If a Dem wins in the fall, will he be able to re-open the 9-11 probe?

[SoCalDem]

It seems to me that this whole thing has been a massive "cover-up" from day ONE, and we are going to get a phony report.. They were only given 14M, and are into very tight time constraints.. These are the same people who saw NOTHING wrong with spending 50M+ on the Clinton Chronicles, yet for something as important as National Security, they are prepared to do it on the cheap ...

Bush is "giving" them ONE HOUR in "private"... I guess we all know how important he considers this.. He sees nothing wrong with flying all over the place on MY dime to fund raise and schmooze with soldiers, yet he can only "spare" an HOUR??? ONE stinking hour to "talk" with them about the biggest intelligence failure in our history...:wtf:

I want that bastard under oath ON NATIONAL TV....LIVE... I want to see him sweat bullets, and try to weasel his way out..

Clinton should volunteer to go under oath in public and show that sleazy little troll for what he is and always has been... A LYING COWARDLY ASSHOLE...

We should ALL write to everyone and remind them how unimportant he considers the 9-11 commission.. ONE STINKING HOUR.. People wait longer than that in line for concert tickets.. We wait to see a doctor that long.. We spend longer than that in a restaurant when we eat out..

That ALONE should tell people how insincere he is..

[Abe Linkman]

1. Wrong question. Wrong premise.

The question isn't "can" a Democrat reopen hearings into 9-11. The question is "WOULD" a Democrat.

The answer to the above is: yes, they could, but they won't.

Second: your premise is wrong. Your premise is that this was an intelligence failure. More likely, 9-11 was an intelligence operation.

[SoCalDem]

2. All the MORE reason to expose the fraud

:tinfoilhat::)

[RegenerationMan]

3. Yup, Pearl Harbor had several investigations

and they all covered up the fact that FDR had the naval intercepts (Freedom of Information Act revealed 60 years later) and even the bombing run points over the harbor. FDR saw the bombing runs and exulted to George Marshall: "Now that's what I call an overt act!"

(FDR wanted an overt act from the Japanese so he could finally declare war on the Nazis who had taken Europe AND Russia and still could not get the isolationists to save the planet from fascism!)

[Cooley Hurd]

4. Links?

Do you have reputable links for your assertions about FDR and the attack on Pearl Harbor?

[KC21304]

5. I don't know how much good a Dem president could do without

a majority of congress to go along. That is why it is very important to quickly get behind the nominee so we can concentrate on winning some seats in the house and senate. I think it is doable if we hammer home the fact we need Dems to get at the real story of 9/11, the Plame affair, and all the other things being covered up.

[SoCalDem]

6. The bully pulpit could shame them into acquiescence

The president can get air time anytime he wants it.. :)

[KC21304]

7. That's true, but it sure would be nice if we could

have some more Dems to back him up. We wouldn't even need a majority to get the job done because of the the bully pulpit. Especially with all the excellent cabinet members and appointees we will have to sound off.