| National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States |
Article Index for National Commission |
Website Links For National Commission |
Information AboutNational Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States |
|
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the '''9/11 Commission''', was set up in late 2002 "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the" September 11, 2001, Attacks , including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The commission was also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks. Some have compared its important, and potentially controversial, role to that of the Warren Commission of 1963 - 1964 . Chaired by former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean , the Commission was comprised of five Democrat s and five Republican s. The Commission's final report was a very lengthy book, based on extensive interviews and testimony, but its primary conclusion was that the failures of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau Of Investigation permitted the terrorist attacks to occur and that had these agencies acted more wisely and more aggressively, the attacks could potentially have been prevented. After the publication of its Final Report , the Commission closed on August 21 , 2004 . MEMBERS The members of the Commission were:
The Commission's Executive Director was Philip D. Zelikow , and the Deputy Executive Director was Christopher Kojm . Daniel Marcus was the General Counsel. Past and present government officials who were called to testify include:
President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney , former President Bill Clinton, and former Vice President Al Gore all gave private testimony. President Bush and Vice President Cheney insisted on testifying together, while Clinton and Gore met with the panel separately. REPORT The commission issued its final report on national security documents. Before it was released by the commission, the final public report was screened for any potentially classified information and edited as necessary. Additionally, the commission has released several supplemental reports on the terrorists' financing, travel, and other matters. See Also: 9/11 Commission Report CRITICISMS See Also: Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report Because the investigation was Controversial and politically sensitive, many participants have been criticised during the process. Most of the complaints fit into the following categories. Claims of bias within the commission Some members of victims' families have claimed that the commission has numerous conflicts of interest. 9/11 CitizensWatch, in particular, called for the resignation of Philip D. Zelikow , the executive staff director. Zelikow is a Bush-appointee who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He spent three years on the President George H. W. Bush 's National Security Council. Zelikow worked closely with Bush NSC advisor Condoleezza Rice and even co-wrote a book with her. Some worry that Zelikow may be using his power to deflect blame from himself and to protect Rice. In addition, many members had ties which could be viewed as conflicts of interest. , , Hamilton , Kean , Gorelick .]]
The commission's defenders claim that these do not represent significant conflicts of interest, and that the commission can be expected to maintain its neutrality. Claims of lack of cooperation from the White House In April 2002, Bush said that the investigation into 9/11 should be confined to Congress because it deals with sensitive information that could reveal sources and methods of intelligence. But by September, the White House came under intense fire concerning the commission from many victims' families [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/20/national/main522682.shtml . President Bush promptly responded, only a few days later, that he now supported the creation of an independent 9/11 commission. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/24/attack/main523156.shtml] However, The White House insisted that they be able to appoint the commission's chair, leading some to question the commission's independence. The initial person appointed to head the commission, Henry Kissinger , has been accused by many of having been involved in past government coverups in South America (specifically, the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile ). Even after Kissinger resigned, the White House was often cited as having attempted to block the release of information to the commission and for refusing to give interviews without tight conditions attached (leading to threats to subpoena [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031026-114805-2613r.htm ). They have further been accused of attempting to derail the commission by giving it one of the smallest independent commission funding levels in recent history ($3 million [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html]), and by giving the commission a very short deadline. The White House insists that they have given the commission "unprecedented cooperation". While President Bush and Vice President Cheney did ultimately agree to testify, they did so only under several conditions:
The commission agreed to these conditions, and the President and Vice President gave their testimony on April 29 . Claims that the investigation lacked adequate funds ". . .Whereas the investigation of the Challenger disaster received $50 million, Bush promised only $3 million for the investigation of the much more deadly and complex disaster of 9/11. He then initially resisted when the commission asked for an additional $8 million." from David Ray Griffin's ''The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.'' p.284 Claims the commission was used for partisan purposes Some conservatives believe that the Democratic Party used the commission for partisan advantage during the 2004 election campaign. Rather than focusing equally on all factors, critics predicted that Congressional Democrats would ignore any policy errors made by Bill Clinton while emphasizing the mistakes of President Bush . {Link without Title} In contrast many opponents of the Bush administration believe that the commission was set up to perform a superficial examination of the background of the attacks, thereby meeting public demands for an investigation while still preventing any substantive examination. Also they argue that Republicans on the commission and in Congress ignored mistakes of the Bush admistration while exaggerating those made by former President Clinton. Four books that critique the official Commission are "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert, "The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute" by Paul Thompson, [http://www.cooperativeresearch.org "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, A Critique of the Kean-Zelikow Report" by David Ray Griffin, and "Cover Up: What the Government is Still Hiding About the War on Terror" by Peter Lance. [http://www.peterlance.com All describe severe conflicts of interest that the Commissioners had and point out problems in the official narrative that suggest the attacks were allowed to happen in order to achieve long-sought policy changes (the Iraq war and "Homeland Security"). Newsweek in late February, 2006, reported that a draft of the 9/11 Commission Report expressed skepticism about Dick Cheney's claim to have spoken with President Bush before giving an order to shoot down United Flight 93. According to Newsweek, White House officials successfully fought to have those parts of the report toned down. {Link without Title} Claims the commission ignored information regarding Able Danger The reputation and credibility of the commission has recently been damaged by evidence of a lack of thoroughness or possibly a coverup. In August 2005, , R-Wash., a member of the Commission, said, "Bluntly, it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us." A search for documents on Able Danger has not been very productive leading Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) to speculate that a coverup may have occurred. [http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050908-112911-4218r] The Pentagon investigated the matter and has not been able to find any documentary evidence confirming the allegations.[http://www.dcmilitary.com/navy/journal/10_37/national_news/37074-1.html] Pentagon spokesman Army Maj. Paul Swiergosz said, "We've interviewed 80 people involved with Able Danger, combed through hundreds of thousands of documents and millions of e-mails and have still found no documentation of Mohamed Atta." But Weldon claims that the Pentagon ordered the destruction of a large volume of documents related to Able Danger.[http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/12657867.htm] SEE ALSO
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|