Did 911 need a Commission?

[mjd1982]

Quick question. What was the purpose of the 9/11 Commission?

-Gumboot
There's an easy way to find that out. Read what Lee Hamilton's answer to that same question was:


We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11...Our second task was to make recommendations


http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

[stateofgrace]

I have answered your point twice now (you have not answered mine)

What more do you want me to do?

Incorrect you have not answered my post twice, you have dismissed it twice. I am still awaiting your answers.

Third time, Interpol, Spain, Germany, sheep ?

[funk de fino]

Talk about idiotic questions from the CBC reporter??

what a moron, Lee comes out of that interview pretty good, nothing like a nefarious member of the NWO

[Par]

You have qualified a comment from one of the people who was quoted. He states "our success". He does not, in your quote, state what this success was. Success in this regard could be getting the report finished. Or getting a semi-decent, in his eyes, report finished.
Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.


So, you’re saying that in that last sentence, by “our success” they didn’t mean “the Commission’s success” but rather something along the lines of “Hamilton’s and Keane’s personal success”. Further, you claim that Hamilton and Keane consider the report to be worthy of “overwhelming lampooning”. However, it’s simply bizarre to claim that these two men consider themselves personally successful for having produced a report which they themselves consider to be nonsense.

Nonetheless, he states very clearly that this is "not the definitive account of 911".
We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well. We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11, but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report.


I asked you for evidence of the authors engaging in “overwhelming lampooning” of the report. Here, however, Hamilton simply states that it is reasonably good account but that it is likely imperfect. This quotation serves as yet further evidence of the fact they consider the report to have been generally successful.

More to the point, you have, along with your colleagues, ignored, wilfully, the rest of the quotes.


I cannot speak for my CoIntelPro colleagues, but I have ignored nothing. Again, I asked you for evidence of the authors engaging in this supposed “overwhelming lampooning”; as yet, I have seen no such evidence.

[Belz...]

More to the point, you have, along with your colleagues...

What part of "not affiliated with one another" don't you get ?

[mjd1982]

Incorrect you have not answered my post twice, you have dismissed it twice. I am still awaiting your answers.

Third time, Interpol, Spain, Germany, sheep ?
Excuse me, I have addressed your point for a 3rd time now. I will do so again. You link has nothing to do with anything. That Spain have indicted OBL for 911 means nothing.

If you can tell me why not, then go ahead.

[mjd1982]

So, you’re saying that in that last sentence, by “our success” they didn’t mean “the Commission’s success” but rather something along the lines of “Hamilton’s and Keane’s personal success”. Further, you claim that Hamilton and Keane consider the report to be worthy of “overwhelming lampooning”. However, it’s simply bizarre to claim that these two men consider themselves personally successful for having produced a report which they themselves consider to be nonsense.


No, I mean the success of the Commission. The Commission's "success" can refer to a number of things, as I pointed out in my last post to you.


I asked you for evidence of the authors engaging in “overwhelming lampooning” of the report. Here, however, Hamilton simply states that it is reasonably good account but that it is likely imperfect. This quotation serves as yet further evidence of the fact they consider the report to have been generally successful.


I gave you the Cleland quote as well. Why have you ignored it?


I cannot speak for my CoIntelPro colleagues, but I have ignored nothing. Again, I asked you for evidence of the authors engaging in this supposed “overwhelming lampooning”; as yet, I have seen no such evidence.

Well, either you have ignored it, or you have reading problems. Its on of the 2. You have another chance now

Note also that you have not addressed the comments of its initiators either, whose evaluation is also important.

[mjd1982]

The ignoring of this thread is absolutely astonishing.

What is your excuse?
Removed offending remark
Answers please.


mjd1982, Remember that your membership agreement requires you to be civil toward other members. I have removed the offending remark.

[funk de fino]

"a national scandal"..."an utterly hollow report."..."a pathetic excuse of a report"..."a political cover-up"

Overwhelming. Lampooning.

Now, let's start addressing the points. Anyone?

Show us the sources of these remarks and someone will look at them

I have looked at the Lee interview, he seems like he feels that they did as good a job as they could, and he does not lampoon the report in any way so show me some more sources

He does not say it is definitive or that they got everything correct but did the best they could and thinks it is a pretty good effort

[stateofgrace]

Excuse me, I have addressed your point for a 3rd time now. I will do so again. You link has nothing to do with anything. That Spain have indicted OBL for 911 means nothing.

If you can tell me why not, then go ahead.

Wrong again. This line of questioning is directly about what you have repeatedly said. You have tried to establish the intellectual high ground by constantly referring to people as sheep; you have repeatedly used mocking and derogatory terms as herd and sheep. In doing so I guess you think this makes you far smarter than people, sheep as you call them. You have said repeatedly that 911 was a bungled inside job, obviously, yet the sheep cannot see. You are using the term sheep as a label to belittle and dismiss people’s comments.

Now of the fourth time of asking do you think that Interpol, Spain and Germany fall into same Category? Are they sheep?

Stop avoiding it, stop dismissing it; this is directly about what you have repeatedly said.

[Par]

No, I mean the success of the Commission. The Commission's "success" can refer to a number of things, as I pointed out in my last post to you.


So, you’re saying that Hamilton and Keane believe that the 9/11 Commission was both a success and also worthy of “overwhelming lampooning”. I’m sorry, but this prospect does not make sense.

I gave you the Cleland quote as well. Why have you ignored it?... Note also that you have not addressed the comments of its initiators either, whose evaluation is also important.


Cleland resigned from the 9/11 Commission appreciably before the report was released. I have neither ignored his dissent nor that of anyone else. However, as I say, I was merely asking for evidence of the authors engaging in this supposed “overwhelming lampooning”.

Incidentally, there’s no need to get so upset.

[Belz...]

The ignoring of this thread is absolutely astonishing.

:id:

[mjd1982]

Show us the sources of these remarks and someone will look at them

I have looked at the Lee interview, he seems like he feels that they did as good a job as they could, and he does not lampoon the report in any way so show me some more sources

He does not say it is definitive or that they got everything correct but did the best they could and thinks it is a pretty good effort
Theyre in #1

[mjd1982]

Wrong again. This line of questioning is directly about what you have repeatedly said. You have tried to establish the intellectual high ground by constantly referring to people as sheep; you have repeatedly used mocking and derogatory terms as herd and sheep. In doing so I guess you think this makes you far smarter than people, sheep as you call them. You have said repeatedly that 911 was a bungled inside job, obviously, yet the sheep cannot see. You are using the term sheep as a label to belittle and dismiss people’s comments.

Now of the fourth time of asking do you think that Interpol, Spain and Germany fall into same Category? Are they sheep?

Stop avoiding it, stop dismissing it; this is directly about what you have repeatedly said.
No, because they state taht OBL was behind 911, a contention I give credence to.

[mjd1982]

So, you’re saying that Hamilton and Keane believe that the 9/11 Commission was both a success and also worthy of “overwhelming lampooning”. I’m sorry, but this prospect does not make sense.




Cleland resigned from the 9/11 Commission appreciably before the report was released. I have neither ignored his dissent nor that of anyone else. However, as I say, I was merely asking for evidence of the authors engaging in this supposed “overwhelming lampooning”.

Incidentally, there’s no need to get so upset.
Excuse my upset-ness.

Listen. If I am trying to get a project done, and I have it hampered at every stage, encounter countless external hindrances, but I manage to get the project done, I have succeeded. In a certain respect, that is. I have got the report out, it may even be semi decent, and I did it against all the odds.

This, however, does not mean that my project is adequate in an absolute sense. It does not mean that it is complete, effective, or even good. Yet I can still deem it, in a certain regard, to have been a "success".

Cleland's comments are echos of Hamliton and Keans. Moreover, the things he complained about were not remedied; the report continued to be conducted in a manner to deemed to be a "national scandal". That is evidence of overwhelming lampooning. And we havent even touched upon the testimonies of the initiators of the report.

[Par]

If I am trying to get a project done, and I have it hampered at every stage, encounter countless external hindrances, but I manage to get the project done, I have succeeded. In a certain respect, that is. I have got the report out, it may even be semi decent, and I did it against all the odds. This, however, does not mean that my project is adequate in an absolute sense. It does not mean that it is complete, effective, or even good. Yet I can still deem it, in a certain regard, to have been a "success".



You claim that Hamilton and Keane were using the term “success” in the extremely peculiar way that you describe. However, the only evidence you’ve offered to support this claim is an appeal to your own personal credulity; you’ve simply pointed out that you, personally, can believe that they used the term in that way. Nevertheless, fairly straightforwardly, they consider the Commission both to have produced a generally good (albeit imperfect) account of 9/11 and, more generally, to have been a success.


We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well. We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11, but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report.Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.

[stateofgrace]

No, because they state taht OBL was behind 911, a contention I give credence to.

Incorrect, again. You do not content that OBL was behind 911, you content that he was behind it with aid and assistance from the US. You content that the PNAC document is a white paper for mass murder. You content that WTC 7 was blown up. You content that the US were involved in mass murder of not only US citizens but citizens from all over the planet on 911.You are contending in this very thread that the 911 commission are covering up mass murder. You content that anybody who does not believe you are sheep.

Show me where Spain, Germany and the rest of Interpol agree with you. Please remember these people are not sheep, you have just said so.

[HyJinX]

Here ya go MJD. You can print this out and put it in your locker.

[mjd1982]

Incorrect, again. You do not content that OBL was behind 911, you content that he was behind it with aid and assistance from the US. You content that the PNAC document is a white paper for mass murder. You content that WTC 7 was blown up. You content that the US were involved in mass murder of not only US citizens but citizens from all over the planet on 911.You are contending in this very thread that the 911 commission are covering up mass murder. You content that anybody who does not believe you are sheep.

Show me where Spain, Germany and the rest of Interpol agree with you. Please remember these people are not sheep, you have just said so.
contend.

The link says tha OBL was behind 911. I give credence to this. For them to state anything about the USG, they would have to investigate it. They havent. Hence why they cannot. End.

[mjd1982]

Still waiting for a response people, tell me why you dont think the evaluations of the 911 comm from

- Hamilton (author)
- Kean (author)
- Cleland (author)
- Cassaza (initiator)
- Von Auken (initiator)
- Kleinberg (initiator)
- Breitweiser (initiator)
- Mcilvaine (initiator)
- Rodriguez (initiator)
- and others (initiators)

I will wait, but not for much longer

[Gravy]

"a national scandal"..."an utterly hollow report."..."a pathetic excuse of a report"..."a political cover-up"

Overwhelming. Lampooning.

Now, let's start addressing the points. Anyone?

Sure, I'll address the points. Only one of those quotes is from a Commissioner, and you took it out of context. Max Cleland wasn't referring to the Commission or it's report as a "national scandal." He was referring to the resistance to releasing documents that the Commission met from some federal agencies. Is that what you call an "overwhelming lampooning?"

It is wrong to take such things out of context.

As for the other comments, individuals are entitled to their opinions. Perhaps you're not aware of the Family Steering Committee's final statement:

The signing of legislation implementing many of the 9/11 Commission recommendations represents a milestone for The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission (FSC). The passage of this legislation is the culmination of the efforts of the FSC and the other family members who worked with us; the 9/11 Commission; the members of Congress who sponsored the bill; their staffs; the press whose coverage provided a conduit to the American people; and each and every person who wrote, called and faxed our elected officials on these issues.

Our 12 member group officially became The Family Steering Committee in 2002, when the 9/11 Commission was created after our yearlong campaign for its formation. Our ultimate goal was to identify and subsequently correct those circumstances that contributed to the failure of our government to protect us and our loved ones.

The FSC monitored the Commission’s work to the best of our ability, making every effort to ensure that it fulfilled its mandate. At times we found it necessary to demand that they revise their procedures to better achieve an in-depth, substantive, and independent inquiry. We also worked with the Commission to obtain additional funding, access to witnesses and documents, and an extension to enable the Commission to complete its mandate.

When the Commission concluded its investigation, it issued a report containing 41 recommendations for improving our nation's security. The report did not answer all of our questions, but its in-depth analysis of intelligence, foreign policy, security and other failures and subsequent recommendations for improvement were reforms we could endorse. The FSC then focused our efforts on ensuring that those recommendations would be implemented. Congress responded by holding hearings and drafting legislation. After a rigorous battle, a bill incorporating many of the 9/11 Commission recommendations passed both Houses of Congress and was signed into law on December 17, 2004.

After three years of work toward making America more secure, the FSC is transitioning in order to address issues such as the release of the still embargoed 9/11 CIA and FAA reports; terrorist financing; immigration reform; the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; and other issues that continue to emerge. Although the FSC as a group will no longer exist, many of us will continue to work individually and through other 9/11 related groups for these causes.

In closing, our heartfelt thanks go out to the countless Americans who supported us and whose words of encouragement and recent expressions of gratitude made our difficult journey worthwhile.


Not exactly an "overwhelming lampooning," is it?

[Gravy]

I will wait, but not for much longerThen mjd go BOOM?

[funk de fino]

my take on your OP and what they said is as follows

Hamilton - The 9/11 Commission was created by statute. We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well. We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11, but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report. I think we’ve been reasonably successful in telling the story. It became a best seller in this country and people showed a lot of interest in it.


This para from your link along with the rest of the replies to the leading interviewers questions shows me that hamilton was pretty happy with the outcome if not how hard they had to fight to get it done

Kean - I cannot see anything by him in the OP except linked to above

Cleland - We should not be making any deals; we should stick to our original timetable of [completing the final report by] May. However, we're coming up on Thanksgiving here and we're still struggling over access issues. It should be a national scandal.


another cherry picked quote by you, he is saying it is a national scandal that they had to fight hard and were coming up against a lot of hassle trying to get access to documents, he does not in any way describe the report itself as a scandal

he was unhappy that the rest of the commissioners agreed to bargain with the white house about getting access to documents instead of handing out subpoenas so he resigned

the other commissioners reasons for agreeing to do deals was to speed up the process of the comission to enable it to be finished on time they thought the subpoenas would delay proceedings that would damage the report

Karen Breitweiser - would need more than a quote from wiki and cannot seem to find original cite from St Petersburg Times so cannot comment

Auken - And finally, without compromising our national security, it would have reported all of its findings, with its redactions blacked out and submitted to the American people. In essence, the Commission could have produced a final product where the resulting conclusions and recommendations could be trusted. Instead, at the end of the day, what we got were some statements that truly insulted the intelligence of the American people. Violated our loved ones’ memories, and might end up hurting us, one day soon.
she then goes on to list one of the statements

One such statement is that 9/11 was a ‘failure of imagination’. A failure of whose imagination? What exactly does that mean? When you have a CIA director with his hair on fire, a system blinking red, 52 FAA warnings, an August 6th, 2001, PDB entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States’, leads on several 9/11 hijackers including Alhazmi, Almihdhar and Marwan Al-Shehhi, warnings from many foreign governments, a Phoenix memo warning of Islamic extremists taking flying lessons, the arrest of would-be terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, facts imparted to one agent, Agent Frasca at the RFU at the FBI, 9/11 was truly a failure alright.

full quote, not cherry picked and not leaving out some, seems to me that at that time in 2005 they had just found out that some info about Atta had been missed out or kept out and was not too happy to say the least, she also seems unhappy with some aspects of the report but this does not say to me that she is lampooning the whole report

Cassazza - Cant get that link at muckraker, may be due to the country i am in ? So will not comment

The others, you did not mention in OP, and for those that you did, I see no lampooning, especially going by the dictionary definition of lampoon

[stateofgrace]

contend.

The link says tha OBL was behind 911. I give credence to this. For them to state anything about the USG, they would have to investigate it. They havent. Hence why they cannot. End.

Wrong again, it is not the end. Are you saying they have over looked it or are covering up for the USG? Remember these people are not sheep; they are on your side, only sheep don't believe you.

Why don’t Interpol investigate USG involvement in 911? They are not sheep, they have access to the same information you have.


Rather than attacking my spelling, offer up something of substance this time.

[mjd1982]

my take on your OP and what they said is as follows

Hamilton -

This para from your link along with the rest of the replies to the leading interviewers questions shows me that hamilton was pretty happy with the outcome if not how hard they had to fight to get it done

Kean - I cannot see anything by him in the OP except linked to above

Cleland -

another cherry picked quote by you, he is saying it is a national scandal that they had to fight hard and were coming up against a lot of hassle trying to get access to documents, he does not in any way describe the report itself as a scandal

he was unhappy that the rest of the commissioners agreed to bargain with the white house about getting access to documents instead of handing out subpoenas so he resigned

the other commissioners reasons for agreeing to do deals was to speed up the process of the comission to enable it to be finished on time they thought the subpoenas would delay proceedings that would damage the report

Karen Breitweiser - would need more than a quote from wiki and cannot seem to find original cite from St Petersburg Times so cannot comment

Auken -
she then goes on to list one of the statements



full quote, not cherry picked and not leaving out some, seems to me that at that time in 2005 they had just found out that some info about Atta had been missed out or kept out and was not too happy to say the least, she also seems unhappy with some aspects of the report but this does not say to me that she is lampooning the whole report

Cassazza - Cant get that link at muckraker, may be due to the country i am in ? So will not comment

The others, you did not mention in OP, and for those that you did, I see no lampooning, especially going by the dictionary definition of lampoon
You'll find all their comments in the OP.

[mjd1982]

Wrong again, it is not the end. Are you saying they have over looked it or are covering up for the USG? Remember these people are not sheep; they are on your side, only sheep don't believe you.

Why don’t Interpol investigate USG involvement in 911? They are not sheep, they have access to the same information you have.


Rather than attacking my spelling, offer up something of substance this time.
No, not only sheep dont believe me. Sheep who know teh same info that I do, and come to different conclusions, are sheep. Prove that Interpol know what I know re 911, and you will have proved that they are sheep.

[mjd1982]

Sure, I'll address the points. Only one of those quotes is from a Commissioner, and you took it out of context. Max Cleland wasn't referring to the Commission or it's report as a "national scandal." He was referring to the resistance to releasing documents that the Commission met from some federal agencies. Is that what you call an "overwhelming lampooning?"

It is wrong to take such things out of context.


From the OP


Max Cleland, former commissioner, resigned from the Commission, stating that parts of the conduct of the commission meant that he "cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access,”


This context has been repeated interminably on this thread, by me.

You are right, it is wrong to take such things out of context. And to be hypocritical.

More to the point, Cleland is referring to a critical element of the 911 Com's conduct, which he deemed a "national scandal", bad enogh for him to quit. Unless you feel that deeming something a national scandal isnt to "overwhelmingly lampoon" it, my judgement on his comments stands, and I will wait to here why you are satisfied with this status quo.


As for the other comments, individuals are entitled to their opinions. Perhaps you're not aware of the Family Steering Committee's final statement:

Not exactly an "overwhelming lampooning," is it?

Ok, so we have 2 alternatives here. Either you are of the opinion that the FSC are not "overwhelmingly lampooning" in their evaluation of the 911 Comm (I take it you are not being serious by this); or you believe that they are, but their opinion does not matter.

Now, the point of this thread is to look at the evaluations of people far better qualified to asses the 911 Comm than you or me. Such people include Cleland, Hamilton, Breitweiser, and Cassazza. Their opinion is pretty telling. Given that their opinions are worth infinitely more than yours, and that it is so strongly directed, I would like to know why you feel it is not worth acting on.

Or anyone. You guys are gonna need to pitch in here.

[stateofgrace]

No, not only sheep dont believe me. Sheep who know teh same info that I do, and come to different conclusions, are sheep. Prove that Interpol know what I know re 911, and you will have proved that they are sheep.

Wrong again, do you ever get tried of being wrong?

Are you now saying that Interpol have NOT investigated 911 thoroughly?

Offer your proof that Interpol have not investigated 911 and answer the question.

Why have Interpol not investigated USG involvement in 911?



INTERPOL is the world’s largest international police organization, with 186 member countries (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/Members/default.asp). Created in 1923, it facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime.


http://www.interpol.int/public/icpo/default.asp

They investigate international crime but for reasons you have not stated they have not investigated mass murder by the USG on 911, why is that?

Maybe you should ask them.

http://www.interpol.int/public/mail/mail3.asp?id=info

I publicly challenge you to get in touch with Interpol and ask them. I challenge you to present your evidence to them.

You know more that Interpol, right? Get it touch with them and tell them all about it.

[SDC]

This has probably been raised already but I think I have to ask: why is the term lampoon used here? It doesn't refer to harsh criticism, which from the context of the OP, seems to be the point. It refers to satire, caricature, etc. Here are some quotes from the online "Free Dictionary." I particularly like the Franco-German origins of the term.

1. A written attack ridiculing a person, group, or institution.
2. A light, good-humored satire.
tr.v. lam·pooned, lam·poon·ing, lam·poons To ridicule or satirize in or as if in a lampoon.
French lampon, perhaps from lampons, let us drink (from a common refrain in drinking songs), first person pl. imperative of lamper, to gulp down, of Germanic origin.]

- a composition that imitates or misrepresents somebody's style, usually in a humorous way.

ridicule with satire; "The writer satirized the politician's proposal".

May seem like nitpicking but clearly no one cited (Kean, Cleland, etc.) has lampooned the commission, regardless of anything else. If one can't even use the proper terms, there is very little mutual ground for discussion.

[SDC]

Whoops la, the quotes are from the online TheFreeDictionary dot com. Must remember the citation. Life without footnotes is hardly worth the effort.

[Belz...]

No, not only sheep dont believe me. Sheep who know teh same info that I do, and come to different conclusions, are sheep. Prove that Interpol know what I know re 911, and you will have proved that they are sheep.

Does the term "sheep" strictly mean "disagrees with me" to you ?

[WildCat]

You'll find all their comments in the OP.
You'll also find, in the very article you cite, that Hamilton thinks they did a very good job on the 9/11 Report. The report, btw, does not include bombs in WTC 7 planted or known of by the FDNY.

[funk de fino]

You'll find all their comments in the OP.

listen pal

if i take the time to look at your OP do not ignore it and handwave it with a one liner

i looked at the OP and at you cherry picked comments and remarked on what context they were used in and that it was not lampooning in anyway

this response was to your OP and your "new" list that adds people wjo were not mentioned in the OP

i have addressed the quotes you put in your OP except ones i could not find or had no source except wiki

dont run away, respond to my points please, or do you want me to do one at a time?

your level of ignorance in this reply is frankly astonishing even for you

[funk de fino]

More to the point, Cleland is referring to a critical element of the 911 Com's conduct, which he deemed a "national scandal", bad enogh for him to quit. Unless you feel that deeming something a national scandal isnt to "overwhelmingly lampoon" it, my judgement on his comments stands, and I will wait to here why you are satisfied with this status quo.


no he is not, in the following paragraph where he states it should be a national scandal he is clearly referring to the dalays and blocking of access

We should not be making any deals; we should stick to our original timetable of [completing the final report by] May. However, we're coming up on Thanksgiving here and we're still struggling over access issues. It should be a national scandal.

he says "we are struggling" and that the delays should be a national scandal and to be honest i agree with him, the delays are not anything that the commission has fault for, it is the administration that is causing them

rethink your position on this as you are clearly wrong, this is during the commission when he was part of it

he resigned later because the rest of the commission decided to do deals with the administration to get access unstead of dishing out subpoenas, this was not what he referred to as a national scandal

[mjd1982]

no he is not, in the following paragraph where he states it should be a national scandal he is clearly referring to the dalays and blocking of access



he says "we are struggling" and that the delays should be a national scandal and to be honest i agree with him, the delays are not anything that the commission has fault for, it is the administration that is causing them

rethink your position on this as you are clearly wrong, this is during the commission when he was part of it

he resigned later because the rest of the commission decided to do deals with the administration to get access unstead of dishing out subpoenas, this was not what he referred to as a national scandal
The national scandal he was referring to was the issue of acces. This is a serious issue, in his opiion. Hence why he deems it to be serious enough to be a national scandal. Its very simple.

Now, if you are willing to have elements of an investigation into the murder of 3000 of you r own people to be deemed a "national scandal", and not want the investigation re done, then fine for you. You are an irresponsible member of the electorate, and as such, fit in well with the rest of your herd here. If you want a report that is not deemed a "political cover up" by those who initiated it, then you should be calling for a new investigation.

Its not hard to understand, I promise you.

[funk de fino]

The national scandal he was referring to was the issue of acces. This is a serious issue, in his opiion. Hence why he deems it to be serious enough to be a national scandal. Its very simple.

Now, if you are willing to have elements of an investigation into the murder of 3000 of you r own people to be deemed a "national scandal", and not want the investigation re done, then fine for you. You are an irresponsible member of the electorate, and as such, fit in well with the rest of your herd here. If you want a report that is not deemed a "political cover up" by those who initiated it, then you should be calling for a new investigation.

Its not hard to understand, I promise you.

Good, so you are admitting that he did not call the report delivered by the Commission a "National Scandal"? And yes, it is very simple, i dont see how you could cherry pick something so badly and expect to get away with it?

Second paragraph is complete proof that you do not read replies to any of your posts correctly and even if you do, you completly ignore what is written in them. I have already told you that I am not american and as such I am not part of any herd.

Edited out breach of rule 12.

You feel that you are the clever one and that anyone who disagrees with your speculation, assumptions and reading between the lines, is some sort of brainwashed idiot who is a neo-con american. Edited out breach of rule 12.

I hate Bush and the whole administration, and I am not even an American, but what I can see is that you have absoloutely not one scrap of evidence beyond your own imaginary "i can see things others cannot and if they dont agree they are sheep" line of reasoning.

Edited out breach of rule 12.

PS Still no proof of lampooning?

[Gravy]

The national scandal he was referring to was the issue of acces. This is a serious issue, in his opiion. Hence why he deems it to be serious enough to be a national scandal. Its very simple.

Now, if you are willing to have elements of an investigation into the murder of 3000 of you r own people to be deemed a "national scandal", and not want the investigation re done, then fine for you. You are an irresponsible member of the electorate, and as such, fit in well with the rest of your herd here. If you want a report that is not deemed a "political cover up" by those who initiated it, then you should be calling for a new investigation.

Its not hard to understand, I promise you.Do you know of a list of documents that the Commission requested or subpoenaed that they never received?

[WildCat]

If you want a report that is not deemed a "political cover up" by those who initiated it, then you should be calling for a new investigation.
No member of the 9/11 Commission is claiming their report is a "political coverup". You are caught in another lie mjd1982.

[Sabrina]

Second paragraph is complete proof that you do not read replies to any of your posts correctly and even if you do, you completly ignore what is written in them. I have already told you that I am not american and as such I am not part of any herd. Edited out breach of rule 12. You feel that you are the clever one and that anyone who disagrees with your speculation, assumptions and reading between the lines, is some sort of brainwashed idiot who is a neo-con american. Edited out breach of rule 12.

Well said.

VERY well said.

[HyJinX]

The national scandal he was referring to was the issue of acces. This is a serious issue, in his opiion. Hence why he deems it to be serious enough to be a national scandal. Its very simple.

Now, if you are willing to have elements of an investigation into the murder of 3000 of you r own people to be deemed a "national scandal", and not want the investigation re done, then fine for you. You are an irresponsible member of the electorate, and as such, fit in well with the rest of your herd here. If you want a report that is not deemed a "political cover up" by those who initiated it, then you should be calling for a new investigation.

Its not hard to understand, I promise you.

Neither is this, I promise you.

[Belz...]

Now, if you are willing to have elements of an investigation into the murder of 3000 of you r own people to be deemed a "national scandal", and not want the investigation re done, then fine for you. You are an irresponsible member of the electorate, and as such, fit in well with the rest of your herd here.

Mjd. When are you going to understand the following:

Calling people a herd is not a good debating technique.

[Belz...]

Good, so you are admitting that he did not call the report delivered by the Commission a "National Scandal"? And yes, it is very simple, i dont see how you could cherry pick something so badly and expect to get away with it?

Edited out breach of rule 12. I have already told you that I am not american and as such I am not part of any herd. Edited out breach of rule 12. You feel that you are the clever one and that anyone who disagrees with your speculation, assumptions and reading between the lines, is some sort of brainwashed idiot who is a neo-con american. Edited out breach of rule 12.
I hate Bush and the whole administration, and I am not even an American, but what I can see is that you have absoloutely not one scrap of evidence beyond your own imaginary "i can see things others cannot and if they dont agree they are sheep" line of reasoning.

Edited out breach of rule 12.

PS Still no proof of lampooning?

<Applause>

[Belz...]

Do you know of a list of documents that the Commission requested or subpoenaed that they never received?

Modified Attack Baboon ??????

(PS: Your PM box is full!! ;) )

[mjd1982]

Good, so you are admitting that he did not call the report delivered by the Commission a "National Scandal"? And yes, it is very simple, i dont see how you could cherry pick something so badly and expect to get away with it?

Second paragraph is complete proof that you do not read replies to any of your posts correctly and even if you do, you completly ignore what is written in them. I have already told you that I am not american and as such I am not part of any herd. Edited out breach of rule 12. You feel that you are the clever one and that anyone who disagrees with your speculation, assumptions and reading between the lines, is some sort of brainwashed idiot who is a neo-con american. Edited out breach of rule 12.

I hate Bush and the whole administration, and I am not even an American, but what I can see is that you have absoloutely not one scrap of evidence beyond your own imaginary "i can see things others cannot and if they dont agree they are sheep" line of reasoning.

Edited out breach of rule 12.

PS Still no proof of lampooning?
1. I never said he said that.
2. I dont think that anyone who disagrees with me is a neo con american. Where do you pull this nonsense from? I have said many times, I think that of the people who arent in te TM, 90% are ill informed, the rest are deluded. You are in the latter, IMO.
3. I am a regular campaigner. I was bullhorning the Houses of Parliament the 11th of last mth. I'm there every month, doing that stuff and more. Much more. So i'll ask again- where do u pull this stuff from?

[mjd1982]

Do you know of a list of documents that the Commission requested or subpoenaed that they never received?
This is utterly irrelevant. Cleland, Kean, and Hamilton all agree publicly with the contention about access. I believe Bob Kerrey too. End of story.

[mjd1982]

No member of the 9/11 Commission is claiming their report is a "political coverup". You are caught in another lie mjd1982.
What????

What sort of people am I dealing with here? Think before you post please.

Your last hint- who initiated the report?

[funk de fino]

1. I never said he said that.

You said we could evaluate the report by the comments of the people involved. You then posted the following quote

He indeed describes the Commission as "a national scandal"


We have established that he did not say the commission was a national scandal, therefore we evaluate the report on the premise that it is also not a national scandal

The national scandal was the administration delaying tactics as regards access, this is not what you have stated in your OP

2. I dont think that anyone who disagrees with me is a neo con american. Where do you pull this nonsense from? I have said many times, I think that of the people who arent in te TM, 90% are ill informed, the rest are deluded. You are in the latter, IMO.

yet twice you call me an american? your superiority complex betrays you again sunshine, as ill informed as you were about the oil industry yet you felt you knew better?


3. I am a regular campaigner. I was bullhorning the Houses of Parliament the 11th of last mth. I'm there every month, doing that stuff and more. Much more. So i'll ask again- where do u pull this stuff from?

WTF are you on about here?

[funk de fino]

Cooperation is an ongoing process. The Commission needed cooperation to obtain documents and conduct interviews. Cooperation is especially important as the Commission proceeds to hearings with current and former high-level government officials, and seeks to release publicly information that had been classified. Cooperation will be necessary all the way through completion of the Commission’s final report.

At this point in its work, the Commission has had access to every document it asked to see—more than two million pages—including the most sensitive documents the government possesses. The President has yet to assert executive privilege on any document. The Commission also has interviewed every single official with whom we requested to meet, including national security advisers, cabinet secretaries, FBI directors, chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, and directors of central intelligence, past and present.

From 911 Commission website

[funk de fino]

What????

What sort of people am I dealing with here? Think before you post please.

Your last hint- who initiated the report?

At last count exactly one of the family members that were instrumental in setting up the commission said it. I have changed your quote to reflect this, I hope you do not mind

If you want a report that is not deemed a "political cover up" by ONE OF those who initiated it, then you should be calling for a new investigation.


gee another minority..........

[Belz...]

2. I dont think that anyone who disagrees with me is a neo con american. Where do you pull this nonsense from? I have said many times, I think that of the people who arent in te TM, 90% are ill informed, the rest are deluded. You are in the latter, IMO.

Mjd. I'm going to ask you the big question, now :

Very often, someone with unconventional, revolutionary or reactionary ideas will pit his opinions against that of other people, such as happens here all the time. Very often, these opinions will be scoffed at, laughed at or thoroughly demolished by more knowledgeable people that tread these forums. Now, why is it that, faced with such overwhelming hostility or opposition, doesn't the someone with an unconventional, revolutionary or reactionary idea even consider, for an instant, that HE might be the one who's wrong ? Why must you pretty much all, always claim that the OTHER people are the ones blinded by faith, dishonest, paid off, dogmatic or plain evil ?

I ask this in all seriousness. Because UFO proponents, Bigfoot hunters, Conspiracy Theorists, Mediums, mystics, wiccas, homeopaths, creationists and other woo do exactly the same thing. They present their case, are shown wrong or at least shown strong opposition, and react with vitriol instead of pausing to examine the situation.

So, why is it that almost none of you ever want to allow the possibility that you might be wrong ?

And please, don't answer that you KNOW it to be true, because that's the SAME thing that UFO proponents, Bigfoot hunters, Conspiracy Theorists, Mediums, mystics, wiccas, homeopaths, creationists and other woo say when asked this very question

[mjd1982]

From 911 Commission website
2 problems here.

#1 This is an instance of Hamilton contradicting himself. He has stated, repeatedly in dialogue, that they didnt have access. Given that we have to choose between the one or the other, we should probably take the statement that he has given in dialogue, where he has been challenged, and allowed to expand on it.

#2 More to the point, you have misunderstood the main issue with access. Cleland quit the commission, because only Kean, Zelikow and Gorelick had full access to all the documents. The rest of the commission were not allowed to see these. This is the issue with access, and was flagged as a national scandal by Cleland, and vigorously denounced by Bob Kerrey. Watch 911 Press for Truth if you want to find out more.

[mjd1982]

At last count exactly one of the family members that were instrumental in setting up the commission said it. I have changed your quote to reflect this, I hope you do not mind



gee another minority..........
As you know very well, the 911 families have denouced the report roundly and vehemently; the partiular verbiage used is irrelevant. Any attempt to argue on such trivialities is an illustration of difficulties in confronting the evident facts.

The report has been denounced by a huge number of its progenitors. Are you happy with this being the case for investigating 3000 deaths?

[stanleywinthrop]

As you know very well, the 911 families have denouced the report roundly and vehemently?

Please provide a source for this info. Also provide a little more detail, do you mean all of the 9/11 families or only some of them? If some of them please give us an approximate percentage (and a source for this info as well.)

[mjd1982]

Please provide a source for this info. Also provide a little more detail, do you mean all of the 9/11 families or only some of them? If some of them please give us an approximate percentage (and a source for this info as well.)
1. Read the OP.
2. I am referring to the progenitors of the report

[WildCat]

1. Read the OP.
2. I am referring to the progenitors of the report
So you don't know, or the answer is a number so low you're embarrassed to reveal it?

[stanleywinthrop]

1. Read the OP.
2. I am referring to the progenitors of the report

Sorry, I'm not the brightest bulb around here, I couldn't find any references about 9/11 families vehemently opposing the 9/11 commision report in the OP. Please direct me to the correct source.

[mjd1982]

Sorry, I'm not the brightest bulb around here, I couldn't find any references about 9/11 families vehemently opposing the 9/11 commision report in the OP. Please direct me to the correct source.
from the OP

[quote]
A second way would be to look at the evaluations of those who were instrumental in setting it up- the Jersey Girls. Let's see what they had to say:

Kristen Breitweiser described it as "an utterly hollow report."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Girls#_ref-6

Lorie Auken described it as "statements that truly insulted the intelligence of the American people. Violated our loved ones’ memories, and might end up hurting us, one day soon...It was a pathetic excuse of a report...the report is incomplete"

Patty Cassazza: “It’s hard for us to come to any other conclusion than that the 9/11 Commission was a political cover-up from the word go”
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id358.html
They also submitted a list of 167 questions to the 911 Commission. Of the 167, only 27 were answered adequately, in their eyes.
[quote]

[stanleywinthrop]

So you are saying the "Jersey Girls" are representing all of the 9/11 families or only some?

Because here it seems as if you are saying ALL the 9/11 families have denounced the 9/11 commision:

As you know very well, the 911 families have denouced the report roundly and vehemently

[gumboot]

As you know very well, the 911 families have denouced the report roundly and vehemently; the partiular verbiage used is irrelevant. Any attempt to argue on such trivialities is an illustration of difficulties in confronting the evident facts.

The report has been denounced by a huge number of its progenitors. Are you happy with this being the case for investigating 3000 deaths?



What is the opinion of the "911 families" regarding the FBI's criminal investigation into the 9/11 attacks (which resulted in a successful conviction) or the NIST investigation into the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2?

Have both of these investigations (far more important than the 9/11 commission) been denounced by huge numbers of family members?

-Gumboot

[Belz...]

Mjd. I'm going to ask you the big question, now :

Very often, someone with unconventional, revolutionary or reactionary ideas will pit his opinions against that of other people, such as happens here all the time. Very often, these opinions will be scoffed at, laughed at or thoroughly demolished by more knowledgeable people that tread these forums. Now, why is it that, faced with such overwhelming hostility or opposition, doesn't the someone with an unconventional, revolutionary or reactionary idea even consider, for an instant, that HE might be the one who's wrong ? Why must you pretty much all, always claim that the OTHER people are the ones blinded by faith, dishonest, paid off, dogmatic or plain evil ?

I ask this in all seriousness. Because UFO proponents, Bigfoot hunters, Conspiracy Theorists, Mediums, mystics, wiccas, homeopaths, creationists and other woo do exactly the same thing. They present their case, are shown wrong or at least shown strong opposition, and react with vitriol instead of pausing to examine the situation.

So, why is it that almost none of you ever want to allow the possibility that you might be wrong ?

And please, don't answer that you KNOW it to be true, because that's the SAME thing that UFO proponents, Bigfoot hunters, Conspiracy Theorists, Mediums, mystics, wiccas, homeopaths, creationists and other woo say when asked this very question

Well, Mjd ?

[Dave Rogers]

Very often, someone with unconventional, revolutionary or reactionary ideas will pit his opinions against that of other people, such as happens here all the time. Very often, these opinions will be scoffed at, laughed at or thoroughly demolished by more knowledgeable people that tread these forums. Now, why is it that, faced with such overwhelming hostility or opposition, doesn't the someone with an unconventional, revolutionary or reactionary idea even consider, for an instant, that HE might be the one who's wrong ? Why must you pretty much all, always claim that the OTHER people are the ones blinded by faith, dishonest, paid off, dogmatic or plain evil ?

I'm afraid that, although it will cause me actual physical pain, I have to say a word or two in MJD's defense here. In twenty-five years as a research scientist, one thing I have learned is that if I believe one thing and the rest of the world believes another, then the rest of the world is not necessarily right. Yes, in most cases it's more likely, but to deny the possibility of revolutionary ideas being worthwhile is to deny the possibility of progress. When, however, those revolutionary ideas are examined in detail, by people who are able to understand them, and are found to be deeply flawed, at that point it's generally a good idea to give in and admit that the rest of the world is right; that's the bit conspiracy theorists generally miss out.

Dave

[twinstead]

I'm afraid that, although it will cause me actual physical pain, I have to say a word or two in MJD's defense here. In twenty-five years as a research scientist, one thing I have learned is that if I believe one thing and the rest of the world believes another, then the rest of the world is not necessarily right. Yes, in most cases it's more likely, but to deny the possibility of revolutionary ideas being worthwhile is to deny the possibility of progress. When, however, those revolutionary ideas are examined in detail, by people who are able to understand them, and are found to be deeply flawed, at that point it's generally a good idea to give in and admit that the rest of the world is right; that's the bit conspiracy theorists generally miss out.


I would tend to agree; a lot of revolutionary ideas of history were formed against the mainstream. That said, mjd hasn't adjusted his theory one bit in the face of having huge parts of them found to be 'deeply flawed' by this majority, and to top it all off he is arrogant as hell about it.

That's just not right.

[WildCat]

from the OP
A second way would be to look at the evaluations of those who were instrumental in setting it up- the Jersey Girls. Let's see what they had to say:
So, out of the thousands of families, the answer is "3".

[funk de fino]

#2 More to the point, you have misunderstood the main issue with access. Cleland quit the commission, because only Kean, Zelikow and Gorelick had full access to all the documents. The rest of the commission were not allowed to see these. This is the issue with access, and was flagged as a national scandal by Cleland, and vigorously denounced by Bob Kerrey. Watch 911 Press for Truth if you want to find out more.

No I have not, I am fully aware of why Cleland quit and I am fully aware of what he thought a national scandal was. It is evident from your OP and subsequent postings that you were trying to mislead or you did not know yourself the main issue. I am glad you are now stating the national scandal was not the commission or the report but the problem caused by the administration in access delays.

He quit, in the main, because he did not think that the rest of the commission should have made any deals regarding access. The fact that they made the deals enabled the report to be finished. Cleland thought that there should have been subpoenas issued to get full access, little realising this would have led to longer delays with no chance of the report being finished in time, in fact it would most likely still not be finished

[funk de fino]

As you know very well, the 911 families have denouced the report roundly and vehemently; the partiular verbiage used is irrelevant. Any attempt to argue on such trivialities is an illustration of difficulties in confronting the evident facts.

No they have not

You have quoted 3 out of how many? One of your quotes from wiki and unsubstantiated??

One or two from Muckraker?? Good work mate.


The report has been denounced by a huge number of its progenitors. Are you happy with this being the case for investigating 3000 deaths?

No it has not, wrong again, minority time again

You lose on this one sunshine

Also this from the OP

Now, given the unanimous declarations of some of the major participants

Eh?? Unanimous my arse, try again

[Belz...]

I'm afraid that, although it will cause me actual physical pain, I have to say a word or two in MJD's defense here. In twenty-five years as a research scientist, one thing I have learned is that if I believe one thing and the rest of the world believes another, then the rest of the world is not necessarily right. Yes, in most cases it's more likely, but to deny the possibility of revolutionary ideas being worthwhile is to deny the possibility of progress. When, however, those revolutionary ideas are examined in detail, by people who are able to understand them, and are found to be deeply flawed, at that point it's generally a good idea to give in and admit that the rest of the world is right; that's the bit conspiracy theorists generally miss out.

Dave

It's the CTer's inability to be skeptical of his own claims that I was trying to illustrate.

[mjd1982]

So you are saying the "Jersey Girls" are representing all of the 9/11 families or only some?

Because here it seems as if you are saying ALL the 9/11 families have denounced the 9/11 commision:
I was referring to the relevant families. Please focus on the germane issues.

[mjd1982]

What is the opinion of the "911 families" regarding the FBI's criminal investigation into the 9/11 attacks (which resulted in a successful conviction) or the NIST investigation into the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2?

Have both of these investigations (far more important than the 9/11 commission) been denounced by huge numbers of family members?

-Gumboot
Their (the progenitors of the 911 Comm) opinion about 911 is that Bush et al were at the very least criminally negligent in failling to stop it (at the least). Watch Press for Truth for more. If the FBI report doesnt mirror that, then their opnions will correspond.

[mjd1982]

I would tend to agree; a lot of revolutionary ideas of history were formed against the mainstream. That said, mjd hasn't adjusted his theory one bit in the face of having huge parts of them found to be 'deeply flawed' by this majority, and to top it all off he is arrogant as hell about it.

That's just not right.
Oh dear. How very very sad.

You may wanna go to the wtc7 thread. I am on my 21st request for a response there. Go now.

ETA- Lol, oh, and dont you still owe me an apology/response on the CF thead? And how about some answers on this thread?

You self deception is pathological! Boy, I could eat you guys for breakfast lunch and dinner!

[mjd1982]

No I have not, I am fully aware of why Cleland quit and I am fully aware of what he thought a national scandal was. It is evident from your OP and subsequent postings that you were trying to mislead or you did not know yourself the main issue. I am glad you are now stating the national scandal was not the commission or the report but the problem caused by the administration in access delays.

He quit, in the main, because he did not think that the rest of the commission should have made any deals regarding access. The fact that they made the deals enabled the report to be finished. Cleland thought that there should have been subpoenas issued to get full access, little realising this would have led to longer delays with no chance of the report being finished in time, in fact it would most likely still not be finished
What a silly post.

#1- Yes, you misunderstood. That is an issue that resides with you, no one else.

#2- They Commission did not get full access. Only Gorelick, Kean and Zelikow did. The others werent allowed to see. The factor of time constraints adding to this problem, only adds to the national scandal; it doesnt detract from it. The Commission was set up to fail, and the issue of time/money/access are prime examples of such.

[mjd1982]

No they have not

You have quoted 3 out of how many? One of your quotes from wiki and unsubstantiated??

One or two from Muckraker?? Good work mate.




No it has not, wrong again, minority time again

You lose on this one sunshine

Also this from the OP



Eh?? Unanimous my arse, try again
You are on the verge of getting the Belz/Lapman treatment, your posts lack so overwhelmingly in any intellectual substance or thought.

I drew 1 quote out each from each of the Jersey Girls. I could have gone on and on. There is not one rational person who will dispute their stance, they as the progenitrors of the 911 Comm reprot, on the report. Not one. And yet you insinuate it. Go and watch Press for Truth, if you have any interest in said truth.

[mjd1982]

It's the CTer's inability to be skeptical of his own claims that I was trying to illustrate.
A perfect instance supporting the "Belz treatment"

[Belz...]

You self deception is pathological! Boy, I could eat you guys for breakfast lunch and dinner!

I could eat anyone for breakfast in a debate if all I need to do is close my eyes and claim victory.

A perfect instance supporting the "Belz treatment"

You mean the "Mjd treatment of everybody" ? You've consistently ignored everything everyone has said since you came to this forum. Every time you ask a question and it's answered, you ignore it and claim it wasn't answered. You ignore what's in a post or article and instead put your own words and meaning into it.

I think YOU should get the "Belz... treatment".

[funk de fino]

You are on the verge of getting the Belz/Lapman treatment, your posts lack so overwhelmingly in any intellectual substance or thought.

I drew 1 quote out each from each of the Jersey Girls. I could have gone on and on. There is not one rational person who will dispute their stance, they as the progenitrors of the 911 Comm reprot, on the report. Not one. And yet you insinuate it. Go and watch Press for Truth, if you have any interest in said truth.

And you are on the verge of completely losing the plot

You said a HUGE number, show me the rest of them? Go on, and on, as you say

Also "the" progenitors of the report? Sorry "some of the" it should be

You said the 911 families have denouced the report roundly and vehemently

They have not, you show only three members of the "how many" families?

Show me a source other than wiki for karens quote?

The other two in a muckraker report? What did they say in their statements to the 911 commission?

Where did they say it in these interviews?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/06/sunday/main1973962.shtml

A lot of what is said in that muckraker piece is contradicted by their own words at other times

Show us the complete and utter, unanimous agreement by huge numbers of the progenitors that your claims are true? If you are claiming this about only the Jersey Girls then 3 out of 4 aint bad but they were not the only progenitors and not the only families so you were either being dishonest or you were ignorant of the facts

[twinstead]

Mjd, yea, it's easy to win a debate if you simply claim victory no matter what.

[JimBenArm]

I win! Yeah, baby! In your face!
JBA rules, mjd drools!
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!

Hey that is kinda fun. Pretty easy, too!

[funk de fino]

What a silly post.

#1- Yes, you misunderstood. That is an issue that resides with you, no one else.

#2- They Commission did not get full access. Only Gorelick, Kean and Zelikow did. The others werent allowed to see. The factor of time constraints adding to this problem, only adds to the national scandal; it doesnt detract from it. The Commission was set up to fail, and the issue of time/money/access are prime examples of such.

You know your snideness and childishness does you no favours with any lurkers on here. It shows a lack of maturity.

1. He indeed describes the Commission as "a national scandal"
This was your claim in the OP, I did not misunerstand it, you posted something that was untrue and misleading. I am glad we finally got to the point where you agree he did not describe the commission as a national scandal.

2. I never said they did get full access I posted a quote from the commission, they are claiming they got to see everything they wanted but only 3 of them would see it and then report back to the rest. This was the deal that caused Cleland to leave. Was it because he was not in the little circle? Would he have left if he had been one of the chosen ones? Do you think they should have subpoena, even at the risk of not getting the report finished?

If the commission was set up to fail but, ultimately, in the opinion of those who created it, and instigated it, did not fail, then this is a design and execution problem?

It was designed to fail but did not? No?

[mjd1982]

And you are on the verge of completely losing the plot

You said a HUGE number, show me the rest of them? Go on, and on, as you say

Also "the" progenitors of the report? Sorry "some of the" it should be

You said

They have not, you show only three members of the "how many" families?

Show me a source other than wiki for karens quote?

The other two in a muckraker report? What did they say in their statements to the 911 commission?

Where did they say it in these interviews?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/06/sunday/main1973962.shtml

A lot of what is said in that muckraker piece is contradicted by their own words at other times

Show us the complete and utter, unanimous agreement by huge numbers of the progenitors that your claims are true? If you are claiming this about only the Jersey Girls then 3 out of 4 aint bad but they were not the only progenitors and not the only families so you were either being dishonest or you were ignorant of the facts
1, Find out who the progenitors are (having looked up the word "progenitor)

2. Watch the film. This will answer all of your questions.

[mjd1982]

Mjd, yea, it's easy to win a debate if you simply claim victory no matter what.
Sorry, i'm pretty sure you still owe my an answer somewhere, come now sheepy sheepy...

[funk de fino]

1, Find out who the progenitors are (having looked up the word "progenitor)

2. Watch the film. This will answer all of your questions.

1. I have, and you do not have a huge majority(snideness and childishness again)

2. Nice dodge, but ultimately pathetic

Source for Karens quote?

Very poor response to a post that showed you to be incorrect in your assertions

[funk de fino]

He indeed describes the Commission as "a national scandal"


Again, are you man enough to admit this statement from you OP was untrue or misleading?

[Belz...]

1, Find out who the progenitors are (having looked up the word "progenitor)

2. Watch the film. This will answer all of your questions.

Wow. Two dodges in two sentences.

come now sheepy sheepy...

And another one.

It must be really fun to paint your opponents a single colour. Can I try it ?