November 21, 2004
House Republican leaders blocked and appeared to kill a bill
Saturday that would have enacted the major recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission
13 years ago
What's weird about this story is that both Bush and Cheney apparently wanted the bill to go through. I find it hard to believe there's a faction of rogue senators MORE conservative than Bush and Cheney. I hope these guys are called out by name. I have some letters I want to write.
Doesn't surprise me, really. Much of the impetus behind the bill in the first place was because this was an election year. With the election over, what reason have they to continue supporting something which was initiated by a bipartisan commission?
Duh. Xammerboy, you actually thought bush and cheney supported anything that was even remotely related to the 9-11 commission?
There are at least two bills that I know of that were intended to enact the 9-11 commission's recommendations, both of which are covering the same things, but one of which allows prisoners to be sent to countries that allow torture, and one that does not. I wonder if this was either of those. There are a lot more details to any of these bills that need to be known before we can make a decision on whether this was a good thing or a bad thing.
Know what? GOOD! Everyone who's afraid of what unrestricted right-wing control could do for the country should be (quietly) applauding this. The more time the Republicans spend bickering among themselves and engaging in private power struggles, the less time they have to try to turn the country into a theocracy.
The bill would have forced the Pentagon, which controls an estimated 80 percent of the government
follow up: the start of a second term is the time to punish those who have opposed you. Any time I see the word "reform" of anything in the next year, I will take it as a codeword for "settling scores."
Freen, It says in the article that Bush and Cheney called key Republicans asking them to support the bill, and no - I don't believe it.
With every branch of government dominated by the Repubs, let them crash and burn on their own efforts. The country isn't any safer, either way, no matter what they clowns do. For example, apparently there were ten opportunities to take out bin Laden, which were ignored on multiple levels. The safety of Americans is the least concern on the minds of policy makers.
Bush and Cheney are pissed that most of the CIA wouldnt back them up ... create a (Bush-appointed) cabinet member who can force the CIA to say whatever Bush wants
You know, I was recently chatting to a guy who was in the room when Cheney made his now infamous trip to CIA. He says he was surprised when it became a subject of controversy. His reaction at the time was 'wow, the VP is coming here to talk about an analytical conclusion... great!' he says Cheney and his people asked tough questions, disagreed with the CIA people, but left them with the impression that the White House was really listening to and caring about what they were saying on Iraq.
Of course they gave the impression of listening. Politics isn't all about playing only to the general public. Paul O'Neill thought Cheney was listening to him respectfully too. The one thing that strikes me about this bill is that it would remove control over resources from the Pentagon, even though they're the ones doing the job. Such moves often lead to bad situations for the people on the front lines required to do the job.
This bill is an attempt to create a (Bush-appointed) cabinet member who can force the CIA to say whatever Bush wants about any country, thus justifying an invasion.
Then what's Goss for?
The one thing that strikes me about this bill is that it would remove control over resources from the Pentagon, even though they're the ones doing the job. Such moves often lead to bad situations for the people on the front lines required to do the job.
I've heard more than a little complaining by the military regarding the pentagon civilians making descisions that affect them. Again, seems redundant. This could be just about bush solidifying his power base by adding more people under him. As for why it failed, could be any number of reasons. There's a lot in that bill, not all of it good, so don't damn everyone that voted against it yet. Plus some of the lame duck repubs have no reason to march in step. Too many factors, I don't know.
Then what's Goss for?