9/11 Probe Frustrates Lawmakers

As long-delayed hearings on intelligence failures surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks finally get underway on Capitol Hill today, key lawmakers are voicing frustration with the failings of the investigation itself.

Several members of the Senate Intelligence Committee say they now favor creating an independent commission to do a more thorough examination of the government’s failure to prevent the attacks--a proposal vehemently opposed by the White House but increasingly likely to clear the Senate, perhaps as early as this week.

The congressional probe has been sidetracked by staff changes as well as an ongoing FBI investigation into whether lawmakers leaked classified material to the media.

Members continue to accuse the White House and intelligence agencies of dragging their heels in turning over information, declassifying material and making witnesses available.

And with a relatively small team of investigators facing a February deadline for a final report, several key senators said Tuesday that they are simply running out of time.

“I thought we might be in position to do a searching, definitive job,” said Sen. Richard C. Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I do not feel that way anymore.”

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, defended the investigation, saying he is confident it will produce a comprehensive report that will spell out reforms needed to prevent future intelligence breakdowns.

But even Graham acknowledged Tuesday that his committee can’t answer all the lingering questions from Sept. 11, 2001. He said that if there is a vote this week on creating an independent commission, he is “leaning” toward voting yes.

The fact that there is new momentum for an independent commission underscores the extent to which the investigation is still stumbling seven months after its inception.

Today’s hearing is designed to provide the public with its first glimpse of investigators’ progress. Much of the session will be devoted to an overview of the investigation by Eleanor Hill, a former federal prosecutor and Defense Department inspector general hired in June to direct the probe. The committee is also expected to release a 30-page report of preliminary findings.

A congressional source familiar with the probe said the report will include newly declassified intelligence materials showing that U.S. spy agencies had more warning than they have previously acknowledged that terrorists might attack U.S. soil and use aircraft as weapons.

The source said investigators have not found evidence that any government agency had information specific enough to detect and disrupt the Sept. 11 plot. But the source indicated that the report contains information that could undercut claims by CIA Director George J. Tenet and others that the intelligence community was fully mobilized against Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden long before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The report, which also includes previously reported disclosures of intelligence breakdowns, is based on investigators’ reviews of more than 400,000 documents and interviews with about 500 people, the source said. But even as some close to the panel sought to tout the report, others dismissed it as little more than a terrorism timeline pieced together largely by the CIA.

One congressional aide familiar with the investigation said that only two investigators have been assigned to the CIA, and that they have been outnumbered and outmaneuvered by agency officials. The information in the report, the aide said, was “spoon-fed” to investigators by CIA officials.

Even the decision to hold public hearings has been a source of friction within the committee. Some argued that staging such sessions is sapping committee resources that would be better spent pursuing new leads.

Today’s session is to open with testimony from relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said he believes it is important for members of Congress to meet with victims’ families, but he questioned how it would advance the investigation.

“Why does the intelligence committee have to have a public hearing to have these people tell their story?” Kyl asked. “We don’t dispense benefits to survivors.”

Asked whether the committee can still produce a meaningful report, Kyl said, “Hope springs eternal,” but he suggested that he expects a more disappointing product.

One of his main concerns, he said, is that the panel has spent too much energy producing a Sept. 11 chronology, and not enough probing more complicated matters, including breakdowns in how intelligence agencies set priorities and allocated resources before the attacks.

The final report “will be very interesting reading and an important historical document,” Kyl said. “But I’m not sure what [it will accomplish] beyond that.”

Others voiced similar concerns. “I’m hoping we can begin to discuss some of the macro issues,” including whether the intelligence community should be reorganized, said Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio). But with Congress set to recess in less than a month, and the report due shortly after members return at the beginning of next year, DeWine said, “I don’t think there’s going to be enough time.”

The House and Senate Intelligence panels have been under pressure to finish their work by February, because that is when many members--including the ranking members in each chamber--are scheduled to rotate out of their Intelligence assignments.

The investigation was also sidetracked last spring when its first staff director, L. Britt Snider, was forced out after hiring an employee who had failed a CIA polygraph test. Hill took over in June.

The FBI recently launched an investigation into whether members of the joint committee leaked classified information to the media. As part of that unusual probe, lawmakers responsible for examining the FBI’s role in Sept. 11 have been asked by agents whether they would be willing to submit to polygraph tests and provide telephone records and other documents.

The investigations’ struggles have buoyed prospects for a bill sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would create an independent commission to examine various government agencies’ performance leading up to Sept. 11. The bill calls for the creation of a 10-member panel that would include intelligence experts, but exclude elected officials.

For much of the year, the bill appeared to be doomed by fierce opposition from the White House and the reluctance of influential lawmakers, including Shelby, to approve a separate investigation while Congress was pursuing its own.

But with Shelby and others now on board, Lieberman and McCain have been looking for an opportunity to attach their bill as an amendment to homeland security legislation being considered by the Senate this week. Asked whether there are now enough votes for a commission, McCain said Tuesday, “We’ll win.”