... and then, you know, after the co-chairs of the main investigation disavowed it.

[eomer]

The case for a new investigation of 9/11 is now far stronger than it was in 2004, because even those responsible for the 9/11 Commission inquiry have since complained that it was flawed. The two co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, noted in their book, Without Precedent, that they were given insufficient time and “a dramatically insufficient budget of $3 million.” Later they wrote in the New York Times (January 2, 2008) that the CIA “failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. obstructed our investigation.”

http://www.infowars.com/join-the-appeal-for-truth-about-911/

Edit to add: regarding your question whether anyone has asked Vidal these days, I assume you saw it but in case you didn't, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=271713&mesg_id=271775">Post #5 below, in particular this paragraph:

--I try to pull him back. Yes, it's clearly the case that 9/11 was in part a blow-back response to US crimes in the Middle East, but he goes much further, and says the Bush administration was "probably" in on it. Where is the evidence for this huge claim? "It would certainly fit them to a T, so you can't blame the rest of us for starting to think on slightly conspiratorial grounds. They did steal the great election of the year 2000 and they somehow fixed the Supreme Court of the United States, that sacred place, and got them to go along with it, with the selection, not the election, the selection of George W Bush as president. He wasn't voted for, people didn't want him. And were somewhat mystified that he ended up with it."---

[KDLarsen]

1. Yawn...

I see Infowars are into a bit of quote-mining

But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Quite a bit different from flatout saying "The CIA obstructed our investigation".

As for the "We were set up to fail":

Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation.

and for some reason, truthers tend to omit the follow-up quote:

What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.

Both quotes from the Kean/Hamilton book, Without Precedent.

[eomer]

2. You're leaving out the very important aspect of timing of those quotes against other events.

• Mid-2006: Kean and Hamilton's book is published. Your two quotes would be what Kean and Hamilton thought at that time in 2006.
  
• November 2007: press reports reveal that the CIA withheld from the Commission the fact that they had recorded interrogations and also the recordings themselves.
  
• January 2008: Kean and Hamilton write an opinion piece that is published in the NY Times, saying that the CIA obstructed their investigation.

The quote by Infowars that you accuse as being "quote-mined" (the first excerpt box in your post) is from that opinion piece in January 2008 and is obviously Kean and Hamilton's reaction to the revelations in November 2007 that the CIA withheld crucial information and evidence and thereby obstructed their investigation.

So the current state of things is that Kean and Hamilton have disavowed their report. Your quotes of them saying they are happy with their report are outdated and superseded by their more recent statements.

It seems to me that Infowars gave us the right quotes -- you're the one slinging around quotes without the important contextual information that they are outdated and superseded by later statements.

Edit to add: links to one of the November 2007 press reports and to the January 2008 NY Times opinion piece by Kean and Hamilton:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/21474.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

[KDLarsen]

3. Eh?

The Infowars piece quotes their book, citing Kean/Hamilton as saying the investigation was flawed because it was underfunded. I pointed out the actual quote from their book, as well as the follow up quote where they make it clear they felt they had succeded.

Infowars then quotes them, on an entirely different issue, as saying:

(The CIA) failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. obstructed our investigation.”

I pointed out that the full quote was:

"But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation."

What exactly do you think would have changed with those videotapes? Nevermind that they would most likely have been insubmissible due to the use of torture as part of the interrogations.

[eomer]

4. Who knows what would have changed if evidence had not been withheld.

That's the whole point, isn't it? And once we know (which I would have assumed) that the CIA was withholding information and evidence then the whole investigation is seriously impaired, is it not?

And I don't know what you mean by "insubmissible". There is no such word but maybe you meant inadmissible? If so, that is not an issue -- this was not a trial, there was no such constraint.

Regarding the quotes, I just want us to get a correct understanding of the current views of Kean and Hamilton, which is that their investigation was obstructed by the CIA.

[KDLarsen]

5. I agree

It's the same deal as the Pentagon tapes. Truthers are going apeshit and demanding to see them, without saying what exactly it would change.

Inadmissible was the keyword. English is not my first language, so hopefully I can be forgiven of that error. Either way, the 9/11 Commission itself was reluctant to use the testimony of Al Qaeda members, since

Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses—sworn enemies of the United States—is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place.

9/11 Commission Report pg 146.
.. and as much as possible tried to get corroborating sources.

My point is, what those tapes would hold would either be "I had nothing to do with it, bla bla bla" or "I am proud to say I taught our 19 brothers how to do xyz".

And regarding the quotes, I'm merely pointing out the quote-mining. Infowars was using quotes made in one context to prop up a quote made in another context.