911 commission report! zelikow and the 28 redacted pages

8/14/2019 911 Commission Report! Zelikow And The 28 Redacted Pages

1/38

THE 911 COMMISSION AND THE

MISSING REDACTED 28 PAGES!!

THE STORY OF HISTORYS MOST

IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION!!

ILLEGALLY BLOCKED FROM JUSTICE

AND LEGAL TASK COMPLETION!!


2/38

EVIDENCE OF TREASON!! PHILLIP

ZELIKOWS HIGH CRIMES AND

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!

A QUICK NOTE PRIOR TO READING TIMELINED ARTICLES : Philip

Zelikow actually created the 911 Commission Report Outline and

Chapter Titles (ie There Were Some Planes) and Investigative

Team Names and Taskings (ie Saudi Connection Investigators) in

secrecy before the 911 Commission began to investigate anything

and before Zelikow even personally chose its investigators!! So, any

reference to any foreign country by name is completely his creationand was done prior to the initiation of any formal 911 Commission

investigative process.ie The Saudi Connection Investigators Team

should not be taken to imply anything except what one Phillip

Zelikow wanted future investigators and report readers to frame

their perceptions through!! The depth and intricacies of his

deception are nothing short of well seasoned actions of a highly

trained specialist! An Excerpt From: The Commission By Philip

Shenon pages 388-389 (complete excerpt at end of this document)

By March 2003, with the commissions staff barely in place the twomen had already prepared a detailed outline, complete with

chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings.

TIMELINED ARTICLES FOLLOW:

Context of 'April 2003: 9/11 Commissions Zelikow Blocks Access to

Key Document by Saudi Connection Investigators'

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0403zelikowblocksredacted&scale=1#a0403zelikowblocksredacted

April 2003: 9/11 Commissions Zelikow Refuses to Approve Half of

Interview Requests for Saudi Connection Investigators


3/38

Two investigators on the 9/11 Commission, Mike Jacobson and Dana Leseman,

compile a list of interviews they want to do to investigate leads indicating that two

of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, were linked to elements

of the Saudi government. The list is submitted to Philip Zelikow, the commissions

executive director, for approval. However, a few days later Zelikow replies that the

twenty interviews requested is too much, and they can only do half the interviews.Leseman, a former Justice Department lawyer, is unhappy with this, as it is

traditional to demand the widest range of documents and interviews early on, so

that reductions can be made later in negotiations if need be.

'We Need the Interviews' - Leseman tells Zelikow that his decision is very

arbitrary and crazy, adding: Philip, this is ridiculous. We need the interviews. We

need these documents. Why are you trying to limit our investigation? Zelikow says

that he does not want to overwhelm federal agencies with document and interview

requests at an early stage of the investigation, but, according to author Philip

Shenon, after this, Zelikow was done explaining. He was not in the business of

negotiating with staff who worked for him.

More Conflicts - This is the first of several conflicts between Zelikow and Leseman,

who, together with Jacobson, had been on the staff of the 9/11 Congressional

Inquiry and had researched this issue there. Shenon will write: Leseman was that

rare thing on the commission: She was not afraid of Zelikow; she would not be

intimidated by him. In fact, from the moment she arrived at the commissions

offices on K Street, she seemed to almost relish the daily combat with Zelikow, even

if she wondered aloud to her colleagues why there had to be any combat at all.

[Shenon, 2008, pp. 109-111]

Later Fired, Evidence Deleted from Final Report - Zelikow will later fire Lesemanfrom the commission for mishandling classified information (see April 2003 and

(April 2003)) and will have the evidence of the Saudi connection gathered by

Jacobson and Lesemans successor, Raj De, deleted from the main text of the

commissions report (see June 2004).

April 2003: 9/11 Commissions Zelikow Blocks Access to Key

Document by Saudi Connection Investigators

9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow prevents two investigators, MikeJacobson and Dana Leseman, from viewing a key document they need for their

work. Jacobson and Leseman are working on the Saudi Connection section of the

commissions investigation, researching leads that there may have been a link

between two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, and

elements of the government of Saudi Arabia. Zelikow is also involved in another,

related dispute with Leseman at this time (see April 2003).


4/38

28 Pages - The classified document in question is part of the 9/11 Congressional

Inquiry, 28 pages that were redacted in the final report and concerned possible

Saudi government support for two of the 9/11 hijackers (see August 1-3, 2003). The

28 pages were actually written by Jacobson and are obviously relevant to his and

Lesemans work at the 9/11 Commission, but Jacobson cannot remember every

detail of what he wrote.

Stalled - Leseman therefore asks Zelikow to get her a copy, but Zelikow fails to do

so for weeks, instead concluding a deal with the Justice Department that bans even

9/11 commissioners from some access to the Congressional Inquirys files (see

Before April 24, 2003). Leseman confronts Zelikow, demanding: Philip, how are we

supposed to do our work if you wont provide us with basic research material?

Zelikow apparently does not answer, but storms away. [Shenon, 2008, pp. 110-112]

Leseman Later Fired - Leseman later obtains the document through a channel other

than Zelikow, and will be fired for this (see (April 2003)).

(April 2003): Zelikow Fires Saudi Connection Investigator from

9/11 Commission in Dispute over 28 Redacted Pages from

Congressional Inquiry

9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow fires one of the commissions

investigators, Dana Leseman, with whom he has had a number of conflicts (see

April 2003). Leseman and a colleague were researching a possible link between two

of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, and elements of the

government of Saudi Arabia.

Blocked - The firing stems from a dispute over the handling of classified information.

Leseman asked Zelikow to provide her with a document she needed for her work,

28 redacted pages from the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report she had helped

research herself, but Zelikow had failed to do so for some time (see April 2003 and

August 1-3, 2003). Leseman then obtained a copy of the report through a channel

other than Zelikow, which is a breach of the commissions rules on handling

classified information. Some colleagues will later say that this is just a minor

infraction of the rules, as the document is relevant to Lesemans work, she has the

security clearance to see it, and she keeps it in a safe in the commissions offices.

However, she does not actually have authorisation to have the document at thispoint.

'Zero-Tolerance Policy' - Zelikow will later say she violated the commissions zero-

tolerance policy on the handling of classified information, and that she committed

a set of very serious violations in the handling of the most highly classified

information. Zelikow is supported by the commissions lawyer Daniel Marcus, as

they are both worried that a scandal about the mishandling of classified information


5/38

could seriously damage the commissions ability to obtain more classified

information, and will be used as a stick to beat the commission by its opponents.

Fired, Kept Secret - Zelikow is informed that Leseman has the document by a staffer

on one of the commissions other teams who has also had a conflict with Leseman,

and fires her only hours after learning this. Luckily for the commission andLeseman, no word of the firing reaches the investigations critics in Congress.

Author Philip Shenon will comment, The fact that the news did not leak was proof

of how tightly Zelikow was able to control the flow of information on the

commission.

'Do Not Cross Me' - Shenon will add: To Lesemans friends, it seemed that Zelikow

had accomplished all of his goals with her departure. He had gotten rid of the one

staff member who had emerged early on as his nemesis; he had managed to eject

her without attracting the attention of the press corps or the White House. And he

had found a way to send a message to the staff: Do not cross me. [Shenon, 2008,

pp. 110-113] Zelikow will later be investigated for mishandling classified informationhimself, but will apparently be exonerated (see Summer 2004).

Before April 24, 2003: 9/11 Commission Executive Director Zelikow

Cuts off Commissioners Access to Congressional Inquiry Files

9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow strikes a deal with the Justice

Department to cut the 9/11 Commissions access to files compiled by the 9/11

Congressional Inquiry (see July 24, 2003) until the White House is able to review

them. However, he keeps the agreement secret from the commissioners and, whenCommissioner Tim Roemer, who had actually sat on the Congressional Inquiry and

already seen the material, goes to Capitol Hill to read the files on April 24, he is

turned away. Roemer is furious and asks: Why is our executive director making

secret deals with the Justice Department and the White House? He is supposed to

be working for us. [Associated Press, 4/26/2003; Shenon, 2008, pp. 90] He adds,

No entity, individual, or organization should sift through or filter our access to

material. [Associated Press, 4/30/2003] Author Philip Shenon will comment,

Roemer believed, correctly, that it was a sign of much larger struggles to come

with Zelikow. [Shenon, 2008, pp. 90]

August 1-3, 2003: Leaks Hint at Saudi Involvement in 9/11

In the wake of the release of the 9/11 Congressional Inquirys full report,

anonymous officials leak some details from a controversial, completely censored

28-page section that focuses on possible Saudi support for 9/11. According to leaks

given to the New York Times, the section says that Omar al-Bayoumi and/or Osama


6/38

Basnan had at least indirect links with two hijackers [who] were probably Saudi

intelligence agents and may have reported to Saudi government officials. It also

says that Anwar Al Aulaqi was a central figure in a support network that aided the

same two hijackers. Most connections drawn in the report between the men, Saudi

intelligence, and 9/11 is said to be circumstantial. [New York Times, 8/2/2003] One

key section is said to read, On the one hand, it is possible that these kinds ofconnections could suggest, as indicated in a CIA memorandum, incontrovertible

evidence that there is support for these terrorists On the other hand, it is also

possible that further investigation of these allegations could reveal legitimate, and

innocent, explanations for these associations.(see August 2, 2002) Some of the

most sensitive information involves what US agencies are doing currently to

investigate Saudi business figures and organizations. [Associated Press, 8/2/2003]

According to the New Republic, the section outlines connections between the

hijacking plot and the very top levels of the Saudi royal family. An anonymous

official is quoted as saying, Theres a lot more in the 28 pages than money.

Everyones chasing the charities. They should be chasing direct links to high levels

of the Saudi government. Were not talking about rogue elements. Were talking

about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places

in the Saudi government. If the people in the administration trying to link Iraq to

al-Qaeda had one-one-thousandth of the stuff that the 28 pages has linking a

foreign government to al-Qaeda, they would have been in good shape. If the 28

pages were to be made public, I have no question that the entire relationship with

Saudi Arabia would change overnight. [New Republic, 8/1/2003] The section also is

critical that the issue of foreign government support remains unresolved. One

section reads, In their testimony, neither CIA or FBI officials were able to address

definitely the extent of such support for the hijackers, globally or within the United

States, or the extent to which such support, if it exists, is knowing or inadvertent innature. This gap in intelligence community coverage is unacceptable. [Boston

Globe, 8/3/2003]

THE FOLLOWING SNIP SHOWS JUST A QUICK SEARCH RESULT

LISTING OF ZELIKOWS FRAUD!!


7/38

THE FOLLOWING CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SHOWS THE QUASHING

OF AN AMENDMENT TO MAKE PUBLIC THE REDACTED 28 PAGES OF

THE JOINT INTELLIGENCE REPORT ON 911 (THESE PAGES EXISTENCE,

AND EVEN WHERE THEY MIGHT BE LOCATED IN THE FINAL REPORT,

IS IMPOSSSIBLE TO DERTIMINE DUE TO THE DECEPTIVE WAY THE

FINAL REPORT WAS PUBLISHED)IF IN DOUBT SEE THE REPORT AS

EXCERPTED HERE:


8/38

Congressional Record: October 28, 2003 (Senate)

Page S13349-S13372

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMSAPPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Leahy asked that I fill in for him

for the next little bit. We have an amendment to offer. We have no onehere from the majority, but I am very confident there is no problemwith the Senator from North Dakota offering an amendment. I askunanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so theSenator from North Dakota can offer his amendment.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 1994

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.The assistant clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself andMr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 1994.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading ofthe amendment be dispensed with.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S13350]]

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To urge the President to release information regardingsources of foreign support for the 9-11 hijackers)


9/38

At the appropriate place, insert the following:Sec. . Sense of the Senate on declassifying portions of

the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community ActivitiesBefore and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001.(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--(1) The President has prevented the release to the American

public of 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into IntelligenceCommunity Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacksof September 2001.(2) The contents of the redacted pages discuss sources of

foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackerswhile they were in the United States.(3) The Administration's decision to classify this

information prevents the American people from having accessto information about the involvement of certain foreigngovernments in the terrorist attacks of September 2001.(4) The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested that the

President release the 28 pages.

(5) The Senate respects the need to keep informationregarding intelligence sources and methods classified, butthe Senate also recognizes that such purposes can beaccomplished through careful selective redaction of specificwords and passages, rather than effacing the section'scontents entirely.(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate

that in light of these findings the President shoulddeclassify the 28-page section of the Joint Inquiry intoIntelligence Community Activities Before and After the

Terrorist Attacks of September 2001 that deals with foreignsources of support for the 9-11 hijackers, and that onlythose portions of the report that would directly compromiseongoing investigations or reveal intelligence sources andmethods should remain classified.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senateamendment. I note there are other sense-of-the-Senate amendments inthis legislation. I will at the end of my statement ask consent that weconsider waiving points of order.Let me describe what the amendment is and why I have offered the

amendment. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and SenatorSchumer from New York.The Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee inquiry into the

intelligence community activities before and after the terroristattacks of September 2001 finished its work. This past summer, when thereport was finally authorized for release by the administration, wediscovered that the report, which took 9 months to write and 7 monthsto declassify, contained 28 pages that had been redacted by White Houselawyers.I will quote a couple of people, one who is in the Chamber now. I

will quote Senator Shelby and Senator Graham, the chair and ranking


10/38

member of the Intelligence Committee while this inquiry was underway.As I indicated, 28 pages of this report were redacted by White Houselawyers. That means the American public cannot see what was in thatreport. We will have no knowledge and no information about what wascontained in that rather exhaustive report.The Bush administration has refused to declassify these pages, citing

concern for intelligence-gathering "sources and methods." I don'tthink that is an insignificant issue, by the way. I think intelligencegathering and the sources and methods for doing so are important. Butit is also important, it seems to me, to ask the question, Should these28 pages have been redacted? Should the 28 pages have been outside theview of the American people, given the fact that this report was donein order to evaluate what happened leading up to 2001, what washappening with respect to our intelligence community, what washappening with respect to other countries?There has been a great deal of speculation about Saudi Arabia. It is

assumed that somehow in these pages there is discussion about theSaudis. The Saudi Government is implicated by some because 15 of the 19

hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Even the leaders of the SaudiGovernment, who some have said are the object of the redacted pages,want it declassified. They are angry and embarrassed at being singledout and want to defend themselves, and therefore they want thisdeclassified.How much of the 28 pages could be declassified? Senators Graham and

Shelby, the former chair and cochair of the Intelligence Committee whodirected the report are quoted saying the following: "I think they areclassified for the wrong reason," the former vice chairman of theSenate Intelligence Committee told NBC's "Meet the Press." "I wentback and read every one of those pages thoroughly. My judgment is 95percent of that information should be declassified and becomeuncensored so the American people would know." Asked why the sectionwas blacked out, Shelby said: "I think it might be embarrassing tointernational relations."Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who was the chairman of the committee

investigating this, also called for declassification. He said releasingthe report would permit "the Saudi Government to deal with anyquestions which may be raised in the currently censored pages and allowthe American people to make their own judgment about who are our truefriends and allies in the war on terrorism." Senator Graham made thatrequest in a letter to President Bush.This is a very important issue and it has gone on for months and

months and months. This report was developed after an extensive amountof study and investigation. The report was then published after beingedited by the Bush administration and the White House. And a rathersubstantial portion of that report--most speculate dealing with theSaudis--was censored, classified, or redacted. That is, the Americanpeople are not permitted to see that which is included in the report onthose 28 pages.Again, the chairman and vice chairman of the committee that led or

that directed the preparation of this report say most of that


11/38

information of the 28 pages should be declassified, implying, Ibelieve, since they are not quoted directly, that declassifying thatwould not compromise sources and methods and not compromise ourintelligence community.My hope is that the Senate, with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution,

will weigh in on this in a very significant way and say to the

administration these 28 pages should be made available.Now, in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, I point out that it is

the sense of the Senate that in light of the findings--and I have aseries of findings--the President should declassify the 28-page sectionof the joint inquiry into intelligence community activities before andafter the terrorist attacks of 2001 that deal with the foreign sourcesof support for the 9/11 hijackers and that only those portions of thereport that would directly compromise ongoing investigations or revealintelligence sources or methods should remain classified.In point of fact, those whose expert opinions I respect have said

they have read the redacted or the censored or classified portions verycarefully and believe most of it should not have been classified; most

of it should have been made available to the American people. If thatis the case, and if the Saudi Government itself has said thisinformation ought to be declassified, let us deal with it on the publicrecord. Then I believe the American people ought to expect a right tosee this information.My hope is we will have a vote on this amendment, a sense-of-the-

Senate amendment that will allow the Senate in this forum to send amessage to the President and to the White House that we believe thebulk of this 28-page redaction should be made available to the Americanpeople posthaste.I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, the

Senator from North Dakota, for having offered this sense of the Senate.The sense of the Senate has an additional significance as we face somefundamental issues in the closing days of this session.First, I will talk about the base concerns. As the Senator from North

Dakota said, the principal purpose of the joint inquiry was todetermine what had been the role of the intelligence community in theevents leading up to September 11. In many instances in the course ofthat pursuit, the committee staff came to unearth FBI reports, CIAreports, and other intelligence community reports. We were not in aposition, either in terms of our staff capabilities or our

jurisdiction, to then go behind those reports to attempt to validatethem. These were reports written by

[[Page S13351]]

agents of these appropriate intelligence agencies, but we could not,from primary sources, validate them. The FBI, primarily--and some otherintelligence agencies, as well--were tasked to do exactly that, to findout if their own documents in many cases could be substantiated.


12/38

Those requests were made approximately a year ago. Still, today, manyof those requests have not been answered. The administration has said,either directly or in some cases through intermediaries, that ourreport is deficient in that there is not second- and third-partyconfirmation of the statements we include. We included exactly what theFBI or CIA or other agencies had written. We asked the appropriate

agencies, primarily FBI, to pursue these to determine if they weresubstantiated, and in many instances that has not occurred.There is also an issue not of micro but of macro importance: This

report makes a very compelling case, based on the information submittedby the agencies themselves, that there was a foreign government whichwas complicitous in the actions leading up to September 11, at least asit relates to some of the terrorists who were present in one part ofthe United States.There are two big questions yet to be answered. Why would this

government have provided the level of assistance--financial,logistical, housing, support service--to some of the terrorists and notto all of the terrorists? We asked that question. There has been no

response.My own hypothesis--and I will describe it as that--is that in fact

similar assistance was being provided to all or at least most of theterrorists. The difference is that we happened, because of a set ofcircumstances which are contained in these 28 censored pages, to havean unusual window on a few of the terrorists. We did not have a similarwindow on others. Therefore, it will take more effort to determine ifthey were, in fact, receiving that assistance. That effort has, in my

judgment, been grossly insufficiently pursued.An even more serious question is what would lead us to believe that

if there was this infrastructure of a foreign government supportingsome of the 19 terrorists, that as soon as September 11 concluded, assoon as the last flames were put out at the Pentagon, the World TradeCenter and on the field in Pennsylvania, all that infrastructure wasimmediately taken down? Again, this is my hypothesis: I don't believeit was taken down. I believe that infrastructure is likely to still bein place assisting the next generation of terrorists who are in theUnited States.Those are very fundamental questions, and if the public had access to

these 28 pages, they would be demanding answers.As I mentioned in the beginning of my remarks, there is another issue

which is going to emerge in the next few days. We had a long debate inthis Chamber on the supplemental appropriations bill, the billproviding $87 billion for the reconstruction and occupation of Iraq. Wehad a long debate as to whether some of that reconstruction moneyshould be in the form of loans rather than, as the President hasinsisted, all of it being in grants.What is one of the practical effects of making all of the U.S. money

which will go into the reconstruction of Iraq a grant? The answer tothat question is that one of the consequences, ironically, will be thatwe will make all of the countries which currently have loans to Iraqthat much more solvent because we will have, without any request for


13/38

repayment, made a significant investment in enhancing the economicviability of Iraq and, therefore, the ability of whatever government isplaced in ultimate control of Iraq more capable of repaying thoseloans.There is a further irony that some of those countries, which are

disclosed in the 28 censored pages as having been complicitous with the

terrorists, are among the list of those creditors of Iraq that aregoing to get this indirect economic benefit. I believe the Members ofCongress, who are going to be called upon to vote on whether we shouldgrant this indirect benefit to a country that has been less thansupportive of our Nation's war on terror, ought to know that before wevote and then find out later the full consequences of what we havedone.So there was an issue as to why these 28 pages should have been

released when the report was initially completed in December of 2002.Those issues remain today. And there is the additional issue of whetherwe are going to inadvertently grant a significant financial benefit toa country that has been to say less than our ally in the war on terror

would be a gross understatement.I commend the Senator from North Dakota for having offered this sense

of the Senate. It is a very important issue. I hope this Senate willadopt the sense of the Senate. If not, if the President continues torefuse to allow the American people to have access to this information,then I hope the Congress will be willing to use some of the authoritiesthat it has to declassify information. Because the higher interest isnot in placating this administration's unwillingness to be forthcomingon the issue. The higher interest in this democracy is that the peoplehave access to relevant information which is not an issue of nationalsecurity but which is a significant issue in terms of understanding theconsequences of decisions that we have and will soon be making.I urge adoption of the sense of the Senate and again express my

admiration to the Senator from North Dakota for having presented itthis afternoon.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a few additional comments. My

colleague from Florida is in a very unique position. Having worked withhis colleague from Alabama, Senator Graham and Senator Shelby provideda great public service as they initiated this inquiry.The inquiry, as described by my colleague in part, is an evaluation

of whether there were other governments that participated in supportinggroups of terrorists who committed acts of terror against this country.

The answer to that question is very important. My colleague indicatesthat if such a program were in place or had been in place by anothergovernment to support groups of terrorists, what leads us to believethat parts of that program are not continuing to still operate and,therefore, continue to threaten our country?The very important question with this sense-of-the-Senate resolution

is: Should we not have the ability to know, should full disclosure notbe the routine rather than the exception? Should the 28 pages that havebeen withheld from the American people be made available to them so we


14/38

all are able to evaluate exactly the same set of information?My conclusion is, yes, absolutely. It ought to be done sooner rather

than later.I have been intending to offer two amendments to this appropriations

bill. One dealt with this sense of the Senate which I have justoffered. The second dealt with a sense of the Senate with respect to

the cooperation that is now being received or lack of cooperation bythe 9/11 Commission, the other commission that is headed by formerGovernor Kean that is looking into 9/11 and the relationship of aseries of issues, both prior to 9/11 and following, by our intelligencecommunity and others.One of my great concerns is reading in the newspapers just in recent

days about the 9/11 Commission. This is a blue-ribbon commission. Oneof our former colleagues, Senator Cleland, is on the Commission. It isa commission that has to finish its work by May of next year. It has arelatively short timeframe. Now we hear that they have had to issue asubpoena to one of the Federal agencies to get them to cooperate givinginformation to them. There were other stories yesterday and the day

before. They are concerned about not getting information from the WhiteHouse.We are not going to be satisfied until we have everything we need to

do our job. Governor Kean says--he is a former Republican Governor fromNew Jersey--this is not about politics. It is about a blue-ribboncommission having access to all of the information so it can do its

job.I find it unbelievable that any agency or crevice or any corner of

this Government would not open its records and provide full andimmediate cooperation with the 9/11 Commission. That is the least weshould expect of every single

[[Page S13352]]

agency. They have had to subpoena information from the FAA and yet theyare not getting information from the White House that they arerequesting. Kean said in an interview that he will resume negotiationswith the White House this week and hopes to reach a resolution one wayor the other on documents the panel is seeking. The Commission has thepower to issue subpoenas and Kean says he does not rule out sending oneto the White House.Why should we read this in the papers? I don't understand it. There

ought not be any agency, including the White House, that does not fullycooperate in every respect immediately with the request for informationfrom this 9/11 Commission.We have had two studies, one initiated by the Senate Intelligence

Committee. That is the one that was the focus of my first amendment.The second was to have been the focus of the second amendment. Bothwere sense of the Senate--first, to declassify the information so thatthe American people will be able to see what was there. Don't censorthis material; give the American people information. The second is tosay to all Federal agencies, cooperate with the 9/11 Commission fully,


15/38

completely, and immediately.Now, my understanding is, having consulted with the majority, they

will raise a point of order against the amendment I have offered justmoments ago because it is "legislating on an appropriations bill." Mysecond amendment would be the same. They would make a point of orderagainst them, and the point of order would stand, I expect. So when

such a point of order is made, I will regret it. I understand those arethe rules of the Senate. But on the very next piece of legislation thatcomes to the floor--and I believe one is coming later this week that isan amendable vehicle and is a nonappropriations bill--we will vote onboth of these sense-of-the-Senate amendments.I might also say that while a point of order will be raised on these,

there are sense-of-the-Senate provisions, I believe, in the underlyingbill, or sense-of-the-Senate provisions to be added to it. I will notraise similar points of order. My hope is that all Senators will joinme in understanding that this is not partisan or political, it is aboutthis country's interests--our interests in preventing future acts ofterrorism, our interests in finding out what happened, what went wrong,

and how we can improve the intelligence-gathering system in thiscountry. Who did what? Were foreign governments involved? If so, whichones and to what extent? These questions need to be answered. Both ofmy resolutions are designed to do one thing--provide more informationto the American people, No. 1; No. 2, to ask every corner of ourGovernment in every official working of this Government to decide thatthey will completely, cooperatively, and immediately work with the 9/11Commission to provide the requested information.We ought not to have to come to the Senate floor to ask why the White

House, the FAA, or this or that agency has not already fully cooperatedwith the 9/11 Commission. It is in this country's interest to see thathappen.Mr. President, I ask for consideration of my amendment.Mr. McCONNELL. Was consent requested, Mr. President? I am sorry, I

didn't hear.Mr. DORGAN. I asked for consideration of my amendment. I ask

unanimous consent that we waive points of order and have my amendmentbe considered.Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I object.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in accordance with the precedent of May

17, 2000, I raise a point of order that the amendment is not germane.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment

falls.Mr. McCONNELL. Thank you, Mr. President.


16/38

The following are excerpts from pages 388-389 of Philip Shenon's latest

book, "The Commission":

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17904

After he was approached by Kean and Hamilton in January 2003 about running the

investigation, Zelikow immediately telephoned May to discuss whether he should

take the job. May was at home in Cambridge, Massachussetts, not far from his office

on the Harvard campus, and he remembered that the call lasted more than an hour,

with two men agreeing that it was an extraordinary opportunity to try to produce a

"professional-quality narrative history" of a watershed moment in American history,

"on par at least with Pearl Harbor."

After Pearl Harbor, both men knew, there had been no similar effort to explain the

disaster to the public. There was an effort at accountability in the Pearl Harbor

investigations--the navy's fleet commander in the Pacific and his army counterpartwere both relieved of their commands in disgrace--but there had been no effort to

put the 1941 attacks in historical context and explain the forces that had led the

Japanese to launch a surprise attack and why the military had left itself so

vulnerable. As a historian, it was exciting, May remembered, to think of producing a

report that would remain the reference volume on the September 11 attacks and

that would be "sitting on the shelves of high school and college teachers a

generation hence."

Zelikow initially wanted May's advice on how the final report should be structured,and they went to work, secretly, to prepare an outline. May was given a desk in

Zelikow's office on K Street in Washington, which he used on his occasional visits

from Harvard. By March 2003, with the commission's staff barely in place the two

men had already prepared a detailed outline, complete with "chapter headings,

subheadings, and sub-subheadings."

He and May proposed a sixteen-chapter report that would open with a history of al-

Qaeda, beginning with bin Laden's fatwa against the United States in 1998. That

would lead to chapters about the history of American counterterrorism policy. TheWhite House response to the flood of terrorist threats in the spring and summer of

2001 were left to the sixth chapter; the events of September 11 were left to the

seventh chapters. Zelikow and May proposed that the tenth chapter he entitled

"Problems of Foresight--And Hindsight," with a subchapter on "the blinding effects

of hindsight."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17904http://www.911blogger.com/node/17904


17/38

Zelikow shared the document with Kean and Hamilton, who were impressed by their

executive director's early diligence but worried that the outline would be seen as

evidence that they--and Zelikow--had predetermined the report's outcome. It should

be kept secret from the rest of the staff, they all decided. May said that he and

Zelikow agreed that the outline should be "treated as if it were the most classified

document the commission possessed" Zelikow came up with his own internalclassification system for the outline. He labeled it "Commission Sensitive," putting

those words at the top and bottom of each page.

Kean and Hamilton were right to be wary. When it was later disclosed that Zelikow

had prepared a detailed outline of the commission's final report at the very start of

the investigation, many of the staff's investigators were alarmed. They were finally

given copies of the outline in April 2004. They saw that Zelikow was proposing that

the findings about the Bush Administration's actions before 9/11 would be pushed

to the middle of the report, which meant that readers would have to go searchingfor them past long chapters of al-Qaeda history. Many assumed the worst when

they saw that Zelikow had proposed a portion of the report entitled "The Blinding

Effects of Hindsight." What "blinding hindsight"? They assumed Zelikow was trying

to dismiss the value of hindsight regarding the Bush administration's pre-9/11

performance. A few staffers began circulating a two-page parody of Zelikow's effort

entitled "The Warren Commission Report--Preemptive Outline." The parody's

authorship was never determined conclusively. The chapter headings included

"Single Bullet: We Haven't Seen The Evidence Yet. But Really. We're Sure."


18/38

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES ON ZELIKOW

Report on a Conversation with Philip Zelikowby Thomas Hansen, Ph.D.

Tuesday, Jun 7, 2005Link to Original

It is nearly a year since the 9/11 Commission report was finished and the investigation of

the events of 9/11 officially came to a close. But unofficially, many Americans have

unanswered questions, and at least some of this hesitancy to close the book on 9/11 isbecause of the long-standing connection between the Bush Administration and the man who

was the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Dr. Philip Zelikow.

In a new book by Professor Emeritus David Ray Griffin of the Claremont School of Theology(The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, 2005), the

case is made that the staff of the 9/11 Commission acted as gatekeepers who followed theofficial explanation of events of 9/11, rather than acting as true independent investigators.

Griffin gives detailed and abundant evidence that he feels shows Philip Zelikow and his staffdid not thoroughly investigate information that was contrary to what the Bush

Administration had already accepted as the facts of 9/11.

Last fall I had a conversation with Zelikow, which I feel supports the ideas and evidence of

Professor Griffins book. But before I go into what Dr. Zelikow told me in person, let us lookat the facts of Zelikows association with members of the Bush Administration over the past15 years. The reason I present this bio of Dr. Zelikow is that, while we expect any person

might receive a job offer based on whom they have worked with and have known in thepast, this was not an ordinary job. This job was to oversee the official investigation of a

most serious and consequential crime, and it occurred under the watch of President BushsAdministration. Dr. Philip Zelikow, despite his fine record of integrity and scholarship, was

clearly not independent from the Bush Administration. And since Bush, Cheney and Ricewere three of the witnesses who testified before the Commission, their relationship with

Zelikow is relevant.

Dr. Zelikow was on the National Security Council of President George H.W. Bush in the

1980s, working as an aide to National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. Condoleeza Rice

was also an aide, working with Zelikow. In 1997, Zelikow and Rice co-authored a book. Alsoin the 1990s, Zelikow directed the Aspen Strategy Group, which included Rice, Scowcroft,

Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and others. Then after President George W. Bush was electedin 2000, Zelikow was appointed to the National Security Council transition team to provide

recommendations to Rice as she accepted the position of National Security Advisor to Bush.Shortly after 9/11, Zelikow was appointed to President Bushs Foreign Intelligence Advisory

Board. In 2003, he was appointed Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, and took aleave from his position as Director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of

Virginia.
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-06-07-outrageous.phphttp://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-06-07-outrageous.php


19/38

After the 9/11 Commission Report was finished in July 2004, and the Commission was

dissolved, Zelikow returned to his previous Miller Center position for a few months. Recentlyhe left the Miller Center job completely and became Counselor of the Department of State,

as announced by new Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on February 25, 2005. To quoteRice in the U.S. State Department press release of that day, Philip and I have worked

together for years, and I value his counsel and expertise. I appreciate his willingness to takeon this assignment. To quote the State Department press release, Though the position has

been vacant since 2001, the office of the Counselor is not new, having been part of theDepartments organization since 1909. The Counselor is a principal officer of the

Department. As Counselor, Dr. Zelikow will serve as a senior policy advisor on a wide rangeof issues and will undertake special assignments as directed by the Secretary.

So we see from these facts that Philip Zelikows work with members of the Bush

Administration preceded his 9/11 Commission work for 15 years, and it has now resumedagain, fulltime. Apparently, we are supposed to assume that during 2003-2004, when he

was Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, he was NOT associated with members of

the Bush Administration as he had been before, and is again now. He was somehow able todistance himself from his past relationship with them, oversee the interviews of many

witnesses, thoroughly investigate all of the evidence, and supervise the writing of the final9/11 Commission Report without being influenced by his past association with them. Andnow he has been able to re-associate with them in good stead and be re-hired by the Bush

Administration fulltime in an important position.

Dr. Zelikow gave a lecture at the Miller Center at UVA on September 10, 2004, titled, TheRoad to 9/11, and another on October 14, titled, The Road From 9/11. I attended the

second of the two lectures and had an opportunity afterwards to have a conversation withhim for several minutes. Among other things, I asked him why the Commission did not

report more evidence that would answer the specific conspiracy concerns and questions thathave been circulating regarding 9/11. I asked him why the Commission would let these

concerns go unanswered and cause unnecessary doubt and dissent in the country.

I pointed out to Dr. Zelikow that one of many reasons this conspiracy talk about 9/11continues is that there have been no photos released of the Boeing 757 wreckage inside the

Pentagon, or outside either, as we normally see after a civilian plane crash. I asked if he hasseen photos that show the wreckage of the 757. He said, yes, they have photos, and that

he has seen them, and he also said that there are eyewitness reports from a dozen or sorescue workers at the Pentagon who confirm seeing those airplane parts in the wreckage.

Well, I asked, can I or some other ordinary person see these photos? He said no. I asked if Icould see the rescue workers statements, and he said no. I told him I had seen photos of

the exterior Pentagon wall before it collapsed, and the hole where the plane enteredappeared to be only about 20 feet in diameter, with unbroken window frames on either side

of it where the wings and engines would have hit. This hole was much too small for a 757 to

enter, and no wreckage of the plane is shown on the ground outside. He said those photos

might have been adjusted in scale by someone to give the wrong impression. I asked if Ior anyone else could see the National Transportation Safety Board report about the crash,

or even about the 757 being picked up by radar as it approached Washington, and he saidno. He said that the air traffic controllers at Dulles saw on their radar that a plane was

approaching, without its transponder turned on, but they could not identify it just by radar.It was not one scheduled to come into Dulles, so they assumed it was landing at Reagan

National, and when it dropped off their radar at the Pentagon they knew something waswrong. This was 35 minutes after the second World Trade Center Tower had been hit. I told

him this explanation defied reason, but he said it is proven in the NTSB Report, which I


20/38

cant see.

I told Dr. Zelikow that this secrecy of the 9/11 Commission is still fueling conspiracytheories and distrust throughout the country and around the world. Then I asked him why

he and the Commission and the staff dont simply release photos and other information tothe public so that we can rest assured that the Commission has fully investigated and

answered these and other persistent questions. His answer was that the staff, includinghimself of course as Executive Director, made a conscious decision not to dignify these

outrageous conspiracy theories by investigating them or reporting on them. In myopinion, this statement by Dr. Zelikow lends credence to Professor Griffins charge that

Zelikows staff acted as a filter of what would be investigated and reported. Dr. Zelikow thentold me he could see my point about the public wanting to know more, and he said he would

go back to the Commission staff and re-visit the question of what to release. Were stillwaiting.

Americans are concerned about the unanswered questions of 9/11. The reputable polling

firm, Zogby International, conducted a poll of State of New York citizens in August 2004.

Results showed that 49.3% of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overallsaid that some of our leaders Knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around

September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act. Nearly 30% of registeredRepublicans agreed with this statement, despite the serious legal and political implications.Only 36% of the total respondents believed that the 9/11 Commission had answered all the

important questions about what actually happened on September 11th, and 66% wantanother full investigation of the still unanswered questions.

CSPAN2 recently broadcast, and rebroadcast, the speech Professor Griffin gave about his

book to a standing-room-only crowd at the University of Wisconsin. People are payingattention and learning and speaking up. As the 9/11 Commission Report approaches its 1-

year anniversary, many Americans are not celebrating, nor are they letting it all just fadeaway. We pay the salaries of those who have made conscious decisions to investigate and

report only what fits their own version of 9/11 events, and their own vision of what the

world should be like for them. It seems that we the people are considered by someofficials to be just bystanders, without the right to see the evidence that our leaders haveseen, and to decide for ourselves what is true. The Bush Administration has demonstrated a

pervasive pattern of secrecy, deception, and arrogance, not just related to the 9/11investigation. They have left the rest of us in the dark, but we can see well enough to fear

that the Emperor has no clothes.

The truth about Zelikow and the Sept. 11 cover-upcommission

by Carol BrouilletStanford DailyWednesday, Oct 20, 2004Link to Original

Philip Zelikow will speak at Kresge Auditorium, today, from 4:15 to 5:30 p.m. We plan to

protest the Sept. 11 cover-up and to raise questions about his role as executive director ofthe 9-11 Commission and the Commissions report.
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=14947&repository=0001_articlehttp://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=14947&repository=0001_article


21/38


22/38

Terrorism allows states to declare emergencies, label all opposition as terrorists and reduce

civil rights.

Carol Brouillet is an organizer for the International Inquiry into 9-11, a group that isresponsible for exposing information about Sept. 11.

WATERSHED

Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New DangerAshton B. Carter,John Deutch, andPhilip Zelikow

FromForeign Affairs,November/December 1998

Article preview: first 500 of 4,428 words total.

Summary: The specter of weapons of mass destruction being used against America looms largertoday than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis. The World Trade Center bombing scarcely hintsat 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 canhandle the threats of the next century.

Ashton Carter is Ford Foundation Professor of Science and International Affairs at HarvardUniversity's John F. Kennedy School of Government and a formerAssistant Secretary of Defense. John Deutch is Institute Professorof Chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and aformer Director of Central Intelligence and Deputy Secretary ofDefense. Philip Zelikow, a former member of the National SecurityCouncil staff, is White Burkett Miller Professor of History andDirector of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University ofVirginia.

IMAGINING THE TRANSFORMING EVENT

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. But today's terrorists, be they international cults like AumShinrikyo or individual nihilists like the Unabomber, act on a greater variety of motives than ever

Topi

cs:

Arm

s

Cont

rol,

Nuclear

Wea

pon

s

and

Disa

rma

men

t

Terr

oris

m

Nati

onal

Sec

urity

and

Defe

nse

U.S.

Poli

cy

and

Polit

ics

How

to

Cou

nter

WM

D

By

Asht

on

B.

Cart

er

For

eign

Affai

rs,Sept

emb

er/O

ctob

er

200

4

The

New

Thre

at of

Mas

s

Dest

ructi

on

By

Rich

ard

K.

Bett

sFor

eign

Affai

rs,

Jan

uary

/

Febr

uary

199

8
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/author/ashton-b-carter/index.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/author/ashton-b-carter/index.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/author/john-deutch/index.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/author/john-deutch/index.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/author/philip-zelikow/index.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/author/philip-zelikow/index.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/1998/6.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/1998/6.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/gs/arms-control-nuclear-weapons-and-disarmament.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/gs/arms-control-nuclear-weapons-and-disarmament.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/gs/arms-control-nuclear-weapons-and-disarmament.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/gs/arms-control-nuclear-weapons-and-disarmament.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/gs/arms-control-nuclear-weapons-and-disarmament.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/gs/arms-control-nuclear-weapons-and-disarmament.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19981101faessay1434/ashton-b-carter-john-deutch-philip-zelikow/catastrophic-terrorism-tackling-the-new-danger.html?mode=share&articletitle=Catastrophic+Terrorism:+Tackling+the+New+Dangerhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19981101faessay1434/ashton-b-carter-john-deutch-philip-zelikow/catastrophic-terrorism-tackling-the-new-danger.html?mode=printhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/olsa/cart/addtocart?u=/19981101faessay1434/ashton-b-carter-john-deutch-philip-zelikow/catastrophic-terrorism-tackling-the-new-danger.html&aid=77609&ban=article-pdf-iconhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/author/ashton-b-carter/index.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/author/john-deutch/index.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/author/philip-zelikow/index.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/1998/6.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/gs/arms-control-nuclear-weapons-and-disarmament.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/gs/arms-control-nuclear-weapons-and-disarmament.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/19980101faessay1356/richard-k-betts/the-new-threat-of-mass-destruction.html


23/38

before. More ominously, terrorists may gain access to weapons of mass destruction, includingnuclear 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 andinformation. 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 nextmonth. 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 preparedfor the new threat of catastrophic terrorism.

American military superiority on the conventional battlefield pushes its adversaries towardunconventional alternatives. The United States has already destroyed one facility in Sudan in itsattempt to target chemical weapons. Russia, storehouse of tens of thousands of weapons andmaterial to make tens of thousands more, may be descending into turmoil. Meanwhile, thecombination of new technology and lethal force has made biological weapons at least as deadly aschemical and nuclear alternatives. Technology is more accessible, and society is more vulnerable.Elaborate international networks have developed among organized criminals, drug traffickers, armsdealers, 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 1993under 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 ofcatastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event inAmerican history. It could involve loss of life and propertyunprecedented in peacetime and undermine America'sfundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bombtest in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our pastand future into a before and after. The United States mightrespond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties,

allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects,and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, eitherfurther terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americanswould judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.

The danger of weapons of mass destruction being used against America and its allies is greater nowthan at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. It is a national security problem that deservesthe kind of attention the Defense Department devotes to threats of military nuclear attack or regionalaggression. The first obstacle to imagination is resignation. The prospects may seem so dreadful thatsome officials despair of doing anything useful. Some are fatalistic, as if contemplating the possibilityof a supernova. Many thinkers reacted the same ...

End of preview: first 500 of 4,428 words total.

The Zelikow Plan


24/38

"The Bush administration is deliberating whether to abandon U.S. reconciliation efforts withSunni insurgents and instead give priority to Shiites and Kurds, who won elections and nowdominate the government, according to U.S. officials." Wright

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The WAPO correctly "paired" these two articles on its website. They are examples of the closelyintegrated fabric of goofiness that characterizes the administration's policy in the Middle East.

The Zellikow notion of "sponsoring" Shia and Kurdish subjugation of the Sunni Arabs isbreathtaking. It is so grotesque that it is virtually certain to be the policy choice of the moment.Is this the Bush/Maliki deal? The idea seems to be that we would concentrate on arming thealready mostly Shia army and police while participating with them in an attempt to completelysubjugate the Sunni Arabs.

1- This proves that the neocons are still in charge of this administration's policy. An effort tohand Iraq over to the Shia lay at the heart of neocon ambitions in Iraq. Evidently, it still does.

2- Does the Zellikow plan take into account what the reaction of the Sunni countries will be to an

American/Shia alliance against their co-religionists? Obeid, the Saudi government adviser,warned last week in the WAPO that if the United States abandoned Iraq's Sunnis, then the Sunnicountries would feel it necessary to increase assistance to the Sunni Arabs of Iraq (readinsurgents). Gasoline on the fire, that is what the Zellikow plan amount to.

Answer me this: Why is it that Shia "opposition" in Lebanon is a bad thing but the Shiagovernment in Iraq is a good thing. Why is that? pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001710.html

"The official purpose of the third annual session of the U.S.-backed Forum for the Future was topromote democracy around the world. But there were no plans for a joint statement on universalfreedoms, since efforts to compose such a missive at last year's forum meeting dissolved into

bickering." Kessler-------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's see how this was supposed to "go down." First we get the governments to the meeting, thenwe get them to sign some sort of "universal" declaration on human rights, then in a year or so wedeclare them to be in "violation" of their own undertakings about "democracy," and thereforerightly subject to sanctions or worse as "law breakers" of some sort.

Does this sound familiar? pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120100384.html

"The Creation and Maintenance of Public Myths" (Who isPhilip Zelikow?)He was. of course, co-author of a book with 'Condi' Rice; and, five years later,

(despite the vehement protests of the bereaved families) executive director of the

9-11 Commission.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001710.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120100384.htmlhttp://www.amazon.com/Germany-Unified-Europe-Transformed-Statecraft/dp/0674353250http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-1325http://www.harpers.org/WhitewashAsPublicService.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001710.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120100384.htmlhttp://www.amazon.com/Germany-Unified-Europe-Transformed-Statecraft/dp/0674353250http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-1325http://www.harpers.org/WhitewashAsPublicService.html


25/38

But there's more to him than that. Another of his literary collaborators was a former

CIA chief, and their article, published in 1998, was just as remarkably prescient as

the PNAC team's premonition of a New Pearl Harbor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- From an article by Mike Whitney, in the Online Journal, Oct 25, 2006:

"Stealing the midterm elections and the power of myth"

[...] In researching the Bush administrations manipulation of public perceptions, I came across

an interesting summary of the State Departments Philip Zelikow, who was executive director of

the 9-11 Commission, that greatest of all charades.

According to Wikipedia:

Prof. Zelikows area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in

his words, public myths or public presumptions which he defines as beliefs (1)

thought to be true (although not necessarily known with certainty) and (2) shared

in common within the relevant political community. In his academic work and

elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called searing or

molding events (that) take on 'transcendent importance and therefore retain

their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. . . . He has

noted that a historys narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to

the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make the connection to

their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all.

(Thinking about Political History, Miller Center Report, Winter 1999, pp. 5-7)

Isnt that the same as saying there is neither history nor truth; that what is really important is

the manipulation of epochal events so they serve the interests of societys managers? Thus, it

follows that if the government can create their own galvanizing events, then they can write

history any way they choose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Centuryhttp://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1352.shtmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Centuryhttp://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1352.shtml


26/38

If thats the case, then perhaps the entire war on terror is cut from whole cloth; a garish public

relations maneuver devoid of meaning.

Wikipedia helps to clarify this point by adding:

In the Nov-Dec 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs he (Zelikow) co-authored with the

former head of the CIA) an article entitled 'Catastrophic Terrorism' in which he

speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, 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

Americas fundamental sense of security, as did the

Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the 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.

(Philip Zelikow, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

That was written in 1998!

Amazing. It is almost like Zelikow knew what was going to happen on 9-11 and was drawing

attention to the draconian measures (scaling back civil liberties) which may seem attractive to

ruling elites in the policy establishment.

Now, (coincidentally) everything has evolved almost exactly as Zelikow predicted. Just like Pearl

Harbor, 9-11 has divided our past and future into a before and after. The post-9-11 world

relates to a world in which personal liberty is no longer protected, and where surveillance,

detention and the use of deadly force are all permitted. It is a world in which Americas

fundamental sense of security has been shattered and will continue to be shattered as a way of

managing public opinion.

As Zelikow presciently implies, the post 9-11 world depends entirely on public myths; fairy

tales invented by societys supervisors which perpetuate the illusion of democracy, freedom and

the rule of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow


27/38

So, how does this apply to Karl Rove?

There are only two weapons in the imperial tool chest; force and deception. I expect that the

anticipated Democratic landslide will be preempted by massive voter fraud accompanied by

some type of searing event; that way the fantastical outcome of a GOP victory can be neatly

folded into a larger and all-pervasive "myth."

As we have been reminded many times: Reality no longer matters; only the perception

of reality. The power of myth reigns supreme.

-Full article here.

POSTED BY QLIPOTH AT 2:59 PM 13 COMMENTS

Sunday, October 29, 2006

For Lenin's Tomb and Alexander CockburnA 16-minute extract from a film.

They know why.


"We [the CIA] threatened grievous injury to his children"From the former news-magazineDer Spiegel(affectionately known as "the house journal of the

CIA in Germany") comes the following pseudo-critical interview, in which we learn that:

- "The President likes to talk to operators" [i.e. torturers].

- There is such a thing as "hot waterboarding".

- When the CIA's secret prisoners refuse to talk even under torture, then "the operators"

threaten to torture the prisoners' kidnapped children.

- The CIA has considered using misinformation. (Don't laugh.)
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1352.shtmlhttp://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006/10/creation-and-maintenance-of-public.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18174466&postID=116224965752462644http://digg.com/politics/Bush_s_Odd_Behaviorhttp://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006/10/for-lenins-tomb-and-alexander-cockburn.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18174466&postID=116217304198431727http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1352.shtmlhttp://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006/10/creation-and-maintenance-of-public.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18174466&postID=116224965752462644http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=18174466&postID=116224965752462644http://digg.com/politics/Bush_s_Odd_Behaviorhttp://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006/10/for-lenins-tomb-and-alexander-cockburn.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18174466&postID=116217304198431727http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=18174466&postID=116217304198431727


28/38

- All of this torture has brought as good as no information at all from Ramzi Binalshibh and

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

- These two men are alleged to have been the two head honchoes in the September 11th attacks,

yet they will never be brought to trial.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The President Knows more than He Lets on"

One hundred suspected terrorists from all over the world are still being held in secret

American prisons. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, CIA expert [sic] Ron Suskind

accuses Washington of "running like a headless chicken" in its war against al-Qaida. He

reserves special criticism for the CIA's torture methods, which he argues are unproductive

[sic].

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Suskind, the Red Cross recently visited all of the prisoners at

Guantanamo who had been transferred from secret CIA prisons, including Khalid Shaikh

Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. Do we know more about these CIA prisons, or "Black Sites"

as a result of this visit?

Suskind: We know that almost everything from the tool kit was tried: extraordinary

techniques that included hot and cold water-boarding and threats of various kinds. We tried

virtually everything with Binalshibh. But he was resistant, and my understanding of that

interrogation is that we got very, very little from it. At one point, there was some

thinking that we should put out misinformation that Binalshihb had been cooperative, he had

received money and he was living in luxury. So that would mean that his friends and family, who

obviously are known to al-Qaida, might face retribuition, and we ended up not doing that.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: And what happened to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed?

Suskind: He was really the prize. He is the 9/11 operational planner [ in the same way that

SpongeBob is the Pope - Q.], a kind of general in the al-Qaida firmament. He was water-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,445117,00.htmlhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,445117,00.html


29/38

boarded, hot and cold, all matter of deprivations, beatings, threats. He told us some things,

but frankly things that professional interrogators say could have been gotten

otherwise.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: With waterboarding, the prisoner is made to feel as though he is drowing,

even if he isn't really at risk of dying. There are reports that Mohammed was a kind of unoffical

record-holder when it came to waterboarding.

Suskind: With extraordinary minutes passing he earned a sort of grudging respect from

interrogators. The thing they did with Mohammed is that we had captured his

children, a boy and a girl, age 7 and 9. And at the darkest moment we threatened

grievous injury to his children if he did not cooperate. His response was quite clear:

"That's fine. You can do what you want to my children, and they will find a better place with

Allah." ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The interview continues atthis bloody site. Caveat lector.


Saturday, October 28, 2006"I didn't go to school until I was 12 or so."I didn't go to school until I was 12 or so. My parents thought that traveling in a house trailer was

as enlightening as sitting in a classroom, so I escaped being taught some of the typical lessons of

my generation: for instance, that this country was "discovered" when the first white man set foot

on it, that boys and girls were practically different species, that Europe deserved more textbook

space than Africa and Asia combined.

Instead, I grew up seeing with my own eyes, following my curiosity, falling in love with books,

and growing up mostly around grown-ups -- which, except for the books, was the way kids were

raised for most of human history.Needless to say, school hit me like a ton of bricks. I wasn't

prepared for gender obsessions, race and class complexities, or the new-to-me idea that war and

male leadership were part of human nature. Soon, I gave in and became an adolescent hoping
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,445117,00.htmlhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,445117,00.htmlhttp://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006/10/we-cia-threatened-grievous-injury-to.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18174466&postID=116215809979429426http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,445117,00.htmlhttp://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006/10/we-cia-threatened-grievous-injury-to.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18174466&postID=116215809979429426http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=18174466&postID=116215809979429426


30/38

for approval and trying to conform. It was a stage that lasted through college.

I owe the beginnings of re-birth to living in India for a couple of years where I fell in with a

group of Gandhians, and then I came to the Kennedys, the civil rights movement and protests

against the war in Vietnam.

But most women, me included, stayed in our traditional places until we began to gather, listen to

each other's stories and learn from shared experience. Soon, a national and international

feminist movement was challenging the idea that what happened to men was political, but what

happened to women was cultural -- that the first could be changed but the second could not.

I had the feeling of coming home, of awakening from an inauthentic life. It wasn't as if I thought

my self-authority was more important than external authority, but it wasn't less important

either. We are both communal and uniquely ourselves, not either-or.

Since then, I've spent decades listening to kids before and after social roles hit. Faced with some

inequality, the younger ones say, "It's not fair!" It's as if there were some primordial expectation

of empathy and cooperation that helps the species survive. But by the time kids are teenagers,

social pressures have either nourished or starved this expectation. I suspect that their natural

cry for fairness -- or any whisper of it that survives -- is the root from which social justice

movements grow.

So I no longer believe the conservative message that children are naturally selfish and

destructive creatures who need civilizing by hierarchies or painful controls. On the contrary, I

believe that hierarchy and painful controls create destructive people. And I no longer believe the

liberal message that children are blank slates on which society can write anything. On the

contrary, I believe that a unique core self is born into every human being -- the result of

millennia of environment and heredity combined in an unpredictable way that could never

happen before or again.

- From here, viaDougald Hine.

POSTED BY QLIPOTH AT 9:27 AM 0 COMMENTS
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4805246http://duke-aldhein.livejournal.com/35013.html?nc=3http://duke-aldhein.livejournal.com/35013.html?nc=3http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006/10/i-didnt-go-to-school-until-i-was-12-or.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18174466&postID=116205310419654643http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4805246http://duke-aldhein.livejournal.com/35013.html?nc=3http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2006/10/i-didnt-go-to-school-until-i-was-12-or.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18174466&postID=116205310419654643http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=18174466&postID=116205310419654643


31/38

Well, Hello Martial Law: Bush alters The Insurrection ActBush Moves Toward Martial Law

Frank Morales

October 26, 2006

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which,

according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the

President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a

set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The

Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18

U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law

enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2),

which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office

ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in

America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the

governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he

signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws

complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to

enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America.

Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the

term is "martial law."

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-

billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public

Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law"

states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal

service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a
http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=ehttp://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e


32/38

natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident,

or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that

domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or

possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to

suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination,

or conspiracy." ...

ZELIKOW CONTROLS 9/11 COMMISSION

Flaws in the Commission's Investigation

Conflicts of Interest in the Commission

One important reason for asking for a new truly independent commission is because of the

conflicts of interest of the 9/11 Commission members and staff, particularly Philip Zelikow,

Executive Director of the Commission. The 9/11 Family Steering Committee came to the

conclusion that each of the commission members was placed on the commission to protect

specific interests. For example, Jim Thompson's and Slade Gorton's law firms represented

the airlines. Jamie Gorelick was on the board of Schlumberger, a large defense contracting

company and had also served on a CIA advisory panel. John Lehman owned severalcompanies that provided military components to defense contractors or directly to the

government.

But the most profound conflict of interest, one that compromised the breadth and integrity

of the commission's investigation, was in the executive staff director, Philip Zelikow. He was

a close colleague of Condoleezza Rice, and at the specific request of Rice had served on the

Bush administration's transition team. This meant that as the Clinton administration was

leaving office and the Bush Administration was coming into office, it was Zelikow's job to

facilitate that transition. Because two of Zelikow's specialties are national security and

terrorism, he was briefed about al Qaeda and bin Laden by outgoing National Security

Advisor Sandy Berger, counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, and CIA Director George

Tenet. These briefings took place from late 2000 through early 2001. Zelikow's job was to

take that information and convey it to the Bush national security team. How could Zelikow

direct an investigation whose mandate was at least in part to investigate the role Zelikow

himself played in the transition time between the Clinton and Bush administrations-a

transition that went to the heart of why the Bush administration underestimated or ignored

the threat posed by al Qaeda and bin Laden?


33/38

While the commissioners were the public face of the Commission, the real work was carried

out behind the scenes by the staff-and there were about eighty staff members who were

divided up into several key areas. Zelikow was in charge of those eighty staffers and the

entire course of the investigation. He was the Commission's gatekeeper--all information that

ended up in the final report was there only because Zelikow thought it should be there. In

essence, the story told by the 9/11 Commission became the story that Zelikow wanted totell.

Zelikow, as Executive Director, was one of only two people from the Commission to be given

primary access to the executive branch documents. As such, he received all the

administration's documents relating to al Qaeda and 9/11. Zelikow provided a limited and

censored group of documents

911 commission report! zelikow and the 28 redacted pages

Documents