<ONE aspect of the 9-11 commission is to give legitimacy to the USA's neocolonization ambitions in the Middle East and indirectly bless its anti-Arab, anti-Muslim views. A recent poll in the USA suggested that American Muslim rights should be curtailed. It is race, religious bigotry, etc. all rolled into one big unjust mess.
And yes, the 9-11 would have greater credibility if it had dark-skinned people on the panel - like a few people from the Middle East who are scholars there and can offer a better perspective and some former Governor or Senator from the USA.> [George Pinto on Dec 25] The 9/11 Report took nearly two years to finalise. It reportedly involved the review of 2.5 million pages of documents, interviews of 1200 individuals in TEN COUNTRIES (emhasis added). It explicitly sought to to be "independent impartial, thorough and non-partisan". It was committed to share its investigations to the maximum extent with the American people. For this purpose it held 19 days of hearings and took public testimony from 160 witnesses. Some of this was available on satellite TV in India. The Commissions staff includes one of Indian origin (Rajesh De, Counsel) and may be two if Charles M. Pereira (Professional Staff Member) is also counted. There is also a Korean (Hyon Kim, Counsel). Appendix B is titled "Table of names" and consists of nearly 5 (five) pages of individuals with Arabic/Muslim names compared to 2 (two) of U.S Officials including Condoleeza Rice and Zalmay Khalilzad. So what exactly is your complaint about the lack of credibility of the 9/11 Commission's work? Instead you may be the one who seems to be labouring under some vague, preconceived notions in this matter.
