all-encompassingly

i wrote this post in july 2004. with so many liberals expressing their love and confidence for the holy 9-11 commission, i wanted to point out the holes in the information available to the commission, and the flaws in the reporting on the commission’s findings. the post is not a well developed one, just a list of my misgivings. — travis

• the 9-11 commission finds that iraq has ties to terrorism, but notes that there is no evidence that saddam hussein was involved with the september 11th, 2001 attacks specifically. american media chooses to inform–no, slather–the american public with the latter information, while ignoring the former.
• richard clarke lies to the panel about the clinton and bush administrations’ handlings of terror, and his own involvement. pumping up his own image, and that of clinton, calling bush soft on terrorism.
• jamie gorelick, on the 9-11 panel, is found to be responsible for the passage of laws that inhibited intelligence sharing between agencies that would have prevented the september 11th attacks. nobody seems to care. allowed to stay on the panel when she should have been made to answer questions.
• jim wilson, sent to niger at the recommendation of his CIA-employed wife, lies about how he came about being sent there, and lies about what he found. he came back disputing bush’s 16-word statement in the state of the union address about iraq and uranium, only to have this lie exposed recently. [more info]
• sandy burglar steals documents “critical of the clinton administration’s handling of the millenium terrorism threats” from the national archives by inadvertently stuffing classified documents in his pants, socks, jacket, et cetera, and then inadvertently “misplacing” some of those documents. who knows now if the 9-11 commission even got the full story? sandy burglar works for john kerry, btw. can you say ‘watergate’? [more info]