I think I understand your point: makes no difference even if the screeners had discovered the box-cutters on the person of the terrorists, they would have been allowed since they weren't on the PI list.

The problem I have with that section of the Commission's report is that it tends to assume that the terrorists had box-cutters on their person. I'm not so sure that's a valid assumption. Of course, since the screeners apparently didn't resolve the alarm, we won't ever know. But that brings us to your point: even if they had resolved it and found the box-cutters, there was no reason to confiscate them.

Here's the problem I have with Tim Jackson's review of the videotape: "marginal at best" is based on viewing a videotape AFTER the incident occured and AFTER the public outcry demanding what went wrong was voiced. Not saying that Jackson necessarily allowed that to prejudice his judgment; however, there's a difference when observing something "cold" to see if anything was done incorrectly and looking for something wrong after a major terrorist strike. Could it be that he focused in on a minor deviation in procedure? I don't know. I'm just pointing out that there are always second-guesses when viewing the instant replay. Another thing is that we don't know if the camera angle offered a good view of the hand-wanding procedure or if this was an attempt to interpret certain actions based on those grainy long-range videotapes.

Besides, what the hell does "marginal at best" mean? Either they followed procedure or they did not. No doubt that the hand-wanding procedure did not meet the standard for the type of threat posed on 9/11. Not arguing that point at all. However, I am criticizing the Monday morning quarterbacking that seeks to pin blame on those screeners when it was the policy that was flawed. I know that's your point as well, but I'm also being anal by pointing this out as well.