http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Forget the spin, the hype, or talking heads views on what the commission is doing on a political or patriotic front . . . the staff reports are just chock full of details and evidence.

I just read her (Dr. Rice's) statement....wow!

But, didn't see where the staff posted their report. I guess that will be coming later. Thanks for the link.

Taken from Staff Statement No. 7 Conclusion regarding Intelligence Policy

The Commission has heard numerous accounts of the tireless activity of officers within the CTC (CounterTerrorist Center) and the UBL Station (a special task force created by the CTC to monitor Bin Laden) trying to tackle al Qaeda before 9/11. DCI Tenet was also clearly committed to fighting the terrorist threat. But if officers at all levels questioned the effectiveness of the most active strategy the policymakers were employing to defeat the terrorist enemy, the Commission needs to ask why that strategy remained largely unchanged throughout the period leading up to 9/11.

MTI, in your mind, is a question a conclusion?

B

This thing gives me goose bumps. I was so very close to be one of those dead.

If you read the paper, you'll see that the excerpted last paragraph is part of a 4 paragraph "conclusion" drafted by the Commission staff. Since the hearings are ongoing, their "question" about what happened in policy making would seem appropriate in their conclusion.

What's terribly fustrating, after reading these papers, is that both intelligence agencies, military and policy makers were tantilizingly close to "getting their act together" and mounting a coordinated answer to al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Staff Statement No. 8 on National Policy Coordination really sets out the zigs and zags that the principals had to go through to move forward against the terrorist threat.

I just re-read it. Perhaps we use different reading glasses. My reading is that each paper is nothing more that a recitation of the events of the day, not an analysis of the events. Thus, It is beyond premature to connect dots, much less read conclusions.

It's sometimes misleading to analyze data and reach conclusions before the full data acquistion phase is complete. Small sample sizes result in a greater probabaility of sampling error.

B

The papers are what they are, certainly not the final word on the Commisison's investigation. They are compilations put together to benefit the Commission as the hearings continue. You have to give the staff credit for piecing the parts together in a cogent, well written manner. I think I learned more from reading these than any media reports. They raise as many questions as they provide answers. For instance, why not go full speed with getting the Predator armed since it seemed to be the best potential weapon to take out Bin Laden. Why did staff in the CTC feel "belittled" by their intelligence partners for raising the warnings about al Qaeda?

Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Its omniscient, clairvoyant and perfect.

In two years, what will people say would be the right thing to have been doing in Iraq? Which policy group's position paper will turn out to have been prescient?

B

Dr. Rice broke things down into the simplest terms, now our forum experts but do their work on the hearing minutes. It's a shame this was turned into the political cirus it is now we can't benefit from the commisions original intentions.

I guess Clarke should apoligize again, this time he can do it wearing $5000 loafers.

B, what staff papers are you reading? Throughout the many pages and in the conclusion, I didn't sense that "blame" was being pursued, but questions as to policy and direction by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The papers do raise valid questions about what could be done in the future to prevent America from being hit again, and isn't that the point?

The Commission is a public show, an earnest attempt at the truth, and a tool for politicians to use against each other. That little cutie, Ben Veniste is an excellent example of the latter. The co-chairs, in contrast, seem to be behaving as adults. I was disappointed in Bob Kerry's recent performance. He's a better man than that.

The value of the Commision's report will be gaged by the number of of conspiracy theorists make a living off it over the next half-century. Like Kennedy theorists, you see.

I didn't see blame on the site. I see it in the words used to describe the documents. Those words are what I mean by political weapons. Used to wound the opponent, not to improve our country.

B

...that's funny, I sorta liked his opening remarks to Dr. Rice. And he's not a politician I find all that compelling ordinarily.

Thanks, that helped me make my point.

B

...everyone needs a 'useful idiot' from time to time.