Upcoming Debate: Jon Gold Vs. Pat Curley

[Walter Ego]

Pat (Brainster on this forum) has mentioned this on his blog but it was officially announced today on 9/11 Blogger.

Quote:

Moderators:
Eric Jackman
Justin Martell

The show's name is "The Dynamic Duo", and it's a TV show. It will be taped on Monday [11/24/2008, 6pm EST] , and put up shortly after.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18561

I'm not sure why Pat would let two truthers moderate but he can comment on that aspect himself. I thought The Dynamic Duo was the Jim Fezter/Kevin Barrett internet radio show so I'm not sure how it's going to be on "TV" unless it's being done by webcam.

[RedIbis]

The comments after the article are pretty funny.

[Arus808]

yeah the comments are hilarious. Shows how delusional everyone at 911 blogger really are.

[T.A.M.]

yawn!

Sorry Brainster, I admire you for doing this, but aren't we done already.

TAM

[jhunter1163]

Maybe Mike Metz will call in. I'd listen to that all right.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

yawn!

Sorry Brainster, I admire you for doing this, but aren't we done already.

TAM

You sound a bit nervous for your friend.

[Jon Gold]

Good luck Pat.

[Brainster]

I've had some friendly conversations with Justin, so I'm not concerned about him being a reasonably fair if obviously not impartial moderator. The show will just be me and Jon on the phones with Justin and Eric in the studio. I hadn't bothered announcing it because it will (as far as I know) only be broadcast live on their campus. They will upload it to YouTube afterwards.

The topics are one of the main reasons I agreed to do the show; it's not missile into the Pentagon or controlled demolition, but the "Truther" fallback position of "Are there unanswered questions" and "Was the 9-11 Commission a legitimate investigation?" At this point I find those more interesting topics. I'm in the process of reading the Shenon book, and I've already read the Commission Report itself and Kean and Hamilton's Without Precedent.

Any suggestions for other stuff to check out would be appreciated. I'm actually surprised at how much interesting information I've discovered about Zelikow in the past few days; he really gets an unfair rap from the Troofers.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

You sound a bit nervous for your friend.

not really. More like bored with the fact that anyone actually still wants to debate this stuff...there is nothing new, so it will HAVE to be the same old stuff, just different mouth pieces.

Jon Gold is far from a threat, especially to someone as knowledgable as Pat.

Thanks for the concern though.

TAM

[beachnut]

Does 9/11 truth have something new? No

Did 9/11 truth find some evidence to support their nut case ideas? No

Thus, 9/11 truth will win in the minds of people unable to understand reality.

Pat wins before the debate begins. A review of 9/11 truth fantasy ideas with real information will help those who are able to use logic, knowledge and sound judgment defeat the anti-intellectual 9/11 truth fantasy club. Good work Pat.


If the debate is with this Jon Gold, I see the only thing Jon uses is hearsay and opinions based on fantasy and bias political junk. Here he supports Barrett who has the same evidence on 9/11 as Jon has, none.

Quote:

We Support You Kevin

If anyone were to take the time to research 9/11 on their own, they would see that the “Official Story” can not stand up to scrutiny. We were lied to. Those who lied to us benefitted the most from the attacks. The United States has a history of deceiving the public in order to start wars. Thank you Kevin for everything that you do.

Jon Gold, Rocket Scientist at NASA, at 9:10 am EDT on July 3, 2006

Seems Gold's primary evidence is talk.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Jon Gold

Good luck Pat.

Welcome to the forum, Jon. While you're here, could you tell us why you censor the comments on your YouTube videos? Don't you believe in free speech?

[Jon Gold]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Welcome to the forum, Jon. While you're here, could you tell us why you censor the comments on your YouTube videos? Don't you believe in free speech?

Sure, I'll answer one question while I'm here. Because I don't like death threats being posted, I don't like slanderous comments against the families and responders being posted, I don't like when "debunkers" choose to use slander against me, as opposed to just trying to counter what's said in the video, and I do not like when people like Nico Haupt and others try to promote ******** information that I do not endorse. If you don't like youtube's commenting features, then take it up with youtube.

Take care.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Jon Gold

Sure, I'll answer one question while I'm here. Because I don't like death threats being posted, I don't like slanderous comments against the families and responders being posted, I don't like when "debunkers" choose to use slander against me, as opposed to just trying to counter what's said in the video, and I do not like when people like Nico Haupt and others try to promote ******** information that I do not endorse. If you don't like youtube's commenting features, then take it up with youtube.

Take care.

Thanks for your reply, Jon. I don’t see the comments you don’t approve or delete of course so I’ll take you at your word. But I do know for a fact that you do censor comments that merely “counter what's said in the video.” Different standards for different people I suppose. Take care.

(Btw, one of the videos you have on YouTube was provided by me. You posted in on 911 Blogger, too. It happens to be on an issue we actually agree on. PM me if you want to know which one.)

[Arus808]

HAs jon read the entirety of the 911 commission report/ THe various FBI investigations? The Pentagon Performance Report? THE NIST reports (both the towers and hte Wtc7)? or will he come to the table as usual, ignorant of what any of these reports actually state?

[tomwaits]

Why?



I understand that Pat likes to look at this from a sort of anthropological perspective, but this is just silly.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Arus808

HAs jon read the entirety of the 911 commission report/ THe various FBI investigations? The Pentagon Performance Report? THE NIST reports (both the towers and hte Wtc7)? or will he come to the table as usual, ignorant of what any of these reports actually state?

What do any of those thorough investigations have to do with 9/11 truther theories?

TAM

[Homeland Insurgency]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Welcome to the forum, Jon. While you're here, could you tell us why you censor the comments on your YouTube videos? Don't you believe in free speech?

Yeah debunkers like RKO never do that!

lol

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by Brainster

The topics are one of the main reasons I agreed to do the show; it's not missile into the Pentagon or controlled demolition, but the "Truther" fallback position of "Are there unanswered questions" and "Was the 9-11 Commission a legitimate investigation?" At this point I find those more interesting topics. I'm in the process of reading the Shenon book, and I've already read the Commission Report itself and Kean and Hamilton's Without Precedent.

Any suggestions for other stuff to check out would be appreciated. I'm actually surprised at how much interesting information I've discovered about Zelikow in the past few days; he really gets an unfair rap from the Troofers.

The topics for discussion are:

1. Are there unanswered questions? Yes
2. Was the 9/11 Commission a legitimate investigation? No

Does Zelikow get a unfair rap? That depends on one's belief concerning the goals of the 9/11 Commission. Was the goal to discover and report the Truth about 9/11, or was the goal to produce a report favorable to the official 9/11 fairy tale? If you believe the former, then Zelikow's bad rap is well deserved. If you believe the latter, then maybe he did get a bad rap.

As Philip Shenon reports,

"By March 2003, with the commission's staff barely in place, the two men [Philip Zelikow and Ernest R. May, a Harvard historian] had prepared a detailed outline, complete with 'chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings'...Zelikow shared the document with Kean and Hamilton, who were impressed by their executive director's early diligence but worried that the outline would be seen as evidence that they--and Zelikow--had predetermined the report's outcome. It should be kept secret from the rest of the staff, they all decided...He labeled it "Commission Sensitive," putting those words at the top and bottom of each page."

Investigative reporter, Peter Lance, in his book Cover Up also comments on Zelikow,

"When I began this phase of my investigation in the fall of 2003, I developed a confidential source on the commission staff...The source, who had a heavy law enforcement background, revealed that of the eight teams set up to investigate various aspects of the attack..., only one had issued subpoenas. It was run by John Farmer...who was close to chairman Tom Kean. 'The other teams are completely controlled by Zelikow down in D.C.," he said...'Zelikow is calling the shots. He's skewing the investigation and running it his own way. What's worse, none of the other team leaders talk to the Commissioners. Farmer is the only one who deals with the Commissioners, because he has the relationship with Kean.'"

[Bosozoku]

Originally Posted by tanabear

The topics for discussion are:

1. Are there unanswered questions? Yes
2. Was the 9/11 Commission a legitimate investigation? No

Does Zelikow get a unfair rap? That depends on one's belief concerning the goals of the 9/11 Commission. Was the goal to discover and report the Truth about 9/11, or was the goal to produce a report favorable to the official 9/11 fairy tale? If you believe the former, then Zelikow's bad rap is well deserved. If you believe the latter, then maybe he did get a bad rap.

As Philip Shenon reports,

"By March 2003, with the commission's staff barely in place, the two men [Philip Zelikow and Ernest R. May, a Harvard historian] had prepared a detailed outline, complete with 'chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings'...Zelikow shared the document with Kean and Hamilton, who were impressed by their executive director's early diligence but worried that the outline would be seen as evidence that they--and Zelikow--had predetermined the report's outcome. It should be kept secret from the rest of the staff, they all decided...He labeled it "Commission Sensitive," putting those words at the top and bottom of each page."

Investigative reporter, Peter Lance, in his book Cover Up also comments on Zelikow,

"When I began this phase of my investigation in the fall of 2003, I developed a confidential source on the commission staff...The source, who had a heavy law enforcement background, revealed that of the eight teams set up to investigate various aspects of the attack..., only one had issued subpoenas. It was run by John Farmer...who was close to chairman Tom Kean. 'The other teams are completely controlled by Zelikow down in D.C.," he said...'Zelikow is calling the shots. He's skewing the investigation and running it his own way. What's worse, none of the other team leaders talk to the Commissioners. Farmer is the only one who deals with the Commissioners, because he has the relationship with Kean.'"

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.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Bosozoku

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.)

Quote:

If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be research.

Albert Einstein

[T.A.M.]

Given what Tanabear has described as the topics to be covered.

I restate my earlier position.

YAWN!

TAM

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by metamars

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.)


Albert Einstein

Your lack of evidence is due to your common sense. Einstein was right, you are wrong on 9/11.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
- Albert Einstein
The cover-up experts for 9/11 are the terrorist apologist, 9/11 truth. The best 9/11 truth can do is glom to books slamming the left or right with implications of cover-up. The 9/11 truth cult members fail to see the implications are pure hearsay and lies. What is your excuse?

The cover-up experts for 9/11 are the terrorist apologist, 9/11 truth. The best 9/11 truth can do is glom to books slamming the left or right with implications of cover-up. The 9/11 truth cult members fail to see the implications are pure hearsay and lies. What is your excuse?

My excuse for slamming 9/11 truth; the absent of evidence in 9/11 truth arguments. Why do you join them, weighing in with zero evidence to support your implication on behalf of the terrorist apologist?

You could save these books of woo by adding evidence and get them out of the political section of the library, or move them away from the bigfoot books.

[Bosozoku]

Originally Posted by metamars

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?

If the investigation was solely the result of Zelikow's work, then I would certainly be quite upset. You may be amazed to learn, if you ever read Shenon's book, that Zelikow was one of many contributors the 9/11 Commission, and that many of the things he pushed for to be included in the report were not in the final report.

Let's say, theoretically, the Truth Movement gets its wish and a new investigation is launched into 9/11. Would you want 9/11 truthers to be a part of the investigation? Would their findings be illegitimate, since they would presumably be working toward the goal of proving that 9/11 was an inside job?

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Jon Gold

Good luck Pat.

Hi, Jon. Welcome to the JREF forums. When you and I last communicated (several months ago, via SLC comments and email), you had lost a $100 bet to me and were going to donate that amount to the FealGood Foundation.

I asked for confirmation of that donation but didn't receive it. Please send it at your earliest convenience. My email is nyctours(at)gmail(dot)com.

Thanks.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Hi, Jon. Welcome to the JREF forums. When you and I last communicated (several months ago, via SLC comments and email), you had lost a $100 bet to me and were going to donate that amount to the FealGood Foundation.

I asked for confirmation of that donation but didn't receive it. Please send it at your earliest convenience. My email is nyctours(at)gmail(dot)com.

Thanks.

derail

reported

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Bosozoku

If the investigation was solely the result of Zelikow's work, then I would certainly be quite upset. You may be amazed to learn, if you ever read Shenon's book, that Zelikow was one of many contributors the 9/11 Commission, and that many of the things he pushed for to be included in the report were not in the final report.

Let's say, theoretically, the Truth Movement gets its wish and a new investigation is launched into 9/11. Would you want 9/11 truthers to be a part of the investigation? Would their findings be illegitimate, since they would presumably be working toward the goal of proving that 9/11 was an inside job?

They would be illegimate if the Truthers attempted to pre-determine the outcome, and there was no counter-balancing individuals who could make sure that the truther constituents didn't have sole ability to ask questions and subpoena documents.* In other words, if there was no balance in the investigative committees, such that if the Truthers really did have a hidden agenda of laying blame where it doesn't belong, it would succeed. And of course, dissenting opinions should be allowed. "Men of good will disagree."

You're being a bit abstract when you lay out your fear of "proving 911 an inside job". 911 Truthers have no state power, right now, and can't compel testimony. But for anybody in a committee with state power, to prove an inside job, you'd have to identify individuals who clearly behaved in a conspiratorial manner. You'd also have to unearth more details than we have now. E.g., if Mohammed Atta was a patsy working with international drug smugglers, who gave him his orders? What was this person's name, and who was this person working for? What group or individuals would have profited from Mohammed Atta's drug dealings? And what would be their interest in perpetrating a 911? If it was solely a contract with another group, what is this group, what are some names of members, and what was their interest in 9/11? Etc.

I would recommend that the Jersey girls be part of such a new investigation, even though they probably don't have an investigative or prosecutorial background. I really believe that they want to know exactly why and how their husbands were murdered, whatever that may be. Would it bring them any closure if they laid blame for MIHOP, say, when really it was MEGA-OOPS and CYA? I don't think so, since that would involve blaming innocent individuals. Do you think it would bring them closure?


N.B.: Aaron Russo is no longer alive, but a serious investigation would fully investigate his claim of Nick Rockefeller's "911 precognition", also.

* By "911 truther", I mean somebody who has shown evidence of 911 activism, but has shown no evidence of deliberately twisting or evading the truth for political ends. Unfortunately, I know of at least one person in the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice who would do such a thing, and I have email to prove it.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

derail

reported

Good luck on that one.

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Good luck on that one.

Reported, off topic, total derail, absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the OP and silly.

(Only joking).

[T.A.M.]

did I miss something, or is someone trying to report a "derail".

Since when did derailing a thread with a single post become a "reportable offense"?

I do know that ABUSE OF THE REPORT FUNCTION might be considered one though.

Unless I am missing something

TAM

[chillzero]

Discuss moderation and reporting issues in Forum Management, not ion threads.

Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:chillzero

[Brainster]

The show has been taped and will be put up on YouTube tonight or tomorrow. I felt it came off pretty well, and Justin and Eric handled themselves in a professional manner. Jon and I managed to avoid getting into a shouting match, so this was not a good audition tape for us to appear on Hannity and Colmes.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by chillzero

Discuss moderation and reporting issues in Forum Management, not ion threads.

Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:chillzero

Would that be a positive or negative ion thread?


(And don't worry HI, I've already reported myself for attempting to derail.....)

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by metamars

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?

You really don't get it do you.

Let me try a little story...

Bill and Joe are two ex-cops working as security guards in a bank. One day a gang of bank-robbers decides to rob the place, so they spend a day casing the place. This is during Bill's watch, but he doesn't notice them. The next day Joe is on duty and the robbers rob the bank taking him by surprise and making him look rather foolish when it is discovered that his gun's not loaded, something that is bank policy.

After the robbery partners Officer Jeff and Officer Mick turn up. Turns out that Jeff is an old friend of Bill and when Mick was a rookie he was partners with Joe. Both decide that due to their friendship they aren't going to put their friends in the firing line and so not steer the investigation towards blame for the robbery being placed on their friend.

The investigation quickly shows that the robbery was done by a group of bikers from a few towns over, the leader of which had a grudge against the bank because he'd been turned down for a loan extention and had lost his home in a forclosure sale. As far as the bank security is concern, the reccomendation is that the bank arm them properly, but that the failure in realising the bank was a target and preparing was in the training of the guards and so was no one's fault.

Now here's the question for you. Just because those doing the investigation set out to make sure their friend wasn't fired for not doing his job, was the investigation no longer legimate? Why, or Why not?

Now the argument certainly could be made that both guards could have done more to realise the threat and have possibly stopped it and that this was focused on in the investigation, but would looking at that really have changed the main issues of who did it and the main areas of what when wrong?

In the same way, the 9/11 Commision certainly could have made more of both Clinton and Bush's administrations blunders, but that wouldn't have changed the main answer of who did it, how, and where certain things fell over. In essence all it does is give a scapegoat and a false sense of security with the believe that once those that failed are gone the problems are solved. The 9/11 Commission went further than that, they pointed out that the system was sobadly flawed that regardless of who was in charge ot it, it had holes the size of Texas, that it is the system that needs fixing, that blaming individuals inside the system and sacking them wouldn't actually solve the real issues.

Which is better, finding scapegoats and sacking them, or actually dealing with and fixing the problems?

[Walter Ego]

Justin Martell has the first part of the bebate up on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBPWIpCGQGY

There will be two other parts and I'll have a playlist of the complete bebate on my video blog when all the segments are available.

Edit: Part two now uploaded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFWlzhM8H8

[Lennart Hyland]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

Justin Martell has the first part of the bebate up on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBPWIpCGQGY

There will be two other parts and I'll have a playlist of the complete bebate on my video blog when all the segments are available.

Thanks! And woot at widescreen-youtube!?

EDIT: And oh very low sound

[nicepants]

Jon seems to think that the existence of ANY unanswered questions means that the investigation was faulty. I would love for him to point out any investigation that leaves NO unanswered questions.

Interesting debate...would have been 100x better with better audio.

[JamesB]

You know the 9/11 Comission never established what was served for breakfast on United 93. I suspect a coverup!

[RedIbis]

I call it a draw. Poor production. Poor audio, and not very compelling nor specific questions.

I commend all involved for the attempt at civil debate, but in the two clips I heard, not much was accomplished.

Pat seemed to agree that Zelikow compromised the Commission Report, but any honest person would have to admit that.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I call it a draw. Poor production. Poor audio, and not very compelling nor specific questions.

I commend all involved for the attempt at civil debate, but in the two clips I heard, not much was accomplished.

Pat seemed to agree that Zelikow compromised the Commission Report, but any honest person would have to admit that.

No, I agree that Zelikow probably should not have been chosen, despite the fact that he was clearly the best-qualified individual, because of the conflict of interest issues which are legitimate if commonly overstated.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I call it a draw. Poor production. Poor audio, and not very compelling nor specific questions.

I commend all involved for the attempt at civil debate, but in the two clips I heard, not much was accomplished.

Pat seemed to agree that Zelikow compromised the Commission Report, but any honest person would have to admit that.

If "Complete lack of conflict of interest and politik" were the #1 criteria for choosing members of the commission, then the commission would have been full of soccer moms from the mid west.

TAM