--- Philip Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It explicitly sought to be "independent impartial, thorough and > non-partisan".
This is part of its propaganda. Does it saying so, make it so? Do you really believe every govt. commission and inquiry at face value? > 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. Again, this is part of its propaganda. Three main characters (Clinton, Bush, Cheney) testified in private. If this commission was to gain in credibility they ought to have testified publicly and at length. They cannot hide under the excuse - "for reasons of national security" - as Rice and others testified publicly. Bush had to be chaperoned by Cheney. Combined, they testified for A WHOLE HOUR with pre-screened questions. Bush initially fought the setting up of the 9-11 commission but bowed to political pressure. You call this a credible and complete investigation? > I also went back to the 9/11 Report to check on its take on Bin Laden's views > on Islam and > America. I have concluded that your views would probably come perilously > close to the "jihadist > theme that portrays the United States as anti-Muslim (p. 375)", What a bunch of hogwash. You are welcome to be an American and Israeli apologist even when confronted with facts. I mentioned in a prior post what was lacking in the commission’s report and its confirmation of the status quo on several fronts. Why don’t you address those issues, instead of the pithy statements above. Btw, are you not aware that Osama is an American creation, he was on the USA’s side in the Afghan war, reportedly on the CIA payroll. The USA was on Saddam’s side in his war with Iraq. Who nurtured and raised Osama and Saddam in the 1980's? May be some other history books before reading the 9-11 commission report will offer a more complete perspective. Regards, George
