I don't know... I really have mixed feelings about this.
It is very difficult for me to believe that Rumsfeld would do this capriciously or just to cover someone's POLITICAL posterior.
The only way I could see it is that it is to protect some intellegence asset(s) currently "in place" and producing high value intel... So high a value that keeping them in place is more important for the future than pulling them out so that we can further discredit the previous administration and the joke of a 9-11 Commission.
As much as I'd like to see the evil and / or incompetent people in the previous (and current) administrations and the bureaupaths in the Defense and Intel agencies brought down, if there is a good source at risk I'd rather wait a couple of years than lose someone that might be able to give us information that will prevent a major terror attack or even worse.
You certainly can't tell a Senate Committee oe even a Congressional investigation any sensitive, much less critical, life or death secret.... It will be leaked within minutes. There aren't three Senators or more than a dozen Representatives that can be trusted with national security secrets.
Other than that though, if this is just political posterior covering.... Then Sec. Rumsfeld (Who I have always admired and always thought was the best SecDef we ever had) deserves to hang with whoever is responsible for this debacle in the first place.
This may not be Rummy's fault. Although staffed my military personnel, DoD's legal department is mainly semi-autonomous and not always answerable to either the military or civilian chain of command.
.....It is very difficult for me to believe that Rumsfeld would do this capriciously ............
You have made a good analysis. There is a good reason for Rummy's action.
While I agree with a lot of your analysis, I have to mention that Curt Weldon, who has written a book about national security, is certainly in a position to know, through all his research about this matter, whether a hearing will compromise assets currently in place.
And there are work arounds for dealing with that.
What we really need to know, and what our committee should be able to control, are three things:
1) Was Atta and the Brooklyn cell identified pre 9/11.
2) Who was told about Atta and the Brooklyn cell.
3) Who shut down Able Danger and ordered information destroyed.
If those questions can't be answered without hurting national security, then how is it that the 9/11 Commission was able to hold months of hearings which asked questions of our intelligence agencies?
Post #9 is exactly what I was going to say, perhaps not as well, so thanks. Now I don't have to do all that typing. ;)