Friday, July 23, 2004

The 9/11 Report

Newsday has my take on the legacy of the 9/11 commission. Here's the gist of it:

"Why do these commissions usually fail in their task to bring consensus? One reason is that any commission, no matter how thorough and comprehensive, can't examine every piece of evidence. Indeed, new evidence often comes to light only long after these commissions complete their work. In other cases, the evidence will never be known. Oswald and the 9/11 hijackers took their thoughts to the grave. And into this vacuum of ignorance steps what historian Richard Hofstadter called "the paranoid style" of U.S. politics.

Many have always seen conspiracies lurking beneath the surface of American politics, but such thoughts are particularly evident in the wake of tragic events, as though something as horrible as 9/11 can only be the result of dark forces. Given this, the 9/11 report will not mark the end of, but just another stage in what will surely be an enduring controversy."

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Unlike the Warren Commission, I don’t think the 9/11 Commission missed any significant hard evidence. The motivations taken to the grave can be answered by psychiatrists. Read a few pieces by Tom Friedman of the NYT about the psychology of the hopeless (like Palestinians) and it is easy to see how a charismatic mullah can sweet talk them into suicide in the name of religion.

Anyone looking for a bigger conspiracy in 9/11 is an Enquirer reader.

I don’t know about the “Intelligence Czar”, but there are plenty of specific things still needed to provide domestic security: tracking foreign nationals; securing the ports, railways, water and power infrastructure, adequate staffing at airports and border crossings, etc. This is the part of the report that needs to be pursued.