Who wrote the 911 report..? Are we being set-up...like the Patriot Act

[cthrumatrix]

The 911 panel didn't write this 600 page report and where did the recommendations come from?

How could this 600 page book be orgainzed soo quickly and why are is the panel the cheerleaders for the "changes" ...like another security level cabinet position.

Much like the Patriot Act was sitting there waiting to be shipped to congress six weeks after 911 ...along with that little "white powder" called anthrax.

Call me "cynical" ...but I think this is a classic example of TPTB running the show ... having a panel recommend "what they wanted" not what the people wanted ...like a real 911 investigation.

[cthrumatrix]

1. I'll settle for "who" actually wrote it...?

[shockingelk]

6. It was a collaborative effort

Other than that, the only thing I know is that they didn't get a competent editor to edit it ... there's several times so far I've asked myself "What the heck are they talking about?" and a few paragraphs later, I think to myself "Oh, that's what they were talking about. Why the hell wasn't this the first paragraph in the section?"

[cthrumatrix]

7. let the authors come forward then.... seems like a simeple request

I relaize this is like asking who writes the bills introduced into congress/senate...it's not our politicians...it's the corporate lobbyists who own our process and politics.

[shockingelk]

10. You're insane

You think Ben Viniste and Gorelick (spellings?) had no hand in writing it even though their signatures are on the authorship page?

Congressional Democrats appointed half the commission's members.

I am thinking you are insane or uninformed.

[cthrumatrix]

14. just like our senators write the bills ..... get a clue!

[shockingelk]

18. The commissioners don't look for campaign contributions

Are you suggesting they were bribed, blackmailed or some other such thing?

[shockingelk]

2. The admin doesn't want a security Czar

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make - that BushCo pulled the string on the Commission so they'd write a report that proves they're lying sacks of crap just so they could hear a recommendation?

[cthrumatrix]

5. TPTB are the puppet masters for Bush....AWOL has zero credibility

and could not be trusted with major structural changes .... this report can.

AWOL will conform to what the TBTB wanted...this has zero to do with any of his ideas...he doesn't have an authentic credible thought.

[shockingelk]

8. I read it as "the powers that be",

but got your meaning anyway.

I'm still not sure what you're suggesting - BushCo wouldn't have to go through the elaborate ruse to get an intelligence Czar ... why would they? And why would exposing many admin mistruths, be criticized on their "war on terror" in a way that goes against their talking points ... I don't want to ask "Hey, have you even read it?" but how specifically are you saying this will benefit TPTB?

[shance]

15. You're kidding, right?

Youre absolutely right!

Kind of like the Bush Administration fought valiantly to protect citizens from the Patriot Act.

As far as I can see, we are gingerly walking straight into a Soviet Unionized situation with something like this.

Just what we need. More fear baiting, *unified* spying, false accusations and incarceration of innocent people?

Please explain to me what positive outcome can come from Hamilton talking about MORE terror, MORE fear, SO lets build a BIGGER BETTER INTELLIGENCE center.

The 9/11 Panel did not do their job at all. Or did they? Were Americans essentially set up again?

The 9/11 panel never asked any of the necessary, difficult answers that were vital in finding the truth. What I saw looked like a dog and pony show.

The 9/11 Panel did not relieved any fear, have the decency to respect the needs and ask questions so hungrily hoped for by the loved ones that lost family members.

THEY HAVE NOT PUT THE POWER AND CONFIDENCE BACK INTO THE HANDS OF American cities, towns and COMMUNITIES.

Thats what we need to be talking about.

Instead of fear, lets talk about developing more FRIENDS in our communities, our cities our nation and globally. We need to be connecting with others from different cultures and ethnicities who are different than we are, and yet are very much the same.

The way we beat terrorism, just like anything else, is from the GROUND up, not from some new granite building built in D.C. designed to snoop into every American background.

Its about coming together, not driving us apart, which may be what some on the 9/11 panel along with Dennis Hastert will attempt as the *reconvene* in August.

Im very worried of the so-called remedies they think WE need.

Their remedies *on* the Americans since 9/11 have been oppressive, engendered further fear and have created more distrust in our government, not less. they have only further made citizens feel helpless and fearless of the ever ambiguous *terrorist*, told us we need a BIGGER, BETTER FEDERALIZED organization that will make us safer?????

I dont think it will in any way make us safer, but it very well could ignite a smorgasboard of arrests, searches and seizures without warrants (they dont have to pay for property they destroy you know!) witchhunt if we dont all get off of this terrorist train pretty soon.

This once again, is a bi-partisan issue that will effect all in the end. It will certainly extinguish the creative, dissident honest voices first. Corporate fascism is already doing that. And as time goes by*, I become more and more libertarian****

[shockingelk]

19. shance,

It sounds to me like you're rushing to judgment..

Just what we need. More fear baiting, *unified* spying, false accusations and incarceration of innocent people?

There is an entire section warning of encroachments of liberties.

Please explain to me what positive outcome can come from Hamilton talking about MORE terror, MORE fear, SO lets build a BIGGER BETTER INTELLIGENCE center.

I recall it recommends looking into consolidation as opposed to only expansion.

The 9/11 panel never asked any of the necessary, difficult answers that were vital in finding the truth. What I saw looked like a dog and pony show.

I don't have a response if you're a MIHOPer, however, since the report has come out, and due to it - I am beginning to believe a version of LIHOP: that they may have intentionally let their guard down, thinking they'd get a traditional - for the lack of a better word - hijacking or a truck bomb.

Instead of fear, lets talk about developing more FRIENDS in our communities, our cities our nation and globally. We need to be connecting with others from different cultures and ethnicities who are different than we are, and yet are very much the same.

There's actually a section which criticizes the administrations depiction of "the enemy" and how the "war on terror" is being framed. As well as criticizing the use of the proverbial hammer that makes everything look like a nail. For instance:

"Recommendation: The U.S. government should offer to join with
other nations in generously supporting a new International Youth
Opportunity Fund. Funds will be spent directly for building and
operating primary and secondary schools in those Muslim states that
commit to sensibly investing their own money in public education."

The way we beat terrorism, just like anything else, is from the GROUND up, not from some new granite building built in D.C. designed to snoop into every American background.

I'm not sure if you're saying the federal gov't has no role in protecting us from future attacks - if so, I'd simply disagree.

[shance]

23. Elk, more Federalized Secrecy is what we need?

Weve already done that, many times before and with that weve gotten McCarthy, Watergate, numerous assasinations, and yes, even witch trials.

At the root of all this and any other corrupt scandals is secrecy and coversion. And yet there is a double standard in the area of secrecy isnt there?

We put Bill Clinton out on a scaffold for having oral sex, and yet George Bush and Dick Cheney initiate two unecessary wars (have we seen evidence as to why we even went to Afghanistan?) and then they slam the door in our face when we ask for some evidence as to why we ever went in the first place. At the same time, while they steadfastly refuse to hand over documents, this Administration has access and permission to invade the privacy of any citizen anytime they want right now thanks to the Patriot Act and the ones who allowed its passage.

I think thats essentially what we are talking about. Less accountability because like the 9/11 panel showed us, its all too convenient for Washington to blame everyone so everyone gets off the hook.

Like others have said, this call for an Intelligence center* is further politicizing our intelligence, which they already have enough power as well as a significant ability to avert accountability.

A good comparison to this further increase Federalized intelligence might be guns. The creation of guns, ammo doesnt make us safer.

However, communication, open dialog, transparency and accountability in our government do make us safer, and a healthier, happier*(sounds stupid, but its true*)nation.

I want more transparency and truth, not more subversion and secrecy. Only allows for further corruption and secrecy in our government.

[shockingelk]

25. I agree with most everything you say ...

I haven't read any recommendations for changes in intelligence yet.

I don't know what I think of an "Intelligence Czar", my gut feeling is we don't need the gvt to be bigger in order to work better - probably the opposite.

I think I may be responding to the Report as a whole whereas you're writing about a specific aspect of it? Because it does say things like we should help build educational institutions in Islamic nations and several other things I wholeheartedly agree with.

[jimshoes]

3. From a technical standpoint

putting a 600 page book together these days is nothing with programs such as Pagemaker. Who actually typed the book into its final form I don't know. And to go from final proof to press and final product can be done in a week or so.

[FreakinDJ]

4. Good Call my friend

The intelligence zar is just a mean to politicize the intelligence community. that was the whole problem in the first place.

The intelligence community HAS TO REMAIN APOLITICAL. Serve a Democrat as well as a Republican. When some boob of a republican walks into office a state "I don't want to hear about it" or "We need to concentrate on Iraq" The intelligence community needs to keep service to the American People at the forefront of their actions.

This intelligence zar is a Very Bad Idea. One that guarantees more 911 style attacks through political posturing to make one party or the other look bad

[shockingelk]

9. The intelligence community already serves at the pleasure of the WH

I don't think I agree with the idea of an intelligence Czar, but how would one make it easier to manipulate the intelligence community?

[FreakinDJ]

16. They currently serve the Right wing more then the Left

When Clinton tried to sign an order calling for the execution of Osama Bin Laudin the CIA refused to carry out the order. Citing it was an unlawful order.

We have all seen articles saying the attack on 911 would have happened any way. But they would be hard pressed to convince me of that being the Bin Laudin was the principal organizer of the many different groups.

You have got to remember Bush Sr. and Cheney are old buddies from his days as director of the CIA. When Bush Jr. ordered the execution order for Bin Laudin it wasn't even questioned

[shockingelk]

22. It's impossible to read the report for 5 minutes ...

... without seeing something that makes you think the Bush administration acted appropriately before and after 9/11. There is also stuff that apologies for the Bush administration, but those types of things are less factual and more opinion.

People will be able to make up their own minds. I'm glad it says the Bush administration knew about the threat but did little or nothing to circumvent or curtail it.

[randr]

11. I have the same reservations about the report

Essentially the report cited a failure of existing checks and balances, no to mention the incompetency of officials in charge.
It is very noticeable how C Rices' name is missing from all the rhetoric.
If the agencies had performed their respective obligations to the nation we would not be in this mess.
This smells like an end run to install even more draconian powers to the presidency.

[mmonk]

12. I would prefer

an oversight committee composed of Constitutional scholars. I just can't get police state "fever". We don't need to abandon constitutional protections in order to have an effective process of defending us against Islamic terrorists.

[hedda_foil]

13. The committee staff wrote it.

The staff always writes the reports.

[shance]

17. How do you know who wrote it Hedda?

Honestly, how do you know? Because thats what youve been told and are conditioned to believe or because there is factual evidence to back that up.

I hate to say it, but I feel as though weve been lied to so much by this Administration and many around it, Ive come to doubt just about anything they say.

[supernova]

20. committees have staffs;

they do the grunt work. And perhaps it was possible to put together certain section as they went so the final book wasn't that huge a task to put together.

[shockingelk]

21. What does it matter who wrote it?

You're sounding a bit like a Republican: "This isn't about what Joe Wilson didn't find, it's about Joe Wilson", "<xxx> is just a disgruntled employee", "John Kerry got some BOTOX! Can't you see he's unfit to be President?"

[Zorra]

24. Yes. We are being set up. Legislation of any kind needs to be read

thoroughly and critically by every lawmaker that will vote on it. It is obvious from news reports that there is a push to get this legislation enacted too quickly.

Maybe changes need to be made, but they have to be the correct changes. The philosophy of "Do something, even if it is wrong" is dangerous.

Passing legislation that is not thoroughly analyzed for constitutionality and future ramifications could be a nightmare.