It Never Happened.....Huh?

Yeah, the 9/11 Commission has come out today and denied that there was any intelligence that identified Mohammad Atta as a threat before the 9/11 attacks. 

Even in the face of two eye witnesses, Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott, who have stated publicly that Able Danger produced evidence of such a threat and with the identification of three more witnesses, ex-Senator Slade Gorton (R), a member of the Commission, said this today,

"Bluntly, it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us."

Who are they kidding?  How can Gorton say "it just didn't happen" without even talking to any of the five witnesses? 

Thomas Kean says that the witnesses statements cannot be verified by any documentation.  A J Strata begs to differ.

Frankly, I smell CYA.  I think the 9/11 Commission was and is a joke.  Anytime you have someone (Jamie Garrelic) who was part of the problem, on a commission to investigate the problem...you have, well... problems.  Captain Ed puts it most eloquently...

The board of bureaucrats recommended an expanded bureaucracy while blaming operational personnel for not "connecting the dots", ignoring the fact that the bureaucracy -- aided by one of the Commissioners themselves -- created a Byzantine legal environment which actively suppressed the data-sharing necessary to make the proper analysis.

With all of this new information coming forward, and I believe there will be more, it's evident that the 9/11 Commission, in their investigation, just did a cursory review of the evidence available to them.  And now they are refusing to accept any new evidence and are blatantly turning a blind eye to any information coming to light that may dispute their findings.  The Commission is not a court of law....the investigation into 9/11 is not a trial where once a verdict is rendered, no new evidence can be brought in for a new trial.  It's a commission set up to find out how it was that the United States was blind sided by a terrorist group known as Al Qaeda. 

There is no statute that precludes the commission from reviewing and using any and all new evidence that is brought to their attention.  They just have to be committed enough to actually read it.

Lisa

Hat tip:  Michelle Malkin

Comments

[chris]

No, there is no statute that prevents it but the Commission has been disbanded as has its power to investigate as has the security clearances they were granted for the purpose of investigating and so they might find it a bit difficult to compel documents and request/subpeona people to testify---so if the 9/11 commission can't be trusted because Jamie Gorelick was on it will you say the same about the investigation that the President has promised to head into KAtrina? Will everything they say be suspect because President Bush has a stake in covering up possible mistakes made on his watch?

[lawhawk]

It's Jamie Gorelick btw.

Oh, and the Commission was required to produce a report no later than 20 months after the original enabling legislation was enacted (as amended by P.L. 108-207). Section 610 of the original legislation, 107-306 provides the sunset provisions).

However, more fundamental to your point is the fact that the Commission failed its basic obligation to " (4) make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States' preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks;" (Sec. 610(4) of P.L. 107-306)

What bothers me is that the omissions are purposeful - consider that the Mary Jo White memos were excluded despite the fact that they touch on the interplay between legal interpretation and national security with the Gorelick wall - this despite an oblique reference on a single page of the Final Report that opinions were solicited. White's opinion was so harshly critical of Gorelick that it stands to reason that Gorelick may have had something to do with why that particular information was omitted.

[lawhawk]

Chris:

It's a fair point. When politicians say that they're going to launch investigations, one should automatically get their BS detectors on - it's face-saving and political point scoring time. Congress getting involved wont fix that.

That said, what do you propose be done to figure out what went wrong with the Katrina response (let alone what should be done about Able Danger).

[Matt Hurley]

Any Katrina Commission that comes up with anything other than Katrina did it is going to be suspect in my eyes anyway...

Other acceptable answers: Mother Nature and Gaia.

[Matt Hurley]

Lawhawk asks a good question...

What would I propose to find out what went wrong...and I assume we're talking about what happened after the hurricane ripped through...is get Mayor Nagin, Governor Blanco, Michael Brown, Admiral Whatshisname from the Coast Guard/FEMA and beat it out of them...I'm thinking a couple prizefighters ought to do the trick. Mike Tyson ain't got anything to do...I'd imagine the though of him biting of their ears ought to motivate them to get the truth out on the table...

[Matt Hurley]

I recommend the same thing for the 9/11 Commission for entirely different, but equally satisfying, reasons...

[Lisa]

Lawhawk...thanx for the correct spelling. Frankly, I don't have enough respect for her to even bother but that's just me.

You just drive my point that the commission was/is a joke. Gorelick was the cause of the lack of communication between the military and agencies like the CIA and FBI...therefore any information that came before the commission that proves that fact, would certainly be brushed aside by her or those working for her. Again, the reason the Mary Jo White's memos were conveniently ommitted.

Chris... Bush didn't cause Katrina, he didn't prevent the mayor of New Orleans from evacuating his citizens before Katrina, he didn't cause the governor's slow request for help from FEMA. He's already fired the head of FEMA.

Oh, but that's right.... you wanted the President to publicly humiliate the guy by firing him at a podium before the American people. The act of firing just wasn't good enough for you.

[chris]

Ummm--he wasn't fired hon, he resigned and yes I did want him to publicly humiliate Mike Brown--king of the Arabian Horses Ass... but more to the other points you tried to make--lawhawk says it stands to reason that Gorelick is the cause of White's memos not being included in the commission report--maybe so, but lots of things that stand to reason wind up not being true and you have no evidence that this is the case--remember this was a bipartisan commission--what purpose would the Republicans have to carry her water? Why would they cover for her? Those questions are worth answering if you are going to throw around stuff you can't prove...as for President Bush heading the investigation. I think he should. I think it shows true leadership. But and it is kind of a big but--it has to be a transparant investigation--there can't be anything left unanswered it has to be a full accounting of what happened and who dropped the ball at every step. If it is not and there is the appearance of hiding facts or covering asses then the President will get the same kind of scrutiny that Gorelick gets from you guys--he should run the investigation and make sure it is run right--if he does that then he'll be fine--but if he doesn't do it right well, I suspect my liberal friends will treat him with the same kind of "respect" the 9/11 Commission received.

[drewsmom]

I have no respect for the 9/11 Comm. nor do I trust what they have said, only the Jersey girls, with their bias can believe much of what these clowns have said and done. I'm pissed at the way they are so critical of the hurricane response as if clear thinking Americans that know about ABLE DANGER like the way they left stuff out of their overfunded finished report. This just sux.

[Lisa]

Chris, babe...if you think Mike Brown wasn't fired, you color you hair to hide your blonde.

I don't want my president heading up a commission to investigate what went wrong with the response of all levels of government in Katrina. He's my president....he has much more important things to attend to ...

like, ummm...RUNNING AND PROTECTING THE DAMN COUNTRY!!!!!

[Shari]

And then there is this nice little tidbit.

Atta Papers Destroyed on Orders
By Matt Margolis at 08:14 PM

So, how are the Democrats (and the liberal blogosphere) going to explain this?

A Pentagon employee was ordered to destroy documents that identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist two years before the 2001 attacks, a congressman said Thursday.

The employee is prepared to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was expected to name the person who ordered him to destroy the large volume of documents, said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa.

Weldon declined to name the employee, citing confidentiality matters. Weldon described the documents as "2.5 terabytes" - as much as one-fourth of all the printed materials in the Library of Congress, he added.

Maybe there are copies in Sandy Berger's pants?

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/005476.html

[HC Steve]

Lisa

Be sure to tell me when bush starts protecting the country. That would be a nice first.

[chris]

Taking bets now on who it was who ordered the destruction of the papers and I think you are giving Sandy Bergers pants way too much credit...:)

[Rita]

John Kerry..:P

[Drewsmom]

Can't wait to see who ordered the destruction of documents but the msm will not cover this as they would have to break away from Bush bashing.