Every job I've ever had would review the performance of everyone on two occasions. First, on a regular, scheduled basis.

Second, I promise, after every significant event that involved publicity or loss, there was a performance review, an evaluation, an analysis of what happened, how it was handled and what might have been done differently to better meet our goals.

We didn't whine, cry, go to the papers and tell 'em we needed support at that time, tell people second-guessing wasn't going to help, there were too many secrets to trust people to know what happened, or that it was detrimental to the organization to do that.

We helped, hoping to learn.

What's so hard about that? And, with the security of the country at stake, isn't it more important to evaluate, analyze, learn and implement procedures which may prevent the next attack than cover-up? At most a bureaucrat might be embarrassed by a thorough investigation. I don't know that's too high a price to pay for learning as much as possible from the event.

Why are people so afraid of evaluating what happened? Is the job of the Director of the FBI, if indeed it would be on the line, more important than preventing another attack?

I don't give a rip about Mueller. I do care about the 3,000 people in WTC. Mueller may well have done the best anyone could have done. He himself deserves the best investigation possible, not a cover-up of a cover-up.

The American people need to know that, and why he and others don't want them to know is beyond me.

Arf