9/11 commission defends omission of intelligence on hijackers
Once you set up a commission with a key witness (Jamie Gorelick) sitting on the commission and don't think that's a problem, how much stock are we supposed to put into anything they have to say after that?
Admitting that they screwed up (either purposefully or by negligence) is out of the question because it would raise too many questions about the sham political sideshow that was the 9/11 Commission.
They say the witness didn't have documentation to back it up, yet they had nothing to say about Sandy Berger and his escapades in the archives where he had the means, motive and opportunity to destroy whatever documentation might have existed.
This commission was supposed to "get to the truth" about 9/11? Now we have a smoking gun that says they stepped around the truth to avoid placing any blame on Clinton administration officials or their policies.
Truth? Nope...just politics as usual...and anything they have to say should be treated accordingly...