlling device, probably the most effective, so its no surprise it powers are in full use now.

Oh sure. Nazi germnay is a prime parellel of what is happening right now in this country, same with Augustan Rome.

i just think those are good examples to the idea of controlling by fear, specifically by manufacturing enemies and problems. that can be applied to today justly i think. no one is really equating nazi germany and present day america on the level youre implying. i wouldnt say bush = hitler, but hitler isnt the only and last person to be manipulative and unjust in power, nor did his tactics or ideas die with him

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
For not allowing top secret documents to come into public view? Sure.

Fo' Sho.

If The X-Files was still on, then this'd be a non-issue. Mulder and Skully would find the truth.