BREAKING 9/11 Commission Coverup, TENET told 9/11 commission about Report

[Herman Munster]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/15662785.htm

The independent Sept. 11, 2001, commission was given the same “scary” briefing about an imminent al Qaida attack on a U.S. target that was presented to the White House two months before the attacks, but failed to disclose the warning in its 428-page report.

Former CIA Director George Tenet presented the briefing to commission member Richard Ben Veniste and executive director Philip Zelikow in secret testimony at CIA headquarters on Jan. 28, 2004, said three former senior agency officials.

Tenet raised the matter himself, displayed slides from a Power Point presentation that he and other officials had given to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, and offered to testify on the matter in public if the commission asked him to, they said.

[EFerrari]

1. Motherf#ckers..

[90-percent]

10. WOW!

The house of cards is starting to crumble.

Are the Bushies really "tough on terror" or are they just using the terror THEY LET HAPPEN to further their corpora-fascist police state ambitions?

Gee, I sure hope the good old US of A doesn't go fascist. The willful destruction of the protections of the US Constitution occuring in Congress almost weekly would lead one to believe that anybody that post's on DU is going to be in a Halliburton Concentration Camp in Utah by next April!

-85% Jimmy

[EFerrari]

12. I've never touched a gun in my life but I'm willing to learn. n/t

[elehhhhna]

74. Good God, same here. Mr. Elena bought a 9mm SIG (?) and he's

taking me to the shooting range on Saturday.

I've always loathed and feared guns, but I loathe & fear Fascism even more.

[spin]

94. Suggestion

If you want to learn how to shoot, buy a .22 target pistol (Ruger). Very little recoil, very accurate, inexpensive to buy and ammo is cheap. You might actually enjoy shooting this gun, and you can learn the basics of trigger, breath control and sight alignment. If Mr. Elena can consistently punch holes in the center of the target, learn from him. If his target looks like a piece of Swiss cheese, ask the range master or a really good shooter for some tips.

Women usually learn faster and often are better shooters than men, they will listen and learn. Men watch too much TV and think they know all about guns and shooting. Hard to teach a person anything when he's an expert in his own mind. The most irritating thing, guys do is give their wife or girlfriend a really powerful handgun and laugh when she shoots it. Most women can shoot magnum handguns with little problem if they start out with a reasonable caliber.

Shooting handguns can be an enjoyable hobby. Shooters are usually a friendly and very diverse group. In general they tend to be Conservative and vote Republican. If the Democratic Party stops trying to stop honest people from owning or buying handguns, they could gain a lot of votes. Even NRA members are starting to wonder about the way this country is headed.

[elehhhhna]

112. He's got a 22. Maybe that's the one he wants me to shoot...

and yeah, he is a surprisingly good shooter for a goofy Dem from Chicago, tho taking instruction form ones spouse..well, that's another thread...

Welcome to DU, spin.

[spin]

114. Good men and good shooters

are hard to find. I think you'll be surprised at how much fun shooting can be. While it is a great hobby, the confidence and ability you acquire may save your life. Good luck and thanks for the welcome.

[Dora]

77. "Willing to learn"

I just want to share my experience.

Several years ago, a friend of mine invited me to "Ladies Night" at an indoor shooting range: free gun rental, just pay for the ammo. I went a few more times after that. I learned what it felt like to hold different kinds of handguns, how to load, and how it feels to actually fire a gun. They are an awesome and frightening power. I believe in our right to bear arms, but I also support certain gun control laws.

We don't own any guns at all. But I am very glad that I know how they work and what they do.

[krkaufman]

107. We've already gone fascist ...

... now we're watching the slide toward fascist authoritarianism.

Taking your initial question as non-rhetorical, NO!, the Bush's are not "tough *on* terror" any more than a bull is tough on china in a china shop. The Bush Admin is using terror to further their pre-9/11 agenda, and appear to have little concern for the real growth in terror organizations as a result of their bumbling (i.e. criminal negligence).

[me b zola]

2. Time for a REAL commission

:grr:

[Gregorian]

11. Time for a REAL commission

We deserve a real commission with real investigation leading to real answers!

With everyone under oath! No sneaking around holding hands.

[eviltwin2525]

42. Screw a "commission." Time for HEARINGS in a Democratically-controlled

House Judiciary Committee -- chaired by the HONORABLE John Conyers!

[Gregorian]

57. Bring it on!

It'll look a little like this-

[EVDebs]

98. 9-11 Press For Truth

http://www.911pressfortruth.com/showings

Requires a new 9-11 Commission, and only a Democratically controlled House of Representatives and Senate can deliver...

[John Gauger]

111. Hear Hear!

John Conyers all the way.

[joemurphy]

3. Oh great...Now the 911 Commission was tooled too. Jeez.

Now why wouldn't they report that? Benveniste was a Dem, right?

[EFerrari]

8. Look, Philip D. Zelikow was Condi Rice's co-author and subordinate.

How then could the commission be a real independent panel?

That never happened. We were f#cked from the inception of this commission.

[Jeanette in FL]

22. That was Kristen Breitweiser point in her book.

I am just reading her book right now and one of the major points that she makes is the Philip Zelikow was made "executive staff director".

She says that she never trusted him from the beginning.

Here is just one paragraph that she describes his duties and her perception:

"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 each of the key areas. Zelikow was in charge of those eighty staffers and the entire course of the commission's investigation. He would be 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 to tell. And that made me exceedingly uncomfortable right from the beginning."

If you have not read this book you should. And we all should be demanding a new investigation as she does in her book.

[EFerrari]

28. She had every reason NOT to trust him. He's one of them. n/t

[elehhhhna]

76. what was the context in which Ann said that crotch-wand thing?

lol

[EFerrari]

96. She was with an airport screener.

:hi:

[flyarm]

54. "This is beginning to look like a whitewash," Kristen Breitweizer

mods..this article is no longer available so i am going to post it in full..if you must remove please only remove parts of it..but it is very important considering this info is finally seeing the light of day...

this is from my files...fly




United Press International: 9/11 director gave evidence to own inquiry

9/11 director gave evidence to own inquiry
By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
Published 1/15/2004 7:16 PM


WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- The panel set up to investigate why the United States failed to prevent the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, faced angry questions Thursday after revelations that two of its own senior officials were so closely involved in the events under investigation that they have been interviewed as part of the inquiry.

Philip Zelikow, the commission's executive director, worked on the Bush-Cheney transition team as the new administration took power, advising his longtime associate and former boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, on the incoming National Security Council.

"He came forward (to answer questions) in case he might have useful information," said Al Felzenberg, the commission spokesman.

The news was greeted with dismay by many of the relatives of the victims who campaigned for the commission to be set up.

"This is beginning to look like a whitewash," Kristen Breitweizer, who lost her husband Ron in tower two of the World Trade Center, told United Press International.

Jamie S. Gorelick, one of the 10 members of the commission itself, and the other official who has answered investigators' questions, was deputy attorney general in Janet Reno's Justice Department during the Clinton administration.

"She was a very senior person," said Felzenberg. "She had an interesting perspective."

The families have said for many months that they are not happy with Zelikow's role, which they argue creates at least an appearance of a conflict of interest. They were furious Thursday that they learned from the newspapers he had given evidence.

"Did he interview himself about his own role in the failures that left us defenseless?" asked Lori Van Auken, the widow of Kenneth. "This is bizarre."

Zelikow -- an historian based at the Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia -- has also come under fire from some critics for his close ties to senior administration officials. He has had a longstanding relationship with Rice, who hired him to work for her when she was a White House official in the first Bush administration. The two have written a book together.



*******READ THIS SECTION!!!!

More recently, some relatives have accused him of being in touch with White House political supreme Karl Rove -- the man widely believed to be the most powerful figure in the administration.

Zelikow was not available to answer questions Thursday, but Felzenberg did not deny the allegation.

"He has not spoken with Karl Rove about commission business," he said. "Like many others on the commission, he has a job he hopes to go back to afterwards. The Miller Center is dedicated to the study of the presidency, and (Zelikow) has contacts with a wide range of people from all recent administrations."

Zelikow, who the commission says has withdrawn himself from those parts of its investigation directly connected with the transition -- a process known as recusal -- was also appointed to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board in October 2001.

The board provides the White House with advice about the quality, adequacy and legality of the whole spectrum of intelligence activities.

"Zelikow resigned (from the PFIAB) as soon as he signed the contract to be director of the commission," said Felzenberg. "He's recused himself from the relevant parts of the inquiry.

"Frankly, we don't see what the fuss is about."

"If (Zelikow and Gorelick) had not been commission officials, we would probably have interviewed them anyway. We've interviewed hundreds of people."

The question of the transition is a significant one, because critics of President Bush contend that the incoming administration "dropped the ball" on the fight against Osama bin Laden, which had been ramping up under President Clinton, especially after a suicide attack by his al-Qaida network nearly destroyed the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

According to one former Bush White House official, the incoming administration downgraded the interagency committee that handles the nation's counter-terrorism policy and operations on a day-to-day basis.

The Counter-Terrorism Security Group had, under Clinton, reported directly to the so-called Principles' Committee, the meeting of Cabinet-level officials that sets policy for presidential consideration.

"They stopped it reporting directly," the former official told UPI on condition of anonymity. "It had to report to deputies. ... It slowed down consideration of policy initiatives quite a bit."

Under Clinton, the former official added, the chairman of the counter-terror group, Richard Clarke, had been a member of the Principles' Committee, sitting with the secretaries of Defense and State and the national security adviser.

"They eliminated that ... It meant that the CSG didn't have that spokesperson to represent them and put the issue in front of (the principles) over and over again," the former official said.

Moreover, the deputies' committee, to which Clarke was now reporting, didn't meet properly until April, and -- partly as a result of these changes -- there was no Principles' Committee meeting on how to deal with the al-Qaida threat until Sept. 4.

Bush's supporters, for their part, say Clinton's failure to capture or kill bin Laden after his network destroyed two U.S. embassies in east Africa emboldened the extremists to attack America on Sept. 11.

Relatives say the news about Gorelick and Zelikow is a particularly sharp blow to the commission's credibility because they are the two officials to whom the White House has granted the greatest access to the most secret and sensitive national security documents, the presidential daily briefings.

Last year, officials acknowledged that one such briefing in August 2001, more than a month prior to the attacks, warned that al-Qaida was determined to strike in the United States. Some reports suggested that hijacking -- and even the use of airplanes as missiles -- was mentioned as the mode of assault.





*****read

"We want the whole issue of who has access to the briefings revisited," said Breitweizer, "the entire commission has to have access to them."

A delegation of relatives traveled to Washington Thursday for an evening meeting with commission staff, which was expected to be stormy.

Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International


fly

[pberq]

73. Surprise, surprise surprise!

"Benveniste was a Dem, right?"

Being a Dem doesn't necessarily guarantee anything in Washington today.

[elehhhhna]

75. I knew it was tooled when Big Gay Jim Thompson was appointed.

Reep scumbag operative, ex Gov of Illinois, now lawfirm blowhard, bitter because he couldn't run for Prezzy what with all that secret gay shit & a drunk suicidal pathetic victim wife.

[Hav]

4. .

It was about time that Tenet made sure to set the record straight.

[elehhhhna]

79. Tenet had a big$ book contract a few years ago, but scrubbed it. Hmmm.

[Redbear]

5. Ben-Viniste has said there are things the commission refused ...

to put in the report.

[Spazito]

18. Yes, he said he was "outvoted" when he wanted to have both

bush and Clinton's testimony made public. I am sure there are many important pieces that were not put in because of the make-up of the Commission.

[elehhhhna]

80. "OUTVOTED"? Opinions trump facts, once again.

[Up2Late]

24. Exactly, we should all keep in mind that the 9/11 Commission was...

...not evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. It was controlled by the Republicans and didn't it have to be approved by the Congress?:shrug:

PLUS, does anyone know when/why Max Cleland was removed from the commission? I have video from CSPAN 2003 (October I think) of Max when he was still on the 9/11 Commission.

I'm going to give Ben-Viniste the benefit of a doubt, because of this exchange with Rice, here's a link to a clip from The Daily Show on YouTube:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCmXCviuYZ4>

or this one if you only have a few seconds:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nnzqxbB68M>

[Change has come]

44. Max Cleland resigned from the commission...

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

[elehhhhna]

81. Don't forget they TRIED to have Kissinger run it! The NERVE!

[jazzjunkysue]

50. All members had ties to big oil, energy, weapons and reconstruction bids.

They were all complicit and so that's why B*** let them on the commission in the first place.

[krispifried]

108. bingo

:hi:

[cspanlovr]

6. Quite a poke in the eye, I'd say.

[blm]

7. PLUS... all the 9-11"commissioners" promised what they learned would be

completely unspoken during 2004 campaign as none would speak out about what they learned till AFTER the election.

Boy - really grand of all the Dems to go along with this BS. No wonder Cleland LEFT the commission. Or was he pushed out because BushInc knew he'd tell Kerry what was really going on?

[Octafish]

59. Co-Chair Lee 'Always Mr. Agreeable' Hamilton didn't help much.

You're probably correct about Cleland, blmita. The guy wasn't going to go along with the show. And you know he'd be on the horn every night to JK. Then again, with ECHELON and Poindexter-knows-whatever-else listening in, maybe it's a good thing they weren't overheard talking about the day's big 9-11 Omissions. We might be having a harder time finding out what is starting to come out now.

[brettdale]

9. kick

kick

[Gregorian]

13. Those 28 redacted pages.

Could this be part of what was blacked out.

[leveymg]

17. It's believed that's stuff about Saudi support for the hijackers

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

14. I will wait corroborating evidence.

[Dora]

78. What would qualify as corroborating evidence?

[Individualist]

15. Brian Williams also reported that this evening

He was discussing Woodward's book and reported that Tenet had given secret testimony to the 9/11 Commission about the July 10, 2001 meeting.

[Spazito]

19. Did Williams say who his source was on this?

Was it the usual "unnamed source" aka the WH or did he actually name the source?

[Individualist]

20. He was discussing Woodward's book

and talking about documents Woodward has to back up the facts in his book. He implied that this was from one of Woodward's documents.

[Spazito]

31. I understood Woodward to have written about the July 10th meeting

and also wrote that the 9/11 Commission was NOT told about the meeting on July 10th. Tenet did give both public and secret testimony, the secret testimony was not in front of the full Commission I believe, and from what I have read, so far, neither Tenet nor Rice discussed this specific meeting and it's urgency.

It will be interesting to see what the facts really are on this when/if they do come out.

[elehhhhna]

82. BOOKS trigger the downfall of GWBush? LOL. Didn't see that one coming.

[leveymg]

16. So, why would Tenet give Ben Veniste and Zelikow the briefing

three months before his public testimony, but not tell them that he had shown it to Condi on 07/10/01?

Something is very wrong here.

Who else here remembers Ben Veniste grilling Tenet about whether he had any communication with Bush during the month before 9/11? Apparently, Tenet "misspoke" about that, saying he hadn't seen or talked to the President, but within hours the CIA has to clarify Tenet's assertions, telling the press that Tenet had seen Bush on at least eight occasions in the month before the attacks. See my post up today at the Greatest.

[speedoo]

21. According to this report, Tenet did tell them he gave the report to Rice.

This is just another instance of the Commission deciding not to report something they should have reported. It's now obvious they did a total whitewash.

It's time for Ben Veniste and the other dems to get all of this out. While they still have some credibility.

[robertpaulsen]

23. I've never received a satisfactory answer to this question.

Since Rice testified to the Commission under oath, can she be indicted for perjury?

[Kagemusha]

35. I thought she wasn't under oath. I know there was no written record.

So indict her on the basis of what, hearsay? Not gonna happen.

[elehhhhna]

83. Written, hell. It was televised.

[DoYouEverWonder]

36. Yes, Condi was under oath

so if she lied, then she committed perjury.

[leveymg]

70. All the public testimony was under oath. There was a lot of perjury.

That leaves the Big Questions about the lies told to the 9/11 Commission:

* Where public testimony omitted, obscured or distorted many things, did contradictory private testimony "cure" appararent misrepresentations?

* If witnesses were allowed to publicly lie in this way, what was the point of swearing them in?

* Who decides whether any lies to the Commission should be prosecuted? Alberto Gonzalez? Philip Zelikow? Lee Hamilton? State prosecutors in the various locales where testimony was taken?

* Since the 9/11 Commission Report is now shown to be a tissue of lies, distortions, omissions, and conflicting accounts, what reason is there not to further delat the appointment of one or more Special Prosecutors?

[rodeodance]

25. gee, you's think they/she would "get" a simple power point presentation.

.....Tenet raised the matter himself, displayed slides from a Power Point presentation that he and other officials had given to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, and offered to testify on the matter in public if the commission asked him to, they said.

[Postman]

26. 9/11 Commission was a WHITEWASH...

n/t

[rodeodance]

27. 9/11 Commission saw the 'scary' briefing of 2001

Posted on Mon, Oct. 02, 2006


9/11 Commission saw the 'scary' briefing of 2001
By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, WARREN P. STROBEL and JOHN WALCOTT
McClatchy Newspapers

[rodeodance]

29. many have said the Report was a whitewash ---this is some of the evidence.

[KittyWampus]

30. Does this mean Woodward's claim about Tenet/Rice Meeting is accurate?

[elehhhhna]

85. Apparently, yes.

[LSK]

32. any wonder why Tenet got a medal??? TO SHUT HIM UP

[LSK]

33. Oliphant is bringing it up on Hardball

"We need to know the whole truth about July 10, 2001."

[Chomp]

34. Condi is denying it....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100200187.html



From the OP's link:

The independent Sept. 11, 2001, commission was given the same “scary” briefing about an imminent al Qaida attack on a U.S. target that was presented to the White House two months before the attacks, but failed to disclose the warning in its 428-page report.



From the WaPo link:

"What I am quite certain of, however, is that I would remember if I was told -- as this account apparently says -- that there was about to be an attack in the United States. The idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible," she told reporters.


.................


Absolutely fucking in-fucking-credible.

IMO, the most amazing 9/11 revelation yet.

PLEASE KEEP KICKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[indepat]

37. Now how could the "9-11 Commission Report" point no fingers if this

information were included? I personally have not seen any of the specific steps the administration took to counteract this known, definitive and imminent terrorist threat: must have blown by it all.

[90-percent]

38. incomprehensible?

Yeah its fucking incomprehensible she ignored it, but it's pretty fucking COMPREHENSIBLE we lost 2,900 souls and four commercial planes on 9/11 thanks to this admin's Saudi coddling and stand down orders on all Saudi related investigations!

sheesh. Let's rev up some treason trials here fer chrissake!

-85% Jimmy

[elehhhhna]

86. they DID counteract it: Ashcroft stopped flying commercial & GW took his

usual ONE MONTH VACATION only 7 months into the job.

Damn you, Bill Clinton! You made Presidentin' look sooooo easy. It's your fault!

[lovuian]

39. So Colin is out and Condi is in because she lied in front of

Congress...

the 9/11 Commision was a joke...

[cui bono]

40. Getting that book now, thanks for the heads up. n/t

[BlueEyedSon]

41. WHAT ELSE DID THEY LEAVE OUT????

[Dinger]

56. That It Was Carried Out By bu$hCo.

That simple.
Hell, what punishment could ever be appropriate????

[elehhhhna]

87. Cheney's fingerprints on the boxcutters, for one.

[sweetheart]

43. "what was that about hats."

"People arn't wearing enough of them."

[mirandapriestly]

45. Ben-Veniste's lawfirm represents United Airlines

so of course he doesn't want to being anything to light. His lawfirm is defending United Against Ellen Mariani a 911 widow, who decided against the government hush money so she could try to find out what really happened. We know whose side the 911 commission is on

[Octafish]

46. Mr. Tent and Mr. Black's testimony is most difficult to refute.

Perhaps some good state prosecutor in New York would like to get this before a Grand Jury investigation of 9-11.

[Justice Is Comin]

47. I'm going to have to keep a bottle of Dramamine handy to

keep up with all the shit going on.

And you know what, I'm glad she didn't disclose the meeting. It's much more explosive that she didn't. It's always the cover up that takes em down. She's in the bowl now. All we have to do is flush.

I feel a Ben Veniste whistle blowing any minute.

[wildbilln864]

48. K & R!

Impeach Bush/Cheney NOW! Cuff em and book em!

[L0oniX]

49. Kindasleeza Rice ...a sinking ship?

I hope she takes Rummy along for the ride.

[Supersedeas]

88. the WH spokesman claimed that the meetings were MISCHARACTERIZED

by the book...hmmmm...despite Tenet's testimony...

See:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061002-11.html

Q Tony, going back to the myth that you're disputing, myth number three, back to that question -- how can you dispute it, when in August 2001 there's a document that was declassified by this administration, "bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S. and" --

MR. SNOW: Oh, you're talking about the PDB.

Q Yes, I am.

MR. SNOW: You're talking about the PDB that was discussed ad nauseam before the 9/11 Commission and had a general characterization as some of the things bin Laden may do. It is something that the administration obviously pays attention to.

Let me make a simple point, April, which is that administrations -- and I've said this about the prior administration -- if somebody presents you with a compelling piece of evidence that says American lives are going to be at risk, you don't sit around and say, oh, it's inconvenient, I'm going to ignore it.

Condi Rice, I think, was pretty vociferous on that point yesterday. And it's grossly irresponsible to assume that anybody in a position of power and a position of responsibility is going to look askance at such things. As you know, you can go back and look at the PDB, and it is something that talked in general terms about something that may happen.

Q Tony, I'm sorry, this is not general. It says, "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." Is that --

MR. SNOW: Understood.

Q -- just vague?

MR. SNOW: No. But it also does not say that people -- if you recall, April, before September 11, 2001, when somebody mentioned hijackings it meant taking a plane, taking it to another place and trying to hold up people for ransom. It did not mean flying an airliner into a building and killing 3,000 people.

I am not going to sit up here and tell you everything this administration or prior administrations may or may not have done. But the second-guessing game gets a little bit silly when, once again -- and what I'd have you do is go back and read through all the 9/11 Commission stuff, because a lot of people are trying to grandstand, rather than realize that people --

Q But, Tony, it's not silly when you're talking about people's lives, thousands of lives were lost --

MR. SNOW: Absolutely.

Q -- and it was a month before, there was a lot of chatter leading up to 9/11. And some people want to know why was it not placed as a high priority to move -- to make a movement so that even if it was vague, as far as hijackings, you could have at least been looking at the airports in some kind of way, or the Transportation Administration could have been doing something in relation to this possible hijacking.

MR. SNOW: I appreciate the second-guessing. The fact is that this administration realizes that the preparations this country had made before September 11th were inadequate. It happened. And it happened as a result of people who were trying their best to secure the country having not been apprised of all the facts -- in the Clinton years, and in the Bush years, and in years before. This is not a threat that simply materialized a month before September 11th.

As a matter of fact, the videotape that came out the other day had bin Laden and his guys -- Mohammed Atta and others -- posing for the cameras in the year 2000, before the election of George W. Bush. And the 9/11 Commission, itself, says that the attacks were years in planning.

Please, feel free to second guess. Everybody feels horrible about September 11th, but the other thing that's important is to understand in the wake of September 11th we learned to take the terror threat with utmost seriousness and we need to continue to do so today.

Q But, Tony -- and this is my last question -- I understand you keep talking about the Clinton administration, but let's talk about August 6, 2001, this administration, this PDB. Let's talk about why it was not placed at a high level. Why not?

MR. SNOW: It's a presidential decision brief, for heaven's sake, it goes before the President. What higher level do you have? Members of Congress --

Q Well, why wasn't it acted upon?

MR. SNOW: Precisely what piece of actionable intelligence is there?

Q Department of Transportation, you could have gone the gambit, CIA, FBI, you've could have done a little bit more.

MR. SNOW: Okay. Again, thank you for the second-guessing.

Q I just want to follow up. My question -- mine's not second-guessing of September 11th, it's about the 9/11 Commission. Now you have commissioners outraged, they say that they didn't know about this meeting. You're saying that the meeting did take place --

MR. SNOW: The meeting did take place.

Q -- but it's out of context in the book?

MR. SNOW: Yes. And I will --

Q And is there a reason why, I guess, the 9/11 Commission didn't know about the meeting? That's the bottom-line question.

MR. SNOW: The answer is, I don't know. And people are taking a look at all the documents to find out what was reported and what was not to the 9/11 Commission. As a matter of fact, there's a trip to the Archives right now to try to sort through all that.

Q If there were other meetings, will you let us know about those, if they didn't get to the 9/11 Commission as well?

MR. SNOW: "Other meetings" regarding what? The fact is that this is a meeting, as I've just told you, was mischaracterized, at least in the opinion of people who attended it. Therefore, they are not likely to be able to come up with other mischaracterized meetings. This is an administration that went to extraordinary lengths and went through two different commission hearings -- actually three different commissions that have been involved in the matter of global terror, and will continue to do so.

And we would also encourage people to look forward, as well as back, because right now there seems to be a lot of attention to going back and looking at old meetings that began after January 20, 2001, and to realize, as the President has been stressing, is that there is an ongoing terrorist threat, and we need to take it seriously. It is not something that has gone away, and the President remains committed to it.

[Supersedeas]

101. April Ryan deserves major kudos for standing up to Phony Snow

[malaise]

51. Condi is fugged

How lovely:popcorn: :popcorn:

And so are the Commissioners. Where are the widows of 9/11? This is serious shit.

Add.

[Garbo 2004]

52. Time mag in 2002 mentioned July 2001 Tenet briefing Condi about expected

attack. Couldn't rule out one on US soil, but the Administration's thinking apparently was focused on out of country targets:

In mid-July, Tenet sat down for a special meeting with Rice and aides. "George briefed Condi that there was going to be a major attack," says an official; another, who was present at the meeting, says Tenet broke out a huge wall chart ("They always have wall charts") with dozens of threats. Tenet couldn't rule out a domestic attack but thought it more likely that al-Qaeda would strike overseas. One date already worrying the Secret Service was July 20, when Bush would arrive in Genoa for the G-8 summit; Tenet had intelligence that al-Qaeda was planning to attack Bush there. The Italians, who had heard the same report (the way European intelligence sources tell it, everyone but the President's dog "knew" an attack was coming) put frogmen in the harbor, closed airspace around the town and ringed it with antiaircraft guns.

But nothing happened. After Genoa, says a senior intelligence official, there was a collective sigh of relief: "A lot of folks started letting their guard down." After the final deputies' meeting on Clarke's draft of a presidential directive, on July 16, it wasn't easy to find a date for the Principals' Committee to look at the plan-the last stage before the paper went to Bush. "There was one meeting scheduled for August," says a senior official, "but too many principals were out of town." Eventually a date was picked: the principals would look at the draft on Sept. 4. That was about nine months after Clarke first put his plan on paper. http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,333835,00.html

[frylock]

53. it was just historical data..

"The information presented in this meeting was not new, rather it was a good summary from the threat reporting from the previous several weeks," McCormack said. "After this meeting, Dr. Rice asked that this same information be briefed to Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft. That briefing took place by July 17."

[flyarm]

55. jersey girls..And they think they smell a rat

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/04/02/widows/index.html

The widows are watching
Four outspoken World Trade Center widows claim the 9/11 commission director's ties to the White House undermine the commission's credibility.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason
April 2, 2004 | Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, Lori Van Auken, Patty Casazza -- the four World Trade Center widows from New Jersey who led the fight for an independent investigation of 9/ 11 -- have given us an edifying lesson in grass-roots democracy. Without money, fame or credentials, they have achieved extraordinary influence over a crucial public policy issue. Yesterday they made the front page of the New York Times.

Yet the widows worry that their inspiring story may be destined for a cynical conclusion. The "Jersey girls" embody the streetwise skepticism of their home state. And they think they smell a rat.

snip:

Former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke revealed that Zelikow, as a member of the Bush transition team, had been extensively briefed on al-Qaida terrorism by the outgoing Clinton national security officials. When the widows learned first of Zelikow's close relationship with Rice and then of his presence at the terrorism briefings, they were outraged.

"As executive director, he has pretty much the most important job on the commission," said Mindy Kleinberg. "He hires the staff, he sets the direction and focus, he chooses witnesses at the hearings." She and her friends fear that even with the best of intentions, Zelikow's connections to the Bush White House will "taint the validity" of the commission's final report. Their demand that he resign or be fired has been rejected by the commission's co-chairmen, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean and former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton.

"We respectfully disagree with them," replied Al Felzenberg, the commission's press spokesman, who said Zelikow was chosen "for his scholarly credentials and his knowledge of national security issues." He hastened to praise the widows for doing "a very positive thing," adding that while he understood their concerns, he expected that "they're not going to be satisfied with everything we do."


snip:

But Zelikow's recusal doesn't impress Kleinberg. "His conflict is so large that he can't overcome it," she said. "We asked everybody at the beginning to put their conflicts on the table. Philip Zelikow's conflicts were not all put out there at the beginning." She and her friends were particularly disturbed to learn that the Virginia professor had played a key role in advising Rice during the transition, when they believe "things went wrong" in counterterror policy.
"If he was there during the transition, making recommendations about restructuring the NSC, on prioritizing issues, on handling terrorism, on Iraq -- then how can he oversee the report on those issues?" Kleinberg asked.



from my files..fly

[flyarm]

58. Potential Conflicts On 9-11 Panel

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/15/terror/main593493.shtml

Potential Conflicts On 9-11 Panel
Several Commissioners, Staff Members Must Recuse Themselves

Jan. 15, 2004


Quote

All the recusals could undermine the credibility of the panel, which faced questions early on over possible conflicts of interest.

snips;

The Times reports Zelikow is also close to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, whose briefings of the president might also be key to the inquiry.

The panel says Zelikow faces no conflict of interest problems because he has recused himself from any part of the investigation that concerns matters he worked on during the transition.

But, The Times reports, the panel's counsel is weighing whether that recusal goes far enough.

One of the ten commissioners has also been questioned by panel staff.

Jamie S. Gorelick was a deputy to Attorney General Janet Reno and so might have knowledge of the federal response to terrorism under Mr. Clinton.

Gorelick has also recused herself from matters related to her former work, The Times reports.

The newspaper says at least three commissioners, including Gorelick, have had to recuse themselves from some subjects because their law firms had airlines as clients.

And besides Zelikow, other staff members have had to make selective recusals as well, The Times reports.


frmo my files..fly

[flyarm]

60. A conflict of interest at the heart of the US 9/11 Commission hearings

http://www.sundayherald.com/40876


Published on Sunday, March 28, 2004 by The Sunday Herald (Scotland)
White House Whitewash

A conflict of interest at the heart of the US 9/11 Commission hearings has been exposed by the families of the Twin Towers victims

by Neil Mackay


While Democrats might be whooping it up at the expense of Bush, Andrew Rice and many other families of 9/11 victims see these events as nothing more than political point-scoring. They don't care which politician comes off best, what they care about is the truth and they are sure that they are not going to get it.

You can hardly blame Rice for his pessimism. Many family members believe the "fix was in" from the very beginning and cite the appointment of Philip Zelikow as the commission's executive director as proof positive.

Zelikow was a Bush-appointee who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; he worked under Jim Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Sr; spent three years on the first President Bush's National Security Council and, as well as working with Condoleezza Rice, wrote two books with her as well.

Zelikow supported the White House when the administration said it would only release the president's daily briefings (PDB), prepared by the CIA, to the commission once they had been edited. Zelikow said: " The notion that the commission should want to read PDB articles that have nothing to do with al-Qaeda would be a novel suggestion."

from my files...fly

[flyarm]

62. Former 9/11 Commission Member Cleland: 'The White House Has Played Cover-

from my files..but links no longer work..fly



Former 9/11 Commission Member Cleland: 'The White House Has Played Cover-Up' - Democracy Now - Article - 2004-03-23
''The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is holding public hearings today with testimony by top Bush administration officials. We speak with former commission member Max Cleland who was the chief critic of the White House's lack of cooperation in the investigation.''


''...a pair of public interest groups, The 9-11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch, have called for the resignation of the director of the independent 9-11 commission, Philip Zelikow.''

National and Washington news in brief




Statement of the Family Steering Committee
for The 9/11 Independent Commission

March 20, 2004

The Family Steering Committee is deeply disturbed to
learn about Executive Staff Director Philip Zelikow’s
participation in urgent post election briefings,
December 2000, and January 2001, with Sandy Berger and
Condoleezza Rice. In this particular meeting the
Senior Clinton Administration official clearly warned
that Al Qaeda posed the worst Security threat facing
the nation.

It is apparent that Dr. Zelikow should never have been
permitted to be Executive Staff Director of the
Commission. As Executive Staff Director his job has
been to steer the direction of the Commission’s
investigation, an investigation whose mandate includes
understanding why the Bush Administrations failed to
prioritize the Al Qaeda threat. It is abundantly clear
that Dr. Zelikow’s conflicts go beyond just the
transition period.

It is extremely distressing to learn this information
at this late date. This new information clearly calls
into question the integrity of this Commission’s
investigation. The Family Steering Committee
repeatedly expressed concerns over all members’
conflicts requesting that the commission be
forthcoming so as not to taint the validity of the
report. The Family Steering Committee did not know
about Dr. Zelikow’s participation in this intelligence
briefing until today.

As such, the Family Steering Committee is calling for:


1. Dr. Zelikow’s immediate resignation.

2. Dr. Zelikow’s testimony in public and under
oath.

3. Subpoena of Dr. Zelikow's notes from the
intelligence briefings he attended with Richard Clarke


4. The Commission to apologize to the 9/11
families and America for this massive appearance of
impropriety.


from my files...fly

[flyarm]

63. the jersey girls knew info was not being asked by eh 9/11 commission!

from my files...fly




1. Prior to September 11, including especially
spring/summer 2001, what information did the
Intelligence Community provide to the National
Security Council, orally or in writing, indicating the
possibility of terrorist attacks inside the United
States?

2. Prior to September 11, what information did the
Intelligence Community provide to the National
Security Council on al-Qa’ida activities and
infrastructure inside the United States?

3. Prior to September 11, did the National Security
Council ever consider alerting the American people to
the internal threat from al-Qa’ida? What happened?


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Family Steering Committee Statement Regarding Condoleezza Rice and Release of 28 Pages

March 27, 2004

Despite the complicity and cowardice of the "US
mainstream news media," the 9/11 Families continue
their heroic struggle to shed light on disturbing
questions that challenge the CREDIBILITY, COMPETENCE
and CHARACTER of the _resident, the VICE _resident to
serve in high office...Will the 9/11 Commission wimp
out? Will the "US mainstream news media" wake up to
its responsibility to the innocents who lost their
lives on that awful morning and to their familes?
Don't forget the 28 blank pages on the Joint Inquiry
Final Report! Don't forget the White House's refusal
to provide the 9/11 Commission with the details of the
Aug. 6th 2001 PDB!! Don't forget...

9/11 Family Steering Committee: Finally, in light of
recent actions on behalf of Senate Majority Leader
Frist, we also request the de-classification of the
infamous 28 blank pages of the Joint Inquiry Final
Report. The Saudi government stated to the media in
August, 2003 that they would like the 28 pages
released. Members of the Joint Inquiry have stated on
the record that the 28 pages did not include national
security secrets. Nevertheless, the White House
continues to refuse to release said information on
grounds of national security.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,


http://www.911independentcommission.org/

The Family Steering Committee (FSC) is an independent,
nonpartisan group of individuals who lost loved ones
on September 11, 2001. The FSC does not receive
financial or other support from any outside
organizations.


The Family Steering Committee Statement Regarding Condoleezza Rice and Release of 28 Pages

March 27, 2004


The Family Steering Committee demands the appearance
of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice under
oath in a public hearing immediately. We believe that
testifying before the Commission in a public forum is
Ms. Rice’s moral obligation given her responsibility
as National Security Advisor to protect our nation.
The death of nearly 3000 innocent people warrants such
a moral precedent.

We further request Richard Clarke, Samuel Berger,
Brent Scowcroft, and Deputy National Security Advisor
Stephen Hadley also be present, under oath, and made
part of the same panel as Dr. Rice.

We have attached a list of questions that must be
addressed during this hearing. In addition to these
questions, we would also appreciate the reconciliation
of various issues that were raised on behalf of Mr.
Clarke during this past week’s hearings. Furthermore,
we would request the examination and discussion of the
following issues:

1. The draft report of the 2001 NSPD-5
Presidential Commission on Intelligence Reform chaired
by General Brent Scowcroft.

2. Budget requests made by various agencies since
1998 so as to compare those requests within the
agencies from which they originated, within the
Administration, and by Congress.

3. The NSC policy options paper, prepared by
Richard Clarke’s office during Spring 2001 which
proposed a change in US policy regarding
<------------>. (Joint Inquiry Report, Appendix, NSC
Document Request, July 1, 2002, enclosure to
Condoleezza Rice letter dated July 8, 2002)

4. The after-action report on the Millennium
prepared by the National Coordinator for
Counterterrorism’s office.

We would encourage White House counsel to view this
commission for what it is— a quasi-legislative entity.
After all, Chairman Kean is an Executive Branch
appointee to the Commission. Furthermore, the mere
fact that the Commission has gained access—albeit
limited access, to the Presidential Daily Briefings
(something that the Joint Inquiry of Congress was
refused for reasons of Separation of Powers
principles) further supports the notion that this
Commission is not a purely legislative body.

Assuming arguendo that White House counsel continues
to persist that a legal precedent might be presented,
Dr. Rice should testify to set a moral precedent that
is aptly warranted by the murder of 3000 people.
Voluntarily coming forward to testify under oath
during a public hearing without the use of a subpoena
would simply set a rare, refreshing, and appropriate
moral precedent for all of history to judge.

Finally, in light of recent actions on behalf of
Senate Majority Leader Frist, we also request the
de-classification of the infamous 28 blank pages of
the Joint Inquiry Final Report. The Saudi government
stated to the media in August, 2003 that they would
like the 28 pages released. Members of the Joint
Inquiry have stated on the record that the 28 pages
did not include national security secrets.
Nevertheless, the White House continues to refuse to
release said information on grounds of national
security.

One of the underlying themes of this past week’s
hearings was the failure to garner the “will of the
nation.” One way to arouse the will of the nation is
to engage the American people in healthy debate and
dialogue. In order to have the will, the nation must
be properly informed. As such, we encourage the
release of the 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Final
Report that pertains to the foreign sponsorship of
terrorism.

We hope that Senator Frist will show the same zeal to
release the 28 pages as he has shown in de-classifying
Mr. Clarke’s testimony. We request that all witness
testimony to the Joint Inquiry of Congress be
impartially reviewed and declassified if possible. We
abhor the tendency to over-classify information and we
support the release of any material as long such
public release does not legitimately harm national
security.


Questions For Condoleezza Rice
from the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry Appendix

1. As stated in the Appendix of the Joint Inquiry of
Congress’ Final Report:
“Despite the White House decision the PDBs], the Joint Inquiry was advised by
Intelligence Community representatives of the content
of an August 2001 PDB item that is discussed in the
report. This glimpse into that PDB indicated the
importance of such access
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->*


*National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated in
a May 16, 2002 press briefing that, on August 6, 2001,
the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) included information
about Bin Ladin’s methods of operation from a
historical perspective dating back to 1997. One of the
methods was that Bin Ladin might choose to hijack an
airliner in order to hold passengers hostage to gain
release of one of their operatives. She stated,
however, that the report did not contain specific
warning information, but only a generalized warning,
and did not contain information that al-Qa’ida was
discussing a particular planned attack against a
specific target at any specific time, place, or by any
specific method.” (Joint Inquiry Final Report,
Appendix, "Access Limitations Encountered by the Joint
Inquiry," pages 1-2).

Ms. Rice can you reconcile this intimated discrepancy?


Terrorism as a Policy Priority

1. During your time as National Security Advisor, what
priorities did you establish for U.S. Intelligence
priorities and where did terrorism fit in? How did
this change from the priorities of the Clinton
administration?

2. How were these priorities conveyed to the
intelligence Community? Did the intelligence Community
propose any changes in priority with regard to
counterterrorism or al-Qa’ida? What were they?

3. Prior to September 11, who at the National Security
Council and the U.S. government played a leading role
in setting counterterrorism policy? Who else was
involved in this process? Please describe the process,
the participants and the fora.

4. Prior to September 11, did Congress support the
NSC’s counterterrorism efforts? Did Congress oppose
NSC priorities related to terrorism in any way? Please
provide details of both, as appropriate.

5. Was Richard Clarke, the National Coordinator for
counterterrorism, included all in Principals’ meetings
related to terrorism after January 2002? If not, why
not? How was it determined who would be involved in
such meetings? What was his role in counterterrorism
policy and intelligence prioritization after January
2002?

6. During the transition from the Clinton
administration, did former National Security Adviser
Sandy Berger or other senior Clinton NSC officials
provide any advice, information, warning, or guidance
requiring policy, priorities, or threats from
al-Qa’ida and Bin Ladin? If so, what was the advice,
information, warning, or guidance?

7. Prior to September 11, was the Administration
engaged in a review of counterterrorism policy? What
issues were identified for change? What stage were
plans in? What changes in the role of the intelligence
Community, if any, were planned? What happened to the
review after the September 11 attacks?

8. When the new Administration came into office, was
it aware that Usama bin Ladin had declared war on the
United States in 1998? Who provided this information,
and how was it provided? What was the impact of that
fact on the Administration’s national security
priorities? How did it affect the intelligence
Community’s posture?

9. Prior to September 11, did the President or other
senior officials in the administration make any public
statements or give any speeches on the subject of the
threat of terrorism, or Usama bin Ladin’s terrorist
network in particular? If so, please make copies
available to the (Joint Inquiry Staff)?

Resources

1. Prior to September 11, did the Intelligence
Community come to the new Administration with any
requests for additional counterterrorism resources,
e.g. additional funding? Who made the request, and
what was the nature of the proposal?

2. Did the Intelligence Community ask the
Administration for more resources to fight Usama bin
Ladin and al-Qa’ida? Who made this request?

3. Did the Intelligence Community ever cite a lack of
resources as the basis for not acting? If so, provide
details and the NSC response.

4. When the DCI, Director of NSA, and FBI Director
requested more counterterrorism resources, what was
the stated justification for their requests?

5. What was the NSC’s response to each specific
Intelligence Community request for any increases in
resources for counterterrorism? For al-Qa’ida?

Agency responsiveness and support for policy makers

1. What specific strengths did you observe in
intelligence collection, analysis, and reporting on
Bin Ladin, al-Qa’ida or terrorism in general prior to
September 11? What specific weaknesses? Please provide
specific examples of each.

2. What was the quality of intelligence received by
the NSC? Did the NSC make any efforts to improve this
quality?

3. With respect to Intelligence Community
counterterrorism efforts prior to September 11, how
responsive were the CIA, the FBI, NSA, and DIA?

--Did they provide the President and the National
Security Council with the information needed to make
informed decisions?

--Did the agencies use their authority aggressively?
Did they cite limits or a lack of authority as a basis
for no action?

--Did they shift resources appropriately in response
to NSC direction?

--Did the NSC provide any specific tasking to
Intelligence Community agencies to which they did not
respond? Please provide specific examples.

Threat to the homeland

1. Prior to September 11, including especially
spring/summer 2001, what information did the
Intelligence Community provide to the National
Security Council, orally or in writing, indicating the
possibility of terrorist attacks inside the United
States?

2. Prior to September 11, what information did the
Intelligence Community provide to the National
Security Council on al-Qa’ida activities and
infrastructure inside the United States?

3. Prior to September 11, did the National Security
Council ever consider alerting the American people to
the internal threat from al-Qa’ida? What happened?

4. Did the National Security Council ever consider
enhancing U.S. border controls, e.g., by strengthening
watchlist programs, alerting the FAA or the airlines,
or inspecting cargo containers on a larger scale? If
so, what happened?

5. Prior to September 11, what was the National
Security council’s view regarding how well postured
the FBI was with respect to combating terrorist groups
inside the United States? What steps were taken to
improve the FBI, if any?

6. Prior to September 11, did the Intelligence
Community provide the NSC with any information
regarding the possibility that al-Qa’ida members would
use airplanes as weapons or hijack airplanes in the
United States? What did the NSC do in response to this
information?

Foreign governments

1. Prior to September 11, which foreign governments
were most and least helpful regarding
counterterrorism? How were they helpful or not helpful
in each case?

2. Prior to September 11, were the governments of
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan supportive of U.S.
counterterrorism efforts? How responsive were European
allies? What priority was counterterrorism cooperation
in Saudi Arabia relative to military operations
against Iraq, the Middle East peace negotiations, and
other concerns?

3. Did Intelligence Community agencies ask for NSC
assistance in getting foreign governments to take
action against terrorist cells? Did the NSC take any
specific actions to support the Intelligence
Community? What did the NSC do? Did the NSC ask or
instruct the State Department or the Department of
Defense to assist the intelligence Community in this
regard?

4. Prior to September 11, was there any discussion of
increasing information sharing and/or counterterrorism
cooperation with the Sudan?

Use of Force/Overt and Covert

1. Prior to September 11, did the National Security
Council consider the use of military force against
al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan? How? In what form? Why was
it not pursued? Was there sufficient intelligence to
support military options? Was their tasking to gain
further intelligence to support military operations?

2. Prior to September 11, did the National Security
Council issue any tasking to the CIA or the U.S.
military to develop plans involving the covert or
overt use of force?

3. Prior to September 11, did the National Security
Council ever review the CIA’s authorities to conduct
covert action against Bin Ladin or al-Qa’ida? What
problems were identified regarding existing
authorities, <----------->? Were there any proposals
to change those authorities before September 11th?
What steps were taken?

4. Prior to September 11, was the unarmed Predator
flown in Afghanistan after the Bush Administration
came into office? Were proposals made to the NSC to
fly it? Which participants favored flying it? If it
was not flown, why not?

5. Did the National Security Council support the
development of the armed Predator? Did any
administration official try to expedite the process?
Were any discussions held on this issue at the NSC?
Who participated?

6. Did you consider <------------>? Why or why not?
What impact did you expect?

7. Why was there no military response to the attack on
the USS Cole? Was this considered?

Recommendations

1. What recommendations would you make to improve the
intelligence community’s performance?

[flyarm]

64. Thomas Kean is a director (and shareholder) of Amerada Hess Corporation

sorry no links work any longer..but this was in my files...fly

you can possibly google up some of this stuff...



Now, "by sheer coincidence", former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, the man chosen by President Bush to lead the 9/11 commission also has business ties with bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi.
Thomas Kean is a director (and shareholder) of Amerada Hess Corporation , which is involved in the Hess-Delta joint venture with Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia (owned by the bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi clans).
Delta-Hess "was established in 1998 for the development and exploration of oil fields in the Caspian region...In Azerbaijan Delta Hess is involved in the Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli PSA (2.72%) and the Garabaghli-Kursangi PSA (20%). It is also an equity holder in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline":

"An air of mystery hangs over Delta- Hess, which... is registered in the Cayman Islands. Hess is in no hurry to reveal the terms of the alliance, which it says are subject to confidentiality clauses. 'There's no reason why this should be public information,' a Hess spokesman says." (Energy Compass, 15 Nov. 2002)

Coincidentally, the former Governor of New Jersey is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, together with another prominent member of the board of directors of Amerada Hess, former Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas Brady.
In other words, Delta Oil Ltd. of Saudi Arabia --which is a partner in the Hess-Delta Alliance--is in part controlled by Khalid bin Mafhouz, Osama's brother in law.
And former Governor Thomas Kean not only sits on the board of directors of a company which has business dealings with Khalid bin Mahfouz, he also heads the 9/11 Commission, which has a mandate to investigate Khalid's brother in law, Osama bin Laden.
Dr. Kissinger had a conflict of interest and resigned! The vice chairman of the Commission, former Sen. George Mitchell of Maine, resigned for the same reason. (See Xymphora, 19 Dec 2002 )
Now you would think that being a business partner of the brother in law and alleged financier of "Enemy No. 1" would also be considered a bona fide "conflict of interest", particularly when your mandate --as part of the 9/11 Commission's work-- is to investigate "Enemy No. 1".
And the corporate media applauds. Without acknowledging his Saudi business connections, Thomas Kean is heralded as "a man of extraordinary integrity, decency and intellect." In the words of the Baltimore Sun: "he lacks obvious conflicts of interest" (26 Dec.2002). To which I respond: "how more obvious can you get"!
It is also worth mentioning that Thomas Kean also sits as co-chairman of the Homeland Security Project (HSP) under the auspices of the Century Foundation. In this capacity, Kean has played a key role in the draft recommendations of the Century Foundation, which laid the groundwork of the Office of Homeland Security legislation. The Saudi Connection


Thomas Kean, described as a "moderate Republican" is not alone in this Saudi business relationship.
Extensively documented, other prominent members of the Republican party including the Bush family have had business dealings with the bin Laden family. (See George W. Bush Financial Scams: CRG selection of articles)
Moreover, it would appear that Delta officials (involved in the UNOCAL trans-Afghan pipeline consortium) played a key role in negotiations with the Taliban. In turn, Enron, the infamous energy giant — whose former CEO, Ken Lay, had close connections to the Bush family — had been contracted in a cozy relationship to undertake feasibility studies for the Unocal-Delta consortium. Enron Corporation had also been entrusted --in liaison with Delta-- with pipeline negotiations with the Taliban government
Carefully documented by Wayne Madsen, George W. Bush also had dealings with Osama's brother in law Khalid bin Mafhouz, when he was in the Texas oil business. Both George W. Bush and Khalid bin-Mahfouz were implicated in the Bank of Commerce International (BCCI) scandal:

"Other links between Bush and Mahfouz can be found through investments in the Carlyle Group, an American investment firm managed by a board on which former president George Bush himself sat. The younger Bush personally held shares in one of the components of the Carlyle group, the Caterair company, between 1990-94. And Carlyle today ranks as a leading contributor to Bush’s electoral campaign. On Carlyle’s advisory board is found the name of Sami Baarma, director of the Pakistani financial establishment Prime Commercial Bank that is based in Lahore and owned by Mahfouz. (See Maggie Mulvihill, Jonathan Wells and Jack Meyers: Slick deals; the White House connection; Saudi ‘agents' close Bush Friends, Boston Herald, 11 December 2001).
In the wake of 9/11


In the wake of 9/11, Khalid bin Mahfouz (Osama's brother in law) was carefully exempted from the Treasury investigations (another "sheer coincidence") which led to the freezing of the financial assets of some 150 Saudi businesses, charities and individuals:

"The US Treasury has frozen the assets of 150 Saudi individuals, companies and charities suspected of financing terrorism. It has named Blessed Relief, a Saudi "charity" as a front organisation providing funds to Osama bin Laden. "Saudi businessmen have been transferring millions of dollars to Bin Laden through Blessed Relief," the agency said.
One rich Saudi patriarch under suspicion is Khaled bin Mahfouz, owner of the National Commercial Bank, banker to the Saudi royal family,
...
US and British authorities have also investigated Mohammed Hussein Al-Amoudi, another billionaire Saudi, for possible financial ties to Bin Laden. Al -Amoudi, who oversees a vast network of companies involved in construction, mining, banking and oil, has also denied any involvement with Bin Laden. His Washington lawyers said he "was unalterably opposed to terrorism and had no knowledge of any money transfers by Saudi businesses to Bin Laden.
Both Al-Amoudi and Bin Mahfouz have been left untouched by the US Treasury Department. The case against them, let alone against the government itself, is unproven. But the post-September 11 spotlight on Saudi Arabia has brought into sharp focus the fundamental question facing the country's rulers." (Scotland on Sunday, 11 August 2002)
The 9/11 Victims Families Law Suit


According to one press report, Thomas Kean --in contrast to Dr. Henry Kissinger-- was selected to head the 9/11 Commission because he was "close to the families of the 9/11 victims, an important credential to the White House, which was coming under increasing criticism from those families" (Scripps Howard News Service, 17 December 2002)
Yet in a cruel irony, the $1 trillion lawsuit filed last August by the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks , lists two of Thomas Kean's business partners in the Hess-Delta joint-venture, among the accused: Khalid Bin Mahfouz (Osama's brother in law), and Mohammed Hussein al Amoudi. Both individuals have been tagged in the lawsuit as alleged "financiers" of Al Qaeda. Now, how will Thomas Kean deal with that in the context of the 9/11 Commission? Mystery Surrounding the 1998 Embassy Bombings

[flyarm]

65. Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the commission

sorry again noworking link...i am beginning to think alot of this stuff has been scrubbed!! but i had copies in my files..fly



In finally accepting the 9/11 Commission's request for public testimony under oath from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, the White House was not the one that flinched. It was the 9/11 Commission.

The fine print of the deal takes the chance of the commission taking sworn public testimony from any other White House official – including Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, President Bush himself or Vice President Dick Cheney – completely off the table. It also precludes the panel from having the option of calling Rice, who's made media statements contradicting evidence and sworn statements by other officials, back to testify.

It's a one-shot deal. And it stinks.

Even under oath, Rice can dodge tough questions by claiming her answers would jeopardize national security or the war on terror. "I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but again, that's a classified area, and I just can't get into it," she could say. Or she could come down with Washington amnesia – "I have no recollection of that." And she and everyone else in the White House could skate. The commission has no recourse at that point.

Other compromises are curious. Why did the panel, which has subpoena power and could compel Rice to testify, originally bow to White House demands not to even tape-record the statements they were "allowed" to take from her in private? Why will it let Bush tag-team with Cheney in a joint Q&A in the White House without oaths or even tape recorders? Why has it agreed to let just four panel officials lay eyes on a key intelligence briefing Bush got a month before the 9/11 attacks?

Why is the commission bending over backwards to please the White House when it's supposed to be fiercely independent and bipartisan, made up of five Republicans and five Democrats?

The answer may lie in the little-known fact that the White House has a friend on the inside. And not just any friend, either.

His name is Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the commission. Though he has no vote, the former Texas lawyer arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses. He also picks which fights are worth fighting, legally, with the White House, and was involved in the latest round of capitulations – er, negotiations – over Rice's testimony. And the commissioners for the most part follow his recommendations. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.

He also carries with him a downright obnoxious conflict-of-interest odor, one that somehow went undetected by the lawyers who vetted him for one of the most important investigative positions in U.S. history.

There's a raft of evidence to suggest that Zelikow has personal, professional and political reasons not to see the commission hold Rice and other Bush officials accountable for pre-9/11 failings, and may be the de facto swing vote for Republicans on the panel. Here are just a few of them:
Philip D. Zelikow


He and Rice worked closely together in the first Bush White House as aides to former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. Zelikow was director of European security affairs, and Rice was senior director of Soviet and East European affairs, as well as special assistant to the president. Rice reportedly hired Zelikow. Both started in 1989 and left in 1991.


A few years after leaving the White House, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together called, "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft."


The two associated again when Zelikow directed the Aspen Strategy Group, a foreign-policy strategy body co-chaired by Rice's mentor Scowcroft. Rice, along with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, were members.


Zelikow also directed the Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age under co-chairman James Barksdale, a Bush adviser and major Bush-Cheney donor. A 9/11 commissioner, Republican Sen. Slade Gorton, also served with Zelikow on the task force. (Interestingly, the pair serves together on yet another panel – The National Commission on Federal Election Reform – with Gorton acting as vice-chairman and Zelikow as executive director.)


After the 2000 election, Zelikow and Rice were reunited when George W. Bush named him to his transition team for the National Security Council. Rice reportedly asked Zelikow to help organize the NSC under the Scowcroft model, which was insular and steeped in Cold War worldview.


Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke says he briefed not only Rice and Hadley, but also Zelikow about the growing al-Qaida threat during the transition period. Zelikow sat in on the briefings, he says.


A month after the 9/11 al-Qaida attacks, President Bush appointed Zelikow to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which is chaired by Scowcroft.


Zelikow's regular job, the one he'll return to after the commission releases it final report in late July, is director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. The center is dedicated to the study of the presidency, and maintains contact with the Bush White House, which fought the creation of the commission.

Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow, insists Zelikow has a "clear conflict of interest." And she suspects he is in touch with Bush's political adviser, Rove, which she says would explain why the White House granted him, along with just one other commission official, the greatest access to the intelligence briefing Bush got a month before the 9/11 suicide hijackings.

The two-page memo in question mentions "al-Qaida" and "hijackings," that much we know. What we don't know is if it gets any more specific about the threat. And the White House won't let us find out. It refuses to declassify any of the August memo (or any of the other briefings Bush got before 9/11, for that matter), and it won't even let most commissioners review it.

Bush and his top security adviser insist they have nothing to hide.

Rice pal Zelikow, for his part, says he's recused himself from any part of the probe that deals with the roughly one-month period after the election when he worked with Rice on the transition, as if any potential conflicts he might have would end there. Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg doesn't understand the fuss over Zelikow. "He has not served in the Bush administration," he argues more technically than convincingly.

The fuss, Mr. Felzenberg, is that 9/11 relatives like the wife of the late Ronald Breitweiser want to know they are getting an honest investigation into what their government did to protect their loved ones from a foreign-ordered attack on American soil.

But the way key pre-9/11 documents and sworn testimony from top officials are being denied the public, it looks like the fix is in.

To be sure, Zelikow could be a remarkably objective fellow and not let his close ties to the Bush administration influence his final report in any way.

But with the commission still refusing to subpoena the documents and caving to White House ground rules on testimony, the stench of political bias has become too strong, and Zelikow should nonetheless step down, immediately, for the sake of the families, many of whom are demanding his resignation. And the commission should vote to further extend its deadline while it finds a more politically detached replacement for him and redoubles its efforts to deliver the "full and complete" and "independent" investigation it originally promised the country.




fly

[elehhhhna]

89. omg fly. it's ALL there. MIHOP, coverup, everything.

it IS true.

Suspected as much but still stunned.

[MelissaB]

90. Thanks for all these links and info.

:hi:

[flyarm]

97. hi you all...this just scratches the surface..i have thousands of this

info in my files..i have incredible files!!

hi girls!!:hi: :hi: :grouphug: :hug: :hug: :pals:

see girls..i was up in the air that morning..took off out of EWR ahead of Ual flt93

only i was crew for American Airlines..!

those were my co-workers killed that morning..and my neighbors ...

fly

[file83]

67. That DVD "9/11 Press for Truth" about the Jersey Girls proved that

the 9/11 Commission was a complete sham. So this latest "revelation" is absolutely NO surprise.

There are SO MANY testimonies and facts and timelines and DISTURBING information that NEVER made it into the Commission's final report, it's obvious that they were covering up something HUGE. It's obvious to me anyways.

Personally, I think they were covering up something between LIHOP and MIHOP.

[Jack Rabbit]

61. Cover up! Cover up! Get your program here . . . .

You can't tell one GOP cover up from another without a pragram . . .

[chill_wind]

66. kick! nt

[GeorgeGist]

68. Has the time finally come...

for most American's to admit that most of our rulers are incompetent misfits?

[flyarm]

69. more like evil...they are evil with an evil agenda..its time for

Americans to wake up to that..these guys are not incompetent..they planned this ..and they have exicuted it..they want you to believe they are incompetent..

this was deliberate and it was planned..

and have no doubt..they are evil..as evil as one could possibly be...

fly

[HughBeaumont]

100. That time came LONG ago.

For most of us, it was sometime around June, 2001.

[go west young man]

71. Condorsleeza Rice is good at giving an ambiguious answer

to any question. She always seem to legally word it so she can't be held liable or responsible. It's time this snake is fully exposed and not allowed to slither away. We seriously need a Democratic congress so that we can find out what really happened.

[Supersedeas]

92. her use of the filibuster given strick time limits for questioning was key

Your question is about pre-9/11 intelligence, let me tell you about N. Korean diplomatic efforts during that period of time...oops...time's up...more softballs by Repubbies...good day.

[npincus]

72. so much for "bipartisanship"

Democracy is truly dead.

[Supersedeas]

95. but surely the non-partisan Corp Media can get to the bottom of this

[G_j]

84. now how about a REAL investigation!

for a change

[EVDebs]

99. We need a democratically controlled Congress NOW !

http://www.911pressfortruth.com/showings

Can we wait until Nov 7th ? Looks like we'll have to but let the R's hoist themselves on their own canards (petards ?) first...

National Security depends upon Truth and Justice For All, first and foremost.

[Uncle Joe]

91. Kicked and recommended for the memory of the victims of 9/11

We will not forget you, even if the current government has.

:cry: :grr:

[Initech]

93. This has "Warren Commission" written all over it.

If they covered up that little tidbit of information, who knows what else they covered up?

[burythehatchet]

102. BREAKING: Ahmad Chalabi appointed to investigate 9/11 Commission

[brettdale]

103. WHY ISNT THIS HEADLINE NEWS

EVERY JOURNO SHOULD BE SCREAMING THIS FROM THE ROOFTOPS.

[cal04]

104. this doesn't surprise me after reading this

article years ago I had some doubts

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0312/S00178.htm

[brettdale]

105. kick

kick

[Joanne98]

106. I've always thought the commission was picked to cover-up!

We need another one. I hope the Jersey girls raise HELL! Also, The Dems that were on the commission should be banned from the Party forever!

[elehhhhna]

113. Breitweiser should HEAD the dammned NEW Commission.

[Kurovski]

109. So it was just a cover-up, as every thinking and honest person

had already deduced.

[John Gauger]

110. Wow

I knew that Bushco had lied to the 9/11 commission, but I didn't know that the commission had covered it up.

[Hubert Flottz]

115. Duck and Cover-up!

The story of the GOP!

[bobthedrummer]

116. kick