9/11 Panel to Seek Testimony From Bush

[Ironside]

9/11 Panel to Seek Testimony From Bush

MADISON, N.J. (AP) -- The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks will soon ask President Bush, former President Clinton and their vice presidents to testify in public about possible warnings they might have received from U.S. intelligence sources before the attacks.

"We need them to testify," former New Jersey Gov. Thomas H. Kean, the bipartisan commission's chairman, told The Record of Bergen County in a story published Thursday. He said the panel would issue formal invitations within the next few weeks, although he conceded that all four men would probably decline to be questioned at a public forum.

However, Kean said their cooperation was crucial to the commission's work, so he hoped they would at least consent to private interviews with the panel.

"They all have important pieces to tell us and important questions to answer, so they will all be getting an invitation and we're in contact already with their staffs in every case," Kean said Wednesday on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer."

Bush said in an NBC interview broadcast this week that he would "perhaps" submit to questions from the commission.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan on Thursday would not say if Bush would testify publicly.

"These are issues that we continue to discuss with the commission in a spirit of cooperation," McClellan told reporters traveling with Bush to Harrisburg, Pa. "We will talk to the commission about these issues."

Clinton has previously said he would be willing to testify.

Commission vice chairman Lee Hamilton told the "NewsHour," "My hope in the end that the president will agree that to meet with us and answer whatever questions we have."

Kean, who is now president of Drew University in Madison, said the commission also plans to seek public testimony from Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft and their counterparts in the Clinton administration.

================================================== =========

I think this is a good development. Bush has some questions to answer.

I want to hear what he has to say, under oath.

[sandfleas]

Originally Posted by Ironside

9/11 Panel to Seek Testimony From Bush

I think this is a good development. Bush has some questions to answer.

I want to hear what he has to say, under oath.

I think Clinton has even more questions to answer since we have been getting attacked by Al Quacky since 1993 and he did nothing about it . I would like to know why the U.S. response was so pathetic to the attacks before Sept 11 . Maybe if Clinton had more aggressively gone after these people in the beginning Sept 11 wouldn't have ever happened .

Also Clinton and Bush both have had the opportunity to kill Bin Laden and they didn't . I sure would like to hear from the horses mouths why they didn't .

[Ironside]

Originally Posted by sandfleas

I think Clinton has even more questions to answer since we have been getting attacked by Al Quacky since 1993 and he did nothing about it . I would like to know why the U.S. response was so pathetic to the attacks before Sept 11 . Maybe if Clinton had more aggressively gone after these people in the beginning Sept 11 wouldn't have never happened .

Also Clinton and Bush both have had the opportunity to kill Bin Laden and they didn't . I sure would like to hear from the horses mouths why they didn't .

Clinton did do something about it. He attacked an al Qaida camp in Afghanistan, barely missing bin Laden.

Remember, he didn't have the WTC attacks happen on his watch to use gain support with the coalition going into Afghanistan.

Also, it's intersting how some want to blame the Intelligence of the Clinton Administartion. Bush should have done his own homework, instead of using old Intelligence from the previous three Administrations.

[sandfleas]

Originally Posted by Ironside

Clinton did do something about it. He attacked an al Qaida camp in Afghanistan, barely missing bin Laden.

Remember, he didn't have the WTC attacks happen on his watch to use gain support with the coalition going into Afghanistan.

Also, it's intersting how some want to blame the Intelligence of the Clinton Administartion. Bush should have done his own homework, instead of using old Intelligence from the previous three Administrations.

The Sept 11 attack was not planned in just the 9 months Bush was in office . I didn't blame Clinton either . I said if he had been more aggresive maybe Al Quacky wouldn't have attacked the U.S. . They might have stuck to things like Ships , Emabassies , U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia and other U.S. intrests in other countries .

Bin Laden started attacking U.S. intrests in 1993 . Thats 8 years before 2001 . A few cruise missles aren't going to scare people who are willing to kill themselves . Thats what Clinton did . If anything a weak response only encouraged Bin Laden to be more bold .

Oh really Clinton didn't have the W.T.C. attacked on his watch . The towers just didn't come down in 1993 .

The embassies in Africa were attacked by Al Quacky . They also said Al Quacky helped the Somail's kill American's in 1993 . The U.S.S. Cole attack that killed 18 sailors Al Quacky again . Kobar towers in Saudi Arabia another Al Quacky attack .These are just the ones I remember off the top of my head . How many times do you let someone attack you before you do something ?

[efin98]

Originally Posted by Ironside

I think this is a good development. Bush has some questions to answer.

I want to hear what he has to say, under oath.

All rhetoric aside(and I mean it), Bill Clinton has as much if not more to answer than George W. Bush. The integance break down can not be totally put on him, his predecessor had as much if not more blame in the break down and should be held accountable for his inaction as much as Bush. The attacks came less than eight months after Bush took office and there is no way possible that his administration could have dropped the ball on the issue. To suggest otherwise is a slap in the face to them and shows a lack of understanding of the situation.

[Ironside]

Originally Posted by efin98

All rhetoric aside(and I mean it), Bill Clinton has as much if not more to answer than George W. Bush. The integance break down can not be totally put on him, his predecessor had as much if not more blame in the break down and should be held accountable for his inaction as much as Bush. The attacks came less than eight months after Bush took office and there is no way possible that his administration could have dropped the ball on the issue. To suggest otherwise is a slap in the face to them and shows a lack of understanding of the situation.

As I've said before.

Bush hopefully will do his own homework next time instead of relying on old Intelligence from from the previous three Administrations, that obviously didn't have the smoking gun to go to war with, either.

Pass the BUCK!

[efin98]

Originally Posted by Ironside

As I've said before.

Bush hopefully will do his own homework next time instead of relying on old Intelligence from from the previous three Administrations, that obviously didn't have the smoking gun to go to war with, either.

Pass the BUCK!

Rhetoric is wearing thin Ironside.
No passing the buck this time, put the blame where it belongs. Bill Clinton has to be held as accountable as Bush.