Gorelick-gate: 9/11 Commission Rocked by Scandal

[SuperTool]

Noone wants to answer my question. Who appointed the 9/11 commission?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Noone wants to answer my question. Who appointed the 9/11 commission?

Dubya did.

 

[chess9]

Dealmonkey:

The Commission seems to be taking its work seriously, as it should, and Kean in particular is showing the restraint and resolve the task demands. I have faith it will do a good job and make some serious recommendations that all parties will have to respond to with ACTION.

Smashp:

Nice quote find with the Kean quote. I hadn't seen that. Thanks for the effort.

-Robert

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: jahawkin
FYI the latest RNC talking points about the 9/11 commission is the the commissioners (especially the ones with the D - in front of thier names) are spending too much time on TV and in newspapers talking about their findings.

Oh, and for all the people asking Gorelick to step down due to her conflict of interest, surely you are asking the executive director of the commission, Philip Zelikow to step down as well, right?

Of course they wouldn't...that wouldn't be "fair and balanced."

Did anyone say that or is this just another "Im pathetic so I have to bash republicans" kind of things?

Then tell me why the Republicans are clamoring for Gorelick to step down. You do realize Zelikow worked for Condoleezza Rice and wrote a book with her?

First off I would have to say no, I was not aware. Secondly I would need to ask in what capacity and when he worked for her. Third, I would state that a writing book is hardly the same , people quite often work together in Washington and it doesnt seem to be related to the comittee .

Fourth I apologize for my stament in my oprevious post to this thread.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Here's my question: Do you think the 9/11 commission should have been formed? In other words, should we investigate one of the worst terror attacks on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor?

If you answer "no" are you suggesting that we just write-off 9/11 as a "big mistake" and move on?

If you answer "yes" then how do you recommend the commission proceed to fully investigate the causes and effects of 9/11 and determine where our government failed us without distributing blame to those it deems are at fault?

Seems to me the root problem some have around here is that some blame is being leveled at Bush and his administration. Of course, Bush supporters as well as the administration will accept only NO blame and unfortunately there's where the disconnect lies. The commission is only accused of "playing politics" when it levels blame against the Bush adminstration. It's by no means singling out the administration as it's leveled blame all around. CIA, FBI, Clinton administration, etc.



I just want to point out the apparant double-standard I see around here quite a bit.

The double standard you speak of, the blame thing, Fill this blank in;

The only damage that assigning blame can do is done to _______________________

No, the commision in its current form with its problems on both sides of party lines
should not have been formed. It should have had, as well as a mission, defined boundaries.

No, I am not suggesting that 9/11 was a big mistake and that we should just move on.

But I will suggest that most of the inherent problems that the commision
has pointed out were put into place by previous administrations, are currently being adressed by the
current administration, and is evolving at a good pace, despite the size of the bureaucracy.

Assigning Blame to anyone in this terrorist act except OBL is political, and is being exploited by all
parties.

Pointing out fundamental flaws in our security aparatus is a good thing if the pointing could
stay there, as that is the only thing that will possibly prevent another big attack.

Simply to Hate Bush is an Idle Task.

I choose to support action over inaction even if the action is questionable...

 

[jahawkin]

Link

By the time Ashcroft's turn arrived, some fairly serious charges about him were on the table. Why, one day after telling the Senate in May 2001, that combating terrorist attacks was his highest priority, did Ashcroft issue a memo outlining the Justice Department's strategic goals that didn't mention counterterrorism -- a memo that Watson testified almost made him fall out of his chair? Why, in the summer of 2001, did Ashcroft reject a request from Pickard for an extra $58 million to help the FBI combat al Qaeda? And why did Ashcroft, after being briefed twice by Pickard on terrorist threats that summer, tell the acting FBI director that he didn't want to hear about the matter anymore?

The gravity of these charges was undoubtedly why, in his opening statement to the 9/11 Commission, Ashcroft went on the offensive in a way that no witness testifying to the Commission has before. The attorney general blamed the failure to prevent 9/11 on the "wall," a government-imposed legal barrier that prevented intelligence investigators from sharing information with criminal investigators. Disparaging the wall is, in itself, relatively uncontroversial: Not long after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration and Congress tore down the wall as part of the Patriot Act, a decision that a federal appeals court upheld in November 2002. But then Ashcroft went a step further: He claimed the Clinton administration was responsible for building the "wall" in the first place -- and that the administration's primary bricklayer had been none other than current 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick. Brandishing a secret memo that Gorelick wrote as deputy attorney general in 1995 -- a memo that Ashcroft had helpfully declassified for the occasion -- the current attorney general declared, "Somebody built this wall. ... Full disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum is a member of the Commission."

It was a smug bit of political theater, but it was both disingenuous and irrelevant to the proceedings at hand. For one thing, Gorelick didn't exactly build the wall on her own. In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret intelligence court and relaxed the standard Fourth Amendment rule requiring "probable cause" when the government sought search warrants for the "primary purpose" of gathering foreign intelligence. But over the years, in order to prevent criminal investigators from abusing FISA -- and its lower threshold for obtaining search warrants -- the government built a wall to keep criminal and intelligence investigations separate. Gorelick's memo merely codified what was already standard practice. What's more, if Ashcroft really thought the wall was such an impediment to combating terrorism, he could have moved to tear it down himself before 9/11. But as 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gorton, a former Republican senator from Washington, noted, the Bush Justice Department actually ratified the existence of the wall, noting in its own secret memorandum on August 6, 2001, that "the 1995 procedures remain in effect today."

Yep, its all Gorelick's fault.

 

[drewshin]

What the PDB Didn't Say

According to a staff report released this week by the 9/11 commission, after the September 11 attacks, Ressam told his American-government handlers that he recognized as a fellow Afghan training-camp student Zacarias Moussaoui, the French-born associate of the Hamburg-based 9/11 hijackers who was arrested by the Feds just before the 9/11 attacks for behaving suspiciously at a Minnesota flight school. Unfortunately, nobody at the White House was told about Moussaoui?s arrest. Neither was Tom Pickard, the interim director of the FBI, nor Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Both Pickard and Ashcroft were also out of the loop on the PDB. Thanks in part, to a more restrictive policy imposed by President Bush when he took office, PDBs were not circulated to the Justice Department by the White House. Instead, Ashcroft was sent, on Aug. 7, 2001, a Senior Executive Intelligence Brief, a watered-down version of the bin Laden PDB that had even less information, leaving out, for example, one sentence that was provided to Bush: that the FBI has information that ?indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks.?

So, at the very moment when many in the U.S. intelligence community were bracing for an attack, Bush was not the only one who appears to have been uninformed about bin Laden's intentions inside the country?and just how catastrophic that attack could be.

Looks like the current administration also believed in a "wall" in intelligence sharing

 

[chess9]

Oops, maybe I was wrong. Hmmm. That's a pretty damning bit of information, JH.

-Robert

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Noone wants to answer my question. Who appointed the 9/11 commission?

Dubya did.

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.
So he appointed Gorelick having access to that information, but now that he is not happy with the way it is going, he is sending his lapdog Ashcroft to smear her.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Noone wants to answer my question. Who appointed the 9/11 commission?

Dubya did.

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.
So he appointed Gorelick having access to that information, but now that he is not happy with the way it is going, he is sending his lapdog Ashcroft to smear her.

You don't think she should testify?

CkG

 

[FrodoB]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: Perknose

You're right. This panel is a real national embarrassment. The rest of the world must be laughing at us.

Uh, not laughing, more like <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/16/215754.shtml" target=blank>cringing in fear.</a> And the panel is not the reason: "Nearly two-thirds of respondents to an international poll sponsored by the British Broadcasting Corporation say they have an unfavorable opinion of George W. Bush. Asked who is the more dangerous to world peace and stability, the United States was rated higher than al-Qaida by respondents in both Jordan (71 percent) and Indonesia (66 percent). Furthermore, America was rated more dangerous than two countries considered as "rogue states" by Washington. The U.S. was rated more dangerous in the eleven-country survey than Iran -- by people in Jordan, Indonesia, Russia, South Korea and Brazil, and more dangerous than Syria -- by respondents in Canada, Brazil, France, Indonesia, Jordan, Russia, South Korea and the United Kingdom. The countries rounding out the eleven include: Australia, Israel and the United States. The survey, conducted for the BBC by ICM and other international pollsters, gauged opinion towards U.S. military, economic, cultural and political influence."

You admit to being a Phillies fan?!?!

Accross all the bullcrap that ALL of us dump into this great political divide, <STRONG>FrodoB</strong>, you just reached right through and tickled my funny bone. Well done. I salute you!

It's cool that you have a sense of humor. Too many in these parts take this too seriously.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Noone wants to answer my question. Who appointed the 9/11 commission?

Dubya did.

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.
So he appointed Gorelick having access to that information, but now that he is not happy with the way it is going, he is sending his lapdog Ashcroft to smear her.

Hey ding-ding - you and dong-dong want to double check your facts?

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Noone wants to answer my question. Who appointed the 9/11 commission?

Dubya did.

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.
So he appointed Gorelick having access to that information, but now that he is not happy with the way it is going, he is sending his lapdog Ashcroft to smear her.

Hey ding-ding - you and dong-dong want to double check your facts?

CkG

Stay away from my ding-dong

 

[DealMonkey]

Cad, are you disputing that Bush created the 9/11 commission and appointed the individual members?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad, are you disputing that Bush created the 9/11 commission and appointed the individual members?

I'm saying that you might want to check who actually picked the individual commission members - yes. Ultimately Bush signed off on the whole thing but I believe you might want to check who actually picked some of the members. IIRC Bush only appointed the chairman who was originally going to be Kissinger but he stepped down after 2 weeks because people complained of a conflict of interest or something. No I'd gladly love to be proven wrong but I have seen nothing to substantiate the claims made by you and ding-ding about Bush picking Gorelick.

CkG

 

[fjord]

"The investigation should carefully examine all the evidence and follow all the facts, wherever they lead (sic)..... It's our most solemn duty."
--GWBush on the creation of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 commission)

5 Dems/5 Reps chosen bet White House and Congress.

Bush himself probably didn't chose anyone, including Kissinger, Dole or Kean--his advisors did--but he may have personally nixed Kissinger.

Bush Picks Kean, Lott Taps Lehman for 9/11 Panel

by Deborah Zabarenko
Reuters
December 16, 2002
http://news.findlaw.com/news/s/20021216/attackcommissiondc.html

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday named former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican, to head an independent commission investigating the U.S. government's failure to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks.

Later on Monday embattled Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott chose former Navy Secretary John Lehman, completing the 10-member bipartisan commission that is meant to investigate possible policy lapses related to the hijack attacks that killed more than 3,000 people.

These choices came three days after Bush's previous choice, Republican former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, resigned abruptly amid charges of conflicts of interest. Former Sen. George Mitchell, a Maine Democrat, resigned earlier as vice chairman of the commission.

"I am pleased to announce that Thomas Kean, former governor of New Jersey and president of Drew University in New Jersey, will serve as chairman of the National Commission to Investigate the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and the events that led up to it," Bush said in a statement. "Tom Kean is a leader respected for integrity, fairness and good judgment."

Kean, a moderate who was on Democratic President Bill Clinton's commission on race and chaired a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy, has also been on the boards of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, United Health Care Corp. and the National Endowment for Democracy.

Lott, under fire for remarks that some critics say show support for racial segregation, named Lehman to the last Republican slot on the commission.

"His experience on the National Security Council and as deputy director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency will be a great asset to the Sept. 11 commission," Lott said in a statement.

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who has been a strong voice for the 9/11 families, said he was pleased by Lott's choice of Lehman, even though the families had supported former Republican Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire.

"Although the families were understandably united behind the appointment of Senator Warren Rudman, who also had my support, he was ultimately not selected," McCain said in a statement. "I am convinced, however, that John Lehman will aggressively pursue the truth to wherever it may lead so we may help avoid future terrorist attacks on our nation."

Lehman, of Pennsylvania, is chairman of J.F. Lehman & Co., and of OAOT Technology Solutions, and serves as director of the Ball Corporation, Insurance Services Office, SDI Inc., Elgar Inc. and Racal Instruments Inc.

BUSH INITIALLY OPPOSED COMMISSION

The Bush administration at first opposed the commission, which is charged with investigating possible intelligence, aviation security, immigration of other policy lapses related to the Sept. 11 attacks. Victims' families led a public campaign and pressured the president to reverse course.

When he signed legislation creating the commission, Bush urged its members to expedite their work, due to be completed within the next 18 months, and directed them to "follow all the facts wherever they lead."

But a senior administration official conceded that last week's high-level resignations meant the commission was not getting as fast a start as the president had hoped.

Kissinger's selection sparked controversy because of his policy-making role during the Vietnam War and the bombing of Cambodia, and because he is a high-priced private international consultant who declined to make his client list public.

Mitchell, the former Senate Democratic leader, announced last week he would not serve on the panel, citing time pressures. Democrats have recommended former House International Relations Committee chairman Lee Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat, to take Mitchell's place.

Democrats have named five representatives to the Sept. 11 commission, including Hamilton as vice chairman.

House of Representatives Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, on Sunday appointed former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson and Fred Fielding, a former White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan.

Thompson is chairman of the Chicago-based law firm Winston & Strawn and Fielding is a senior partner in the Washington law firm Wiley Rein & Fielding.
Copyright © Reuters 2002.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Or you could have just used this fjord to see who appointed Gorelick, fjord

Ms. Gorelick was appointed to the commission by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, and former House Democratic leader and presidential candidate Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri.

CkG

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Or you could have just used this fjord to see who appointed Gorelick, fjord

Ms. Gorelick was appointed to the commission by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, and former House Democratic leader and presidential candidate Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri.

CkG

Just helping out wherever I can to get the facts right.

Getting the facts right --as a stated goal and aspiration-- is probably why I didn't immeadiately run over to the Washington Times...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Or you could have just used this fjord to see who appointed Gorelick, fjord

Ms. Gorelick was appointed to the commission by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, and former House Democratic leader and presidential candidate Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri.

CkG

Just helping out wherever I can to get the facts right.

Getting the facts right --as a stated goal and aspiration-- is probably why I didn't immeadiately run over to the Washington Times...

First hit on a quick google search

CkG

 

[fjord]

Bahhh, Google.

It'll never catch on.

 

[Chadder007]

This Commission BS should never have happened. But some people wanted to go around pointing fingers at each other. The panel should /itself. Both sides are making it a political issue and its p!ssing people off.

 

[DealMonkey]

Frankly, I don't really care of Gorelick steps down or not, however, if there was really a problem it would seem strange that the entire commission would circle the wagons and defend her. Seems (to me) the administration simply didn't like the tone of her questioning and therefore have directed the dog-launcher in her direction. Don't those dogs ever get tired?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Frankly, I don't really care of Gorelick steps down or not, however, if there was really a problem it would seem strange that the entire commission would circle the wagons and defend her. Seems (to me) the administration simply didn't like the tone of her questioning and therefore have directed the dog-launcher in her direction. Don't those dogs ever get tired?

The entire commission is defending her? That's an interesting assertion

Anyway - I could really care less if she steps down - I just think she should testify and should have informed the commission of those types of memos and her involvement. I think the fact that she didn't say anything is the issue most disturbing to many looking at this. If nothing else - she must testify IMO.

CkG

 

[fjord]

The 9/11 commission has worked fine...lots of findings--all necessary in a democracy.
Remember, "A country that hides something has something to hide." --GWB.
No "Suiciders" need apply.

Next Up: WMD Hearings, Soon Please
by Dick Meyer. Published on Friday, April 16, 2004 by CBSNews.com

 If voters are going to be able to make an informed choice in November, the presidential commission on pre-war intelligence headed by former Senator Charles Robb and federal Judge Laurence Silberman must hold public hearings before the election. The 9/11 hearings that just finished have convinced me of that.

The administration will stonewall the commission if it tries to hurry along. Administration foot-dragging will have plenty of support from Congressional Republicans and Washington wise men that will warn that such somber matters shouldn't be tainted by election year politics. Such tainting is trivial. Informing voters before they vote is vital.

And it's not going to happen without hearings by the Robb-Silberman commission.

The administration didn't want a 9/11 inquest in the first place, but they gave in. They didn't want to give Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton access to key documents and key staff, but they gave in. They didn't want high profile hearings in an election year, but they gave in. They didn't want Condoleezza Rice to testify in public, but they gave in. They didn't want President Bush to appear, but they gave in.

The Bush administration didn't want an inquisition into their case for war with Iraq - big time, but they gave in.

Now the administration should get ahead of the "give in" steamroller and allow hearings by that commission this summer. July 1 would be a good start date, the day after sovereignty is transferred in Iraq.

Why? Because the 9/11 hearings worked.

High officers of both the Clinton and Bush administrations were called to account in public before an expert, authoritative and quite nonpartisan panel. The fireworks sparked by Richard Clarke and Condoleezza Rice got the public's attention. But the hearings were not a spectacle of showboating by members of Congress looking to boost their Q-factors and reelect numbers.

Indeed, the hearings brought a good deal of new information to the light of public scrutiny. Just as importantly, they provided a great education for voters, reporters and, probably, Congress.

Some Republicans tried to paint the Kean-Hamilton inquest as a partisan witchhunt, but it wasn't. Sure, Richard Ben-Veniste, Timothy Roemer, James Thompson or Fred Fielding sometimes came off as partisan hatchet men. But overall the questioning was balanced and skillful and the results were edifying.

The Bush administration was taken to task for some specific actions, but wasn't trashed for its pre-9/11 performance. Same for the Clinton administration. I think it was a fair trial and the jury of voters is now well informed and will look at the evidence about the pre-9/11 American understanding of the terrorist threat with common sense and without pointed fingers.

The voters should have the same opportunity to assess the decision to take the country to war in Iraq.

The panel's official title is the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United Sates regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. The long, dull name reflects the administration's desire to constrict the panel's mission to WMD issues and prevent forays into the administration's focus on Saddam Hussein's ties to al Qaeda or the president's apparent preoccupation with Iraq as the mother of all evil-doing. The panel should respectfully blow those restrictions off and assess the whole palette of pre-war intelligence.

President Bush has offered numerous justifications for the war and continued to do so at Wednesday's prime time news conference. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was tied to al Qaeda. The Iraqi people deserved to be liberated. This week, Mr. Bush explained that America was "called" to "work toward a more free world" because "freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world."

The WMD commission ought to explore all of this. If President Bush's view of the missionary vocation of America to spread freedom on the planet influenced his administration's decision to go to war and its interpretation of pre-war intelligence, it should be on the table.

The Robb-Silberman commission has been slow to get started. The panel's executive director, retired admiral, John Redd, has been working for Paul Bremer in Iraq and won't start until May. But that leaves plenty of time for hot hearings in July.

What do you say, Mr. President?

Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is the Editoral Director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.
©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

That's also what the 9/11 Commissioners now seem determined to ignore. How long will they continue protecting their colleague at the cost of their own credibility?

CkG