Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Let's say a new investigation of 9/11 begins...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 08:48 PM
Original message
Let's say a new investigation of 9/11 begins...
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 08:51 PM by SDuderstadt
however likely or unlikely that might be. Do any of you "truthers" believe some things addressed by the 9/11 Commission need no further or re-investigation? Can we say that anything is settled and does not need to be probed again? Or, are you arguing we need to start over from scratch?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Just make sure Zelikow isn't within 2000 miles of the investigation
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 09:30 PM by seemslikeadream
That will solve a lot of problems


Put Vincent Bugliosi and Jonathan Turley on the commission, and Gore Vidal as an advisor

and definitely John Dean
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
3.  Lawrence Velvel,
would be very good also
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Start from scratch and that means all new commissioners
I thought that was quite clear in my response
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. So, you're saying nothing was settled by the 9/11 Commission and...
everything has to be established again? All new investigations? All new interviews? All new analyses? Oy. You realize the chances of that happening are quite small, no? And, please, try to answer in one post, okay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Sure Zelikow tainted the whole 9/11 commission
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Christ, SLAD...
you make it sound like the commissioners have no power at all. I doubt you understand the inner workings of a commission or the checks and balances employed. I am hardly saying that Zelikow was not a considerable problem, but it's not reason to reject all of their findings out of hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Oh YES it is~~~~~~~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Based upon?
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 10:03 PM by SDuderstadt
Do you honestly think an executive director can just make the commission adopt what he/she wants? We have to go through everything again? It's thinking like this that will defeat the initiation of another effort. It would also be silly to believe that a new commission would just throw out all the findings of the former commission, instead of looking to see what ground did not really need to be re-plowed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Everything Zelikow touched is tainted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Christ, SLAD....
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 10:08 PM by SDuderstadt
quit generalizing. Are you honestly saying the 9/11 Commission got everything wrong??? Do you even understand how the commissioners were selected? Do you understand the roles of the staff? The investigators? The counsels? For the record, have you actually read the 9/11 Commission Report? I'm guessing you didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I am not generalizing Zelikow is damaged goods
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. So, SLAD....
that means neither Ben-Veniste, Gorelick, Kerrey, Roemer or Hamilton did their jobs? They were forced to concur with the commission's findings? Really? If you read the "article" above carefully, it says the CIA is the problem. Are you now saying that Zelikow withheld the tapes? How did he do that? As I have said before, Zelikow was a problem but, that hardly means the Commission did not do good work. For the record, I really resent the way you indirectly smear the people I mentioned above. I trust them to be impartial far more than I would ever trust you to be impartial. I hope we can agree that impartiality is important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. They could NOT do their job because of Zelikows interference
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 10:20 PM by seemslikeadream
that article was just ONE example
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. The article is certainly not an example of...
Zelikow's interference, SLAD. Read it again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. WITHHELD VIDEO TAPES
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Read the fricking story, SLAD...
and show me where it says Zellikow withheld the tapes. Hint: it doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. December 23 2007
I wonder when Zelikow was aware of that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Are you accusing Zellikow of witholding the CIA tapes????
Jesus, SLAD. Do you have any evidence of that at all????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Now take a step back SD I didn't say Zelikow withheld the tapes but
when did he find out they were being kept from the commission and what else did he know or not know that was being withheld from the commission
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. For Christ's sakes, SLAD...
you don't know, do you? Is it possible in your mind that the CIA never bothered to tell him that they were witholding the tapes and that he found out about it like everyone else? You were certainly laying the issue as Zellikow's feet before. You really need to aim before you fire.

One more time. Have you actually ever read the 9/11 Commission Report? Have you? It's a simple yes or no question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Yes I have read it and
Zelikow can not be trusted so a liar is a liar is a liar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. I doubt you've actually read it as...
you seem to know little about how it worked. I'll bet you don't even know what recommendations they made.


As far as your statement that "Zelikow can not be trusted so a liar is a liar is a liar", you might have just set a new world record for the most logical fallacies in a single sentence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. That's an ad hominem argument. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I would be less offensive to some folks here if you didn't use the lords name that way
There are plenty of other words even fuck would be a much better choice at least it doesn't offend some folks religious beliefs. You must understand offending someone's beliefs, don't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Ever heard of the 1st amendment, SLAD?
I don't care what you or they think. Religious beliefs are not sacrosanct. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. That's very strange cause it seems to me other religious views are protected here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. No one is infringing on anyone's...
religious rights, SLAD. It's pretty clear you don't understand the function of the 1st amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. I understand the 1st amendment and I understand Skinners rules
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 10:51 PM by seemslikeadream
not the same thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Then show me it in the rules...
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 10:42 PM by SDuderstadt
and quit trying to speak for Skinner. Ever notice the ads for a book called, "The God Who Wasn't There" on DU? Go argue with yourself, SLAD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. I'm not trying to speak for Skinner
There is just a difference between the 1st amendment and the rules here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. And you don't make the rules....
why is that so hard to understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:00 PM
Original message
I understand you're the one spouting the 1st amendment and it doesn't always apply here
that's all I was saying
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
46. Absent some finding of a rules violation by the appropriate parties...
(which doesn't include you), you don't have the right to suppress the 1st amendment. Thos is getting silly. Go argue with yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. There are plenty of websites that are not allowed to be linked here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Cool....
I don't recall linking to any werbsites in the OP. Guess I dodged a bullet on that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. no that goes to your free speech thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Jesus, SLAD...
will you fricking give it up? I am not, in any way, taking issue with the right of the owner of this website to set rules, even in contravention of the 1st Amendment. I'm saying you don't have the right to abridge my first amendment rights. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. Now, for God's sake, give it up, okay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. 1st amendment?
I was always told this was Skinners place, he makes the rules
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Cool...then take it to Skinner and see if....
he will prohibit people from leading off comments with "Christ". You seem to think only people with religious beliefs have rights? Does the term "free exercise" mean anything to you? Do people of faith trump the rights of non-believers? Do you think you or they own the name "Christ"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. As I said, take it to him then...
of course he makes the rules. In the absence of him saying it's prohibited, I have as much right to say it as you demand I don't. This is yet one more of your stupid side trips. I'm not responding any more to this silliness.

One last time. Have you actually read the 9/11 Commission Report? Yes or no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. That's your right I suppose to be as offensive as you possibly can
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Do you want to make this a theocracy, SLAD?
Do you really want to tell people they have no right to say "Christ" because it offends some people? Do you know what this country was founded upon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. You have every right to offend people
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 10:42 PM by seemslikeadream
and I'm sure you do it whenever possibe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Your and their rights....
are not more important in this respect than mine, SLAD. I've got bad news for you. Atheists and non-believers are a growing movement in this country. People are more than entitiled to whatever religious beliefs they desire (and I know this is going to surprise you, but I would go to bat for those rights). However, that does not mean those rights come at the expense of my rights. If you notice me trying to prevent free exercise, please let the appropriate authorities know. Someone's religious beliefs are not above questioning and, yes, their beliefs are not sacrosanct. Last I ckecked, all the laws against blasphemy were struck down as unconstitutional. You know, that old "separation of church and state" thing?

I sometimes wear a button that says, "Thank God I'm an atheist!". So, sue me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Oh and I thought you were giving me a hard time in the Efraim thread
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 10:56 PM by seemslikeadream
because he was Jewish~

For the life of me I can't figure any other reason
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Well, that's what you get for guessing...
I was never defending Diveroli. I was taking issue with your hyperbole and loose regard for the facts. And, had you been attacking him for being Jewish, I would have pointed that out too. As I've stated before, people are entitled to adhere to whatever religious beliefs they want but that does not mean that other people's right to free expression is trumped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. YOU NEVER DISPROVED ANY THING IN THAT THREAD
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. free expression is trumped.
It is here look at the rules
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. I'm not sure there's anything I could do to make you...
less offensive to some folks here. Read your subject line again. That's what you get for your ready, fire, aim style.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
57. , Zelikow made numerous calls to “456” numbers in the 202 area code


http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2008/01/commission-conf.html

• The full extent of Zelikow’s involvement with the incumbent administration administration only became evident within the commission on October 8, 2003, almost halfway into the panel’s term. Determined to blunt the Jersey Girls’ call for his resignation or recusal, Zelikow proposed that he be questioned under oath about his activities. General counsel Daniel Marcus, who conducted the sworn interview, brought a copy of the résumé Zelikow had provided to Kean and Hamilton. None of the activities Zelikow now detailed—his role on Rice’s transition team, his instrumental role in Clarke’s demotion, his authorship of a post-9/11 pre-emptive attack doctrine—were mentioned in the résumé. Zelikow blandly asserted to Marcus that he did not see “any of this as a major conflict of interest.” Marcus’s conclusion was that Zelikow “should never have been hired” as executive director. But the only upshot from these shocking disclosures was that Zelikow was involuntarily recused from that part of the investigation which involved the presidential transition, and barred from participating in subsequent interviews of senior Bush administration officials.

• Some two months later, as Bob Kerrey replaced disgruntled ex-Senator Max Cleland on the panel, the former Nebraska senator became astounded once he understood Zelikow’s obvious conflicts-of-interest and his very limited recusal. Kerrey could not understand how Kean and Hamilton had ever agreed to put Zelikow in charge. “Look Tom,” Kerrey told Kean, “either he goes or I go.” But Kean persuaded Kerrey to drop his ultimatum.

• In late 2003, around the time his involuntary recusal was imposed, Zelikow called executive secretary Karen Heitkotter into his office and ordered her to stop creating records of his incoming telephone calls. Concerned that the order was improper, a nervous Heitkotter soon told general counsel Marcus. He advised her to ignore Zelikow’s order and continue to keep a log of his telephone calls, insofar as she knew about them.

• Although Shenon could not obtain from the GAO an unredacted record of Zelikow’s cell phone use—and Zelikow used his cell phone for most of his outgoing calls—the Times reporter was able to establish that Zelikow made numerous calls to “456” numbers in the 202 area code, which is the exclusive prefix of the White House.

• Even after his recusal, Zelikow continued to insert himself into the work of “Team 3,” the task force responsible for the most politically-sensitive part of the investigation, counter-terrorism policy. This brief encompassed the White House, which meant investigating the conduct of Condoleeza Rice and Richard Clarke during the months prior to 9/11. Team 3 staffers would come to believe that Zelikow prevented them from submitting a report that would have depicted Rice’s performance as “amount to incompetence, or something not far from it.”

In Without Precedent, Kean and Hamilton’s 2006 account of the 9/11 panel, the two co-chairmen wrote that Zelikow was a controversial choice

. . . we had full confidence in Zelikow’s independence and ability—and frankly, we wanted somebody who was unafraid to roil the waters from time to time. He recused himself from anything involving his work on the NSC transition. He made clear his determination to conduct an aggressive investigation. And he was above all a historian dedicated to a full airing of the facts. It was clear from people who knew and worked with him that Zelikow would not lead a staff inquiry that did anything less than uncover the most detailed and accurate history of 9/11.

Shenon’s radically different account of the commission’s inner workings promises to achieve what none of the crackpot conspiracy theorists have managed to do so far: put the 9/11 Commission in disrepute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. Last fricking time, SLAD...
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 11:41 PM by SDuderstadt
Read the OP again. Notice what it asks. I'm sure we all get your Zelikow Derangement Syndrome. The question is whether you believe the 9/11 Commission (not Zelikow) got anything right that does not need to be redone by a successor commission. It's a fair question. If you want to rip Zelikow, fine. Start your own OP.

Quit disrupting and hijacking this OP or we'll let the moderators settle this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. Executive Director of the Commission Philip Zelikow
I am stating facts that the whole 9/11 Commission Report should be thrown out because of Zelikow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. You've made your point
Now quit disrupting and hijacking the thread. This is the last time I am warning you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. "Now quit disrupting and hijacking the thread. This is the last time I am warning you."
:spray: :rofl:

"This is the last time I am warning you."

:spray:

Or what? What are you going to do, quit stalking & harrassing her and put her on ignore??

:rofl:

Thanks for the laugh! Are you trying to take over the recently vacated spot here as "Clown Prince of the debunkers"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. Unbelievable
Isn't it?




So sad just hear about Carlin

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #66
73. Yeah, I don't know which one is more comical...
This one, or the little drama queen that keeps posting "Quit attacking me! Quit harrassing me!" I think they both need a diaper change and a nap...


The world just lost a real treasure with George Carlin's passing.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
44. "Why didn't Phil Zelikow make reviewing vital NSA documents a Commission priority?"


http://rawstory.com//printstory.php?story=9156

The widows whose political activism was largely responsible for the establishment of a commission to investigate the September 11 attacks say a new book revealing the backstory of the 9/11 Commission proves that their initial concerns about its executive director were correct and demonstrate the need for another investigation.

.....

"General Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA at the time, was eager to cooperate and share what his organization had with the 9/11 Commission, but Executive Director Zelikow was not interested," 9/11 widows Patty Casazza, Monica Gabriellle, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie Van Auken said in a statement reacting to the book.

"Why didnt Phil Zelikow make reviewing these vital NSA documents a Commission priority?" they ask. "It seems clear that not every fact and lead was followed in this investigation compromising the validity of the Commission's final report and its findings."

The 9/11 widows called for Zelikow to resign or be fired from the Commission back in 2004, when his ties with Rice and Rove were first revealed. Shenon's book, they say, proves their concerns were right all along.

"It is abundantly clear that Philip Zelikow should have immediately been replaced when the first rumblings of his impropriety and conflicts of interest surfaced," they said. "When all of this information became clear, the Commissioners and the press should have called for Zelikows resignation. We did. Shamefully, most were silent."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
47. Ben-Veniste admits 9/11 Commission knew about Tenet briefings


by jennifer poole
Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:44:18 PM PST
9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste "confirmed to McClatchy Newspapers" today that George Tenet had given secret testimony to the 9/11 Commission in January 2004 about his attempts to convince the White House about the urgency of the threat from bin Laden in the summer of 2001. Tenet told the 9/11 Commission he was willing to testify publicly about the briefings he'd given Rice -- and Ashcroft and Rumsfeld! -- in July 2001, and he'd even showed the commissioners slides from the PowerPoint presentation he'd prepared for the July briefings.

Ben-Veniste did NOT explain why the 9/11 Commissioners left these briefings out of their report -- or why he (as late as yesterday) was still lying about what the 9/11 Commission knew. Instead he:


referred questions about why the commission omitted any mention of the briefing in its report to Zelikow, the report's main author. Zelikow didn't respond to e-mail and telephone queries from McClatchy Newspapers.
I say "briefings" because it's not just "the Rice briefing," folks -- yes, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft got the damned briefing, too:

jennifer poole's diary :: ::
as the McClatchy story leads off:


WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
the story continues:


The State Department's disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don't remember the warning.
This McClatchy story, "Rumself, Ashcroft said to have received warning of attack," by Jonathan S. Landay, Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott is huge -- not that all the other stories going down aren't.

Both Ben-Veniste and 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow gave the NY Times strong denials yesterday, in a story entitled, "9/11 Panel Members Weren't Told of Meeting," that the 9/11 Commission knew anything about the Rice briefing. Apparently, these quotes below were all lies:

http://www.nytimes.com /...


Another Democratic commissioner, former Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste, said that the staff of the Sept. 11 commission was polled in recent days on the disclosures in Mr. Woodward's book and agreed that the meeting "was never mentioned to us."

"This is certainly something we would have wanted to know about," he said, referring to the July 10, 2001, meeting.

He said he had attended the commission's private interviews with both Mr. Tenet and Ms. Rice and had pressed "very hard for them to provide us with everything they had regarding conversations with the executive branch" about terrorist threats before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Why did Democrat Richard Ben-Veniste go along with the coverup? Why was he still lying yesterday? Why did he stop lying today? Was it just the early version McClatchy story that made him realize the gig was up? (the first version of the story I saw earlier tonight didn't have the Veniste acknowledgment, just three senior intelligence agency officials confirming that Tenet's 2004 secret testimony to the 9/11 Commission took place.

What else did the 9/11 Commission lie about?

This story is evolving fast -- apparently, tonight Rice's spokeswoman has confirmed that Rice did get the July 10 briefing after all, despite her lack of memory about it.


But on Monday evening, Rice's spokesman Sean McCormack issued a statement confirming that she'd received the CIA briefing "on or around July 10" and had asked that it be given to Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
49. Philip Zelikow IMAGINING THE TRANSFORMING EVENT December 1998
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19981101faessay1434/ashton-b-carter-john-deutch-philip-zelikow/catastrophic-terrorism-tackling-the-new-danger.html



Summary: The specter of weapons of mass destruction being used against America looms larger today than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis. The World Trade Center bombing scarcely hints at the enormity of the danger. America is prepared only for conventional terrorism, not a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons catastrophe. With the right approach and organization, however, the United States can be ready. Herewith a plan to reorganize the U.S. government to ensure that it can handle the threats of the next century.

Ashton Carter is Ford Foundation Professor of Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and a former Assistant Secretary of Defense. John Deutch is Institute Professor of Chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former Director of Central Intelligence and Deputy Secretary of Defense. Philip Zelikow, a former member of the National Security Council staff, is White Burkett Miller Professor of History and Director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.



IMAGINING THE TRANSFORMING EVENT
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. But today's terrorists, be they international cults like Aum Shinrikyo or individual nihilists like the Unabomber, act on a greater variety of motives than ever before. More ominously, terrorists may gain access to weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices, germ dispensers, poison gas weapons, and even computer viruses. Also new is the world's dependence on a nearly invisible and fragile network for distributing energy and information. Long part of the Hollywood and Tom Clancy repertory of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously, as demonstrated by the response to the attacks on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August, it is not yet prepared for the new threat of catastrophic terrorism.

American military superiority on the conventional battlefield pushes its adversaries toward unconventional alternatives. The United States has already destroyed one facility in Sudan in its attempt to target chemical weapons. Russia, storehouse of tens of thousands of weapons and material to make tens of thousands more, may be descending into turmoil. Meanwhile, the combination of new technology and lethal force has made biological weapons at least as deadly as chemical and nuclear alternatives. Technology is more accessible, and society is more vulnerable. Elaborate international networks have developed among organized criminals, drug traffickers, arms dealers, and money launderers, creating an infrastructure for catastrophic terrorism around the world.

The bombings in East Africa killed hundreds. A successful attack with weapons of mass destruction could certainly take thousands, or tens of thousands, of lives. If the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.




http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=20287

Zelikow is an expert on "the creation and maintenance of 'public myths’ or 'public presumptions’. His theory analyzes how consciousness is shaped by "searing events" which take on "transcendent importance" and, therefore, move the public in the direction chosen by the policymakers.


Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. 'It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet bomb test in 1949. The US might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or US counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently". ()
Zelikow’s article presumes that if one creates their own "searing event" (such as 9-11 or the bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque) they can steer the public in whatever direction they choose. His theory depends entirely on a "state-media nexus" which can be depended on to disseminate propaganda uniformly. There is no more reliable propaganda-system in the world today than the western media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
50. Cofer Black Headed Unit Alleged to Torture Detainees and Withhold Pre-9/11 Warning Memo to FBI

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2520230

In the Osama bin Laden story, a former CIA official with the unlikely name “J. Cofer Black” is the character who seems to pop up in the most interesting places.

Indeed, Mr. Black is the one person at CIA who admits to having dealt with bin Laden, face-to-face, after the Soviets departed Afghanistan in the early 1990s.

During the last few years of his CIA career, Cofer Black had an extraordinarily focused, unusual assignment. Until he retired from CIA in late 2002, Cofer Black was one of the few officers within the clandestine service with a real subject matter expertise. Black’s specialty was Usama bin Laden, “UBL”, as he’s known in U.S. intelligence circles.

From 1999 until May 2002, Black was in charge of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center, at which some historic decisions and catastrophic failures took place.

While Chief of Station in Sudan in the early 1990s, Black oversaw CIA contact with UBL, at the time that UBL was a major organizer of Mujahaddin veterans fighting in Bosnia; al Qaeda flowed in a straight line through Cofer Black to 9/11 and to the present day privatization of intelligence as Vice Chairman of Blackwater, LLC, and as Mitt Romney’s advisor on national security.

***

Most career officers in the CIA clandestine division are generalists who move from station to station, assigned to fill slots in countries where their foreign languages and backgrounds are needed. Not Cofer Black. He was a specialist.

Before his reassignment, announced in a back-page Washington Post article on May 17, 2002, Black, Chief of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center (CTC), was in charge of renditions and the interrogation of detainees captured and held abroad. That puts Black at the immediate head of the chain-of-command for operational decisions made up until that date in the torture of CIA prisoners held at “black sites” around the world.

James Risen writes in his book about the CIA’s counter-terrorism operations, State of War, cited at, http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/19/in-which-country-were-the-tapes-stored/#Respond


The CIA assigned a group of agency officials to try to find alternative prison sites in countries scattered around the world. They were studying, said one CIA source, "how to make people disappear."

There were a number of third world countries, with dubious human rights records, willing to play host. One African country offered the CIA the use of an island in the middle of a large lake, according to CIA sources, and other nations were equally accommodating. Eventually, several CIA prisons were secretly established, including at least two major ones, code-named Bright Lights and Salt Pit. A small group of officials within the CIA's Counterterrorist Center was put in charge of supporting the prisons and managing the interrogations.

SNIP

Bright Light is one of the prisons where top al Qaeda leaders--including Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the cenral planner of the September 11 attacks--have been held. Bright Light's location is secret, and it has been used for only a handful of the most important al Qaeda detainees. (30)(emphasis added)


Under Cofer Black’s Command

“A small group of officials within the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center was put in charge of supporting the prisons and managing the interrogations.”

By most accounts, Abu Zubaydah was taken into custody in March, 2002 in Pakistan, and after initial U.S. interrogation and treatment for gunshot wounds, sent to a secret CIA torture center in Thailand, where he was waterboarded, in April or May 2002. (FTN. 1) See, e.g., Larry Johnson’s timeline, http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/12/10/disentangling-torture-tapegate /

If the Johnson timeline is indeed accurate, at the time Abu Zubayda torture was videotaped, Cofer Black was CTC Director, and he shares command responsibility for that action with his CIA superiors right up through McLaughlin and Pavitt to George Tenet and the President.

Nonetheless, the really significant thing about Cofer Black is that he was also in charge of CTC on 01/15/2000 when Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar, the Flt. 77 Pentagon hijackers, entered the U.S. What’s so significant about that? The pair’s entry into the U.S. was noted by CTC after they attended an al-Qaeda planning summit in Kuala Lumur – monitored by the CIA -- where 9/11 and the USS Cole attacks were mapped out in January 5-8. Just so happens, al-Hazmi had earlier trained at Abu Zubayah’s camp in Afghanistan, along with five of the other 9/11 hijackers. There is, indeed, a striking symmetry to this. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/17/82324/911/911/423196

The second al-Qaeda figure tortured at that time, Abd al-Nashiri, also had a role in recruiting and training the 9/11 attack cell, and was the architect of the Cole bombing. These two worked closely with another trainer, Sakkra, who now states that he was a double-agent working for U.S. and Syrian intelligence in organizing al-Hazmi and the others as part of the CIA’s secret war in Chechnya. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/10/133754/60/799/420257

Here’s the kicker. Cofer Black was CIA Chief of Station in Khartoum at the same time bin Laden made his base of operations there. Abu Zubaydah was with bin Laden in Sudan. Black admits he had a confrontation with UBL shortly before they both left Sudan in 1996. Bin Laden went to Afghanistan. Black was later made commander of CIA CTC, where he maintained his focus on UBL.

Bottom-line: Cofer Black was in immediate command of CTC at the time CIA let the Flt. 77 hijackers into the U.S. — and an intentional decision was then made at CTC not to alert the FBI when they came in — and Cofer Black was in immediate command of the CIA unit that tortured those who knew the details of the CIA’s role in training at least six of the 9/11 hijackers. Both of those tortured under Black’s command were waterboarded, which cuts off oxygen to the brain, and can result in long term memory loss. Abu Zubaydah is said to have been driven mad by waterboarding and sensory driving techniques, as was Jose Padilla, who AZ fingered during interrogation. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/18/141435/27/213/423878
Why torture detainees and then “erase” the tapes? In the context of the CIA’s long relationship with Zubaydah and al-Nashiri, this begins to make sense now, doesn’t it?



SUDAN and BOSNIA: Cofer Black and UBL (1993-95)

According to his official biography, Black went to work for CIA fresh out of USC in 1973 where he worked for two decades in various field assignments in Africa, including involvement in Rhodesian and South African proxy wars, until being posted under diplomatic cover as Chief of Station in Khartoum, Sudan.

Steve Coll writes in “Ghost Wars”, the main activity of the CIA Khartoum station under Black was UBL.
http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780143034667,00.html?sym=EXC

At this time, the U.S. and Islamic militants were still doing business in the secret war against the Russians in Bosnia. The covert operation to dislodge Russian surrogates from the Balkans and Caspian Sea involved the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran in organizing, supplying and funding radical Islamic fighters. In an extraordinarily complex, messy struggle for the disintegrating Yugoslavia on the southern flank of the Former Soviet Union, that strange alliance fought the Serbs, who were in turn supplied by other NATO and U.S. allies, including Greece and Israel, along with the Ukraine, acting as a Russian surrogate. All parties involved were in violation of UN weapons embargo, which the Dutch and some other European countries were helplessly attempting to enforce.



That episode was chronicled in a 2002 Dutch Government report. According to the Independent newspaper (UK), the Dutch: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,688310,00.html


findings are set out in "Intelligence and the War in Bosnia, 1992-1995". It includes remarkable material on covert operations, signals interception, human agents and double-crossing by dozens of agencies in one of dirtiest wars of the new world disorder. Now we have the full story of the secret alliance between the Pentagon and radical Islamist groups from the Middle East designed to assist the Bosnian Muslims - some of the same groups that the Pentagon is now fighting in "the war against terrorism". Pentagon operations in Bosnia have delivered their own "blowback".

In the 1980s Washington's secret services had assisted Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. Then, in 1990, the US fought him in the Gulf. In both Afghanistan and the Gulf, the Pentagon had incurred debts to Islamist groups and their Middle Eastern sponsors. By 1993 these groups, many supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia, were anxious to help Bosnian Muslims fighting in the former Yugoslavia and called in their debts with the Americans. Bill Clinton and the Pentagon were keen to be seen as creditworthy and repaid in the form of an Iran-Contra style operation - in flagrant violation of the UN security council arms embargo against all combatants in the former Yugoslavia.

The result was a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical Islamist groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian Hizbullah. Wiebes reveals that the British intelligence services obtained documents early on in the Bosnian war proving that Iran was making direct deliveries.

Arms purchased by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia made their way by night from the Middle East. Initially aircraft from Iran Air were used, but as the volume increased they were joined by a mysterious fleet of black C-130 Hercules aircraft. The report stresses that the US was "very closely involved" in the airlift. Mojahedin fighters were also flown in, but they were reserved as shock troops for especially hazardous operations.

Light weapons are the familiar currency of secret services seeking to influence such conflicts. The volume of weapons flown into Croatia was enormous, partly because of a steep Croatian "transit tax". Croatian forces creamed off between 20% and 50% of the arms. The report stresses that this entire trade was clearly illicit. The Croats themselves also obtained massive quantities of illegal weapons from Germany, Belgium and Argentina - again in contravention of the UN arms embargo. The German secret services were fully aware of the trade.

Rather than the CIA, the Pentagon's own secret service was the hidden force behind these operations. The UN protection force, UNPROFOR, was dependent on its troop-contributing nations for intelligence, and above all on the sophisticated monitoring capabilities of the US to police the arms embargo. This gave the Pentagon the ability to manipulate the embargo at will: ensuring that American AWACS aircraft covered crucial areas and were able to turn a blind eye to the frequent nightime comings and goings at Tuzla.

SNIP

Iranian and Afghan veterans' training camps had also been identified in Bosnia. Later, in the Dayton Accords of November 1995, the stipulation appeared that all foreign forces be withdrawn. This was a deliberate attempt to cleanse Bosnia of Iranian-run training camps. The CIA's main opponents in Bosnia were now the mojahedin fighters and their Iranian trainers - whom the Pentagon had been helping to supply months earlier.

Meanwhile, the secret services of Ukraine, Greece and Israel were busy arming the Bosnian Serbs. Mossad was especially active and concluded a deal with the Bosnian Serbs at Pale involving a substantial supply of artillery shells and mortar bombs. In return they secured safe passage for the Jewish population out of the besieged town of Sarajevo.


UBL, the CIA, and MI6 (1984 – 1996)

Since 1984, UBL had been running the logistics of the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK – Services Office) mujahadin group he had taken over after the assassination of Abdallah Azzam, his former teacher. (Trento, Prelude to Terror 2005, 341-342)

In addition to global recruiting and logistics for CIA-sponsored operations against the Russians in Afghanistan and Bosnia, during this period bin Laden also contracted with British intelligence in a aborted plot to assassinate Libyan strongman Mohamar Khadaffi, according to David Shayler, an MI-6 whistleblower, and retired French intelligence officer, Jean-Charles Brisard. According to The Guardian (UK), a UBL lieutenant in that operation, Anas al-Liby was later given asylum in Britain. Bin Laden and al-Liby are accused by Interpol of a 1994 murder of a pair of German intelligence officers in Africa, but that warrant was quashed by MI6, and al-Liby was granted asylum by the UK. See, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,9174,837333,00.html

Before he defected to Britain, Al-Liby reportedly worked closely with Ali Mohamed in plotting the 1998 bombings of two US Embassies in East Africa. See, http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=anas_al-liby



Mohamed, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a former Egyptian military officer, had a long history as a CIA contract employee and had served with the US Army Green Berets as an Arabic language and culture instructor at Ft. Bragg.


In “1986, Khaled Abu el-Dahab, the right hand man of double agent Ali Mohamed, informally founds the branch (of the MAK) in Brooklyn, New York, and it soon becomes the most important US branch (of the group that will become known as al-Qaeda, the FBI will later refer to this as “The Brooklyn Cell”). While on active duty in the early 1990s, he was given leave to travel to Bosnia, where he fought as part of the Islamic militias. Mohamed also gave weapons instruction at al-Qaeda camps in Sudan. See, http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-903


The Brooklyn office recruits Arab immigrants and Arab-Americans to go fight in Afghanistan, even after the Soviets withdraw in early 1989. As many as 200 are sent there from the office. Before they go, the office arranges training in the use of rifles, assault weapons, and handguns, and then helps them with visas, plane tickets, and contacts. They are generally sent to the MAK/Al-Kifah office in Peshawar, Pakistan, and then connected to either the radical Afghan faction led by Abdul Rasul Sayyaf or the equally radical one led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. (New York Times, 4/11/1993)

The CIA has some murky connection to Al-Kifah (MAK) that has yet to be fully explained. Newsweek will later say the Brooklyn office “doubled as a recruiting post for the CIA seeking to steer fresh troops to the mujaheddin” fighting in Afghanistan. At the same time, the Brooklyn office is where “veterans of (Afghan war arrived) in the United States—many with passports arranged by the CIA.” (Newsweek, 10/1/2001)

The New Yorker will later comment that the Brooklyn office was a refuge for ex- and future mujaheddin, “But the highlight for the center’s regulars were the inspirational jihad lecture series, featuring CIA-sponsored speakers.... One week on Atlantic Avenue, it might be a CIA-trained Afghan rebel traveling on a CIA-issued visa; the next, it might be a clean-cut Arabic-speaking Green Beret, who would lecture about the importance of being part of the mujaheddin, or ‘warriors of the Lord.’ The more popular lectures were held upstairs in the roomier Al-Farouq Mosque; such was the case in 1990 when Sheikh Abdul-Rahman, traveling on a CIA-supported visa, came to town.” One frequent instructor is double agent Ali Mohamed, who is in the US Special Forces at the time (see 1987-1989). Bin Laden’s mentor Azzam frequently visits and lectures in the area. In 1988, he tells “a rapt crowd of several hundred in Jersey City, ‘Blood and martyrdom are the only way to create a Muslim society... However, humanity won’t allow us to achieve this objective, because all humanity is the enemy of every Muslim.’” (New Yorker, 3/17/1995)

Ayman Al-Zawahiri, future Al-Qaeda second-in-command, makes a recruiting trip to the office in 1989 (see Spring 1993). (New Yorker, 9/9/2002) The Brooklyn office also raises a considerable amount of money for MAK/Al-Kifah back in Pakistan. The Independent will later call the office “a place of pivotal importance to Operation Cyclone, the American effort to support the mujaheddin. The Al-Kifah (Refugee Center was) raising funds and, crucially, providing recruits for the struggle, with active American assistance.” (Independent, 11/1/1998)

Abdul-Rahman, better known as the “Blind Sheikh,” is closely linked to bin Laden. In 1990, he moves to New York on another CIA-supported visa (see July 1990) and soon dominates the Al-Kifah Refugee Center. Shalabi has a falling out with him over how to spend the money they raise and he is killed in mysterious circumstances in early 1991, completing Abdul-Rahman’s take over. Now, both the Brooklyn and Pakistan ends of the Al-Kifah/MAK network are firmly controlled by bin Laden and his close associates. In 1998, the US government will say that al-Qaeda’s “connection to the United States evolved from the Al-Kifah Refugee Center.” Yet there is no sign that the CIA stops its relationship with the Brooklyn office before it closes down shortly after the 1993 WTC bombing. (New York Times, 10/22/1998)


Similarly, UBL’s Sudan operation was penetrated at that time by the CIA, which ran a second informant, Jamal al-Fadl: See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda


The name "al-Qaida" could have been introduced to U.S. intelligence by Jamal al-Fadl, who had been providing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with intelligence about bin Laden since 1996, before ultimately appearing as a witness in the February 2001 trial of those accused of the 1998 United States embassy bombings.


In 1995, the CIA relationship with UBL soured. After a deal was struck with Russia at the Balkan peace talks in Dayton, Ohio, late in that year, the State Department stepped up pressure on the Sudanese government to expel UBL and the al-Qaeda organization he was organizing from the relative comfort of an air-conditioned office building bin Laden had leased in downtown Khartoum. In May, 2006, bin Laden and a group of lieutenants and bodyguards flew out of Khartoum to Afghanistan on a leased Ariana Afghanistan Airlines jet.

Just as Black’s men were quite aware of what bin Laden was up to, and vis-a-versa, this resulted in conflict between the two. About two years into that posting, Black relates, he had a run-in with several of UBL’s men. As tensions grew between the CIA station and UBL, according to a somewhat sanitized retelling by Richard Sale, bin Laden planned to kill Black: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040728-035041-4967r.htm


According to information first published by Steve Coll in "Ghost Wars," but confirmed for United Press International by U.S. intelligence officials, in 1994 bin Laden had been in Khartoum, the dusty capital of Sudan, and so had Black, working in a position that disguised his CIA affiliation. According to Coll's account, bin Laden was living in a three-story compound.

Soon, the CIA in Khartoum knew bin Laden had terrorist training camps in northern Sudan, and that he was getting cooperation and weapons from the Sudanese intelligence service. They also knew he was developing a multinational army, U.S. officials said.

But then U.S. officials discovered bin Laden planned to kill Black. CIA watchers noticed that Black was trailed as he went to and from the American Embassy each day. Near the embassy, CIA analysts saw bin Laden operatives were setting up a "kill zone" -- an area where firing coming from different quarters converges and traps a subject in many streams of bullets.

The CIA watchers were able to stealthily work in to be able to observe Black's supposed killers practice parts of their operation on a quiet city side street, according to Coll's account.

Only after CIA operatives leveled loaded shotguns in the faces of Arabs trailing Black, and Black officially complained to the Sudanese government, did all bin Laden activity against Black suddenly ceased, according to Coll and other sources.


That reveals only part of the story. Indeed, bin Laden’s training camps weren’t only located in Sudan, and it wasn’t only Sudanese intelligence who had been working with al-Qaeda. The CIA had contracted UBL to set up and operate recruitment and training inside the United States and countries around the world through MAK, and later al-Qaeda. Among those trained at UBL and MAK camps were six members of the 9/11 attack group, including Nawaf al-Hazmi. Along with his partner, Khalid al-Midhar, this pair went on to hijack Flight 77 that smashed into the Pentagon.

Al-Hazmi and Al-Midhar were allowed to enter the U.S. on January 15, 2000 after the CIA observed the pair travel to, attend, and depart an al-Qaeda planning summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. According to George Tenet’s testimony to the Joint Intelligence Committee in October 2002, the CIA and “a half-dozen allied services” monitored that meeting. Upon their arrival in Los Angeles, a CIA-CTC officer drafted cable to the FBI about the entrance. That warning cable ordered withheld “by order of” the CTC Assistant Director, and apparently was never sent.

Had Cofer Black's CTC sent that cable, the FBI would have had no trouble obtaining FISA warrants. The Bureau would have observed the pair as they met and communicated with the other principal 9/11 hijackers, al-Qaeda organizers and financiers inside the U.S., and several Saudi intelligence agents. Had the FBI been officially notified through formal channels , the White House would have had no choice but to authorize the arrests of al-Midhar, al-Hazmi, Atta, Jarrah, and the rest. Rolling up that network would have certainly saved 3,000 lives on 9/11.



As for the rationale offered within CTC for why that cable was withheld, part of the answer is provided by author Joe Trento, Unsafe at any Altitude: Failed Terrorism Investigations, Scapegoating 9/11, and the Shocking Truth about Aviation Security Today by Susan and Joseph Trento (2006):



The biggest secret was that Saudi Arabian government agents whom the CIA had relied on for inside information on al Qaeda were, in fact, working for Osama bin Laden. Two of those agents were among the hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77 out of Dulles. Those two men were the ones the CIA and FBI had asked Steve Wragg to watch on the video at Dulles Airport. The CIA had known since 2000 that they were in the United States, but it hadn’t notified the FBI until June 2001. The FBI had been looking for them all summer in connection with the October 2000 bombing of the Navy’s USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, but had not been able to find them. (137)

. . .

Prior to 9/11 senior CIA officials had convinced themselves that GID, the Saudi intelligence service, had placed agents inside al Qaeda. Because these two men - Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi - were thought to be Saudi agents, the CIA did not tell the FBI about them when they came into the United States from a terrorist summit meeting in Malaysia. Had the CIA shared what it knew, the FBI might have had a chance to at preventing the 9/11 attacks.(192)


The authors don't explain why senior CIA officials would act based on such an assumption, particularly as Saudi intelligence was not trusted about al-Qaeda within the Agency. Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline states: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=125098&mesg_id=125273


1997: CIA Deems Saudi Intelligence ‘Hostile Service’ Regarding Al-Qaeda

The CIA’s bin Laden unit Alec Station sends a memo to CIA Director George Tenet warning him that the Saudi intelligence service should be considered a “hostile service” with regard to al-Qaeda. This means that, at the very least, they could not be trusted. In subsequent years leading up to 9/11, US intelligence will gather intelligence confirming this assessment and even suggesting direct ties between some in Saudi intelligence and al-Qaeda. For instance, according to a top Jordanian official, at some point before 9/11 the Saudis ask Jordan intelligence to conduct a review of the Saudi intelligence agency and then provide it with a set of recommendations for improvement. Jordanians are shocked to find Osama bin Laden screen savers on some of the office computers. Additionally, the CIA will note that in some instances after sharing communications intercepts of al-Qaeda operatives with the Saudis, the suspects would sometimes change communication methods, suggesting the possibility that they had been tipped off by Saudi intelligence. (Risen, 2006, pp. 183-184)


The Saudi GID angle seems to be a CIA cover story, a "limited hang-out", given so that lower levels in the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community wouldn't interfere with the operation. Al-Hazmi and al-Midhar may have have been double-agents, working for both UBL and Saudi Intel, but that doesn't mean CIA would have let them run free, unmonitored, inside the U.S. CIA had long penetrated this cell, and Tenet and Black were intimately familiar with the "Brooklyn Cell", the personalities and the plans of the Planes Operation. If Tenet and Black are to be believed, the only thing holding them back from rolling up the entire Planes Operation on July 10 was the lack of Presidential authorization to make arrests.

As Joe Trento explained to me in 2002, there are rules that are followed. In a long-established, compartmentalized operation, there is "no roll-up until the President issues the order."

That explains why nobody located al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi in the late summer of 2001, and why the FBI didn't arrest the pair, even though the record shows that these two men used their real names to reserve and purchase their own airline tickets.

Consider this timeline:


July 10th: Tenet and Black have their "red alert" meeting with Rice.

Aug. 17 or 24: Tenet suddenly flies to Crawford, TX, later will withhold this fact during public testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

August 23: the CIA sends "cables to the State Department, the FBI, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, requesting that 'four bin Laden related individuals' including Almidhar and Alhazmi, be placed on the watchlist." (Washington Post, A8, September 21, 2002)

August. 24: Bush meets with his core national security team -- Rice, Rumsfeld, Gens. Myers and Pace. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/7/124813/4868/439/332122

Aug. 25: Khalid al-Midhar and Majed Moqed purchased tickets for American Airlines Flight 77, from Virginia to Los Angeles, scheduled for Sept. 11, 2001.

August 27th: al-Hazmi purchases two tickets.





Conclusion

Only in the context of the long-standing, but often violent, relationship between the CIA and UBL, and between various factions in Washington and Saudi Arabia, can the events that led up to 9/11 be understood.

Cofer Black and George Tenet understood the potential for mass casualties when on July 10, 2001 they rushed to the State Department to try to convince Condi Rice that al-Qaeda attack cells known to be inside the U.S. had to be rolled up. This message was repeated with urgency in late August when Tenet flew to Crawford, Texas to personally brief President George W. Bush.
______________________________________________
PART 6 of a series:

CIA Used Banned Cold War “Brainwashing” Techniques on Detainees
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/20/133245/06

Who Got Water Boarded and Why: What Tortured CIA Detainees Had In Common.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/17/82324/911/911/423196
CIA Detainee Torture, Memory Loss, and the Bush Administration's Falsification of History
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/13/134311/17/385/421664

Torture Tapes Weren't The Only Thing Erased by The White House
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/12/125250/15/926/421147

TORTURE VIDEO: What The CIA Doesn't Want You to Know
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/10/133754/60/799/420257

__________________________________
FTN 1 (cf., emptywheel mentions that some sources say videotaped torture may not have commenced until August, http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/19/in-which-country-were-the-tapes-stored/#comment-39501 A Justice Dept. opinion letter dated 08/01/2002 endorsed waterboarding as legal. http://www.president-bush.com/torture-waterboarding.html The significance of that DOJ memo is it might give those involved some legal cover.)

___________________________________
Crossposted at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/21/11177/815/296/424820
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #52
68. This is not hijacking...
SLAD is demonstrating why the 9/11 commission is damaged goods and a completely new one is needed.

She's doing a pretty good job of it as well.

Lie back and take the medicine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #68
74. Of course, that wasn't the question....
was it. Are you guys really saying that nothing the 9/11 Commission concluded was correct? Are you taking issue with their recommendations? If you are, then you don't understand the role of the executive director.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
55. Philip Zelikow, a former Counselor to Condoleezza Rice, serves as a senior adviser to the firm.


http://rawstory.com/news/2007/GOP_Lobby_firm_hired_to_oust_0823.html


Along with Blackwill, BGR counts among its ranks several other Bush allies and former administration officials. ThinkProgress reports, "Philip Zelikow, a former Counselor to Condoleezza Rice, serves as a senior adviser to the firm. Lanny Griffith, chief executive officer, is a Bush Ranger having raised at least $200,000 for Bush in the 2004 presidential election. And Ed Rogers, chairman and founder of the firm, has been a reliable political ally for the Bush White House




Philip D. Zelikow is best known as the executive director of the 9/11 Commission.


Allawi Pays $300k for Anti-Maliki US Campaign
Bush's Former Envoy to Iraq is Top US Lobbyist for Key Iraqi Critic of Iraqi PM




Documents obtained by IraqSlogger show Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's chief Iraqi opponent, Ayad Allawi, is paying Washington lobbyists with close ties to the White House $300,000 to help with Allawi's efforts in the U.S. to promote himself and undermine Maliki.

The powerhouse Republican firm retained by Allawi is Barbour, Griffith, & Rogers (BGR), and its BGR International unit is headed by President's Bush's one-time White House point man on Iraq, Robert Blackwill, who will lead the lobbying efforts on Allawi's behalf.

Allawi signed the BGR lobbying contract with Blackwill, who served as Presidential Envoy to Iraq in 2004 when Allawi was appointed the country's interim prime minister with the U.S. government's blessing.




Blackwill assumed the position of BGR International president after leaving the Bush administration following the 2004 elections.

Allawi, who called for Maliki's ouster in a Washington Post op-ed August 18, is believed by many Iraq observers to positioning himself to be Maliki's successor.

White House photo
President Bush and Robert Blackwill in the Oval Office in August 2004.As previously reported exclusively by IraqSlogger, the Republican lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith, & Rogers, LLC, began its work for Allawi August 17 by registering the domain name Allawi-for-Iraq.com. In recent days, BGR sent hundreds of e-mail messages in Allawi's name from the e-mail address DrAyadAllawi@Allawi-for-Iraq.com .

Those e-mail messages to Congressional staffers and others in Washington included Allawi's Washington Post op-ed and the text of a statement from Democratic Senator Carl Levin calling for Maliki to quit.

Federal regulations allow a 10-day window for lobbyists to register their work on behalf of a foreign principal, and BGR filed papers with the Department of Justice Monday to represent Allawi's interests in Washington. The DOJ has yet to process the registration forms, but IraqSlogger has acquired copies of all the relevant documentation.

Under terms of the contract, signed August 20 but backdated to commence August 1, BGR will be paid $50,000 a month through the end of January 2008 for providing "strategic counsel and representation for and on behalf of Dr. Ayad Allawi before the US government, Congress, media, and others."

Khaled Desouki/AFP/Getty
Cairo: Ayad Allawi at a March news conference.That's $300,000 over six months, with an option to extend the arrangements longer.

While the BGR contract is with Allawi, who is required to pay the $300,0000, it's unclear whether Allawi himself is funding the lobbying campaign.

Allawi has a full team from BGR assigned to his contract, with four top lobbyists in addition to Blackwill having filed papers to work with him: Edward Rogers, BGR chairman and founder; Andrew Parasiliti, vice president; and Walker Roberts, vice president; and Dan Murphy, principal.

The filings stipulate that Allawi is not supervised by, owned by, directed by, controlled by, financed by, or subsidized by any foreign government, foreign political party, or other foreign principal.

While BGR registers him as an individual, rather than as a political party, they do identify him as head of the Iraq National Accord, and indicate they will not only represent Allawi, but also "his moderate Iraqi colleagues."

BGR is already serving other "moderate Iraqi colleagues" of Allawi, representing the interests of the Kurdistan Regional Government.

The KRG office in DC declined to officially comment on the situation, but another KRG representative indicated displeasure at the latest development.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #7
71. We, the general public, are not in a good position to vouch for any findings requiring inside info
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211607&mesg_id=211622">SDuderstadt wrote:

7. Christ, SLAD...

you make it sound like the commissioners have no power at all. I doubt you understand the inner workings of a commission or the checks and balances employed. I am hardly saying that Zelikow was not a considerable problem, but it's not reason to reject all of their findings out of hand.


I wrote a fairly lengthy reply to the O.P. in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211607&mesg_id=211732">this post. Below, I will excerpt a paragraph that's relevant here:

It certainly is possible that the 9/11 Commission did adequately investigate some, perhaps even many, of the specific issues having to do with intelligence, etc., despite the 9/11 Commission's many well-known flaws. But we, the general public, are not in a good position to know which issues those are. Regarding any matter having to do with intelligence agencies or anything else which touches upon state secrets or other inside info, only a new commission, reviewing the 9/11 Commission's work, would even be able to determine which issues of this kind have already been adequately investigated. Many of us can easily point to various already well-known flaws. But, for all we know, there could well be a whole bunch of other serious flaws that aren't yet publicly known, but which might be glaringly obvious to a new set of investigators going through the papers collected by the 9/11 Commission.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. You're making my point....
a new commission would start by reviewing the work, findings. etc. of the former commission, deciding what is valid, what needs to be expanded upon, etc. To think that a whole new commission is going to start from scratch, summarily rejecting the existing work product and re-invent the wheel is not a very realistic view.

The concerns about Zelikow are well-known, however, a commission is not comprised of one person. I haven't read Shenon's book yet, so it's possible I might have a different view upon reading it. However, I think many of those who want to categorically reject the 9/11 Commission's conclusions would not be satisfied with anything less than a finding of MIHOP on the part of the Bush administration. That kind of short-sightedness (for which I have coined a new term - "MIHOPIA") is just as troubling as those on the other end of the spectrum who take issue because it dared to criticize the administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #75
84. You don't get it do you.
That last investigation was obstructed and controlled from the WH.

It's dirty, tainted, invalid, bogus, useless.

Only a new start is good enough, building from the ground up.

Why do you constantly want to put limitations on a new investigation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. Damn it, Bassman
It's hyperbole ( to say the least) to say the 9/11 Commission was "controlled" from the WH. If they actually controlled it, they wouldn't have had to obstruct it. Think this through. If you have ANY evidence that Kean or Hamilton (the actual co-chairmen) were controlled by the WH, please provide it. Yes, it's troubling that Zelikow apparently had contact with people within the WH. Yes, we should, accordingly, look at the 9/11 CR with some reservation. But, you are blowing this thing up all out of proportion.

The evidence seems to be that Zelikow was keeping someone in the WH informed and probably was trying to ensure the Bush administration was portrayed in a fair or even good light. But, that is not the same thing as "the WH controlled" the 9/11 Commission. Have you even read the Report? It is hardly complimentary of the Bush administration. Beyond that, it is silly to reject the Commission's findings wholesale, especially in those areas where the evidence is beyond question.

We're not having any further conversation on this until you, at least, read the 9/11 Commission Report. My problem is that you're at least as biased in the opposite direction as you claim the Commission was in the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. "If they didn't control it they wouldn't have to obstruct it"
Nonsense!

Ever heard of a two-pronged attack.

Zelikow managed the White House obstruction and smoothed its passage.

"The evidence seems to be that Zelikow was keeping someone in the WH informed and probably was trying to ensure the Bush administration was portrayed in a fair or even good light. "

No, that's your opinion, unfortunately Zelikows conflicts of interest which he hid from the commission take it a bit deeper than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #88
89. Oh, I see....
Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 01:33 PM by SDuderstadt
so they had to obstruct a commission they already controlled. Sounds like they didn't have very much control over it. It's also silly to claim the executive director controls the Commission (hint: it's the co-chairmen). Maybe you should write a letter to Hamilton, Kerrey, Gorelick, Roemer and Ben-Veniste. They're obviously nowhere near as intelligent as you.


Damn, I forgot. No more conversation with you abut this until you've actually read the 9/11 CR. It might also help if you'd educate yourself as to exactly how an independent commission works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #89
94. No, and you know it...
They obstructed the setting up of a commission, then when they were forced to give in they then placed people on the committee to ensure that they could continue being obstructive without too much fuss.

"It might also help if you'd educate yourself as to exactly how an independent commission works."

That's a funny one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. Are you claiming the Bush adminstration appointed...
Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 01:58 PM by SDuderstadt
Roemer, Kerrey, Gorelick and Ben-veniste. Do yourself a favor and research how the commissioners were selected. Hint: Congress was involved, dude. If you're claiming that Congress helped the Bush administration "control" the 9/11 Commission, maybe you should write to Nancy Pelosi.

Your hypebole constantly undermines your arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
56. start from scratch
although much critical evidence has been destroyed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. Thanks, Left....
BTW, I notice your Zia symbol. Are you formerly from NM?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #60
69. native.
miss the place. I always used to say I miss NM but there are no jobs there. Hell, now there are no jobs anywhere. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. Yep start from scratch
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 11:46 PM by seemslikeadream
and I have listed my reasons for why I believe that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
64. if Zelikow was a White House mole then Kean and Hamilton were his handlers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=190636


noise (795 posts) Fri Feb-29-08 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
17. I read the book
He makes a big deal of Kean's steadfast commitment to bipartisanship. Yet by the end of the book one comes away with the thought that if Zelikow was a White House mole then Kean and Hamilton were his handlers, making sure his efforts to sabotage the commission were not impeded. Shenon writes a lot about the partisan disputes, most notably Rice vs. Clarke (which was basically Bush vs. Clinton by proxy). It should be noted that some people seem to buy into partisan arguments. For example, the idea that the Clinton crowd warned the Bush crowd but the Bush crowd failed to take their warnings seriously. This argument presumes that the Clinton team was completely honest about al Qaeda. Ali Mohamed's involvement in the '98 embassy bombings and the fact that Clinton was in office during the 01/00 Malaysia summit (attended by al-Mihdhar, al-Hamzi and possibly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) are two examples that dispute this notion. Another popular partisan argument is the idea that the Bush crowd hurt the WoT effort by invading Iraq. In fact, Richard Clarke is a leading advocate of this concept (along with Michael Scheuer). This talking point is based on the idea that the government has been honest about al Qaeda, Bin Laden and 9/11. We aren't supposed to question the validity of the WoT, just Bush's Iraq diversion.

The point being Shenon is fixated on playing up the D vs. R dispute. What is notably missing from the book is a discussion of a deep state apparatus which transcends political party. He gets around this flaw by using the time tested phrase 'conspiracy theorists' to suggest that only conspiracy nuts would conclude that something more sinister than CYA was involved in the 9/11 Commission's failure to produce an above board report. I do give Shenon credit for examining the problems with the commission's investigation. After reading the book even 'conspiracy phobic' readers will be hard pressed to defend the 9/11 Commission report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
67. Reinvestigate everything.
The first investigation was obstructed and controlled from within by The White House.

Nothing more will suffice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #67
76. It's pretty silly to claim that...
the WH controlled Hamilton and Kean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
70. A few things that a new investigation could probably skip ...
Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 10:36 AM by Diane_nyc
Issues that a new commission would not need to re-investigate at all include:

1) Emergency response issues (covered in Chapter 9 of the 9/11 CR). Although emergency response is important, it's an entirely separate issue from the question of why the attacks weren't prevented.

2) Airport security issues. An important link in the chain, but separate from the main areas of concern (which have to do with things like intelligence failures, law enforcement failures, air defense failures, communication amongst high officials, and the possible roles of some foreign governments).

3) Anything that's purely a matter of easily-available public information, not requiring any special legal powers or any special expertise to investigate thoroughly.

Some issues would need to be reinvestigated only partially. For example, regarding the whereabouts of high officials, it wouldn't be necessary to verify yet again that Bush dawdled in the classroom at the Booker school, since that's already well-established. On the other hand, there is conflicting testimony as to Cheney's whereabouts at particular times, so that's something that should be looked at again.

But I do think that any matter having to do with intelligence agencies, the FBI, the military, or immigration enforcement should be re-investigated thoroughly. Likewise the "put options" issue and any matter having to do with any back-channel dealings with foreign governments. These issues are, by their very nature, not the sorts of thing that the general public can research firsthand on its own.

Given the already well-documented bias of Philip Zelikow, who did play a key role, and given the tread-lightly approach of Hamilton and Kean, and given the incompleteness and other flaws of the information that the 9/11 Commission received from various sources on a variety of topics, I don't think that the 9/11 CR should be accepted as the final word on anything that can't otherwise be verified independently by a layperson.

It certainly is possible that the 9/11 Commission did adequately investigate some, perhaps even many, of the specific issues having to do with intelligence, etc., despite the 9/11 Commission's many well-known flaws. But we, the general public, are not in a good position to know which issues those are. Regarding any matter having to do with intelligence agencies or anything else which touches upon state secrets or other inside info, only a new commission, reviewing the 9/11 Commission's work, would even be able to determine which issues of this kind have already been adequately investigated. Many of us can easily point to various already well-known flaws. But, for all we know, there could well be a whole bunch of other serious flaws that aren't yet publicly known, but which might be glaringly obvious to a new set of investigators going through the papers collected by the 9/11 Commission.

Of course, the re-investigation should begin by carefully reviewing all the old information to determine what new information is needed. The new commission should make the most efficient possible use of information already obtained by the 9/11 Commission. It should, of course, have access to all the papers that were collected by the 9/11 Commission. And the new commission should probably re-hire some of the same low-level staff members, who would already be familiar with the papers and know where to find things. But the people in charge, i.e. the commissioners themselves and high-level staff members, should be an entirely new set of people, to avoid any possible vested interest in whitewashing the 9/11 Commission, though perhaps some of the old high-level people could be brought in as consultants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #70
72. I diasgee with this (maybe)
Some issues would need to be reinvestigated only partially. For example, regarding the whereabouts of high officials, it wouldn't be necessary to verify yet again that Bush dawdled in the classroom at the Booker school, since that's already well-established. On the other hand, there is conflicting testimony as to Cheney's whereabouts at particular times, so that's something that should be looked at again.


That he dawdled, no it's a fact, why he dawdled, yes that needs explaining.

That classroom scene needs explaning. Bush asks no questions, Card expects no questions, the SS act as if they are safe from attack. Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #72
78. You've beaten this to death, Bassman....
Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 12:16 PM by SDuderstadt
as well as drawn unwarranted conclusions. Bush is clearly startled when he hears the news. Beyond that, your silly conjecture that "they knew they were safe" is just that, conjecture. If you think you can build a case for MIHOP or LIHOP purely on circumstantial evidence, you're sadly mistaken. You should start with actual physical evidence, of which you have none. However, assuming someone goes down this path, what, exactly, do you think they should do? Ask Bush again what he was thinking? If, as you seem to believe, Bush was "in on it", do you really think he's going to say something different simply because he's asked again? How would anyone know what he was thinking at that moment besides, well, him??

The probnlem with your theory is that there are a number of alternative explanations, every one of which is just as likely as yours. My theory is that Bush had no fucking idea what to do and was hoping that someone in the entourage had another pair of pants for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #78
81. Bush was clearly guilty of at least criminal negligence ....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211607&mesg_id=211761">SDuderstadt wrote:

78. You've beaten this to death, Bassman....

Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 01:16 PM by SDuderstadt
as well as drawn unwarranted conclusions. Bush is clearly startled when he hears the news.

...

My theory is that Bush had no fucking idea what to do and was hoping that someone in the entourage had another pair of pants for him.


Whatever he might have been thinking or feeling at the moment, he was clearly guilty of at least criminal negligence. Do you not agree?

He should have excused himself ASAP and gone immediately to the private "holding room" that had already been set up for him (according to the 9/11 CR), so that he could be available to be consulted by his staff, and by other high officials, whenever needed.

I agree with you that there's probably not much point in questioning him further about this. His inaction speaks for itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. I don't agree...
You need to look up the defintion of criminal negligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #83
103. Definition of "criminal negligence" - yes, Bush's behavior does fit it, IMO
Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 03:03 PM by Diane_nyc
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211607&mesg_id=211775">SDuderstadt wrote:

83. I don't agree...

You need to look up the defintion of criminal negligence.


Done. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal%20negligence">From dictionary.reference.com:

criminal negligence

noun
(law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences)


If you don't like dictionary.reference.com, please suggest a better (though easily available) source. (I'm sure better sources exist. Admittedly I'm not familiar with online legal sources.)

Anyhow, Bush's behavior most certainly does fit the definition above.

Once the second plane hit, it was immediately obvious to everyone that America was under attack by planes, as Andrew Card informed Bush at 9:05 that morning. Bush was one of only two people in the entire country with the authority to order a shootdown of a plane. And, in the midst of any kind of attack, every second counts.

So, it clearly was Bush's duty to get himself ASAP into a room where he could be consulted ASAP about a shootdown order, in the event that NORAD had succeeded in intercepting any of the remaining planes. Of course, NORAD didn't actually succeed in intercepting any planes. But NORAD did try, and it was clearly Bush's duty not to create unnecessary extra bottlenecks by making himself gratuitously unavailable. By doing the latter, as I did by dawdling in the classroom for at least seven minutes, Bush clearly was, at least potentially, risking the lives of many people who could at least conceivably be saved otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #103
108. It most certainly does not...
Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 07:35 PM by SDuderstadt
think this through. Pay attention to the qualifier, "recklessly". From Black's Law Dictionary:

Reckless

Not recking; careless, heeding, inattentive; indifferent to consequences. According to to circumstances it may mean desperately heedless, wanton or willful, or it may man only careless, inattentive, or negligent. People v. Sweet,130 Misc.Rep.612,225 N.Y.S. 182, 183.



You don't know Bush's state of mind at that moment. Neither do I. However, we do know some things about Bush. Texas is what's known as a "weak governor" state, in that the office of governor is largely (although not completely) ceremonial and the real power resides with the Lt. Governor. Bush had held no other elective office, so he was incredibly unprepared to be commander-in-chief and this was borne out by the incident where our spy plane was captured by the Chinese. It was, to put it mildly, amateur hour.

I am, in no way, defending Bush's actions that day. I was outraged. But, that is hardly the same thing as the standard for criminal negligence. One would have to weigh Bush's capabilities that day, then weigh his action (or inaction) against that. I have said this before and I'll say it again. I believe strongly that whatever effectiveness the 9/11 Truth Movement could possibly have is effectively undercut by pursuing avenues like this. I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree and, further, believe that such lines of thinking are not only foolish, but naive at the same time. As I stated earlier, Bush's actions that day deserve not only serious scrutiny, but hearty criticism, even condemnation, however, that doesn't mean throwing terms like "criminally negligent" around.

Bush is an idiot. Knowing that it's Bush's finger on the "nuclear button", the notion of him taking "decisive" action frankly terrifies me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #108
112. "careless, inattentive, or negligent"
Edited on Tue Jun-24-08 05:29 AM by Diane_nyc
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211607&mesg_id=211869">SDuderstadt wrote:

Pay attention to the qualifier, "recklessly". From Black's Law Dictionary:

Reckless

Not recking; careless, heeding, inattentive; indifferent to consequences. According to to circumstances it may mean desperately heedless, wanton or willful, or it may man only careless, inattentive, or negligent. People v. Sweet,130 Misc.Rep.612,225 N.Y.S. 182, 183.


I don't see how Bush's actions don't fit the above definition (which is somewhat flexible). It seems to me that Bush's behavior was indeed "careless, inattentive, or negligent."

Texas is what's known as a "weak governor" state, in that the office of governor is largely (although not completely) ceremonial and the real power resides with the Lt. Governor. Bush had held no other elective office, so he was incredibly unprepared to be commander-in-chief and this was borne out by the incident where our spy plane was captured by the Chinese. It was, to put it mildly, amateur hour.


But to me it seems that even someone "incredibly unprepared to be commander-in-chief" should have recognized that he was going to be required to make every-second-counts decisions, even if only (and preferably) just to rubber-stamp whatever his advisors came up with. Therefore, it should have been obvious that he needed to go to a private room ASAP and stay there. This should have been obvious even to a six-year-old, it seems to me.

And Bush had been President for eight months already, surely long enough to know that his job was more than purely ceremonial, if he hadn't known that before he was inaugurated.

Of course, I'm no lawyer. Do you happen to be speaking from a position of actual knowledge about the law on such matters? If so, is there any legal category that Bush's behavior does fit? Dereliction of duty, maybe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #112
121. Diane....
with all due respect, people are more than entitled to critique Bush's actions (or lack therof) that day. But presidents, in fact, make mistakes. Bill Clinton was subjected by RWers to the same charges of "criminal negligence" in the "Blackhawk Down" incident (and, for which, Les Aspin lost his position as Secretary of Defense).

Since it is impossible to know Bush's state of mind above and beyond what he says, I don't see how anyone could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard in criminal cases) that Bush's actions were criminally negligent. I despise the guy but (of course hypothetically) if someone brought a case against Bush for "criminal negligence", if I was hearing it, I would dismiss it, UNLESS someone has actual documentary evidence of it, otherwise it will just rest on some state of mind that we can't possibly know. It's a real dead-end. Do I believe he should have acted differently? Absolutely and I have stated as much. Do I believe it's a chargeable offense? Absolutely not. However, I really can't understand anyne who saw his conduct that day and who subsequently voted for his "re-election" as CIC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #81
96. It's not just Bush!!!!
It's Card as well.

Card supposedly tells Bush "America is under attack" and walks away without expecting a response.

It's the SS as well. Planes hijacked, number unknown, location unknown, targets unknown, Bush is at a public engagement and nobody moves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #96
98. Give it up, Bassman...
this is your silliest theory and. frankly, that's saying a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #78
95. No explanation then?
Try explaining Bush, Card and the SS actions.

I will continue to beat this to death until it gets an answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #95
99. You already have...
beaten this to death. Explain something to me. If, as you claim, "they were in on it", why would they go out of their way to make Bush look like an idiot there at the school? Why not make him look like a strong commander-in-chief. You're by far one of the most illogical people I've ever encountered and, that's saying a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #72
79. About that classroom scene ....
1) Why wasn't the Secret Service more worried about Bush's safety? The following may give us a clue:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091001busharrives#a091001busharrives">September 10, 2001: President Bush Arrives at Longboat Key Resort; Tight Overnight Security Includes Surface-to-Air Missiles

2) Why didn't Andrew Card hang around waiting for Bush to ask questions? Perhaps because he expected that Bush would be leaving the classroom ASAP, and he didn't want to get into a discussion in front of the children.

3) So, in my opinion, the only really reprehensible (or suspicious) thing here is Bush's behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #79
100. SAM's don't guarantee safety, moving to another location
would from a hijacked plane, these were ordinary passenger planes and there could have been one seconds away, how did they know they were safe?

Card just walked off, he didn't wait for a response, he doesn't expect a question from Bush, perhaps he did what you said, I would like an official explanation, I've never seen one.

Later someone is off camera holding up a a sign to Bush saying "don't say anything yet"... what were they waiting for?

I would like an explanation.

I would like an investigation.

The early official story (from Rove) was that he didn't want to scare the children which is total BS - did you see the press conference at 9.30, he was surrounded by children whilst he spoke to the media about it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. Answer your own fucking question, Bassman...
Think this through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. Did you ever think...
...that Card walked off because he expected the President to follow him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #102
110. I want Card to tell us what he was doing.
You tell the President "America is under attack" and then just walk off immediately without expecting a response? Really?

I want Bush and team and the SS to explain their behaviour.

Also why was Bush being told off camera "don't say anything yet", about what? He supposedly knows nothing except the 11 words that Card has told him, why were they waiting?
Why were they happy to just sit there? This wasn't just Bush!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #110
113. Well, I wonder if there's an interview in which Card explains his reasoning.
Ah, look. Our friend Google:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/msnbc090902.html

And then I rushed to to decide how to inform the president and when to inform him. And the test that I went through: If I were president, would I want to know? So I gathered my thoughts, tried to be very efficient in the words that I used. I took one step into the classroom, looked over to the press pool that was gathered at the back of the room, and I remember looking at one reporter, and she--she kind of--kind of looked at me like, 'What are you doing here?' And I held up two fingers, said, 'A second plane,' and then waited for a slight break in the conversation in the classroom and went up to the president's right ear and said, 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.' And then I pulled away from the president, and not that many seconds later the president excused himself from the classroom and we gathered in the holding room and talked about the situation.

WILLIAMS: You had the presence of mind on the say, 'America is under attack,' which--instead of saying, 'Don't react to what I'm about to tell you,' or, 'Try to keep a straight face, and we'll keep the event going,' you really did crystalize it. That's exactly what was going on. It's to then watch the president who spent the next few seconds, I guess, dealing with what must have been the crushing weight of realizing, well, like it or not, your presidency was just defined.

Mr. CARD: I wanted to explain the enormity of the situation without answering questions from him. I didn't want to have a discussion in front of the classroom or in front of the media. And so I tried to pick words that would succinctly describe the situation and would require no explanation.


That took me about fifteen seconds, I'd say, to craft the search phrase that brought that interview up to the number 5 position. If you have these questions, why aren't you looking harder for answers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #113
118. "not that many seconds later"? Yeah, right ....
Edited on Tue Jun-24-08 08:34 AM by Diane_nyc
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211607&mesg_id=211991">Boloboffin quoted Andrew Card as saying http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/msnbc090902.html">in this interview:

And then I pulled away from the president, and not that many seconds later the president excused himself from the classroom and we gathered in the holding room and talked about the situation.]


Whew! How many seconds is "not that many" is a matter of opinion, I guess, but Andrew Card is, well, obviously being extremely loyal to the President here, to say the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #118
119. Yes, that was a pretty blatant covering of his then-boss' ass
Edited on Tue Jun-24-08 08:26 AM by boloboffin
But what about his reasoning on leaving the President's side? That IS what Bassman asked about. Please stop distracting and stick to the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #119
120. The interview pretty much confirms what I've already said a couple of times ....
Edited on Tue Jun-24-08 09:05 AM by Diane_nyc
... on the issue of why Andrew Card pulled away from the President without expecting an immediate answer.

(ETA: See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211607&mesg_id=211764">this post of mine. I think I may have said it someplace else too, but can't find it offhand. Here in this thread, I've been responding to various other points raised by Bassman66 too, about things he considers to be suspicious about the behavior of Bush's staff and the Secret Service.)

I didn't feel the need to repeat myself yet again.

What leapt out at me was Andrew Card's extremely, er, loyal way of saying it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #110
122. Bush looks ANYTHING but happy...
as he sits there. He looks like he's going to shit his pants. This path is really stupid, Bassman. Really stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #100
104. More about Bush at Booker School
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211607&mesg_id=211820">Bassman66 wrote:

100. SAM's don't guarantee safety, moving to another location

would from a hijacked plane, these were ordinary passenger planes and there could have been one seconds away, how did they know they were safe?


Given that the security precautions included SAM's, hopefully those same precautions also included means of detecting things that the SAM's might need to be fired at.

In any case, the Secret Service would not want to move Bush without first figuring out where to move him to, and that was, apparently, a big problem.

Card just walked off, he didn't wait for a response, he doesn't expect a question from Bush, perhaps he did what you said, I would like an official explanation, I've never seen one.


Yes, Card should be asked about this, if he wasn't already asked about this by the 9/11 Commission.

Later someone is off camera holding up a a sign to Bush saying "don't say anything yet"... what were they waiting for?


Probably, waiting for Bush's staff to figure out exactly what was going on. But, yes, a new investigation should ask about this, if the 9/11 Commission didn't already.

The early official story (from Rove) was that he didn't want to scare the children which is total BS - did you see the press conference at 9.30, he was surrounded by children whilst he spoke to the media about it.


Agreed that "not wanting to scare the children" was an extremely stupid excuse for staying in the classroom for a full 7 minutes. Also, holding a press conference was not exactly the most urgent thing he needed to be doing, and was yet another thing to make him gratuitously unavailable for needed consultation by high officials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. Like what?

Given that the security precautions included SAM's, hopefully those same precautions also included means of detecting things that the SAM's might need to be fired at.


I doubt it. Any SAMs would be MANPADS:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm

The far "decection" system would be the radio, in the form of a known threat.

Close in Detection system is Mk-1 eyeball.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. This would be a good question for a new commission to investigate, if the 9/11 Commission didn't
I'm certainly no expert on military hardware.

But a "Complete accounting" of what happened on 9/11 should certainly include all the kinds of security precautions that were taken that day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #107
114. Again
I doubt any investigation would include SS security procedures.

Any claim that MANPADS were carried by the SS is speculation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #104
109. Excellent post, Diane...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #104
111. I disagree about the SAM's
How do you tell the different between a hijacked passenger plane and one that isn't until it's too late. They did supposedly have trouble identifying hijacked planes and tracking them, if you believe them.

"Probably, waiting for Bush's staff to figure out exactly what was going on."

America was under attack, that's what was going on. But no, lets all sit tight and listen to goat stories. "Don't say anything yet"... why didn't Bush says "about what?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #111
115. Huh?
You don't. Thats the point. What about the SAMS's?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #111
117. Still more about Bush at the Booker school
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=211607&mesg_id=211974">Bassman66 wrote:

How do you tell the different between a hijacked passenger plane and one that isn't until it's too late.


According to at least some accounts, the Secret Service was in contact with the FAA. I'll try to look this up for you if you haven't come across this yourself.

Regarding "Don't say anything yet":


America was under attack, that's what was going on.]


Bush's staff probably didn't want Bush to say anything until after they'd figured out, more precisely, what kind of an attack. Most likely they wanted to make sure Bush didn't say anything really stupid and ill-informed.

"Don't say anything yet"... why didn't Bush says "about what?"


About the attack, most likely. Hopefully that would have been obvious even to Bush.

Perhaps a new investigation should ask for more details about what happened in Florida, but I don't see anything particularly suspicious about any of the above, except for Bush's behavior, which in my opinion he should have been impeached for, or at the very least censured by Congress, or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #111
123. Bassman...
this is another one of those stupid questions I spoke of earlier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #72
80. Was the school protected by the same surface to air missiles that Bush's hotel was the night before?
:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. Good question. Seems likely. A new investigation should look into that. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #80
106. "protected" is a relative term
In that his SS detail had MANPADS available.

If that's true at all, as it would be sensitive information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #70
77. Thanks for actually answering the question....
Diane. Maybe others could take a cue from you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #77
85. Maybe others could take a cue from you.
Yea like yourself SD, I got examples all over the place. Want some?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Ummm, no
Thanks for asking. For the record, I don't regard you as a very serious debater. Your habit of spamming OP's with ponderously long, incoherent posts is a dead giveaway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. Is that anything like spamming other folks threads with crap that
has NOTHING to do with the OP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. You got it!
You're finally recognizing your own actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #91
92. SWEETIE I WAS TALKING ABOUT YOU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. That's funny....
it's your own behavior you're describing. Unless you can point to ponderously long, incoherent posts of mine. And, quit calling me sweetie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #93
116. How old are you ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #116
124. Stupid question....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC