Is the 9-11Commision a Joke?

[oc2002]

I have been hearing that this commision is nothing more than a 'dog and poney' show for the families of 9-11.

Whats your take on it? or any good links that show this is true?

thank.s

[Frank_Person]

1. Yes. A very bad one.

[dennis4868]

2. After watching yesterday's....

proceedings I realize that the commission is VERY political....you had one commissioner who was actually saying there was a Saddam/911 connection. I really thought the commission would be truly independent, but it is not.

[AlCzervik]

3. Partisan panel

Yes this panel at least publicly looks very partisan on both sides. Gorton trying to connect Iraq and 911 and Rohmer holding up and quoting from Clarke's book. Not good, the families deserve more and so do we.

[NNN0LHI]

4. Dog and pony show. A well orchestrated one. But still a dog and pony show

Bush and his minions hand picked the jack offs on this commission so what else do you expect?

Don

[prodigal_green]

5. No, because if it were

I might be laughing.

It is a travesty. There is nothing funny about it.

[UTUSN]

6. Travesty

The "clubby", smug, self-satisfied atmosphere is absolutely sickening. Everybody, including the invisible emperor in the room, goes from yukking it up to pausing momentarily to "remind" us of how horrific 9-11 was. Then back to yuk-yuk, smirk-smirk. What this (c)omission is going to do is to is to spread culpability evenly between the CLINTON administration and the Shrub mal-administration. And that effing-Bob KERREY is infuriating.

[tom_paine]

7. Yes. The joke's on us.

Like the Warren Commission and the Iran-Contra Hearings.

Methinks in many ways the Height of the Old Republic was in the late 1970s, post-Watergate.

Been all downhill since then. Now, the hill grows steeper as we approach the end.

[Beam Me Up]

8. Much WORSE than 'Dog and Pony'

'Dog and Pony' is ultimately harmless.

This is something completely different.

See my sigline. Whoever controls your perception of reality controls you.

This commission isn't an inquiry that starts by QUESTIONING THE FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS of what happened on 9/11 and from the answers to those questions, builds a picture of reality. This Commission ASSUMES CERTAIN THINGS TO BE TRUE and proceeds to ask questions based on the idea that those assumptions are incontrovertible facts. Its function is to solidify the "official view" of what happened on 9/11 in the public's mind. That is, its function is to keep our collective attention focused in ONE DIRECTION. The implication is, "the questions we are asking are the only important or serious questions to be asked...there are no other questions worth asking."

edit: clarity

[keithyboy]

9. Much worse than a joke. See my latest post.

I am sorry, I didn't see your post earlier.

[Minstrel Boy]

10. It's a shadow play.

The 9/11 families wanted representation on the panel after Max Cleland was squeezed out.

Can you imagine Kristin Breitweiser's questions?

There was never an intention that this reluctantly struck, underfunded, hurried and stacked panel would disclose the truth.

[Quahog]

11. Pardon my cut & paste (this is from another thread)

Maybe this line of thought will get more discussion here than it is getting at the thread I started here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1277898

- snip -

You know, we here at DU watch the live coverage on C-SPAN, or the reruns, or read the transcripts. We bounce the testimony we hear off of others on this forum, and we compare and contrast what's being said with what we have learned through our own research over the last two years. But the vast majority of Americans watch their local news at best, Fox at worst. And this is the official talking point coming out of ABC as of this morning, that the commission is hearing evidence that nothing could have been done, by bush or anyone else. I don't blame the anchor or even my local news station... I'm sure this copy came straight off the wire from the home office. NBC and CBS are undoubtedly spinning in much the same way.

My impression is that this is the very conclusion that the commission has pre-determined, but at this point, it doesn't seem to matter much what they determine. The media have already found bush inculpable (and Clinton too, in all fairness). It was all just a tragic series of misunderstandings and miscommunications, and Saddam won that round, he got us good. But we sure kicked his butt right back, didn't we? Heh-heh.

You see where this all is going. The whole thing is a charade at this point, anything Clarke has to say this afternoon will already be irrelevant. The reports have already gone out: nothing could have been done. Except for one course of action that we chose not to take.

The overall tone seems to be, "The US did everything we possibly could have to stop bin Laden prior to 9-11, OTHER THAN EXERCISING THE MILITARY OPTION." This is the one area where it's implied that we erred on the side of caution. Clinton, we are told, had a number of opportunities to launch a major military strike on some location were bin Laden was probably hiding out, but the conventional wisdom at the time was that there would be too many civilian casualties, that it might look like the US had just gone off half-cocked. I was actually a bit surprised that this was not laid more squarely at Clinton's feet; it sounded as though there was bipartisan agreement that we couldn't just go rolling in with guns blazing.

But the current administration would have no such qualms, as they demonstrated in Iraq. Bombs succeed where diplomacy fails. Sure, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis died, along with nearly 600 US soldiers so far. But this is TERROR we're combating here. No price is too great.

Short of issuing indictments, this commission will do nothing to damage the momentum of the rolling juggernaut that is the unholy PNAC alliance. Shortly after bush is re-selected in November, Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia will be invaded by a "US-led coalition," and this time they won't even bother coming up with a bullshit excuse to do it, they'll just do it.

- snip -

So my answer to your question is no, it's not a joke at all. It's the next step in a march toward global war waged by the US. Nothing funny about that.

[leftofthedial]

12. It is a total whitewash

the lines of questioning, with very few exceptions are designed to provide the witnesses with opportunities to deflect blame from themselves. The media examination also is either wholly partisan or embarassingly uninquisitive.

The *Bush administration witnesses so far have obfuscated and avoided answering questions. Powell particularly almost never answered the question he was asked. When the occasional question of substance has been asked, the *Buhies all have pointed the finger at someone else.

I've not seen all of them, bur the only witness I've seen so far who was remotely impressive was Madeline Albright.

The proceedings are obviously designed to avoid confrontation of the real issues, most especially *Bush junta negligence. When the occasional glimmer of an actually relevant issue comes up, the proceedings are punctuated by applause.

Whenever a potentially damning moment arises, the questioner's time runs out or the subject is immediately changed.

The Repugs on the panel are nearly purely partisan. Bob Kerrey apparently believes that the US should have long ago conquered every Islamic country on Earth and killed every Muslim. Any action short of this was a failure in his opinion. The only opinion he seems to hold more strongly is that Powell and Rumsfeld are the two greatest Murkans in history.

[bacchant]

13. It's carefully crafted

to ensnare the Clinton administration. Because BushCo figures the vast majority of Americans will never buy MIHOP/LIHOP, their main problem becomes the perception of incompetence. By making sure to spread the blame as wide as possible they foster the attitude that it's nobody's fault, hence the "There's plenty of blame to go around" talking point.