• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Philip Zelikow, impartial?

Docker said:
Show me the post where I called him corrupt.
Click to expand...

"But he was appointed by Bush, so which myth do you think he will favour?"

You went from saying he had a propencity to being biased and was unqualified for the job because of that to saying he, in fact, did favor Bush.
 
Docker said:
How about a vote in congress. Bit of democracy for a change.
Click to expand...
And you wouldn't complain about the commissioners chosen by a Republican-dominated Congress?

Oops, DogTown beat me to it.
 
If they thought, at the time, that BUSH was negligent, and if that was the reason for the commission, than wouldn't they have called for an inquiry, an investigation into BUSH, called for his impeachment?

TAM
 
Gravy said:
And you wouldn't complain about the commissioners chosen by a Republican-dominated Congress?
Click to expand...

Its better than by Bush himself. Not saying these things can be perfect but, as I said before, if I am accussed of negligence in my job then you wouldnt want me picking the disciplinary panel.
 
Was The Mandate Of The Commission To Investigate Bush For Negligence?

TAM
 
Docker said:
Its better than by Bush himself. Not saying these things can be perfect but, as I said before, if I am accussed of negligence in my job then you wouldnt want me picking the disciplinary panel.
Click to expand...
How does that apply to Zelikow? Do you have evidence of his negligence, or not?
 
dirtywick said:
"But he was appointed by Bush, so which myth do you think he will favour?"

You went from saying he had a propencity to being biased and was unqualified for the job because of that to saying he, in fact, did favor Bush.
Click to expand...

So I never said he was corrupt, well done.
 
What you want is an inquiry/investigation into possible negligence of the USG wrt the 9/11 attacks. Was that the mandate of the 9/11 Commission, yes or no. If the answer is no, than how was Zelikow a bad choice?

TAM
 
Gravy said:
How does that apply to Zelikow? Do you have evidence of his negligence, or not?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. It applies to everyone by definition. I couldn't pick my disciplinary panel, regardless of any ties there may or may not be that exist between the people I pick and myself.
 
Docker said:
It doesn't. It applies to everyone by definition. I couldn't pick my disciplinary panel, regardless of any ties there may or may not be that exist between the people I pick and myself.
Click to expand...

What are you going on about?
 
T.A.M. said:
What you want is an inquiry/investigation into possible negligence of the USG wrt the 9/11 attacks. Was that the mandate of the 9/11 Commission, yes or no. If the answer is no, than how was Zelikow a bad choice?

TAM
Click to expand...

Anyone the government picks is a bad choice. We want total impartiality in case the government have been negligent.

This applies everywhere, not just in politics.
 
See the problem here is that the 9/11 Commission did not turn out to be what the CTs wanted them to be. they were not set up to investigate the governments involvement or negligence on 9/11, which is what the CTers want. this is why they keep saying the commission was bias and corrupt, but they were not. They fulfilled their mandate as it was given to them.

TAM
 
Docker said:
I couldn't pick my disciplinary panel, regardless of any ties there may or may not be that exist between the people I pick and myself.
Click to expand...


The 9/11 Commission was not a disciplinary panel, and certainly not a disciplinary panel for the President.

-Gumboot
 
Docker said:
Anyone the government picks is a bad choice. We want total impartiality in case the government have been negligent.

This applies everywhere, not just in politics.
Click to expand...

So do not blame the 9/11 commission for what they did. They did what they were asked to do, they fulfilled their mandate. Your real issue is not that the commission was tainted, but that now, 5 years later, you have enough suspicion that you want ANOTHER, different investigation, one aimed at looking for neglicence and/or complicity on the part of the USG. Correct?

TAM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom