There have been quite a few threads here about various events surrounding the 9/11 commission, some highly partisan and at least one started by Artemise that has remained pretty objective (at least the last time I checked). The 911 Commission was created by Congress with the following charter......



This is a pretty serious matter. I would have hoped that such a serious issue would have been addressed in a serious manner. Apparently that isn't going to be the case. We have already heard of the controversy surrounding the actions of one commission member, Jamie Gorelick and her conflict of interest due to the role she played in fashioning Justice Department guidelines that created the "wall" during the Clinton Administration. And, we've discussed the reluctance of the White House to allow Condi Rice to testify in public under oath, and have heard all kinds of howls over the President and Vice President testifying before the commission together, in private with no official transcripts. We've even had the spectacle of the commission chairman telling Congress, the body that created the commission in the first place to "mind their own business" or words to that effect. Talk about "circling the wagons".

So now, we get the extraordinary event of a Congressional commission actually having the chance to question the sitting President and the Vice President about something which almost never happens and what happens? Two of the commission members walk out of the questioning an hour early! Both Lee Hamilton and Bob Kerrey walked out! They cited previous commitments. Here's the story on Kerrey, and if anyone wants to dispute that Hamilton also took a walk, I'm sure I can find that as well. Hamilton is the vice-chairman of the commission! Now, maybe I'm missing something here, but what in the world could possibly be more important than talking with the President of the United States about what happened on 9/11?

Ok, so the question for debate is....

Given the events surrounding the 9/11 Commission, can anything they report be taken seriously or is it yet another case of partisan politics?

I believe your citation answers this question to a reasonable degree - both had prior plans, and the meeting stretched longer than they thought it would.

I also have high hopes that the commission can come up with some credible 'fixes' for our national security system, but I doubt we'll have the full story of what really led up to September 11th. Hell, Bush hasn't even allowed the commission reasonable access to PDBs. Exactly what could be wrong with allowing them to see Clinton's '98, '99 PDBS?? With an administration that's shown such lack of cooperation, I understand the truth is going to be hard to come by.

As to partisanship, I think the commission has shown a considerable lack of partisanship (not perfect, mind you, but much better than you'll find anywhere else) - I think the media and armchair commentators are the creators of the partisanship.

I agree with most of what you have to say. It has become too partisan and the actions of Hamilton and Kerry painted the exact picture of the problem.

In my mind, there IS nothing more important than hearing what the president has to say about 9/11. I don't care if the Pope had God on the line and was waiting for them. We are paying millions of dollars to find out whatever we can, and I don't want two <insert your favorite term that has something to do with Novacaine and a food squirrels like) decide they have better things to do. No they don't.

I believe that was partisanship at the worst level, insulting to the American people, and disingenuous. If they didn't have time for this, they needed to recuse themselves and find someone that did have the time. There was no excuse no matter how you attempt to spin it.

This whole committee has become a farce starting with the actions of the members to Cheney holding Bush's hand in private. The truth has nothing to do with it any longer.

There's no way to know what went on in that meeting between the commission and BushCheney. One might imagine it was sort of like any of Bush's Q&A sessions-a carefully prepared speech and a lot of prevarication, nothing new, nothing earth-shattering....but that's just my personal opinion. Or it could have been more of a lecture on BushCheney's part - who knows? And no one ever will because there are no records. The article does mention that Kerrey was there for 2 hours and that Hamilton had planned his departure in advance, when BushCheney had only agreed to a one-hour meeting. He can hardly be held to ridicule for that. And if you want to put a partisan take on it, the Republicans, who were there the entire time, are the ones most able to spin it however they like.

I will agree that truth has become the ugly bald-headed stepchild in this whole affair.

Given the events surrounding the 9/11 Commission, can anything they report be taken seriously or is it yet another case of partisan politics?

The only way the panel's recommendations would be accepted without cynicism is if the panel itself was completely Democratic or Republican, loved or hated the administration as one voice to the audience's satisfaction. Case in point you started a thread raising the issue of Gorelick's conflict of interest although she recused herself when necessary. You did not, however, address the conflict of interest issue when it pertained to Republicans—"Should these people resign as well?"—and failed to mention it again.

Humor me: would you be willing to openly condemn Thomas Kean if Democrats had been the targets of the chairman’s rebuke?

I’m not holding my breath for any revelation from the panel myself. I think, overall, our intelligence agencies work when not on vacation (speaking of shirking public obligations). However, families of the 9/11 victims wanted a commission and a commission they got. If I lost a family member or friend I would place more importance on the commission, accordingly.

I am unaware of any allegations of a conflict of interest regarding any of the Republicans on the 9/11 Commission. If there is one, feel free to bring it up in a new thread or point me to an existing thread that discusses that topic. I'd be more than happy to participate in that discussion. As far as Keane's "rebuke" is concerned, I assure you that I would have been every bit as insensed by it had it been directed at a Democratic Party member of Congress. It was pure arrogance on his part and he should be ashamed of himself for making it. Congress created his commission, so you bet that commission's operation is Congress' business.

My problem with Ms. Gorelick's participation as a member of the panel isn't that I view her as a partisan Democrat - I actually don't. I think her questions for the most part have been fair, but where I do have a problem with her as I explained in the other thread is that she was a principle participant to what I believe should be a central issue investigated and considered by the panel itself. The so-called "wall" between criminal investigations and intelligence operations. She can recuse herself until the cows come home when it comes to questioning witnesses, but what about when the panel begins to discuss conclusions and recommendations? Does she recuse herself then? If so, then what good is she?

It all comes down to public perception and right now, the public perception of the 911 Commission is the glassy-eyed stare of politics as usual in the Beltway I'm afraid. We see the panel scream to high heaven, begging the President to meet with them and then two of them leave early. We have the commission chairman (a Republican I will add) arrogantly dismissing a Congressman's concerns over conflict of interest, and both sides are spinning like crazy with each and every turn. Yep, politics as usual alright. Lots of headlines and airtime - nothing really accomplished.

Given the events surrounding the 9/11 Commission, can anything they report be taken seriously or is it yet another case of partisan politics?

I'll wait until the report comes out to decide. If it has information in it that supports my stance, of course we can take is seriously.

Seriously, I am concerned about the Gorelick issue even though we have been assured by the committee that she is fair and non-partisan. As to the Pres testimony, I find it interesting that all were present and stayed till the end when they were on television with Clarke, Rummy and Rice, but get them behind closed doors with no cameras and the two people who many believe knew 9/11 was coming - remember Bush Knew - and two of them leave.

Maybe they had something more important to do than to meet with the President and Vice President of the United States on matters extremely important to national security... ....wait, then this isn't really about national security to them, is it? It's about politics, and since no political points can be scored behind closed doors....they had better things to do.

So, I am skeptical (as I am of all 'independent' commissions--gosh, what a farce), but will reserve judgement until the report comes out. Despite all the political game playing while these panels are gathering their information, I think they do quite often produce objective reports. So, we'll see....

All quotes Aquilla:


The conflict of interest regarding the Republicans can be found on the 11th post written by yours truly where I cited three commissioners had to recluse themselves during testimonies, one of them former Republican governor Thompson, in the third quote in the 11th post, citing an AlterNet.org article written by David Corn of The Nation titled “Old Hands on Deck for 9/11 Investigation.”

I specifically cited 9/11 Executive Director Philip Zelikow for scrutinizing Rice, his “friend and co-author.” I was hoping you’d respond to my question on your own thread Conflict of Interest: Should Jamie Gorelick Resign? Since you didn’t respond there and maintain that only Gorelick poses a conflict of interest within the commission and cite her as one cause for public fallout here I had to say something. Personally I think as long as you recuse yourself where appropriate you can stay on the commission.



Commission members have been players in this and in previous administrations in some capacity and may or may not have effected intelligence agencies. The only problem I would have with Gorelick is if she showed up to Ashcroft’s testimony knowing he would produce her memorandum. You give this secretive administration a lot of leeway calling for Gorelick’s resignation when declassifying documents suits them. I think Ashcroft dropped the ball in the hopes of shifting blame and his testimony is quite funny because the commission goes all the softer on him for his "evidence" so as not to seem partisan. Sorry, if there's politics to be played it has been played since the commission was formed.



I doubt that will be the case—if indeed the commission isn’t about pointing fingers. Like I said, I already made up my mind. She has the potential to offer a lot of insight as a one time Deputy Attorney General. In addition, I thought NigteGuy did a decent job of explaining her actions in the other thread: “She didn't build this 'wall.' That was done back in 1978, and codified throughout the 80's.”



Hamilton’s absence was somewhat mitigated by making prior arrangements with the White House. Should the White House have pressed him for attendance, refused Hamilton’s absence? If not, does the White House share the blame for a negative public perception? After all their reluctance to form the committee and later testify is what led to “all kinds of howls.”

I think that this 9-11 commission has shown surprising power to get access to information about 9-11. It has shown independence and determination. Sure it is a bunch of politicians with biased opening perceptions, and I must admit that I haven't been able to follow too closely, but I have been happy to see the commission get such a high profile and I think the politicians involved see the value of producing a credible report. I have high hopes for the report to point out missed opportunities in two administrations and make positive recommendations for how to proceed in a post 9-11 world. Call me pollyanna but I do think we can expect good things from this commission. They already have done more than I thought they could.

The difference between Gorelick and Zelikow is that while he might be a friend of Dr. Rice's, he was not a principle policy-maker in areas of investigation of the 9/11 Commission. Gorelick was. I daresay everyone of the members of the 9/11 Commission has friends who are involved in one way or they other in all of this. They are, after all, Washington insiders. It would probably be impossible to find 12 members for this commission who didn't know someone in DC quite well, that's why they were appointed in the first place. What makes Gorelick stand out is that she is the only one to my knowledge with direct ties to policies that are under investigation. She set the policy, defined it in her memo. Now you can go back and blame the Church hearings for that policy if you want and I'd probably agree with you on that to a large extent, but the fact is that Gorelick also had a hand in things.

Still not sure how that matters Aquilla, Gorelick is afterall only 1/12th of the committee. Any recommendations they pass down in their final report are going to be a combination of all 12 members and anything that requires a vote will likely be a majority vote. Therefore, Gorelick, despite her unique connection to this situation, is no different than anyone else on the committee. Does anyone believe that she is so influential that she'll be able to orchestrate some kind of cover-up in the final report if she made mistakes in the past?

Couple that with the fact that she has voluntarily decided to recuse herself in certain situations and I'm not sure where the problem lies.

Obviously if the report generally exonerates the president then many republicans will hold the commission up as the final word. If they end up claiming that president Bush failed in some way then many republicans will claim its a partisan set-up. Im sure youll see similar efforts to prepare to discredit the commission on talk radio before the final report. They will have their bases covered in case they need to savage the report to save their man (read: messiah).

You're absolutely right. And if Bush is exhonerated, the Democrats will claim it is a partisan setup. If he is found to have failed, then by all means the panel was being completely fair.
Let's not try and insinuate the Democrats are any more saintly then Republicans.

What is your objection to this posting? The topic clearly asks if partisanship will discredit the investigation.

The commission members 'posture', the AD members 'posture'. Now, you might not 'posture' in the same direction but you have no right to try and stifle 'posturing' in opposition to yours. And using the cloak of 'moderator' to stifle that 'posturing' is the worst 'posturing' of all.

This commission stood no chance to achieve anything right from the get-go. It has been nothing BUT partisan posturing and whatever conclusions it draws will be shunned by the 'other' side.

I suggest that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's remember that it was the widows of 9/11, known as the Jersey Girls, who were the major force that pushed to have an investigation of the attacks. We owe it to them to give serious consideration to the findings of the Commission.

As far as the partisanship goes, there are members of the Commission who endeavor to put their party affiliations behind them and examine the information with some objectivity. It is not all partisanship.

We need to consider the body of the information and what it tells us of our awareness of terrorist plots, what strategy if any was in place, and where the system broke down. This is an opportunity to use the data and testimony to improve the nation's domestic security. If we ignore this information because there is partisanship, we will not learn much at all.

Here's a thought: can any panel, populated with politicians, ever be impartial? By definition, don't they all have an inherent conflict of interest? To be perfectly honest, the only real mission of such a panel can be to control the politics of the situation--that's what politicians do. The questions asked by the panel were political in nature, as were the answers given. Nothing else should have been expected, as those giving the questions and answers are politicians. If the goal were truly to perform an objective analysis of the situation, wouldn't the only method of doing so have been to set up an objective and impartial panel?

That being said, is it possible (even likely?) that the eventual report will, in fact, be objective and helpful? Yes. I just fail to understand all the hub-bub about the supposed lack of impartiality--it was never intended to be, nor was it ever going to be, impartial. No one should be shocked or surprised when it's not.

I wouldn't count them out. Unless they come to the conclusion that: "Bush knew and is to blame!" or something like that, they will be taken fairly seriously. I would wager that they will just criticize the bureaucratic structure and leave it at that. That way, no one has to take the fall, and everyone agrees that they aren't to blame, if no one is to blame. In reading the vast majority of their reports thus far, you can see that what they have written is pretty mild in nature. It may not be as professional or serious as the Warren commission, but they will try and live up to that standard in my opinion.