David Corn on The Bog at the 9/11 Commission

Toward the end of the recent two days of hearings of the independent 9/11 commission, Kristen Breitweiser and Lorie Van Auken, who each lost a husband in the horrific attacks, were near tears. Not of grief, but of rage.

They had much to be angry about, as they and other 9/11 family members walked out of the hearings in protest. They were mad that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had refused to testify publicly. The White House had claimed that it would set a bad precedent and discourage future presidential aides from freely dispensing advice to the commander-in-chief. But in recent years other presidential advisers, including Tom Ridge, have testified before Congress. And Rice had no problem appearing on several television shows right before the hearings to talk about the Bush Administration's deliberations in order to slam Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief in the Clinton and early Bush administrations, who had released a book accusing Bush of neglecting Al Qaeda before 9/11 and undermining the fight against Osama bin Laden with the war in Iraq.

But for Breitweiser and Van Auken there was reason to be upset beyond Rice's no-show. They were infuriated that much of the questioning of the Clinton and Bush officials who did testify--the list included Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Defense Secretary William Cohen, CIA chief George Tenet, and former national security adviser Sandy Berger--was disjointed, lame or off-point. Much of it concerned Clarke's book, with Republican members of the commission--especially former Illinois Governor James Thompson--helping the White House by seeking to discredit Clarke. "We fought to have serious hearings about the issues of 9/11," Breitweiser said. "Instead we got a book review. This has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with why my husband and 3000 people who are not on this Earth. I can't explain how hurtful this is." Van Auken added, "The occasional fact seeped out--a little bit of the truth. But we want to replace these hearings with hearings on 9/11. This is not a game."

Time magazine had just reported that the Bush Administration in the months before 9/11 ignored a plan proposed by Clarke to "roll back" Al Qaeda. At that briefing, Clarke, speaking on background (meaning his name could not be used by the journalists), defended the Bush Administration's early actions regarding Al Qaeda.

The missed (at least for now) opportunities irritated some of the family members--as has Philip Zelikow, the commission's executive director. Breitweiser, Van Auken and other 9/11 relatives have called on him to resign. Zelikow served with Rice in the Bush I Administration and co-wrote a book with her. He was on the transition team for the current Bush Administration and in that capacity participated in a meeting that has become part of the Clarke controversy. He also was appointed to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board by George W. Bush. Given all his connections to the Bush Administration (which is, after all, a subject of the commission's inquiry) and his own direct participation in the story, some 9/11 family members believe he cannot be an impartial investigator. They question his ability to go head-to-head with the White House and Rice and argue that his presence undercuts the commission's credibility.

The commission has to resolve a dispute with the White House. It wants all ten commissioners to participate in the private interviews the panel will hold with Bush and Dick Cheney. The White House, which opposed the commission initially and which recently opposed its request for a two-month extension before relenting, has said Bush and Cheney will only grant audiences to Kean and Hamilton.

"We want the most comprehensive, transparent and definitive report possible," Breitweiser says. "We originally wanted the commission to work until January 2005, to have time to get it all right. But we were told the White House did not want to see public hearings being held at the height of the political season." After watching the latest hearings, Van Auken notes, "We are worried about the final report. It seems this whole thing could disintegrate into a partisan circus." These widows want complete answers and full accountability, not partisan bickering and cover-your-ass testimony. They deserve to have their expectations met. The commissioners have yet to prove they can do so.