It's time to disband the 9/11 Commission

Not spelling, a lot of people mistake "moot" for "mute". I have even seen some also say "moo".

I just figured you were of "those" people.

Even if the commission was a bad idea - which I don't think it was - it would be malevolently retarded to "disband" it at this point.

foxfyre. When you posted about what clark and rice both said in their commission appearances, they were appearing as witnesses. Its the commissions job to decide whether they have enough data and evidence to render an opinion.
Youre using thhe "trial by headline" approach. Since we are not so commissioned, we , and Sen Miller, have no business saying what is, or is not an adequate mass of evidence.

is getting interesting though. Weve heard about the systemic problems that infect the intelligence agencies, weve seen that there were agent messages and memos that were , apparently ignored or buried, and just yesterday we see that there was a briefing memo to the president that was not, as Ms Rice asserted"of a historical nature only''.
There are still testimony of the past presidential staff and additional appearances by Mr tenent.
The sum of this evidence will be rolled up in a conclusion that will focus on its primary mission which is HOW CAN WE AVOID THIS TRAGEDY FROM REOCCURING. If anything of an embarrassing nature befalls either past or present admin, I say, let it fall.
I have a feeling that ole Zell isnt so diposed cause hes already gone on record by being totally a partisan cur. Therefore his entire blurb is of little consequence to the commission, Im sure they can see through hs crap. They know Hes only posturing. So I agree that Zells communication is totally stupid and shortsighted and lacks any strategic common sense.

Whatever doesn't fit with the desired spin is 'crap', 'totally stupid' and 'shortsighted'. God forbid we should have any other viewpoint and actually discuss whether there is any merit in it before throwing it out with the trash and making insulting comments about the one proposing it (or posting it.)

Ah well, such is the nature of message boards I guess. I'm really not upset with you farmerman. I'm just wishing really hard that things could actually be discussed here instead of everything and everybody having to be painted black or white.

well you are certainly being inconsistent. You want us to find merit in your position but you want to squelch the commissions search fro more data. Id think you would want the remaining witnesses such as Ms Reno.

The fact that weve covened a commission that presents findings and leaks almost daily sends more of a message to the terrorists that, as a mighty nation, we may take 50 acres to turn our rig around but once we do,..

As far as calling my opinion "spin" is kinda pitiful from someone who has agreed with a senator who has, in effect, called for the shutdown of a commission because , in truth, its getting a little too warm for the politicians in the exec branch. The mission of this commission, to repeat a point youve ignored, is to PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. This is a detailed exam of where the wheels came off and why. If we appear complacent like a bunch of sunning seals , then were just inviting another terrorist action. If we find out why we failed the last time, perhaps we can really prevent another. Whats there to be afraid of?
Im trying to discuss this, you havent approached any arguments with any concrete reasons for disbanding the commission. Youve posted a letter from Zell Miller, ok, point taken from Mr Miller. Youve heard my comments, any of your own? (other than to belittle people who post on message boards , by posting a message on a message board yourself. Ironic no?)

Disney has purchased the rights to film Richard Clark's book.

I think if the honest reason for the 9/11 commission was to make sure another 9/11 didn't happen, we would have law enforcement people, structural engineers, scientists, sociologists, customs people, border patrol commanders, and terrorist experts sitting on the panel and not politicians with a No. 1 agenda of staying in power or getting into power.

Once the experts finished their work, they could then give their recommendations to Congress and the White House to follow up on whatever laws, policies, or personnel are necessary to plug as many holes in security as possible.

Foxfyre, It seems to this observor that your two "no's" provides a conclusion for this commissions investigation of 9-11. Little do you understand why this commission was created, and the conclusion they are directed to seek. The "no's" must be confirmed and reconfirmed. "No" in and of itself coming from the mouths of politicians is meaningless. In Japanese, "yes" can mean "no." That's how many politicians use the same word - and visa-versa. Even clear statements such as "I'm a uniter, not a divider" can have many meanings - as we have all learned too late.

Congress and the president had the power to constitute whatever they wished . I can see that, if a failure in the infrastructure of intelligence was to blame, then the commission would reccomend that such experts be involved in the retooling. But to turn a general commission over to focused expertise would be akin to practicing that statement:

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you see all the worlds problems as nails", meaning that experts need direction from generalists.I can see CIA guys and engineers on the 9=11 panel just busily covering their own butts. Nahhh, its ok as it is. lets not find fault with something that we were all enthused about constituting just a few months ago.
Maybe itll turn out that the whole thing can be laid in Clintons lap, as a Dem , Id be dissapointed but not surprised. Let the process take its time and let the important work go on to completion.

Attorney General John Ashcroft came out swinging in testimony before the 9-11 Commission on Tuesday. "In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning, imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the law required," he said. "The 1995 Guidelines and the procedures developed around them imposed draconian barriers to communications between the law enforcement and intelligence communities. The wall left intelligence agents afraid to talk with criminal prosecutors or agents. In 1995, the Justice Department designed a system destined to fail."

But Ashcroft's bombshell wasn't his description of the Clinton Administration's policies, which have been discussed by previous witnesses. "Somebody built this wall," Ashcroft told the commissioners, and then went on to accuse one of the commission's own.

"The basic architecture for the wall . . . was contained in a classified memorandum entitled 'Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations,'" said Ashcroft. "Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this Commission." Ashcroft was referring to Jamie Gorelick, who served as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration.

From the beginning, Gorelick's appointment to the 9/11 Commission was problematic. She served not only as Attorney General Janet Reno's deputy but also as general counsel at the Department of Defense, jobs which put her at the heart of the Clinton Administration's anti-terrorism efforts. Her actions, as well as those of her superiors, are among the subjects this commission is tasked to review. How can she be expected to be impartial when it comes to evaluating her superiors, much less herself?

The memo Gorelick wrote has now been declassified and offers a window into the role she played in obstructing effective intelligence gathering and sharing during the Clinton Administration. The memo grew out of the Justice Department's prosecution of the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center -- the act that apparently gave Osama bin Laden the idea to try again in 2001.

"During the course of those investigations," wrote Gorelick in 1995, "significant counterintelligence information has been developed related to the activities and plans of agents of foreign powers operating in this country and overseas, including previously unknown connections between separate terrorist groups." But Gorelick wanted to make sure that the left hand didn't know what the right was doing. "(W)e believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

The problem, of course, is that the inability to share information is precisely what hampered federal agents in tracking down the 9-11 hijackers. As Attorney General Ashcroft testified, this artificial wall impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, who was arrested prior to the 9-11 attack, as well as Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, both of whom were identified by the CIA as suspected terrorists possibly in the United States prior to their participation in those terrible attacks. "Because of the wall, FBI Headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join in the hunt for the suspected terrorists," Ashcroft told the commission.

"At the time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote Headquarters," said Ashcroft, "quote, 'Whatever has happened to this -- someday someone will die -- and wall or not -- the public will not understand why . . .'"

Jamie Gorelick should step down from the commission at once. If she fails to do so on her own, her fellow commissioners should ask her to step aside. Her role as the architect of a policy that hampered the work of federal agents to track down suspected terrorists makes her unfit to pass judgment on the alleged failures of others.

see, you guys on the right were so ready to endorse the shutdown of thsi commission without them getting to the root cause of the disconnect between the intel/ and ;law enforcement. Thats valuable information .
I dont think the voters are gonna give a hoot about thsi cause both Bush and Clinton arent blameless. If weve had, institutional "chinese walls" in place, then the chances of them fixing the problem were impossible.
hAng in there , we can fix this, thats all I want.

I think the few times that the inquiry has focused on the best way to get to the roots of the problems so that they could be fixed has been somewhat constructive. Zell Miller was correct that the people sitting on the panel were probably not the best choice of experts to do the investigation. And at times the tone attempting to fix blame and make political points is disgraceful.

In retrospect, however, I am disagreeing with Senator Miller. I have great admiration for him, but I do believe he was wrong on this one. Because of public perception, the Commission should not be disbanded until it finishes its task and final report.

I disagree too with Farmer that the voters won't give a hoot. We'll see excerpts of testimony posted on message boards from now until long after the election. Everybody seems to be hearing what they want to hear and reading into the testimony what they want it to be.

And I don't blame either Clinton or Bush for 9/11. There is now some suggestion that Jamie Gorelick (former Deputy A.G. under Janet Reno) on the commission may have made that infamous 'wall' between the intelligence communities higher than the statutes called for and that could have compromised investigations that may or may not have made a difference, but that I think we'll never know for sure. Statutorily, the wall remained in place until the Patriot Act allowed it to come down.

Even so, I do not blame anybody for 9/11 but the terrorists.

A memo verifying the problems in intelligence gathering intentionally or unintentionally caused by Jamie Gorelick was in the news this afternoon. While I do not believe for a minute that Jamie intended for her policies to hurt anyone, she has been disingenuous in not defining her role in that. Ashcroft alluded to it in his testimony. The memo confirms it. Jamie will probably be asked to resign from the Commission.

And, I think that is probably about as close to a 'smoking gun' as this Commission is going to uncover.