Getting slightly mystified about what the 9/11 Commission is supposed to be doing. Their remit, if memory serves me correctly is, to investigate and establish what was being done in response to threats from international terrorist organisations relating to possible attacks in the US, culminating in the attacks of 9/11. The commission was then charged to detail in its final report what went wrong and make recommendations to improve matters in order that similar attacks could be prevented in the future.

If that is indeed the case then Senator Robert Kerrey (NY Times 11th April) is definitely out of order in stating the following:

"Two things about that failure are clear to me at this point in our investigation. The first is that 9/11 could have been prevented, and the second is that our current strategy against terrorism is deeply flawed. In particular, our military and political tactics in Iraq are creating the conditions for civil war there and giving Al Qaeda a powerful rationale to recruit young people to declare jihad on the United States."

I say that for the following reasons:

1. The Commission, of which he is a member, has not finished hearing evidence. He is in effect pre-empting the findings of the Commission on which he sits - That from an ethical standpoint, should simply not be allowed to happen.

2. His references to Iraq are irrelevant and are outwith the remit of the Commission. Unless it can be clearly shown that the present administration diverted attention from the threat from Al-Qaeda to Iraq - and all the evidence to date shows that it did not.

Members of this Commission would be better advised to hold their counsel and do the job that is required of them until all the evidence has been heard and they reach an agreed conclusion.