posted October 31, 2004 10:00 AM            

By JIM DWYER, The New York Times

(Oct. 30) - One last chapter of the investigation by the Sept. 11 commission, a supplement completed more than two months ago, has not yet been made public by the Justice Department, and officials say it is unlikely to be released before the presidential election, even though that had been a major goal of deadlines set for the panel.

AFP/Getty
9/11 Commission final report

Drawing from this unpublished part of the inquiry, the commission quietly asked the inspectors general at the Departments of Defense and Transportation to review what it had determined were broadly inaccurate accounts provided by several civil and military officials about efforts to track and chase the hijacked aircraft on Sept. 11.

David Barnes, a spokesman with the Department of Transportation, said yesterday that if the reviews found wrongdoing, the inspector general could recommend administrative penalties or ask federal prosecutors to begin a criminal investigation.

"The investigation is ongoing,'' Mr. Barnes said, "and we don't know when it will be done."

In testimony before the commission, officials had described a quick response to the hijackings that narrowly missed intercepting some of the planes, but the commission's investigators later determined from documentary evidence that none of the military planes were anywhere near the four airliners.

In addition, officials at the Federal Aviation Administration testified that they had notified the military within a few minutes of each hijacking, but the investigation found that tape recordings contradicted that assertion.

The commission, in its final report, said that the true picture "did not reflect discredit" on individuals, but that unreliable testimony about the events had made it harder to understand the problems.

Besides the pursuit of the hijacked planes, the supplement, a monograph 60 to 70 pages long, revisits other subjects in the commission's final report of July - telephone calls made from the hijacked airplanes, airline security and orders issued that morning by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney - and provides additional detail or context, former commission members said.

The monograph also finds shortcomings in the Transportation Security Administration, the agency formed to buttress airline security after the hijackings, said Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic senator from Nebraska and a commission member.

Mr. Kerrey suggested that presidential politics were behind the delay in the report's release, but a spokesman for the Justice Department, Mark Corallo, said that an ordinary review of the material for national security clearance was complicated when the commission shut down in August.

"It's unlikely in the next few weeks," Mr. Corallo said of when the supplement would be released. "It was a real legal quandary."

The monograph was submitted to the Justice Department just as the commission's term expired on Aug. 21, a date selected by Congress after long negotiations to avoid bringing out the commission's report at the height of the presidential campaign.It arrived not only as the commission became legally defunct, but also as many commission members and the staff lost their security clearances, Mr. Corallo said. That meant no one from the commission could discuss with the Justice Department lawyers how to edit material that needed to be changed for security reasons, he said.

"Had the commission gotten it to them two or three days before the deadline, they could have resolved any issue in minutes, as they usually do," Mr. Corallo said.

As a result of these complications, the supplement is the first of the commission's documents to be completely controlled by the Bush administration. While the commission was still in business, it was able to exert pressure on the White House when all 10 members, 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, simply issued a public request for cooperation.

"I am surprised that the process has dragged on this long, and I think it's inappropriate," Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democrat on the commission, said. "It is longer than any other review of written material."

Discussions on the monograph's fate are being held between the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department and Daniel Marcus, the commission's former general counsel.

"I think I've convinced them that even though we don't exist anymore, it ought to be viewed as a public document," Mr. Marcus said.

The monograph has two sections, he said. One concerns airline security, discussing the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration. The other section, he said, provides a detailed timeline of the movements of the hijacked planes the morning of Sept. 11 and the response by the civil and military aviation officials. On July 29, Mr. Marcus wrote to the inspectors general of the Transportation and Defense Departments requesting reviews of the testimony of those officials. He would not comment this week on the request or the letters, but representatives for both departments confirmed that investigations were under way.

10-30-04 17:51 EDT

--------------------------------------------

posted October 31, 2004 12:11 PM              

So, naturally, they threw that info. aside and refused to believe it's validity. Why? Because this president is a Uniter, not a Divider. He's so tired of all the partisan BS.

Bush LIED to the House and the Senate in order to get them to go along with his Iraq distraction... got them to give him the power to use force to "Keep the Peace". Congressmen and Senators all over believed he was interested in "Keeping the Peace" because that's what he told them were his goals. They voted to allow him the force he asked for, on the false grounds he asked for it. There has been NO keeping of the Peace. He simply wanted to use Force.

Kerry (and many others) saw what the president was/is up to, and changed their view on the situation.

If that makes them flip-floppers, sign me up. I'd much rather be a flip-flopper than a blatant liar full of greed (well... and Jesus ) any day.

Which brings me to Jesus. I wonder... Who would Jesus bomb? Who would Jesus put to death?

No one.

Bush is worse than your typical political liar... he is their King.

quote:

---

Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President : )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

---

I thought Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, Mr. Bush? I thought we are there to be Liberators to be greeted with chocolates and flowers and balloons?

Really. Who's the flip-flopper? This man is only capable of saying what he thinks people want to hear.

posted October 31, 2004 01:36 PM            

Congress, the entire Congress, including John Kerry and John Edwards saw all the information the CIA and other intelligence services furnished to the President.

The Congress was fully briefed by the same people who briefed the President.

The Congress, came to exactly the same conclusion the President came to, namely that Saddam possessed WMD, that he had ties to terrorists, that he hated the United States and that there was a strong reason to believe Saddam could and would hand off chemical and/or biological weapons to terrorists to use against the United States.

John Kerry sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, a Congressional Committee with full oversight over US intelligence agency operations. That is, Kerry sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee....when he shows up for work, a feat he never managed for a full year after the 9/11 attack.

How nice for you LS and you others, that you have perfect hindsight, at least 20/20 hmmm?

Well, one thing is certain, while liberals sit on their perches preaching their lies that Bush lied, people died nonsense and it's that they have absolutely no Constitutional obligation to protect the United States and Americans and Bush does.

How quickly liberals would have changed their tune IF Saddam had attacked the United States or handed off chemical/biological weapons to terrorists who set them off in a large city in the US.

You and the others like you would have been screaming at the top of your lungs to impeach the President because Bush FAILED to protect America as was his Constitutional duty.

How utterly hypocritical to want it every way but that is the liberal way. Speaking out of all sides of their mouth at the same time is a liberal trait and a John Kerry specialty.

As for the corrupt Clinton administration, if Clinton had spent more time going after al-Queda instead of handing the problem off to Bush, there would have been NO 9/11 to begin with.

Let me remind you that America was directly attacked at the WTC in 1993, Americans died... and Clinton did nothing.

2 American embassies were directly attacked, bombed by al-Queda in Africa, Americans died...and Clinton did nothing.

The USS Cole was bombed by al-Queda in a port in Yemen, Americans died...and Clinton did nothing.

Sudan offered bin Laden, his top al-Queda operatives and al-Queda files up on a silver platter to Clinton....and Clinton did nothing.

That's typical of Bill and Hillary Clinton, they talk a good game but are gutless in the face of an adversary bent on killing Americans and attacking America.

Enter John Kerry who wants to reduce terrorism to a
nuisance. Given that 3000 people died in the attack on 9/11, I wonder what constitutes a terrorist problem in the lexicon of John Kerry. How many dead Americans would it take for John Kerry to declare terrorism a problem and go after them with direct American military action? John Kerry's answer is that there is no number of dead Americans that would justify direct American military action because we have to get permission first and pass that oft mentioned Global Test. John Kerry is a wimp, a wuss and a weak kneed Globalyst who is congenitally incapable of protecting America, Americans and American interests. Get permission...indeed! Kerry is all image and no substance.

posted October 31, 2004 03:08 PM              

quote:

---

You and the others like you would have been screaming at the top of your lungs to impeach the President because Bush FAILED to protect America as was his Constitutional duty.

---

Gimme a break, JW. You and your Republican buddies would be singing a different tune if this had been Gore. The only thing the Republicans would be running on is : 9/11 happened on Gore's watch. Period. End of story.

quote:

---

How quickly liberals would have changed their tune IF Saddam had attacked the United States ...

---

Uh.. yeah. Liberals are capable of changing their minds when presented with facts that prove to them otherwise. You know... flip-floppers

How very observant of you JW, to point out how the Liberals can admit when they're wrong, and Republicans hold fast to their wrongness and make it into a religion.

And... as far as all that Clinton nonsense, you Republicans really gotta stop trying to put all this crap off on Clinton. He's gone. Bush is there to clean up this mess, and is only making it bigger... not reducing it, as he should be.

I have nothing to do with what happened on Clinton's watch. I'm not in here preaching on behalf of Clinton. I was a minor when he took office. I'm talking about the here, the now, what we are dealing with at the present. Would you care to join me?

posted October 31, 2004 03:50 PM            

It's also a fair assumption Algore would have done nothing about the 9/11 attack either. Remember, according to liberal dogma, America can't act alone and needs a permission slip from the UN.

Saddam would still be torturing, murdering, raping and abusing his citizens in Iraq as well.

Instead of a do nothing Algore, 50 million people are free in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan has already elected a new government. This is the first time in 5,000 years the nation of Afghanistan has ever chosen their own leader through open elections participated in freely by all...or if THEY chose to not participate, they could.

Elections are due in Iraq in January for the first time in at least 30 years. Not so with an Algore presidency.

Well LS, if it's a liberal prerogative to change their minds when new facts come to light, WHY are you blaming the President and calling him a liar when you had exactly the same information he did before the invasion of Iraq? You had that same information because Bush shared it with the American people BEFORE military operations began in Iraq.

So, do you suggest that Bush should say Whooops, withdraw all coalition forces and restore Saddam Hussein to power in Iraq? A little hypocrisy music maestro.

Clinton took no action against terrorists. If Clinton had acted...as he should have acted...and taken out bin Laden and al-Queda when it became apparent it was al-Queda who was responsible for the attacks, there would not have been a 9/11.
Clinton's reaction to terrorism was to issue pardons to terrorists as one of his last actions as President. Nice going Bill but then, Hillary did need that Puerto Rican vote to win her NY Senate seat, now didn't she?

If Bush had been President from January, 1993 until January, 2001, there would have been no 9/11. There would have been a lot of dead terrorists around the world, of that you can be sure and terrorist networks would have been disrupted as they are now.

I am not a Bush fundamentalist or any other kind of fundamentalist LS. Bush is right though in any event that the way to protect America is to destroy terrorists and take down the nations which protect, fund, train and send them out as proxies to kill civilians. That is a fundamental fact and there isn't any other course of action to deter those who, through their twisted religious beliefs think Allah commands them to kill all infidels who will not surrender to the will of Allah.

Given your viewpoint LS, I'm would be surprised if you don't already have a Berka ready and waiting in your closet.

posted October 31, 2004 03:55 PM              

quote:

---

fun·da·men·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

---

posted October 31, 2004 03:57 PM              

Synonyms: bitter-ender, dyed-in-the-wool, extremist, fanatic, fogy, fundamentalist, intransigent, mossback, old liner, praetorian, pullback, reactionary, right, right-winger, rightist, standpat, standpatter, stick-in-the-mud, Tory, true blue, ultraconservative, zealot

Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.5)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

posted October 31, 2004 04:24 PM            

Perhaps we should use real dictionaries for our definitions LS. How about Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com?

Merriam-Webster
One entry found for fundamentalism.
Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
- fun·da·men·tal·ist [] /-t&l-ist/ noun
- fundamentalist or fun·da·men·tal·is·tic [] /-"men-t&l-'is-tik/ adjective
Dictionary.Com
4 entries found for fundamentalist.

fun·da·men·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
Adherence to the theology of this movement. funda·mental·ist adj. & n.
funda·mental·istic adj.

posted October 31, 2004 04:33 PM              

Now you're going to try to attack the validity of the dictionary I use?

Alright, just for fun... I'll bite

Webster's dictionary adds words that don't exist:
http://www.snopes.com/language/mistakes/dord.htm

Not to mention the spelling errors that have been found in YOUR dictionary

So there. Neener neener neener. My dictionary is better than yours