Fw: Neocons' Ties to the 9/11 Commission's Report

In article <OdWdnW5TXeYPx4bVnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@comcast.com>, 
vexjorge@gmx.us says...
> The Neocons' Ties to the 9/11 Commission's Report
> by William Hughes
> (Monday, February 25, 2008)
> 
> There was little chance that the 9/11 Commission was going to establish the
full truth. One
> reason why: Its Executive Director, the Neocon-loving Philip D. Zelikow, had
his own agenda, to
> wit: protecting the interest of the Bush-Cheney Gang and linking ?Al-Qaeda to
Iraq.? Zelikow
> had previously written a book with Condi Rice, authored a paper used to
justify the preemptive
> attack on Iraq and worked on Bush?s presidential transition team in 2000/2001.
> 
> ?A lie would make no sense, unless the truth were felt to be dangerous.?
> 
> -- Carl G. Jung
> 
> Philip Shenon?s insightful ?The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11
Investigation,?
> is a book that I found hard to put down. An investigative reporter for the NY
Times, he gives a
> detailed history of the so-called ?official? inquiry, authorized by the U..S.
Congress, into the
> tragedy of September 11, 2001. One of the central characters in this
compelling saga is a
> master manipulator, Philip D. Zelikow. He ran the Commission as its Executive
Director. The
> idea that this guy, who had close ties to Condi Rice, was interested in
revealing the full
> truth about 9/11 is simply preposterous. Why? Because, he had co-authored a
book with Rice,
> worked on President Bush?s transition team in 2000/2001, and wrote a
Neocon-like policy paper,
> which was used to justify the horrific Iraq War. Zelikow should have had the
words ?Conflict of
> Interest? branded on his Neocon-loving forehead!
> 
> Mr. Shenon underscored that in mostly every government commission, like the
one for 9/11, it is
> the Executive Director, who is the key player in shaping the ultimate findings
of that body.
> The author put it this way: ?It is a polite fiction in Washington that the
reports of
> blue-ribbon federal commissions are written by the commissioners themselves.
In truth, most of
> the reports are written by a professional staff led by a full time director.?
> 
> Zelikow denied that he had any conflict of interest in accepting his czar-like
role. This was
> so even after it was disclosed, that as the Executive Director, he made and
received numerous
> telephone conversations from Karl Rove, ?Bush?s Brain,? and that he had
several visits with
> Rice, in the White House.
> 
> On another front, Zelikow supposedly had such an ?abrasive? personality, that
even Henry
> Kissinger, himself, was leery of him! According to the author:
?Zeiklow....had...[an] outsize
> ego and fierce temper; his anger was a thing to behold, his face growing
bright red, his well
> chosen insults flying in every direction.?
> 
> The Commission?s charter was to establish that the Bush-Cheney Gang?s ?9/11
Mythology? was holy
> dogma. [1] Any evidence, no matter how persuasive, showing a differing point
of view was
> outside of the scope of its limited, narrowly focused inquiry. For example,
the fact that a
> structural steel-framed skyscraper, WTC-7, a 47-story office building
structure, collapsed in
> 6.5 seconds, (free fall speed), even though it wasn?t struck by any jet
airplane, didn?t raise
> an eyebrow for the 9/11 Commission. [2] Also, the highly suspicious conduct of
those ?Five
> Dancing Israelis,? over in New Jersey, who were caught joyfully taping the
WTCs destruction,
> didn?t show up on its monitor either. [3] Experts have submitted that there
are aspects of
> 9/11, many with probative value, that the Commission chose not to investigate.
[4]
> 
> Prior to 9/11, the Bush-Cheney Gang was given plenty of explicit warnings of
an ?imminent
> terrorist attack? inside the U.S. Take one: On July 12, 2001, Thomas Pickard,
the acting
> director of the FBI, met with the then-Attorney General, John Ashcroft.
Pickard told him:
> ?We?re at a very high level of chatter that something ?big? is about to
happen. The CIA is very
> alarmed...? Ashcroft, a political has-been from Missouri, barked back at the
veteran FBI man:
> ?I don?t want to hear about that anymore. There is nothing I can do about
that.? The author
> emphasized how the White House had also ?done so little in response to [the
CIA?s George]
> Tenet?s repeated warnings of an al-Qadea attack.? Which brings me to the
proverbial ?smoking
> gun,? the crux of the matter, the ?Presidential Daily Briefing,? (PDB), of
Aug. 6, 2001.
> 
> Keep in mind, that leading up to that critical period of time, i.e., just
before 9/11, that it
> was Rice who was in charge of the powerful National Security Council (NSC). It
was her primary
> duty to keep Bush informed about any possible terrorist attack in the U.S..
> 
> Enter Richard Clarke. He was an expert on counter-terrorism and an important
member of the NSC
> team. He attempted in early 2001, to repeatedly warn the White House about
al-Qaeda. Instead of
> listening to Clarke, however, the author pointed out: ?Rice moved Clarke off
center stage, in
> part at THE URGING OF ZELIKOW and the transition team.? In any event, the PDB
of Aug. 6, 2001,
> prepared by the CIA, and based on its latest Intel, including Intel from the
FBI, specifically
> warned Bush, V. P. Dick Cheney, Rice, among others, that the threat of a
terrorist attack by
> al-Qaeda, in the U.S., was ?CURRENT AND SERIOUS.? This crucial document was
entitled: ?BIN
> LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE U.S.?
> 
> On Sept. 4, 2001, Clarke warned Rice yet again. Here is how he put it: ?Are we
serious about
> dealing with the Al Qaeda threat? Decision makers should imagine themselves on
a future date
> when the CSG is not successful in stopping Al Qaeda attacks and hundreds of
American lay dead
> in several countries, including the U.S. What would those decision makers wish
they had done
> earlier? That future day could happen at any time.? On top of Clarke?s memo,
the Commission
> revealed that ?more than 40 PDBs presented to Bush from January 2001 through
September 10,
> 2001, included references to bin Laden.? Some of the family members of the
9/11 victims--the
> author called them, ?the Jersey Girls?--regularly referred to Rice as:
?Kinda-lies-a-lot? Rice!
> 
> As an aside, also in Shenon?s book, Sen. John McCain was mentioned in a
favorable light. He was
> one of the first members of the U.S. Congress to insist on an ?independent?
probe of 9/11. The
> author then reported how Sen. McCain ?despised [President] Bush, and the
people around him,
> especially [Karl] Rove,? He blamed the Bush-Cheney Gang for supposed ?dirty
tricks? that they
> pulled on him, during the 2000 presidential election. Now, if Sen. McCain
would only come clean
> about the cover-up of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, on June 8, 1967.
[5]
> 
> Getting back to Clarke. When he heard on Jan. 27, 2003, that Rice?s crony,
Zelikow was
> appointed as director for the Commission, he said: ?THE FIX IS IN!? The author
explained:
> ?Clarke understood that with Zelikow--Zelikow of all people--in charge, there
there was ?no
> hope? that the commission would carry out an ?impartial? investigation of the
Bush?s
> administration?s bungling of terrorist threats in the months before September
11. Could anyone
> have a more obvious conflict of interest than Zelikow??
> 
> To show Zelikow had his own agenda, he arranged for Abe Sofaer to testify at
the Commission
> first public hearing on March 31, 2003, in NYC. The author wrote: ?It seemed
odd that he was
> the Commission?s very first expert witness. Sofaer had no special expertise on
the events of
> 9/11. He appeared there, mostly, as an advocate for the American invasion of
Iraq--the invasion
> had been launched a week earlier--and a champion of the [Neocon] concept of
?preemptive
> defense? or ?preemptive war.??
> 
> If Sofaer wasn?t off point enough, Zelikow followed up with another doozy of a
witness at the
> Commission?s hearing, in July, 2003. It was Laurie Mylroie of the
Neocon-infested ?American
> Enterprise Institute.? The author said that Mylroie promoted the dubious idea
that ?Iraq and
> Al-Qaeda were effectively one.? Who do you think in the Bush-Cheney Gang was
the biggest
> ?booster? of Mylroie? If you answered the Neocon Paul Wolfowitz, a ?key
architect of the Iraqi
> invasion,? you would be right. Her book, ?Study for Revenge,? was fulsomely
praised by him.
> Mylroie also thanked another Neocon, Irv ?Scooter? Libby, then V. P. Cheney?s
top lag dog, for
> his help on her book. Libby was later convicted of perjury by a federal jury
in the Valeri
> Plame/CIA-related matter. [6]
> 
> As the 9/11 staff prepared its ?interim? report for the Commission, Zelikow
attempted to
> rewrite it to ?link Al-Qaeda to Iraq.? Some of the staffers rebelled and
Zelikow, despite being
> an ultra pushy character, backed off. A few of the staffers considered him a
?White House
> mole.? The Commission also refused to buy V.P. Cheney?s yarn of ?an Iraqi link
to 9/11.?
> 
> The bottom line is: 9/11 didn?t have to happen, no matter who really
orchestrated the monstrous
> deed. The Commission?s Report basically found ?no fault? as far as the
Bush-Cheney Gang?s role
> in the tragedy was concerned. [7] Its Report also helped to ?reelect Bush as
president.? The
> clever Zelikow, with his ties to the Neocon ideologues, got what he wanted,
but the country
> didn?t. The full truth about 9/11 has yet to see the light of day.
> 
> Finally, Zelikow ended up with a government sinecure--Counselor to the U.S.
Secretary of
> State--Condi Rice! It?s all enough to make you want to throw up!
> 
> Notes:
> 
> [1]. http://911Review.com/myth/index.html
> 
> [2]. http://www.wtc7.net/index.html
> 
> [3]. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
> fiveisraelis.html
> 
> [4]. http://www.911truth.org/ and
> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ and
> http://911Review.com/ and
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/
> 
> [5]. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/
> Hughes0712.htm
> 
> [6]. http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/
> blogs/voices.php/2007/06/17/p17602
> 
> [7]. http://www.9-11commission.gov/
> 

-- 
"Quiconque veut ravir la liberté d'une nation doit commencer par lui 
retirer le droit de s'exprimer librement."
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), diplomate et signataire de la Déclaration 
d'Indépendance des Etats-Unis