Commission impossible

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (commonly known as the 9-11 Commission) was a good idea. But it's likely now to travel down an unfortunate path to insignificance.\nIt began with Richard Clarke's testimony. Clarke was the counterterrorism adviser to the last four presidents, and resigned his post last year after becoming upset with the Bush war on terror. His testimony coincided with the arrival of his new book. But rather than focus on the merits of his remarks, the testimony became a book sale.\nCommissioner James R. Thompson, a former Republican governor of Illinois, stole the day with an attack on Clarke. Holding up a positive transcript from 2002 and Clarke's new negative book, Thompson asked, "Which is true?"\nThen the commission teetered on the edge of absurdity last week with the testimony of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Rice's anticipated testimony ruffled some feathers with a stern line of questioning from commissioners. \n(We still believe Rice could have avoided being thrown to the lions if she had merely testified publicly when Clarke did. By claiming "historical precedent" to keep Rice on the sidelines, the Bush administration did not claim a moral victory; it experienced a public relations failure.)\nCommissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, former Democratic counsel to the Watergate investigate, stole the day with his attack on Rice. As the two were tangling words and talking over each other, Rice proclaimed, "I would like to finish my point here," to which Ben-Veniste replied, "I didn't know there was a point."\nTwo more victims to the two partisan witch hunts. \nCommissioners are now appearing on cable news networks discussing testimonies and their final report isn't even out yet. Someone should see if the 9-11 Commission has an ethics code book somewhere.\nThis is not some sub-par commission whose goal is to discover a new solution to potholes on America's roads. We believe this commission's job is much more serious and the reasoning for its inception far more grave. It needs to ask the tough questions no one is asking that Americans want answered and it needs to determine what can be done for the future to prevent more terrorism. It should consciously avoid making an undue media spectacle of itself, and avoid pointing fingers into the past rather than toward the future.\nIf it succeeds, the commission will have completed a valuable service to our country. If it fails, it will fall into the same obscurity that gobbles up all the other commissions of Washington. \nIf the commissioners keep bickering like partisan wranglers, however, they pose truly the greatest risk of all: the possibility that real, practical solutions will be provided, but no one will want to pay attention to them anymore.