Lee Hamilton: The 911 Commission is a good place to begin an investigation

link: http://upswing.newsvine.com/_news/2010/10/18/5310110-911-commission-vice-chair-says-911-commission-report-is-nothing-more-...

9/11 Commission Vice Chair Says 9/11 Commission Report Is Nothing More Than a Good Place to BEGIN an Investigation
News Type: Event

— Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:45 AM EDT.By upswing

As I type this, Lee Hamilton, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission is being interviewed by Diane Rheim, and he just answered a question from a listener by stating two things:

1. The 9/11 Commission was highly politicised, and

2. The 9/11 Commission is a good "Starting point" from which to investigate the events of 9/11.

Holy Sh*t!

Here is one of the guys in charge of putting together a report that many cite as the final word of the events of 9/11 stating outright that it is no such thing.

Rather, he says, it is a good place to BEGIN an investigation.

Why is the MSM ignoring the deafening call for a truly independent and scientific investigation, with subpoena power, into the events of 9/11?


A little blog I wrote on 9/17/2006 called, "Lee Hamilton: The 9/11 Commission's Mandate Was "To Tell The Story Of 9/11" said the following:

I stumbled across this article from the Statesman Journal, and saw what Lee Hamilton was passing off as the mandate for the 9/11 Commission.

He states:

We had two mandates. One was to tell the story of 9/11, and I think we did that reasonably well. The story that we told has stood up and will certainly become the starting point for anybody who investigates 9/11.

As you can see on the 9/11 Commission's very own website, their mandate was to:

"provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future."

If the "story" that the 9/11 Commission told us was only the "starting point", then how can it be a "Full and Complete Accounting" of the attacks of September 11th?

At first, I was angry with Mr. Hamilton for not telling us the truth about what their mandate was.

Then, it occurred to me. He wasn't lying.

Philip Zelikow, a man who's expertise is "the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions” was in charge of the 9/11 Commission.

Knowing that, I have little doubt that what we were told about 9/11 was, in fact, a "story."

The families, the sick first responders, the soldiers deployed in the Middle East, the innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the people of the world deserve better than a "story".

They deserve the truth.

End Blog

4 years ago... and it's still as relevant today as ever.

Source: thedianerehmshow.org

And welcome back. Former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton joins me from the Wilson Center here in Washington, which he directs. And if you'd like to join us, 800-433-8850, as he talks about his 50 years here in Washington before he heads back to his home in Indiana. Congressman Hamilton, we have an e-mail from Sarah in Huntsville, Ala. She says that you said you thought that the 9/11 Commission was set up to fail. She wants to know what you meant by that and how much faith you have in the reliability of the 9/11 Commission report.

Tom Kean and I -- Tom was the chairman, I was the vice-chairman of the Commission -- looked at the circumstances that surrounded us as we began to investigate 9/11. And I think he and I both said on occasion that we were set up to fail. By that we meant that the original funding for the Commission was very, very modest -- I think about $3 million. The Commission began its work in an extremely partisan period when presidential campaigns were -- political campaigns were under full speed. There were -- so a very difficult political environment for us, and, of course, an enormous amount of interest in everything that we did. So we did not see the most favorable circumstances for an investigation.

The second question was whether or not we had faith in reliability in the report. We were asked to do two things by statute. One was to tell the story of 9/11. We did that. I think the basic story that we set out in the Commission report has been largely -- by no means unanimously -- accepted. In any event, it has become part of the historical record, and I think people will have to refer to it in the years ahead as a starting point to look at 9/11. The second mandate was to make recommendations. We did that, made a good many of them. We think that about 80 percent of them have been enacted either in whole or in part. There are some big gaps. Some of our recommendations were flatly rejected, but we had good cooperation from President Bush, from the United States Congress. And many, many of the recommendations were enacted.

What would you have wanted the 9/11 Commission to have accomplished that it was unable to do?

There are some gaps. We still have not solved the problem completely of communications among the various first responders at the scene of the disaster. Progress has been made, but I don't think we're there yet. Now, this is a no-brainer. The fire, the police, the public health people all have to be able to talk with one another, and that's fundamental. And we're not where we ought to be there. Secondly, I do not think we have solved the problem entirely of the command and control. Once a disaster strikes, you have to have someone in charge. They have to make hundreds, if not thousands, of decisions immediately. It's a politically delicate question of who's in charge.


We've made progress there, but we're not there. And, third, I just mention quickly, we recommended major changes in congressional oversight of intelligence. Modest progress has been there -- been made there, but not sufficient.