Wow
The mere fact that Zelikow had an agenda does not by itself mean that the 9/11 Commission was not a legitimate investigation. Zelikow attempted to predetermine the report's outcome for the same reason that Sandy Berger was stuffing memos in his shoe - they each wanted to make sure the administration they represented was not faulted for the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11.
Anyone who reads Shenon's book can see that the 9/11 Commission Report was in many ways flawed; however, to say that it was "not a legitimate investigation" is another thing entirely.
Amazing. "Debunkers", who tend to eschew nuanced arguments, even when attempting to explain complex phenomena involving ever-so-complicated humans in their -ever-so-irrational interactions, will nevertheless make fine distinctions if it helps them perpetuate their collective myth.
It's admitted that Zeikow attempted to predetermine the outcome of the "investigation", but we are still to believe that the investigation is legimate.
Wow, just wow. I'm sure you'd feel the exact same way if your family members were murdered on 9/11, right?
Actually, I'm giving too much credit to the poster, since he hasn't really provided an explanation involving a point (subtle or otherwise) that would make his Orwellian claim of the legitimacy of the "investigation" seem reasonable. So let me help him out.
Me:
"The 911 teams were composed of patriotic Americans, who would never help cover up a crime."
or
"The 911 teams worked their tails off."
or
"If the 911 teams not completely controlled by Zelikow had thought there was a need for subpoenas, they would have screamed bloody murder if they were denied."
See? Playing at "debunker" can be very easy!
Almost any kind of real-world problem solving, described by the word "investigation", involves lots of trial and error. Asking a question may generate a response or finding of fact that leads to a
better question. To pre-emptively abort a chain of question/responses is not the way that things are done in, say, a criminal trial. A prosecutor will not take testimony as gospel truth, but rather witnesses are cross-examined, contradictions are sniffed out, etc.
I suggest Jon Gold prepare for the debate by studying how other cover-ups in plain sight are done in Washington, such as the Iran Contra hearings. For a cover-up to be worth it's salt, it's important
not to ask certain questions.
Note: I haven't read Shenon's book, so maybe it's overflowing with examples of why deep questioning wasn't necessary or indicated, and zero examples indicating that deep questioning (aided by subpoenas) would likely have been productive. So, my advice to both debaters is to try and figure this out before-hand, from within the context of Shenon's book. Does Shenon explain just
how Zelikow skewed the investigation? (By "how", I mean in what direction, not the mechanics of accomplishing the skewing.)
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research.
Albert Einstein
