* Type your message here:
>>By Dan Eggen >>Washington Post Staff Writer >>Wednesday, August 2, 2006; A03 >> >> >> >>Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 >>panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of >>how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have >>been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the >>commission and the public rather than a reflection of >>the fog of events on that day, according to sources >>involved in the debate. >> >>Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member >>commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its >>tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to >>the Justice Department for criminal investigation, >>according to several commission sources. Staff members >>and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other >>evidence provided enough probable cause to believe >>that military and aviation officials violated the law >>by making false statements to Congress and to the >>commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the >>hijackings, these sources said. >> >>In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning >>over the allegations to the inspectors general for the >>Defense and Transportation departments, who can make >>criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, >>officials said. >> >>"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North >>American Aerospace Command] told us what they told >>us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey >>Republican governor who led the commission. "It was >>just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those >>loose ends that never got tied." >> >>Although the commission's landmark report made it >>clear that the Defense Department's early versions of >>events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the >>revelation that it considered criminal referrals >>reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by >>the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension >>between it and the Bush administration. >> >>A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector >>general's office will soon release a report addressing >>whether testimony delivered to the commission was >>"knowingly false." A separate report, delivered >>secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies >>in part on problems with the way the Defense >>Department kept its records, according to a summary >>released yesterday. >> >>A spokesman for the Transportation Department's >>inspector general's office said its investigation is >>complete and that a final report is being drafted. >>Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation >>Administration, said she could not comment on the >>inspector general's inquiry. >> >>In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, >>Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission >>debate -- though it does not mention the possible >>criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts >>from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC >>News aired excerpts last night. >> >>For more than two years after the attacks, officials >>with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information >>about the response to the hijackings in testimony and >>media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air >>defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been >>scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and >>that fighters were prepared to shoot down United >>Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington. >> >>In fact, the commission reported a year later, >>audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and >>other evidence showed clearly that the military never >>had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at >>one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American >>Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into >>the World Trade Center. >> >>Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the >>commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at >>9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the >>airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The >>military was not aware of the flight until after it >>had crashed in Pennsylvania. >> >>These and other discrepancies did not become clear >>until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, >>obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials >>said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- >>along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and >>other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff >>members and commissioners to believe that authorities >>sought to mislead the commission and the public about >>what happened on Sept. 11. >> >>"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the >>way it was described," John Farmer, a former New >>Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into >>events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The >>tapes told a radically different story from what had >>been told to us and the public for two years. . . . >>This is not spin. This is not true." >> >>Arnold, who could not be reached for comment >>yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not >>have all the information unearthed by the panel when >>he testified earlier. Other military officials also >>denied any intent to mislead the panel. >> >>John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and >>former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that >>he believed the panel may have been lied to but that >>he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to >>support a criminal referral.
Choose Message Icon: None :-) Happy ;-) Wink :-D Joy :} Smirk <:-} Innocent ☮ Peace >:) Mischief B-) Shades <3 Heart |O Yawn <:P Sick >:-( Angry :~( Sad ? Question *!* Alert Thumbs Up Thumbs Down (!) Idea [Info] Info Oo. Talk [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.