Why Is Bush Fighting the 9/11 Commission's Recommendations??

[ItsMyParty]

I fully understand why Bush fought the formation of the 9/11 Commision in the first place, why he stonewalled them, why he withheld documents from them, why he had WH lawyers going over everything and why he finally manipulated things so that he didn't have to testify before them all alone. When you are guilty you do not wish to be caught. Those where not the actions of the "innocent". But he and the cons had to be elated that in the end they only got their fingers slapped and the impact on the public was the usual "yawn".

So, one would think that after that 'escape' from their crimes, they would be out cheering and leading the fight to implement immediately every recommendation of the committee to show just what kind of good guys in the white hats that they are. Why are they still dragging their feet,nominating people who will help cloud things over rather than really protect this nation, and doing so much to hinder the protection of this country?? The only thing that seems logical is that they intend to again do criminal acts upon this nation and do not want some "Dudly Do-Right" to possibly interfer and expose them.

You better think Americans (I know that is tough for you). Why does one fight an investigation; and more importantly, why does one drag and evade actions that might actually protect and save your lives??? Come on, right wing, answer that one......

[atreides1]

1. Possibly

For the same reasons he was against its formation in the first place, until he gets what he wants he will continue to resist their recommendations.

And speaking for myself, I think we need to take all the time possible before Congress even starts to look at this. Remember what happened with the Patriot Act, no one even read the bill before they voted it into law.

I also don't believe in doing something because a group of families in mourning, are under some misguided notion that creating a police state will make things safer for all of us. And that's the direction we will be heading in if we go along with this, we all know that those in Congress who want to control every aspect of people's lives will use these recommendations to increase the power of the government, and very possibly give it the authority to do what it deems neccessary to protect the Homeland.

And then when it's too late, when it's all said and done, Bush will point the finger at the 9/11 Commission and the families of those that died and say this is what they wanted done, just like he dissed Kerry today.

Think people, really think, do you want to sacrifice your liberty for security that cannot be guaranteed, will you sit idly by as your life becomes an open book to be read by anyone. I would rather take my chances that we will be attacked again, then to give up any freedom.

[ItsMyParty]

2. atred--from your argument It would seem that Bush, then, would

be going full speed ahead trying to ram it all down everyone's throat. But he isn't. He's stalling. He's backpeddling. He's trying to appoint someone who doesn't believe in the recommendations, etc. So can you explain why someone who would dearly love to make us a police state is delaying on this? Or are you saying that he's doing it because he genuinely cares about our freedoms and is trying to protect us from such anti-constituional activities (then explain the Patriot Act and Ashcroft's very existence). He's opposing for a reason and it has zip to do with our rights.

[shraby]

3. He's stalling until he can figure

out how to make the whole situation work to his advantage to the maximum. If he rushes, he may have forgotten something...how he can have the most control over the intelligence community.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

4. That's what he did re: Department of Homeland Security

He resisted and resisted the creation of the department, until the clamor became overwhelming and he figured out that he could use it to break the Civil Servants' Union by taking away their job security in the name of fighting the "war on terra."

It's like last week, when he twisted the idea of having a National Security Czar from being a non-partisan position appointed by the president and approved by congress for a defined term (and therefore immune from political pressure) to someone appointed by the president (without consent of congress) "who serves at the pleasure of the president." (*'s words)