It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The book, a behind-the-scenes look at the investigation, recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush's use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the attacks.
In their book, which goes on sale Aug. 15, Kean and Hamilton recap obstacles they say the panel faced in putting out a credible report in a presidential election year, including fights for access to government documents and an effort to reach unanimity.
Its 567-page unanimous report, which was released in July 2004, became a national best seller.
Originally posted by jtma508
I'm surprised that I'm the first response to this.
This web site was frozen on September 20, 2004 at 12:00 AM, EDT. It is now a Federal record managed by the National Archives and Records Administration. External links were active as of that date and time. For technical issues, contact [email protected]. For questions about the web site, contact [email protected].
NEW YORK (Reuters) - There is no evidence that senior Pentagon commanders intentionally provided false testimony to about the military's actions on the morning of the September 11 attacks, according to a report by the Defense Department's watchdog agency cited in the New York Times on Saturday.
The Pentagon's office of inspector general said the Defense Department's initial inaccurate accounts could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping, the newspaper said in an article on its Web site, citing the newly released report.
A spokesman for the inspector general's office, William Goehring, told the Times that the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report, but he suggested it would exonerate them. "We haven't found any information to indicate that testimony was knowingly false," the newspaper quoted Goehring as saying.
Link
Originally posted by WestPoint23
If certain groups and or individuals were misleading they were so for the sole reason of covering their A, and trying to make themselves look more competent on 9/11 then they really were. Say it with me folks, being misleading and perhaps lying about how badly you reacted on 9/11 does not a government involvement and conspiracy on 9/11 make. But anyway perhaps some of you should read this.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - There is no evidence that senior Pentagon commanders intentionally provided false testimony to about the military's actions on the morning of the September 11 attacks, according to a report by the Defense Department's watchdog agency cited in the New York Times on Saturday.
The Pentagon's office of inspector general said the Defense Department's initial inaccurate accounts could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping, the newspaper said in an article on its Web site, citing the newly released report.
A spokesman for the inspector general's office, William Goehring, told the Times that the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report, but he suggested it would exonerate them. "We haven't found any information to indicate that testimony was knowingly false," the newspaper quoted Goehring as saying.
Link
Originally posted by WestPoint23
NEW YORK (Reuters) - There is no evidence that senior Pentagon commanders intentionally provided false testimony to about the military's actions on the morning of the September 11 attacks, according to a report by the Defense Department's watchdog agency cited in the New York Times on Saturday.
The Pentagon's office of inspector general said the Defense Department's initial inaccurate accounts could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping, the newspaper said in an article on its Web site, citing the newly released report.
A spokesman for the inspector general's office, William Goehring, told the Times that the question of whether military commanders intentionally withheld the truth from the commission would be addressed in a separate report, but he suggested it would exonerate them. "We haven't found any information to indicate that testimony was knowingly false," the newspaper quoted Goehring as saying.
Link
Originally posted by Griff
Since Reuters has now admitted to photoshopping photos, I really don't take what they say with any credit. But, I guess some do.
'Reuters has suspended photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to photograph.' Photographer who sent altered image is same Reuters photographer behind many of images from Qana, which have also been subject of suspicions for being staged.
Link
The report, initially classified secret, was released Friday under a freedom-of-information request by The New York Times.
New York Times
Originally posted by WestPoint23
First, if you’re going to throw accusations around you should check your facts first. "Reuters" did not alter the photo, their photographer based in Lebanon did, the altered image was sent to Reuters where it was featured in a news article. Upon discovery that the photo was altered they withdrew it form circulation and immediately suspended the photographer and initiated an investigation.
Originally posted by Griff
Isn't this the same type of thing Dan Rather got into trouble for? Didn't someone send him "photoshopped" information (not even one of his own reporters mind you) about Bush's record and went and reported on it? Since Dan Rather got into trouble and no one believes him anymore, I think the same level of competency should apply to Rueters.