The so-called bi-partisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. has, after months of negotiations reached an
agreement with the White House on access to the Presidental Daily Briefs which were submitted to the President in the weeks prior to 9/11/01. The PDBs (daily intelligence briefings to the President and staff) in question apparently indicate that attacks much like the ones we experienced on 9/11 were described as pending, casting the administration in a bad light. Eager to prevent such a bad political outcome, the WH has engaged in months of protracted negotiations with the commission, citing the usual executive privilege and national security blather in a desperate attempt to hide the evidence of their incompetence/complicity from full disclosure. Only the threat of a subpoena, which would have been even more politically embarrassing, has moved the WH to make access possible under any circumstances.
The agreement reached is almost a complete win for the WH. Under terms suggested by the WH, only two of the 10 commission members will have complete access to the documents in question, and apparently only in a resticted fashion: they may read them in the privacy of a specially designated chamber, with no note-taking allowed. Two other commission members would have selective access to documents deemed appropriate by the WH (ha!). In other words, two guys would even get to look at all the documents, they wouldn't be allowed to photocopy or even make handwritten notes, and they couldn't talk about what's in there with anyone.
The precise terms of the actual agreement have not been made public--another win for the WH. One commission member, Tim Roemer (D), has complained about the agreement, but the commission seems likely to go ahead anyway. Particularly disappointing is the reaction of Richard Ben-Veniste, who served this country better during the Watergate hearings than he does now by acquiescing to this travesty. He said of the agreement:
"This is a compromise that respects the integrity of the commission inasmuch as it will be the commission -- and not anyone else -- that will designate the subcommittee that will initially review the materials."
But former Rep. Roemer refused to meekly toe the line:
"In paraphrasing Churchill, never have so few commissioners reviewed such important documents with so many restrictions...I am not happy with this agreement, and I will not support it."