Tuesday, August 30, 2005
9/11 Commission Getting Long Overdue Scrutiny
Why would the 9/11 Commission fail to mention Abdul Rahman Yasin, who admitted his role in the first World Trade Center attack, which killed 6 people, injured more than 1,000, and blew a hole seven stories deep in the North Tower? It's an odd omission, especially since the commission named no fewer than five of his accomplices.
Why would the 9/11 Commission neglect Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, a man who was photographed assisting a 9/11 hijacker and attended perhaps the most important 9/11 planning meeting?
And why would the 9/11 Commission fail to mention the overlap between the two successful plots to attack the World Trade Center?
The answer is simple: The Iraqi link didn't fit the commission's narrative.
AS THE TWO SIDES in the current flap over Able Danger, a Pentagon intelligence unit tracking al Qaeda before 9/11, exchange claims and counterclaims in the news media, the work of the 9/11 Commission is receiving long overdue scrutiny. It may be the case, as three individuals associated with the Pentagon unit claim, that Able Danger had identified Mohammed Atta in January or February 2000 and that the 9/11 Commission simply ignored this information because it clashed with the commission's predetermined storyline. We should soon know more.
Comments:
<< Home
I'll be interested to see what happens here. Why do you think the commission had a pre-determined storyline if it was bi-partisan, or at least ostensibly so..?
chris
chris
# posted by 
: 12:32 PM
: 12:32 PM
Good question. They dropped anything both sides couldn't agree to. But I don't think they dropped much. It really depends on what the staffers could put in front of them.
I think it really comes down to two things: 1) when you have a preconceived notion about how something happened, the tendency is to drop things. It's not intentional. You have to account for all the facts. The best way to tweak your model is for someone to disagree or ask tough questions. That doesn't mean that the overall narrative won't be the same. But nuance can get lost. For example, free markets create the most wealth and freedom. But I also have to account for people getting layed off, etc.
Secondly, I think a CYA mentality may have crept in with the commission. They may have not been covering for Bush or Clinton per se, but the entire political establishment who didn't take terrorism seriously enough. Neither did the general public, which is the one group that always gets a pass.
I think it really comes down to two things: 1) when you have a preconceived notion about how something happened, the tendency is to drop things. It's not intentional. You have to account for all the facts. The best way to tweak your model is for someone to disagree or ask tough questions. That doesn't mean that the overall narrative won't be the same. But nuance can get lost. For example, free markets create the most wealth and freedom. But I also have to account for people getting layed off, etc.
Secondly, I think a CYA mentality may have crept in with the commission. They may have not been covering for Bush or Clinton per se, but the entire political establishment who didn't take terrorism seriously enough. Neither did the general public, which is the one group that always gets a pass.
Man, these gas prices are out of control! I know this is off topic, but it's getting rediculous. It's nice how gas prices are rising already from the storm when the gas they're pumping was refined weeks ago...
Chris
Post a Comment
Chris
# posted by : 12:29 PM
: 12:29 PM << Home
