In several articles about Philip Shenon's forthcoming book, Lee Hamilton is quoted as a character witness for Zelikow. For example:
Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the panel's Democratic vice chairman, praised Zelikow as a "person of integrity" who was upfront in disclosing his background and White House contacts. It made sense for commission staff to contact the White House regularly to get information, Hamilton said, and the book also notes that Zelikow was such a dogged negotiator that even then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales found him irritating and subsequently refused to meet with him.
"Did he try to sway the report to protect the administration? I think the answer was no," Hamilton told the AP.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWQCjbQNbAq13eIw2NMreAthexSgD8UJ4S400">Link
What needs to be addressed is Hamilton's own conduct. IMO, he has as much to answer for as Zelikow. Robert Parry has done a lot of research on Iran Contra and doesn't have flattering things to say about Hamilton:
Correct. Eugene Hasenfus survived the crash and began talking about what was actually going on. And that sort of put Hamilton back on the spot. When the Iran-Contra scandal sort of broke open in November of ‘86, he was made head of the investigation. But again, he led it in a way that was not designed to find the truth. It was designed to sort of reach a political solution, which was not to have impeachment of Ronald Reagan, not to have it go too far, not to damage the CIA. It wasn’t to find the facts, as much as it was to sort of reach a consensus that enough people could agree on.
And we’ve seen that repeatedly with Hamilton. We saw it in the October Surprise investigation, which he headed in 1992, which, when at the end of that investigation so much evidence was pouring in, in late 1992, about this 1980 matter that the chief counsel, Larry Barcella, went to Hamilton and said, “We need another three months, another few months to review all this new incriminating evidence about the Republicans.” And Hamilton said “No,” that “we’re not going to continue this. We’re wrapping it up.”
LinkIMO, Hamilton's 9/11 Commission work fits Parry's description. I find it disconcerting that the AP story (and others as well) seems to imply that Hamilton is a credible source.