On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:07:07 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:47:21 -0500, John H wrote:



Of course, you may be one of those who proclaim he knew about the attack
in advance and was probably involved in the planning. Then I could
understand your position.


I don't believe GWB, or anyone in his administration, knew about the
attack in advance. That being said, I am troubled by the administrations
apparent lack of cooperation with the 9/11 inquiry. What are your
thoughts?

Purely un-researched opinion: Bush wants to maintain the privacy of
certain actions of the Executive Branch, such as morning coffee
remarks, or whatever, and not establish a precedent which detracts
from the rights of the Executive Branch. Furthermore, I don't think
the topic of the inquiry has any bearing on the privacy desire.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 10:17:13 -0500, John H wrote:


Purely un-researched opinion: Bush wants to maintain the privacy of
certain actions of the Executive Branch, such as morning coffee remarks,
or whatever, and not establish a precedent which detracts from the rights
of the Executive Branch. Furthermore, I don't think the topic of the
inquiry has any bearing on the privacy desire.

I can understand that, and it's importance. IMO, though, 9/11 was so
important that exceptions could be made. The commission is, I believe,
sworn to secrecy. I don't think any testimony should necessarily be
public, but I do want the commission to have access. It might prove
beneficial towards their recommendations.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 11:32:58 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 10:17:13 -0500, John H wrote:


Purely un-researched opinion: Bush wants to maintain the privacy of
certain actions of the Executive Branch, such as morning coffee remarks,
or whatever, and not establish a precedent which detracts from the rights
of the Executive Branch. Furthermore, I don't think the topic of the
inquiry has any bearing on the privacy desire.

I can understand that, and it's importance. IMO, though, 9/11 was so
important that exceptions could be made. The commission is, I believe,
sworn to secrecy. I don't think any testimony should necessarily be
public, but I do want the commission to have access. It might prove
beneficial towards their recommendations.

Night before last I watched a subcommittee hearing on the Haiti mess.
Mr. Noriega, an undersecretary of state for something or other, was
being questioned mostly be Democrats. Most of the Democrats doing the
"questioning" were simply using the time to make derogatory statements
about the administration. They wouldn't allow Noriega to answer
questions, but intimated the answers they desired with the questions
themselves and the statements they made. It was a ridiculous display
and made me ashamed of the whole mess.

I have a feeling that Bush doesn't wanted to be treated the same way.
I don't blame him. No one should have to sit and take the totally
partisan **** that was being dished out that night.

If the committee wants sworn answers to questions, then the committee
can submit the questions in writing and get a sworn deposition. This
would preclude the partisan speech making.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
news
I have a feeling that Bush doesn't wanted to be treated the same way.
I don't blame him. No one should have to sit and take the totally
partisan **** that was being dished out that night.

.....unless the partisans in question are too timid to buy dirty magazines,
and would prefer to hound a president about his sexual exploits. Then the
partisan bull**** is just fine.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:24:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news
I have a feeling that Bush doesn't wanted to be treated the same way.
I don't blame him. No one should have to sit and take the totally
partisan **** that was being dished out that night.

....unless the partisans in question are too timid to buy dirty magazines,
and would prefer to hound a president about his sexual exploits. Then the
partisan bull**** is just fine.

Didn't see it, so can't comment.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:24:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news
I have a feeling that Bush doesn't wanted to be treated the same way.
I don't blame him. No one should have to sit and take the totally
partisan **** that was being dished out that night.

....unless the partisans in question are too timid to buy dirty
magazines,
and would prefer to hound a president about his sexual exploits. Then the
partisan bull**** is just fine.

Didn't see it, so can't comment.

John H

Didn't see it? Were you sleeping throughout Clinton's crucifixion by the
partisans who chose to pull their own puds in Congress for a year?

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 20:26:37 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:24:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news
I have a feeling that Bush doesn't wanted to be treated the same way.
I don't blame him. No one should have to sit and take the totally
partisan **** that was being dished out that night.

....unless the partisans in question are too timid to buy dirty
magazines,
and would prefer to hound a president about his sexual exploits. Then the
partisan bull**** is just fine.

Didn't see it, so can't comment.

John H

Didn't see it? Were you sleeping throughout Clinton's crucifixion by the
partisans who chose to pull their own puds in Congress for a year?

Most likely I was grading papers or calling parents. That what I spent
most of my "free" time doing.

I don't even remember if I *had* C-span then.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!