DescentBB

It would now seem that american needs another commission...one to investigate the 9/11 commission.
After all this time and effort, the answer for why 9/11 happened sat in the 9/11 commission's very midst. A quiet little hen that was not bashful about grilling the witness's, never offered up to the public that she should have been the star witness. For those of you who missed out on the testimony given by John Ashcroft, it has come to light the chief reason for all the missed connecting of the dots lay squarely on the masonary callused hands of Ms Gorelick who built the american version of the Berlin Wall by decreeing that intelligence agents could not share information with F.B.I. investigative agents:

ASHCROFT: The 1995 guidelines and the procedures developed around them imposed Draconian barriers, barriers between the law enforcement and intelligent communities. The wall effectively excluded
prosecutors from intelligence investigations. The wall left intelligence agents afraid to talk with criminal prosecutors or agents.
In 1995 the justice department designed a system that was destined to fail. In the days before September 11th, the wall specifically impeded the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui. Investigation of Khalid
Al-Midhar and Nawaf Alhazmi. fter the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal search warrant to search his computer. The
warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.

ASHCROFT:
This memorandum laid the foundation for a wall separating the criminal and intelligence investigations. As a matter of fact, established the
wall following the 1993 World Trade Center attack, which at the time was largest international terrorism attack on American soil, the largest prior to September 11th. Although you understand the
debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum, so I have had it declassified for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum is a member of the commission.
End Quote

So, because the politically paranoids of the flower child era graduated into positions of power under the patronising hand of the hipster Clinton's administration, the ability to "connect the dots" was sub-humed under the tectonic plate of counter cultures fear that private citizens should not have to live in despair of jack booted gestapo cia agents peeking into their pathetic dope pads and then getting the feds to bust down the door to haul them away. For these safety concerns, 3,000 people
died.

Hey, you know what? Bin Laden caused 9/11. Even Bush is far, far more mature than to go around pointing fingers and claiming it was all Clinton's fault. If it's Clinton's "fault" for not doing anything in his Presidency, as you would assert is the case, then Bush is also culpable for not bombing the hell out of Afghanistan in the first year of his Presidency.

I know it comes as something of a shock that Clinton isn't responsible for something.

I have never trusted John Ashcroft and I see no reason to magically start trusting him simply because what he said supports the case for war.

Actually I'd look more at Janet "Butch" Reno for allowing Gorelick to issue the "Wall" memoranda.

'Scuse me? I missed the clever retort in between all of the pseudonyms.

Not to let this slide away, this is a momumental conflict of interest and, as Chip notes, seriously calls into question the non-partisan objectivity of the 9/11 commission. For those not following too closely, Ms. Gorelick (one of the 9/11 commissioners) is the author of the policy that further separated counter-intelligence gathering from prosecution. They weren't just sent to different rooms, they were forbidden to share information directly. That lack of direct sharing is arguably the largest *smoking gun* so far revealed in the commission's hearings that might have allowed us to discover the scope and plans of al-Qaeda years before the 9/11 attack. How can the author of the policy that arguably hamstrung our intelligence services be allowed to remain on the commission that will ultimately assign blame? Take into account that Ms. Gorelick is reportedly angling to be would-be President John Kerry's Attorney General and it adds up to a compromised commission and predictably a compromised report. Ms. Gorelick has stated she doesn't see this as a conflict of interest and currently is balking at recusing herself from the commission.

If it is the case that Mrs. Gorelick should be suspect, then she should be removed from the commission, or at the very least put on the stand to testify like the others.

See how much clearer an argument can be when you aren't busy bashing Clinton, woodchip? Thanks, bash.

"We made a conscious decision, and part of it was under strong pressure from the [victims'] families, to make this commission as transparent and as visible as possible."--9/11 commission chairman Thomas Kean on commission members' repeated TV appearances, quoted in the New York Times, April 15

"People ought to stay out of our business."--Kean, on allegations that commissioner Jamie Gorelick has a conflict of interest, quoted in the Washington Post, April 15

Heh.

And so goes the eventual descent into madness.

Y'know, the more I think about it, the more I believe the 9/11 commission was a mistake. What we essentially have here is government investigating the government, and politicians pretending to be non-partisan in fact being partisan (gee, big surprise there). It seems to me the American public would have been better served if an independent audit - from an authority outside of the government - was the one running the show. Otherwise, it definitely seems like we have a total conflict of interest here.

Although, wasn't it the case that the committee's members were handpicked by the parties themselves half Republican, half Democrat?

What started out as a good idea, I'm afraid the commission has deteriorated into another O.J. trial with certain democratic peacock members fanning their feathers in partisan display. Commission members have no rational for spending 20 minutes making political statements and then accusing a witness of filibustering when they (witness)are trying to answer a question.

If it is the case that Mrs. Gorelick should be suspect, then she should be removed from the commission, or at the very least put on the stand to testify like the others.

See how much clearer an argument can be when you aren't busy bashing Clinton, woodchip?

More clear but certainly far less colorful Why not point out Clintons failures. Afterall the whole premis for the commission was to investigate allegations that Bush "knew". Lord knows the vast liberal news infastructure has been avoiding this.
We wouldn't want to sully the Clinton name while Hillary is positioning herself for the 08 presidential race...now would we.

woodchip wrote:Afterall the whole premis for the commission was to investigate allegations that Bush "knew".

Really? I thought it was to come to a greater understanding of how intelligence failed and why 9/11 was allowed to occur, be it the fault of some event in the past, or some event in the present, or some persistent ongoing flaw in the system.

Silly me to not realize it was a vast liberal conspiracy that the Republicans, for whatever reason, decided to humor!

Well, I know of at least two commissioners that have conflicts of interest, and I'm sure every one of them can be said to have conflicts based on their party affiliation. Does that mean that the governments actions before and after 9/11 shouldn't be scrutinized by the only people with the power to really investigate such things (read: access to documents and information that ordinary Joe's like you and I don't have) because they are fallible human beings? I don't think so.

The commission and the commissioners are two separate things. No one has said the need for an inquiry is misguided. But only a blind man could claim it hasn't already been used for blatant partisan grandstanding, and *the wall* that impeded intellignce sharing is not a partisan red herring. Witnesses from both parties have cited that policy as a significant obstacle that restricted pre-9/11 investigations into Al Qaeda's activities. Conflicts of interest come in a variety of sizes. Having the author of the policy to further separate counter-intelligence investigations from counter-intelligence prosecution on the wrong side of the table comes in the *jumbo* pack. In essence, she's sitting in judgement of actions she's partially responsible for. She should recuse herself to salvage what little credibility the commission retains. Kissinger was hounded off the panel of commissioners for far less and IIRC you thought that was proper.

Yeah, and Philip Zelikow, the Commission's Executive Director, was part of Bush's foreign policy transition team, and sat in on the briefings Clinton administration officials gave the incoming Bush administration vis a vis terrorism.

From what I have read, Gorelick has recused herself from reviewing actions that occurred while she was at the Justice Department. Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't see where Zelikow has done the same.

The case could be made that she should be a witness, rather than a commissioner. But isn't the same true for Zelikow? One who appears to have greater control over the inner workings of the Commission? I see a lot of this, but not a lot of that.

And about this "wall" between intelligence investigations and criminal investigations. It seems to me that this "wall" could have been scaled with oversight processes that were already in place pre 9/11. It seems that that oversight has been removed (patriot act) for the sake of expedience, rather than reworking the oversight to improve efficiency. A quick fix, if you will. I'm not too sure that is a good thing.

Back to the Commission, any commission that has the power to harm certain pols politically will always be called "partisan" by those pols. The Bush Administration has the most to lose politically by the actions of the 9/11 Commission, because, well, they're running for re-election this year. So color me unsurprised that their surrogates are claiming partisanship.

And call me learned, but I hit refresh before posting this. I was less interested in conflicts Kissinger might have had than his history of being less that forthright with America on matters of war and peace.

Zelikow recused himself from those portions of the commission's hearings. Also, Zelikow was not responsible for making policy decisions or implementing recommendations during his brief time on the transition team. Gorelick also recused herself but she was making and implementing policy decisions. World of difference between their individual conflicts. Color me unsurprised you don't appreciate the distinction.

Certainly the *wall* could have been scaled but that presupposes there was unambiguous evidence or suspicion to warrant the extra time and effort. The judicial procedures were the equivalent to search warrants where each side would have to make specific petitions through the Justice Dept. for what they wanted to review and await approval. How can one know what information is significant and deserves follow up if singly it doesn't fit a pattern or point to an obvious missing puzzle piece that may or may not be sitting on the other side of the wall? The allowance for serendipity was practically eliminated. The discovery of relationships between seemingly unrelated items sits at the heart of most successful investigations. Each side of the wall only had their own pieces to ponder over. It's only common sense to believe that a more complete picture could have been gleaned had both sides had direct access to all available information and that that better understanding may have been sufficient enough to have prevented 9/11.

And about this "wall" between intelligence investigations and criminal investigations. It seems to me that this "wall" could have been scaled with oversight processes that were already in place pre 9/11.

Excuse me Vander if I mis-interpret your intent but Gorelick followed this thought pattern by stating the wall and 9/11 were not on her hands as her actions (read memo) could have been changed when the Bush attained office. My my...what a shallow defense of ones actions by shifting blame to someone else. What Ms. Gorelick seemingly fails to understand is all the planning was put togeather while her boss was in charge and that her memorendi was what allowed it all to happen. Without her directive there is a very good chance that 9/11 may have been prevented as active inteeligence on some of the terrorist players was on hand.
Considering all the games and delay tactics the dems fronted after the election, Bush could not even get his full cabinet togeather until well into 2001 (which is why he retained so many Clinton holdovers). To exam every piece of justice dept directives as to how they may impact a future war on terror is inane, especially when such things as a american plane sits on a chinese runway and N.Korea has restarted its nuclear program. So again, I stand by my statement of how the politically correct 60's era hippies got into power, turned their drug induced minds inward and left america open to attacks by outside attacks. I wonder if Ms Gorelick hears the cries of any of the 9/11 victims.

As an aside, what the heck does "recuse" mean. Not in my Funk & Wagnel dictionary.

But still, the panel members of the commission were decided upon by both parties, right down the middle. All of this moaning about "Gorelick did this" and "Zelikow did that" should have been thought of before both sides sat down at the bargaining table.

This sort of equates to juror selection. The prosecution and the defense (the metaphorical Republicans and Democrats) have a chance to select jurors that they feel will support their case. Clearly, the opposing side's objective is to not let that happen. When the trial comes around and the jury finds the defendent guilty, the defense can't turn around and argue "But your honor! The jury was biased against my client!"

Now of course, it could have come out somewhere along the line that "Your honor, juror #7 was sleeping with my client during this trial." Juror #7 should leave, no question about that. But, you can't apply this logic to every single tiny detail that rubs you (or rather your party) the wrong way.

But clearly, who would believe when this whole thing started that it wouldn't transform into a partisan fiasco? Which is why I go back to my previous point - why wasn't an independent (read: non-government) commissioned to look at 9/11 instead of a bunch of whiny politicians?

woodchip wrote:As an aside, what the heck does "recuse" mean. Not in my Funk & Wagnel dictionary.

Same thing you can probably assume from the context.

to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case; broadly : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest

"why wasn't an independent (read: non-government) commissioned to look at 9/11 instead of a bunch of whiny politicians?"

I mostly agree, though I'm sure having a better knowledge of the internal workings of government has it's benefits.

On the Gorelick topic, let me just say that I have no vested interest in whether or not this person is on or off this commission. Same goes for the guy I brought up. It might have been nice to know about all these people when the commission started, but it's a little late to be crying foul about members considering it will be finishing up very soon. If Gorelick's past actions are so at the base of government failures, Ashcroft didn't have to wait until this late date to make them publicly known, though it did make for some good "gotcha" talking points. Which brings me back to my point, I'm not surprised certain people (read: nobody on this BB, much like my use of "surrogates" before) are claiming partisanship or trying to discredit the commission when the threat of political harm is in the air.

Here's Gorelick's response to critics. Take it as you will:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer

Although accusing Ashcroft of ambushing Gorelick for *gotcha* talking points has a certain ring of truth, questions about Gorelick's inclusion on the commission and doubts about her impartiality were raised months ago.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -3448r.htm

Then why wasn't there more hell raised back then over it? If the republicans truly felt that this would become a huge partisan conflict-of-interest, why did they humor the plan? The article says nothing about Ashcroft's efforts to make the knowledge known prior to the investigation, so we may only assume that it was a "gotcha" wildcard to be played.

Never trust a bunch of politicians to come to a rational conclusion about a serious problem.