Ex-FBI worker challenges 9/11 'lie' - Toronto Star

[reprehensor]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1081116611085&call_pageid=968332188854

WASHINGTON—When Condoleezza Rice takes her seat before the independent 9/11 commission here Thursday her assignment will be nothing short of halting the most serious assault yet on the credibility of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Sitting in the hearing room as Rice testifies will be a 33-year-old former FBI translator who may yet hold the key to the question now engulfing this nation — did an indifferent Bush administration ignore specific warnings that Al Qaeda was about to launch horrific attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001?

While allegations brought by former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke have swung the tide against the Bush White House in recent weeks, Sibel Edmonds delivered her own broadside against her government in private, during more than three hours of testimony to investigators for the 9/11 panel on Feb. 11.

Edmonds, who was hired as a translator by the FBI nine days after the attacks, told the investigative panel she has seen and handled intelligence documents and cables that show Rice, the national security adviser, is wrong when she says there was no advance warning of air attacks on U.S. soil.

more@link

[Mountainman]

1. When the White House vets the 9/11 commission report,

will all the damaging testimony become security risks and therefore kept secret? Will we ever get to know what the commission already knows?

I can't see how putting the fox in charge of the hen house especially when this is an election year is going to help us get at the truth. I'll bet that after the commission report comes out we will not know anymore than we do now.

We need someone to leak the testimony to the press.

[Miss Authoritiva]

2. White House vetting required by "law"?

"...the chair of the commission investigating the attacks said the White House would vet its final report "line-by-line," a review Thomas Kean said he was surprised to learn was required by law."

Does anybody know whether this "law" is actually just a provision required by the White House before agreeing to the creation of the 9-11 Commission? Or is this a long-standing law covering a variety of reports and findings?

And isn't it just a little disconcerting to find out that the chair of the commission was "surprised to learn" about the law? That inspires confidence.