host,
as flstf alluded to earlier, you have a habit of dismissing the core issues of a thread and instead taking it where you want to go. a mod owns this one... so we'll see how long that lasts. even so, i'll address the questions you posed as an aside to the discussion.
firstly, it was something of a bonus for the 9-11 commission to have access to the President to begin with. originally the President advocated a similar study of the events leading to 9-11 yet proposed that it be kept within the senate intelligence committee in order to best remove it from political motivations and security leaks. however, there was widespread support for the commission idea so he assented that he and his staff would contribute.
what you fail to understand is that, traditionally, it is VERY uncommon for a President to even come before congressional boards in order to preserve a separation of powers. in fact, there have been just a handful of instances where this has taken place since the civil war. what you assume to be road-blocking on the part of the executive branch is in fact an almost unprecedented reaching across governmental lines of power. it's is true that the terms agreed upon dictated that the President not be in sworn public testimony... but familiarity with the process shows that in itself is an incredible compromise. i do not think you are not sufficiently acquainted with the machinations of our government to comment on this.
the most complete single source of information i can find on these events can be found at
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...11.commission/
you'll find that the commission members were pleased with the President's input and the context in which this took place.
now... back on topic. read the text and tell us all why you think the clarke memo has any real value other than in a political maneuver.