If you believe that the 9-11 Commission was a Whitewash..........

[hang a left]

then how can we support it's recommendations of an Intelligence Czar? And how is it being played out in the media? * is for the appointment of a Czar without a budget and hiring-firing capabilities. 9-11 Commission says no budget no hiring and firing then forget it and forge ahead with the status quo. The Kerry campaign is behing the Commission and there is a fight being orchestrated in the media. Something just doesn't sit right. Most of us have read Sibel Edmonds letter to the Commission berating them for neglecting evidence that was given them respecting the translation department of the FBI and it's corruption. I also don't believe that the cover-up of the NORAD responses on 9-11 were addressed as well. Let us not forget all the questions that went unanswered and the dissastisfaction of the 9-11 victims.

How can we get behind the creation of this Czar? I can't help but be suspicious about the fight that is being carried out in the news. It is like *'s back is against the wall, and he will be forced to implement the recommendation, which is what everyone truly wants in the first place. I feel like I am being manipulated.

[kentuck]

1. I believe it was also a cover-up...

It covered up the Republicans that were in positions of responsibility but refused to accept any responsibility unless it was shared. The Democrats refused to "share" it so it ended up that no one accepts responsibility.

[ewagner]

2. I don't

I still think correlation of information from all National Intelligence agencies is the job of the National Security Advisor, who is appointed by the President. The President and the President alone is responsible for policy based upon the dissemintaion of intelligence and MUST assure him/her self of the accuracy of that information. The National Security Advisor must create a system to assure that all agencies providing information do so according to the highest ethical standards and without political or bureaucratic influence.

[el_gato]

5. Uh, one question

How can you honestly believe a political appointee will "assure that all agencies providing information do so according to the highest ethical standards and without political or bureaucratic influence."

[ewagner]

7. I'm an old-school politician

I still believe that the truth has no political affiliation. When I was an elected official, I organized my administration on that principle and it worked well for me. I expect others to live by the same standard, and, for the most part, many elected officials do live by that.....except this group of lying SOBs.

[KansDem]

3. It is a "whitewash." Bush was given "lying privileges..."

As long as you give major players permission to lie and to do so behind closed doors, you cannot have an objective, factual report to act on. But yet, they're doing it anyway!

That's what makes this whole ordeal such a fiasco.

I only hope that when John Kerry is elected, he'll do something objective and factual about the 9/11 attacks so we will finally know the truth.

[redqueen]

4. I don't think we should have a 'czar'. n/t

[onecitizen]

6. I think it's a little of both......

just because the Commission was a whitewash doesn't mean that Czar is not needed. BUT the Czar has to have the ability to run the place, not bush(or any other POTUS).