Bush Asserts He's Helping 9-11 Commission

Bush Asserts He's Helping 9-11 Commission
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20031027/ap_on_go_pr_wh/sept_11_bush
By LAURENCE ARNOLD, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President {sic} Bush said Monday his staff is cooperating with an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, but he stopped short of saying whether the White House would hand over top-level papers that may be subpoenaed.

"Those are very sensitive documents," Bush said, adding that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was working with Thomas Kean, chairman of the commission, on this issue.

...

Bush made his remarks on the sensitive nature of documents while talking to reporters in the Oval Office after a meeting with his top advisers on Iraq.

The president's comments were underscored later by White House press secretary Scott McClellan, who also stopped short of saying the White House will turn over certain papers, such as transcripts of the president's daily terrorism briefings.

(more)

-----


MDN

...he's lying. WHOA! WHAT A SHOCKER!

The facts clearly demonstrate otherwise. He isn't helping, he's stonewalling. Now will someone please sue these bastards for the 911 docs and the energy papers, NOW PLEASE!

That's not what I've been reading.

What you trying to hide BULLshy?

Any information, truthful and/or factual, which can be, or is, incriminting and/or embarrassing to the * regime.

He slipped up when actually admitted that there are "documents".

I've noticed Yahoo softening the lead-in. Look at the other headlines beneath the Yahoo headline. They all take a much tougher position. "Senate presses".......etc. Yahoo has done this uncountable times. I wonder who writes the headlines for Yahoo and what their agenda is?

To play devil's advocate for a moment: this is the first time in a long time that I've seen a headline that doesn't blindly presume Bush's credibility (it doesn't say "Bush assures" or "Bush confirms", but, rather, "Bush asserts" -- the implication being that what Bush says is actually *open to question* (insert collective gasp of shock here :) )). I also noticed that the headline author gave Bush the "Clinton treatment" -- referring to him simply as "Bush", rather than as "President Bush" (dropping the authority-conferring title of office -- something the media routinely did to President Clinton during the RW's runup to impeachment).

Eye of the beholder, I guess :)


MDN

The commision shouldn't worry their pretty little heads with a whole bunch of boring tough to read government papers.

But that was then, and this is now. No court will order it. Judges are gutless (no Sirica in sight). The papers will be turned over when Ken Lay sees the inside of a jail cell, or the White House leaker is held responsible on the CIA incident. In other words, never.

Pardon my French. :D

<sound of paper shredder>

full of shit.

They brought Kean in to head the commission because they figured he's a reliable Republican who wouldn't make waves.

Well, ex-gov Kean ain't ex-gov Whitman-- he's always had an independant streak and the stones to back it up. He's been making a lot of waves about the White House stonewalling, and a lot of threatening noises.

Kean's one of those rare Republicans I have a soft spot for. He's a pretty straight-up and reasonable guy. And nobody's fool.

(It scares me that he might run for the Senate one day, and I'll be tempted to vote for him.)

Do they agree with Kean? Will they be satisfied with what they get from the White House? We need to hear from the Democrats on the comission.

If the commission agreed that he's cooperating. Funny thing about these sorts of statements -- the speaker doesn't get to characterize his actions, that's up to the other party.