“Not Historically Significant”
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (64) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have been in fairly responsible positions in the Army and the federal government in my career thus far and this experience has made me a complete skeptic on the subject of conspiracies. The military and the government are just too big to organize anything more complicated than a two-car funeral and they just never paid us enough money to keep our mouths shut. These two immutable facts conclusively explain why the government neither found alien bodies in Roswell nor did it kill JFK. So I first approached the Able Danger story with my industrial-strength tinfoil detector.
Much has happened since that first post. Nick Danger provided much more background over the weekend while our friends at National Review Online were getting a collective case of the vapors over having briefly broken the media omerta.
I hesitate to base an entire post on a New York Times story for fear of finding my entire thesis undercut in tomorrow’s corrections column but the Able Danger story is getting curiouser and curiouser.
Read on.
[Update] In interviews on CNN and FoxNews Shaffer says that the 9-11 Commission received two "briefcase-sized" containers of documents from Able Danger.
Today’s New York Timess fills in some factual gaps and asks more questions.
The anonymous officer who claims Able Danger was forbidden to pass information along to the FBI is identified as Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer. He says he was motivated to come forward by the weasely statement issued by the rump 9-11 Commission late Friday in a blatant attempt to kill the story over the weekend.
Weighing this with the information about Atta’s actual activities, the negligible information available about Atta to other U.S. government agencies and the German government before 9/11, and the interviewer’s assessment of the interviewee’s knowledge and credibility, the Commission staff concluded that the officer’s account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation.
Shaffer makes the following assertions:
-- Military lawyers forced Able Danger to cancel three meetings with the FBI. According to Shaffer, the lawyers were afraid the information would lead to a Waco-style outcome and the military would be blamed for providing the intelligence.
-- Shaffer alleges that he vociferously protested the cancellations and was probably the subject of some basic chickenpuckey retribution: his command went after him over $67 in supposed personal calls made on a government cellphone. This resulted in a suspension of his security clearance but tellingly the incident did not appear on the last Officer Efficiency Report before his promotion board met as he was promoted to LTC. *
-- He reasserts that he did brief the 9-11 Commission staff in Afghanistan about the time Sandy Berger was creating a codpiece for himself in the National Archives.
Putting aside the claims Curt Weldon (R-PA) apparently makes in his book, LTC Shaffer coming forth publicly has sphincters snapping shut all over Washington.
The FBI: You got questions on this, call Department of Defense.
The 9-11 Commission: Refused to return phone calls to the New York Times. Now ask yourself when was the last time one of the Media Whores™ (not to be misconstrued as a reference to the common street variety who are also amply represented on the Commission) on the 9-11 Commission ever refused comment on any subject to the New York Times.
Well, maybe one agency isn’t afraid, despite unnamed sources whispering whispers:
The Defense Department did not dispute the account from Colonel Shaffer, a 42-year-old native of Kansas City, Mo., who is the first military officer associated with the so-called data-mining program to come forward and acknowledge his role.
Sometimes desperation brings out the creative juices and chutzpah rises to an art form. This is apparently one of those occasions. In one of the most masterful pieces of deflection I have witnessed as a long-time bemused observer of micropolitics in Washington:
A Democratic member of the commission, Richard Ben Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor, said in an interview today that while he could not judge the credibility of the information from Colonel Shaffer and others, the Pentagon needed to "provide a clear and comprehensive explanation regarding what information it had in its possession regarding Mr. Atta."
"And if these assertions are credible," he continued, "the Pentagon would need to explain why it was that the 9/11 commissioners were not provided this information despite request for all information regarding to Able Danger."
All of this takes us back to nearly where we were last week when the story broke. Except now we have more specific details from a direct player in the affair and the New York Times hints that a Navy four-striper may be coming forward soon.
It would seem that the following issues are hanging-fire:
--If LTC Shaffer asked for three meetings with the FBI what information did he wish to discuss?
--Why did the military lawyers involved think in the context of Waco which did not involve military intelligence but the mere loaning of equipment the law enforcement agencies?
--Beyond their fears of Waco, were there any grounds for denying permission to meet?
--Why did the 9-11 Commission, who now admits knowing about Able Danger after denying it last week, not think this episode rated a footnote – especially in light of the other inane information they did mention in the report?
--Why did the 9-11 Commission when challenged on the absence of reference to Able Danger in the final draft of their report still refuse to at least footnote the incident?
-- What made the 9-11 Commission think it necessary or appropriate to launch a preemptive strike on LTC Shaffer’s “knowledge and credibility”?
-- Why does the name “Dietrich Snell” keep surfacing in connection with this incident and other allegations of ignoring evidence concerning broad al-Qaeda connections with terrorist acts? As another RedStater aptly put it, this guy seems like Harvey Keitel character in Pulp Fiction.
What will come of this? Your guess is as good as mine. It does point to a weakness that part time bloggers – those of us with day jobs to pay the mortgage – have vice the MSM. Unless the NYT or WaPo decide this is worth their time and effort it will be relegated to the same category as “the Jews didn’t show up for work” and “a missile hit the Pentagon.” Or in the hopefully immortal words of the 9-11 Commission’s spokescreature:
The Commission did not mention ABLE DANGER in its report. The name and character of this classified operation had not, at that time, been publicly disclosed. The operation itself did not turn out to be historically significant, set against the larger context of U.S. policy and intelligence efforts that involved Bin Ladin and al Qaeda.
---------
* Why is this significant? Because any Army officer whose last efficiency report is over 90-days old when a promotion board meets (it meets once per fiscal year) can request a “complete the record” report , similarly his rater can submit a complete the record report if anything good or bad has happened since the last report. The idea that a commissioned officer with this level of security clearance would a) be hazed about a cell phone bill or b) not have a OER submitted on him if he had committed an act of moral turpitude that warranted having his security clearance suspended just stinks.
Schaffer is clearly not going to grow up to be a general, but he was promoted at the time when one would expect him to be promoted. The promotion he received was a critical promotion as the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) requires that a major twice passed over for LTC be forced to retire at 20 years. An OER reflecting that his security clearance had been suspended would have guaranteed those pass overs and LTC Shaffer would be Mr. Shaffer today.
The fact that an adverse OER did not go forward and prevent his promotion to LTC based on this incident indicates that neither his rater (his boss) or his senior rater (his boss’ boss) were on board with the idea of screwing with him.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Our Enemies Know It's Crunch Time for an Iraqi Constitution — Comments (21) »
“Not Historically Significant” 64 Comments (0 topical, 64 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Earlier this week it was looking like this story was going to disappear like the Downing Street memo story. People were backing away from it as if it were something Howard Dean had said.
Thank goodness LTC Shaffer got fed up with the weasely comments by the 9-11 Commission and decided to risk his name and reputation to try and set the record straight.
I hope more people who were involved with Able Danger will come forward to corroborate his story. It will take guts because the left is ruthless. They will try to deflect from the main issue: Able Danger identified Atta as a threat a year before 9-11. They will try any and every means to vilify everyone who speaks out.
I agree with you that with the New York Times running the story we'll have to wait for their corrections, but at least they aren't sitting on another important story.
And this has all the makings of a VERY important story.
at least as it comes to government planned/organized conspiracies, given the same reasons you do-our government is just too big, and there are too many ways to get caught out-just isn't going to happen.
But I think there are some serious questions being raised by this, not the least of which is why the 9-11 commission completely ignored it, denied it, then admitted it to some degree.
Now that the army source is no longer anonymous, there may be some more answers forthcoming.
Seems like the damn finally broke on this story. Good points in your review. I would watch Morrissey's angle regarding what this does to the Atta timeline and his meeting with Iraqi's - that could be an amazing angle. Especially if Able Danger has Iraqis on their chart of 60 terrorists.
And Bergler's actions make more and more sense since this news has come out.
Here's a growing news and blogger round up on the subject - and of course Redstate is mentioned!
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/533
Cheers
I disbelieved the "Able Danger" story when it first broke. Now that we have a witness and more facts, however, it's beginning to look plausible that someone (or ones) at the DoD or on the 9-11 commission either screwed up or acted to protect themselves from embarrassment -- or some combination of the two. (It still may turn out to be overheated BS, of course.)
"I hesitate to base an entire post on a New York Times story for fear of finding my entire thesis undercut in tomorrow's corrections column"
Risk management is an important concept!
I sometimes think we need to be careful of evaluating with blinders on-the justice department took some really hard hits post Ruby Ridge/Waco (as they should have), and I imagine there was some CYA going on to prevent another incident. I also think the wall did a lot to prevent any real communication, and did enough to scare off anyone considering the communication.
I think the 9-11 commission had a list of facts they wanted to come out with, and probably did seek to dismiss those things that didn't fit inside the facts, and they were looking for the CYA.
I still think that Gorelick did not belong on that commission, she should have been a witness. This is like putting a witness to the crime on the jury in the trial.
I haven't seen him mentioned prominently yet, but I'm waiting and will go ahead and ask who is interviewing former Atty. Gen. Ashcroft? That's the interview that takes the heat back off the Able Danger team, and puts it back where it belongs - civilian management pre-9/11 and the actions of the commission.
The Ben-Veniste comment is classically dizzying misdirection - so much so that it's only rational in some other dimension - try to make sense of it in this world.
Without going anywhere near the details leading into conspiracy land, there are still numerous unanswered issues about "the wall" and former Asst. AG Gorelick and her staff's roles.
What does Mr. Ashcroft have to say? Inquiring minds want to know.
While I realize it's always fun to play Monday Morning Quarterback I'm don't know what all the "issues" are with the Gorelick memo. It was pretty straight forward. Perhaps that memo had damaging consequences but they were most certainly unintended.
The Gorelick memo was written to ensure that criminal investigations weren't tainted with information that they could not legally have.
OK, but if you read Berger's and Clarke's testimony about mood in 2000 none of that should have mattered. They were supposedly looking everywhere for AQ in the US. Supposedly they were waiving FISA at any reasonable lead on AQ.
And you know what, this is why a clumsy Clinton administration did more damage than perceived. WACO and Somalia pretty much had the entire government pulling back from these clowns.
And someone needs to also have a spine. Able Danger had one, they put threat over career and politics....
At some level of danger, there are no valid excuses. Supposedly Clinton's national security team felt the threat was really high after the millenium bomber was accidently caught.
None of this makes sense right now.
I still think that Gorelick did not belong on that commission, she should have been a witness. This is like putting a witness to the crime on the jury in the trial.
Agreed.
And you've just hit another:
What's the difference between assuring that "criminal investigations weren't tainted with information that they could not legally have" and preventing wartime attacks? And, who gets to decide that? And who draws the line between "terrorism" that is criminal and that which is war? And what is the extent of the Attorney General's office involvment in any of these decisions?
Those are a few questions from the extreme end of the spectrum which were non-existant before 9/11. If 9/11 changed anything, it seems to have swung the focus back to defense and away from prosecution.
Are the standards for admissible evidence in court different than grounds for war, and, if so, which agencies, officials and branches determine that? And which of those has authority to act on those determinations?
Clearly, there's ambiguity in obtaining and using info in multiple settings, and equally clearly various officials and agencies worked at cross purposes to the detriment of the national defense.
The consequences of all these decisions was certainly unintended, but equally certainly they were very damaging.
As far as Monday morning quarterbacking, did the 9/11 commission address these issues? Surely. Did the resolve them completely? Apparently not.
Clark's testimony. I think the Clinton admin was wary of getting anymore mud on its face so it decided to avoid the conflicts.
left with in his pants and destroyed is even more important.
I strongly suspect that his document destruction was intended to hide something more significant than we have been led to believe. I just don't see a guy who well understood the importance of and protection of classified materials leaving with, and destroying documents that were of little consequence-he wouldn't have taken the risk, if there wasn't something significant worth hiding.
Oh good, it's our favorite "I don't understand the 'issues'" deflector...
You say' "It's always fun to play Monday Morning Quarterback."
Isn't that exactly what the 9-11 Commission members were organized to do?
Why didn't they do it properly?
They didn't do their job if they somehow decided that ANY information regarding identifying Atta a year before 9-11 was irrelevant.
Maybe you can explain for us how the information that Able Danger had regarding Atta would have "tainted" the FBI's criminal investigation "with information they could not legally have."
That is one of the questions I would like Ms Gorelick to answer.
Additional questions would include:
- What possible good did she envision when she erected "the wall?"
- Did she personally have any knowledge of Able Danger before or while she was serving on the 9-11 Commission?
- Why didn't she recuse herself from serving on the Commission due to her obvious conflict of interest?
- What testimony did she give the Commission as a primary witness? Oh wait, she never testified...
unless she was there to sanitize the results. Or, should I say, her staff was there to sanitize the results. She knew full well by the time the Commission sat that the "wall" was a historic issue.
It never played an important role in the deliberations of a Commission that was determined to paint the Bush Administration as the enemy.
There's definitely something that happened beyond what we've been led to believe. I'm just not sure if there was a concerted effort to hide evidence for the same reasons streiff mentions. I've been involved with the military in two very different aspects and in both cases I never saw any organization that was cohesive enough to pull the wool over everyone's eyes in any large scale fashion. But the Berger thing really bothers me, not sure how a man who knows the ins-and-outs of these things would attempt something so stupid.
I've always had a problem with this argument. There seems to be a perception that 9/11 somehow abrogated our need to prosecute terrorists in all cases and they should always be dealt with in a military manner. This simply isn't true. Once a would be terrorist enters our border we have NO CHOICE but to treat them criminally. Are you suggesting that our military should have dealt with Atta prior to 9/11?
There is absolutely NO QUESTION that there were, and still are, significant flaws in our intelligence community that allowed Atta and the others to perform their evil acts. But to try to label the Gorelick memo is a cause of these flaws is far fetched. If you read the memo in question it is pretty clear that she was looking to ensure that the people that were being prosecuted did NOT have their cases damaged by entering information that was not legally obtainable. She wasn't setting policy. She was pointing out what the LAW stipulates.
As for the 9/11 Commission I always felt it was sham. If you want to find out the cause of something the LAST person you want to investigate the matter is a politician.
was a dog and pony show intended to placate voters by giving the illusion of government investigation.
Maybe you can explain for us how the information that Able Danger had regarding Atta would have "tainted" the FBI's criminal investigation "with information they could not legally have.
It is illegal for US intelligence agencies to monitor Americans inside the borders. FISA is not ALLOWED to monitor Americans. FISA is not required to follow American law in monitoring foreigners. Thus their information is generally going to be inadmissable in an American court. Furthermore if FISA were to provide that information to investigators it is possible that the defense lawyers could claim that the charges should be dropped because ALL of the evidence was obtained illegally.
I don't know or assert that the memo was the "cause" of the flaws, so much as a symptom or them or a part of them.
To go to the other extreme, if we are invaded, are we constrained from responding militarily the moment the invader enters our territory?
I don't think this is an "always/never" argument at all. My concern is that pre 9/11 there seemed to be precious little focus on the issues as involving national security so much as crime. Also note that this isn't a particularly partisan issue. While Clinton may have been the president for two terms immediately preceding 9/11, the threat has been growing since the 80's, if not going back into the 60's, but was justifiably overshadowed by cold war national security issues.
Finally, I think it understates the issues to posit that Gorelick "wasn't setting policy". She seemed to have been at a level where policy was clearly the driving issue. I understand the decisions made, and appreciate the susceptibility to second guessing, but results and consequences have a way of forcing reconsideration of prior decisions.
And so is Austin Bay.
It looks legit.
Obviously in retrospect the MULTIPLE walls that were in place between intelligence agencies were detrimental to the security of our country.
Instead of trying to pin the blame on Gorelick we should be looking at the root causes of the problem and how to fix them.
You would know I jumped on the Bergler connection day one and posted how the documents he destroyed were being circulated and commented on while the Able Danger folks were trying to get to the FBI.
I agree they are lying (didn't you catch all the caveating phrases?). No doubt.
"It is illegal for US intelligence agencies to monitor Americans inside the borders."
None of these people were Americans, Einstein.
So what? US law enforcement is STILL bound by the same laws.
they did not hold resident alien visas and thus were not classed as "US persons" under intelligence laws or executive orders.
They were neither citizens or green card holders. They were fair game for FBI, CIA, and military intelligence.
"So what? US law enforcement is STILL bound by the same laws."
The laws forbid intelligence agencies from conducting surveillance of Americans, not surveillance of foreign nationals.
... There seems to be a perception that 9/11 somehow abrogated our need to prosecute terrorists in all cases and they should always be dealt with in a military manner. This simply isn't true. Once a would be terrorist enters our border we have NO CHOICE but to treat them criminally. ...
I certainly don't agree with the assertion that they must be treated as criminals. A state of war exists between the United States of America and an loosely connected international entity called Islamofascism, generally represented by Al Qaeda.
If we start acting like we are at war then the pretense of criminality goes over the transom. The US military can, and has, dealt with saboteurs entering the US for the purpose of damaging our capability to conduct war. I for one have no trouble seeing Al Queda and the rest of these b*stards as being no different than some saboteur. Give them a military tribunal appropriate to a saboteur and if found guilty stand them up against and shoot them.
Why is it that there is an element in this country, and the West in general, that has such a hard time undertanding their objective is to kill you and all of the rest of us if they can. This is not some d*n carjacking that got out of control.
The MEMO was written about people CURRENTLY being investigated and not tainting THAT investigation. It did not deal with the 9/11 bombers in ANY WAY. There are some who CLAIM that this memo is why there was no inter-agency information sharing. I find this claim dubious.
Look at the memo again.....
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document_1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
It was NOT designed to limit counter-intelligence. The intent of the memo was to EXPAND counter-intelligence capabilities by not limiting them to the restrictions imposed on the FBI and DOJ.
I didn't express an opinion on that subject, I just called bullcrap on another of your extraordinary claims. As jadedmara says below, check before shooting your mouth off.
You read where I said US LAW ENFORCEMENT, right? If we are trying to convict someone of something, anything, then law enforcement must follow the law in investigating that person REGARDLESS of whether that person is a citizen or illegal alien.
Different agencies within the government have different rules that they must abide by.
FISA was likely well within it's bounds when it did its counter-intelligence work. However that does NOT mean that the information they obtained was legally permissible for a domestic law enforcemet agency.
your claim was wrong, as usual, therefore it wasn't extraordinary. If you'd been right, that would have been extraordinary.
is if you would ever actually comprehend my comment instead of trying to take it off on some silly tangent that is irrelevant to the discussion.
Someone asked how it could be illegal for NISA to give information to the FBI. I explained how that could happen.
And thus you have once again deflected us from the main issue which remains:
Able Danger identified Mohammed Atta as a major terrorist threat a year before 9-11 and was not allowed to pass that information to any organization that could have responded properly.
..I just haven't had the time to follow it and figure out what the heck is going on. Just a regular citizen, too busy to read the news...
As for the little I know of the story, I have no special insight...and if I could find out information, I wouldn't share it :-)
You are correct. And the law says what exactly. That's where you seem to be misunderstand the others.
It is legal to spy on foreign nationals with proper clearance. It is NOT legal to spy on Americans. This is an eternal frustration for the intelligence community but it is also a great barrier to an overzealous police state.
Do you really not understand the law or are you just being obstinate?
They were operating at a higher level of restriction than legally mandated.
talking to the wrong guy. I did not mention FISA in any of my posts or in my story. Period. You apparently are too obtuse to comprehend that simple nugget.
You've obviously never read the FISA as you obviously don't have a clue as to what a "US person" is so any contribution you might have to make in that regard is limited.
And I've had enough of this deflection on this thread. Go harass someone who won't delete your comments.
write a cool diary giving your opinions as a private citizen.
... is this fascination that the left has with dealing with terrorists and saboteurs as if they were a bunch of guys who knocked over the local Seven-11? Why is it not possible to adopt an entirely different paradigm to deal with them?
- If you enter this country, or are a legal resident, with the intent to organize or conduct terrorist acts against citizens, residents and property then you are an enemy alien and entitled to be treated as such; which means that you will be tried before a military tribunal and if found guilty subject to imprisonment in a military facility or execution in accordance with military law.
- If you are a citizen of this country and you organize or conduct terrorists acts against citizens, residents or property then you will be tried in the Federal civilian criminal courts. Conviction subjects you to imprisonment or execution in accordance with Federal law.
Why is it so hard for the left to treat these people like they actually are the enemy?
However domestic LAW ENFORCEMENT still must abide by the same restrictions. I was NOT talking about intelligence agencies.
Let's remember what sparked my comment. A question as to how could the FISA have information that the FBI cannot have/use.
IN THIS CONTEXT it doesn't matter whether the people were foreign nationals or not. The FBI still must abide by the same rules if they wish to prosecute someone in this country.
THAT IS WHY there was a wall between FISA and the FBI.
It would seem you are doing the harassing.
Right Again asked me this question....
Maybe you can explain for us how the information that Able Danger had regarding Atta would have "tainted" the FBI's criminal investigation "with information they could not legally have.". I responded to THAT question. You guys, instead of reading my entire comment, pulled out some of it so that you can harp about how Atta wasn't an American.
Perhaps had you read my entire comment......
FISA is not ALLOWED to monitor Americans. FISA is not required to follow American law in monitoring foreigners. Thus their information is generally going to be inadmissable in an American court.
you would have realized that I ALREADY said that the rules were different for foreign nationals in regards to FISA.
...the argument's getting a little draining, but he may have a point. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know, but no one's really answered the question: can FISA information possibly be NOT used in a court of law?
I know pre-Patriot Act, domestic law enforcement organizations could not direct FISA investigations or request specific information. That's the "wall of separation", as far as I understand. However, would the FBI's having FISA info "taint" the investigation to the point of creating a mistrial? That, I don't know.
As annoying as it is, flyerhawk's question stands.
"Why is it so hard for the left to treat these people like they actually are the enemy?"
Because, to the left, they are NOT the enemy; the terrorists and saboteurs are their friends and comrades. Witness Lynne Stewart...and her defenders.
"They were operating at a higher level of restriction than legally mandated."
Exactly. Because the terrorists are the ideological soulmates of Hillary Clinton et al.
But I do think they were trying to keep the ACLU and others of that ilk happy.
but I've let this thread get hijacked by FISA when it isn't in the story. And I've let it get hijacked by non-lawyers arguing about FISA.
So I'm calling a ceasefire and moving on and directing future FISA discussions to their own diary.
[parent] feature. Because you are not responding to him.
Are you also restricted by Gorelick's wall? :)
let's get back to the important stuff. There's no way LHO whacked JFK (as a crazed lone Marxist assassin, or even at all). Occam's Razor, a great rule of thumb, is not a physical law. The Smell Test applies here.
If we belive this guy, and we have no reason not to, this info never made it
outside his immediate area. Until someone in DOD comes forth with credible info
that Berger or anybody else in the executive branch was made aware we should let
that part of the story go.
What we should focus on is the failings of the 9/11 commission. It just makes
no sense to me that Republican staffers would have dropped the ball on something
like this, even if Washington is a total CYA environment. So who received the
boxes of documents on Able Danger (which we are told was only a small subset)?
Who reviewed them? Were staffers from both parties always involved in document
review?
If a situation was allowed to occur where only individuals from one side checked
leads and docs then I would strongly want Gorelick and other associates on the
commission from her time at Justice investigated as a coverup by one party,
or more likey, one member and their staff, is the only reasonable explanation this
only came out now.
sentencing in September.
That was the point of my comment which seemed to ignite this thread - the attitude should be:
"we were invaded and the armed forces are fighting back against poorly uniformed enemy and related saboteurs. Oh - and law enforcement needs to be on the lookout too. Maybe they should review legal standards as they have at it."
That seems more like SOP until post-Korea. Now, how the State Dept. cleans up the aftermath is a different story, but it seems our priorities are all out-of-whack for the time being.
but when you have friends who buy ink by the barrel, as Bergler does, it's highly unlikely that you'll have to do anythng more than pay the fine. It's also not likely that there will be any public outcry for further investigation.
Allowing him to plead guilty and pay a fine is part of the unspoken agreement between administrations.
combined with the horrendous mistake of leaving Jamie Gorelick on the commission has done something very bad to the credibility of any government investigation.
All told, this may be a death knell to any credibility of such a commission. It seems to show that:
- The commission was not just looking to unearth new information, but to hide something incriminating.
- The commission wasn't even able to recognize a conflict of interest when it was staring it in the face.
- Because it left the conflict of interest in place, it has left open the question of what its motives were.
- If the Able Danger story is essentially true as reported, those motives are even more in question.
- If the motives of the commission are questionable, its conclusions, all of them, are suspect.
- If this commission, given its obvious importance to national security, has behaved questionably, what does that say about the credibility of other commissions? For example, did the Warren Commission cover up a conspiracy, or did it cover up something else?
That last question has never held any weight for me, but for anybody who is inclined to be suspicious of government assertions of innocence, they now have real ammunition that it (a commission with mixed motives, at best) can happen, because it appears that it HAS happened.
the quality of this link, but it does answer your implied question.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_why_the_fbi.html
The problem started long, long before Jamie Gorelick.
that Gorelick, as a member of the commission, kept quiet about her "wall" memo until it was uncovered by accident, and that the commission then didn't remove her for the obvious conflict of interest.
The result is a commission that rendered its own conclusions questionable.
The sad thing is that this problem was foisted on us by people that thought our greatest enemy is our own government.
A good history is found at
given a pass?