When Attorney General John Ashcroft produced the 1995 memo written by then Janet Reno deputy and present 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelik, it was a legitimate Perry Mason moment. The memo simultaneously refuted much of Janet Reno’s testimony that “The Wall” of separation between intelligence and law enforcement either did not exist or, to the extent that it did exist, was not much of a handicap and brought into sharp relief Jamie Gorelik’s conflict of interests.
Commissioner Gorelik only presence at the hearings should be as a witness not as a commissioner. For the findings of the commission to have any legitimacy there will need to be at least a semblance of non-partisanship. How they get there from here is certainly not clear to me.
If I weren’t so fed up with the whole proceedings, it would have been entertaining.
From my limited understanding, the commission was established BECAUSE of partisanship. There is no compromise in sight.
Deanna:
Here’s the introduction on the Commission’s web page:
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.
The highlighting above is mine. It’s hard for me to see how any credible recommendations could come from such an obviously conflicted source.