Friday, August 12, 2005

The 9/11 Commission omission does the following:

1) Reaffirms the need to tear down the intelligence wall (one of the main reasons to support the Patriot act). In fact, this story points to the possibility that the intelligence wall may have been directly responsible for keeping us from stopping the attacks.
2) Reaffirms my point that the 9/11 Commission is a bipartisan committee that negotiated a report based on facts they could agree on. That the commission would neglect evidence because it did not fit its pre-conceived conclusions makes clear just how unserious the commissioners were in approaching their job. The report may have been interesting because it compiled a timeline, but it was little more than that.
3) It makes me wonder anew what was in Sandy Bergler’s pants.

I say we need to have a commission to look into the commission to find out what they knew and when they knew it. And perhaps another commission to look at the general state of commissions. Why not create a new cabinet post – The Secretary of Commission Overviews, who will answer directly to the President. In turn, the President will answer directly to this secretary. Of course, there will be an independent council to oversee both.

No comments: