Are 9/11 Commission Results Flawed?
 

Jamie Gorelick is a democrat that is currently serving on the 9/11 commission. Gorelick worked in the Clinton administration Justice Department (Attorney General Janet Reno’ deputy) and fought attempts by the FBI to expand the counterterrorism effort beyond simple law enforcement tactics and agencies. This is from a recently exposed memo by Ms Gorelick that restricts the sharing of information even beyond existing laws:

Although there is an obvious conflict of interest, Ms Gorelick has refused to excuse herself from the commission. It seems to me that she should be answering commission questions as opposed to asking them. Does this make any commission results flawed? What do you think?

I think the liberals like having an insider, with a motive of revisionary history.

I see this story is just now making the mainstream news. . . so I figure it will be another week before the lib's here, have their lib-sources start telling them what to think.

fwiw, I started a thread on this last week.
No response. . .Apparently, if the "alternative crowd" here isn't told what to think, they can't/won't comment.

I don't think this commision will accomplish anything regardless of who is on it. It has turned into a game of gotcha on both sides. A big waste of money. Watching them is sickening, a long list of questions with the obvious goal of creating a soundbyte to use in ads. I can save us a lot of time and money by saying we need to spend/do/share more on intelligence. Done.

Okay, we've got a republican administration and a republican congress. And yet, I hear Mr. Bush's supporters whining about how this commission is out to get him. In my experience, the majority party makes the rules. For example, we know that majority party ranking members on a committee get to be "chairman" or "chair person" of that committee. Congressional committee chairs are all Republican, of course, since that's the majority party in each of our three houses of national government. So, tell me again how this commission got loaded up with liberals, please. I know that republicans hate government, don't believe it government and frankly don't know how to run government, but I thought they were at least smart enough to understand how to stack the deck.

"commission got loaded up with liberals" who said that? other than super-jim.

What has been said is the commission got loaded up with with people holding wrong agendas. (on both sides)

To think this commission is out to find facts has turned laughable.

O.k. I'll bite, even though I'm kidda sick of these political threads which so quickly turn into childish personal attacks.

-Can the taxpayers get back the $50 BILLION spent on (cough..big parties..cough) intelligence the year before?
-Isn't C.R. supposed to now be punished for lying to congress? Of course it's singularly her fault, just as Martha was responsible for the stock dip.
-What IS the point of the hearings? Don't those people have better things to do?

I'm sorry, you lost me on this. Could you explain?

Superman,

I am going to walk out on the limb here:) It is my understanding that some of the commision was picked by Tom Daschle since he was the House Majority Leader at the time. I cannot find a list of who appointed who yet, but I know he did some. It's hard to "stack the deck" when you're not dealing.

it's amazing how 2 people can read the same thing and draw very different conclusions. I think the only error Gorelick made was using the word "required" when she should have said "allowed". The memo she wrote was trying to ensure that FISA tactics were not used beyond the scope that they were intended...ie trying to abridge the civil rights of US citizens.

While her choice not to recuse herself is up for discussion, I think you misread/misunderstood the intent of the memo.

The question is; is Gorelick likely to not include the effect (independent of ones interpretation) her memo had on separating the (external) CIA, from the (internal) FBI ?

From her line of questioning others, I think she was headed down a disingenuous path.

It seems clear to me...but I read the entire memo and only posted part of it.
She does not deny it, and in fact, it was just a written confirmation of her instructions to not only observe the wall between criminal and counterintelligence, but to go beyond the law to prevent even the slightest appearance of crossing that line.

well, this is the rub, isn't it? We want our cake (get rid of the terrorists) and to eat it too (our civil liberties). To a certain extent they are mutually exclusive...you want safety (or the appearance thereof), you give up personal freedoms.

Interesting side note: A friend who came to dinner on Saturday got a panicked call from his wife who was in NY. They are both Americans, she travels a lot as a senior VP for an ad company, he does real estate and is an actor. Both white (hell, he's from Texas). His wife just found out she couldn't get on a plane to leave NY since they both now are on the "no-fly list". Something about an incident when they were flying from DFW to LAX. But there wasn't an incident...no report from AA...no nothing. Just materializing on the no-fly list.

I agree, prior to 9/11, I would have drawn the line the same way as JG, now I would draw it differently....everything now is 20-20 hindsight...

I wish we could get past the blame game and get on with the matter at hand....finishing what we started in Afghanistan and Iraq. the longer they go on, the more lives that will be lost.

Yep, Todd. . .I agree too.

Though, that's a different thread.

This just in: World ending. Film at 11. :D

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then!

Y'know, that's another thing I don't understand about so many of my fellow citizens whose political leanings are different from mine. I favor regulating business behavior, particularly the behaviors of businesses that exist separately from their owners in the liability sense. But I strongly oppose the restricting of personal behavior. Conversely, these people whose political leanings are different from my own (did I say that in a politically correct fashion?) seem to believe that regulating profit-making behavior is just wrong regardless of whether the behaver is a person or a thing, but seem fairly quick to approve limits in personal freedom. Here, I do not want to start any really nasty fights, but abortion is certainly a good example of this as is mandatory drug testing, along with many so-called victimless crimes. The conservatives think people should be regulated but not businesses. The liberals think businesses should be regulated but not people.

One of those groups seems to have cornered the market on use of the word "FREEDOM." I guess it means the same as "BUSINESS FREEDOM." which, in my view, is not actual freedom.

Superman: "Y'know, that's another thing I don't understand about so many of my fellow citizens whose political leanings are different from mine.<snip>"

Truth.

Long ago, I was a conservative. Now I am a liberal. Not that many of my views have changed. But what constitutes 'conservative' now would have been viewed as 'totalitarian' back then by conservatives of my ilk.

Barry Goldwater was a conservative and founding board member of Planned Parenthood.

I think old-time conservatives are now more like Libertarians.

But back to the Commission: it's a political finger-pointing morass and has no value whatsoever in itself. But it sure has served to show who has character and who doesn't:

http://www.apologizealready.com/

Some believe that business freedom is merely an extension of personal freedom. If a business only chooses to hire employees that are drug-free; why shouldn't they be able to?

I've exercised my personal freedom to NOT "piss in the cup" .. .they hired me anyway.

People (companies) treat you the way you let them treat you.