So, evidently there was some objection to the 9/11 Commission Report making the short list of nominations for non-fiction in the National Book Awards.

Why?  Because there were multiple writers?  Because none of them were “real” writers?  Because it was funded with government money?  I don't know...

But it's well-written (yes, I'm reading it, so should you), suprisingly easy to read, timely, relevant, and important.  Yes, some conservatives dis it because it doesn't go far enough in supporting the president and his administration...and yes, some liberals are frustrated that it doesn't go far enough in condemning the president and his administration...but they don't really have a say in the National Book Awards, at least, they shouldn't because popularity shouldn't really be a terribly important criteria.  If it were, Dr. Phil's crap would sweep every year.

What the 9/11 Commission Report does, is give you all the information that the 9/11 commission had in a rational, organized, and sane manner.

Within it's pages, for instance, you will find that there was no significant connection between Iraq and Al Queda, for instance.  It will tell you that they both sought alliances, and decided that it just wasn't possible for a variety of reasons.  It will give you the power and information to debunk the claim that Sudan “Offered Bin Ladin's head on a platter, but Clinton did nothing”...

In short, whether you agree with the conclusions or not...it gives you information and the reasons behind the conclusions.  What you do with it from there is up to you, but at least you know a little bit more about what you are talking about than you did before you read it.