She said that she thought the DOJ IG report got it mostly right. The DOJ IG basically concluded risk aversion, incompetence, misunderstandings, etc. There is no way. We don't know what the RFU and UBLU units were doing. One, none of the agents involved in withholding decision issues have come forward to explain their conduct. FBI agents Rossini and Miller did come forward to state that they were given a bogus rationale by CIA supervisors. Two, AFAIK all the 9/11 Commission interview summaries with Alec Station, FBI RFU and UBLU agents are still pending classification review.

The hypocrisy is off the charts. Citizens are expected to give up their privacy because the intel community claims they must have police state powers to prevent terrorist attacks. OTOH, intelligence officials involved in outrageous pre-9/11 conduct refuse to answer to the public. Why is it acceptable for Congress to renew the Patriot Act eight years after 9/11 while the public remains ignorant due to abuse of national security classification procedures and an incurious mainstream media?

There both MN finest. Could be quite an EFFECTIVE team (IMO)

This is what matters: "her demand for a new investigation is a necessary first step"--and if that's all we can get in such cases, it's enough.

The arguments for a real investigation need not depend on everyone being convinced (or willing to publicly acknowledge) 9/11 was an inside job.

Because even if the "gist" of the story were true--a completely surprise attack organized solely by al-Qaeda--the Federal government's (and the military's) mishandling of this crime has been so egregious, marked by so much dissembling and obvious criminal misbehavior, that an investigation would STILL be warranted. Any of the following reasons should be sufficient:

1. The largest removal and destruction of physical evidence from a crime scene in history.

2. The fact that the government has handed us not less than THREE mutually contradictory accounts of how these attacks succeeded without military intervention--each story more ludicrous than the one before. (Why for example has nobody been prosecuted for perjury for lies told under oath?)

3. The fact that no one at NORAD or the FAA or the FBI has been fired, or even publicly reprimanded, for the way they botched their jobs--indeed, some key players in the "failures" leading to and allegedly made on 9/11 have even been promoted and given awards.

Three examples out of hundreds that can be made. Any of these should be grounds for investigation by themselves.

The information provided by Colleen Rowley by itself provides sufficient grounds for an investigation, which may resonate even with people who still believe in the "gist" of the official conspiracy theory. Fine--whatever arguments are necessary to convince people of the need for a real investigation, we should use them! Even as we continue pointing to the totality of evidence.

Here.

Edit: I did a search on my site for his name, and a lot came up, but this one was of special interest. Be sure to read everything.