Zelikow ‘Made It Clear’To 9/11 Commission That Richard Clarke ‘Should Not Be Believed’

[cal04]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/07/david-kay-condi-rice/
New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s new book — The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation — paints a damning portrait of Condoleezza Rice. Shenon argues that Rice was “uninterested in actually advising the President,” but was instead more concerned with being his “closest confidante — specifically on foreign policy — and to simply translate his words into action.”

Today’s Sydney Morning Herald prints an extract from Shenon’s book which provides further details about Rice’s incompetence. “Emails from the National Security Council’s counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke, showed that he had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats” before 9/11, Shenon writes. Some examples:

“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)

“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)

“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)

“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)

“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)

“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)

“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2)

But 9/11 Commission staff director Philip Zelikow was not interested in pursuing criticisms against Rice. Zelikow — who had worked closely with Rice on the Bush transition team in 2001 and 2001 — “made it clear to the team’s investigators that Clarke should not be believed, that his testimony would be suspect.”

They knew, but did nothing
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/they-knew-but-did-nothing/2008/03/07/1204780065676.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap9

[yurbud]

1. astonishing. Is there any doubt left that Zelikow was a partisan shill not even remotely

interested finding out the facts about 9/11?

[seemslikeadream]

2. ZELIKOW

[DemocratInSoCal]

3. LIHOP

Why should they bother looking into something, which they already knew was going to happen. That would have meant they desired preventing it's occurence.

I don't think that's being fair to them. If they had stopped 9/11, that would have prevented all their goals.

[robertpaulsen]

4. It's no stretch of the imagination to believe he said the same about Norman Mineta.

Both Mineta and Clarke's testimony make the Zelikow Commission an obvious fraud.

[Parche]

5. And We Know That Al-Kida Is Just A Name Only

Not real............:hi:

[crimsonblue]

6. Exactly!

Either Al Qaeda was the smartest criminal organization in modern history, or Bush et al were the stupidest , laziest morons in modern history... I doubt historians will have a tough time making that decision.

[warren pease]

8. Neither...

Al Qaeda is a product of the CIA's anti-Soviet program in Afghanistan and bin Laden is the main hook in Bush/Cheney's PR and advertising campaign designed to turn a bunch of swaggering, macho, rugged individualist wannabes into cowering, fear-saturated chicken shits living lives of gloom, doom and desperation, afraid of their own shadows, praying that the evildoers won't find and kill them before dawn, pooping their britches every time a fire cracker goes off or a motorcycle backfires.

And you really think they weren't successful? Do you really think their objective was to prevent all that carnage and they failed? Or does the evidence and their pattern of behavior ever since 9/11 suggest that, rather than trying to stop the attacks, they put in place a complex assortment of diversions to make sure the hijackings went off as planned? Or maybe they were the planners and just hired out the shitty jobs to some low-wage patsies. Either way, the results speak for themselves.

Did they not manage to convince millions of compliant, quavering androids to trade 220 years of Constitutional rights and freedoms for the absurd idea that, by rolling over and allowing totalitarianism to replace the rule of law, the Bush/Cheney protection racket would return the favor by keeping them safe from deadly Islamofascists who wait patiently -- scimitars and box cutters at the ready -- for that holy moment when it's time to remove their testicles and feed them to the dogs.

The incompetence theory assumes that key members of the administration, notably The Commander Guy, spent the entire day running around like headless chickens. On the contrary, they did no such thing.

The administration, or at least anyone not named "Bush," was highly competent and enormously successful that day – they just had different criteria for success than would sane people. And they've been highly competent ever since. You just have to adjust your standards for evaluating success, then view the past six years through the PNAC/neocon lens.

There are dozens – probably hundreds – of outrages they've justified by intoning some nonsense about "the events of 9/11(tm)." The official 9/11 story is the keystone, the catalyst for every single act of international aggression and domestic repression this administration has been able to get away with. Absent 9/11, or at least the official Bush-approved conspiracy theory, they don't have a leg to stand on.

Doesn't sound like the work of stupid, lazy morons to me. Sounds more like a bold, audacious move of pure propaganda genius and Stage II of the coup that took place the day Bushie was installed as president by judicial fiat.


wp

[UpInArms]

13. 9/11 was their wetdream - and the destruction of the USoA was their goal

George, John and Osama

by Bridget Gibson December 8, 2001


It's getting harder for me to determine exactly whose side George Bush and John Ashcroft are on. That is such a strange statement. But bear with me for a minute. Supposedly Osama bin Laden planned and executed the September 11 attack on America precisely because of our freedoms. That is what George Bush said on September 20, 2001. So following that logic, would it not be the proper thing to protect exactly those freedoms if we are to fight terrorism? To continue to live normally, to go on with our lives, to show the terrorists that they did not win, that the only way to prove that terrorism lost is to defeat its goal. Terrorism's goal is to change the victim of such in a profound way. The perpetrator wants to alter how each and every person affected by terrorism views his/her world and force a change to the ways of the terrorist.

Well, our feckless leaders have chosen not to defend our freedoms. They have chosen to forsake all that is wonderful and unique about the United States because of what? My logic tells me that Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft must be on the same side as the terrorists, and that our way of life, our way of country and our way of being American is wrong.

We are wrong to follow the Constitution that was printed with the blood and beliefs of our forefathers. We are wrong to follow and have faith in the Bill of Rights that were negotiated to make ours a "more perfect union." We were so wrong that Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft have taken it upon themselves to destroy as much of both of those documents as possible in as short a time as physically possible.

We are to disavow our faith in our judicial system and allow secret military tribunals to decide the fate of anyone they choose. What about those three young Americans that were following their faith in fighting with the Taliban? They were fighting with the Taliban before September 11, when the United States (through its policies proscribed by Bush) was financially aiding the Taliban in its fight against poppy fields. Never mind that on May 19, 2001, we (the United States) gave the Taliban $43 million (in dollars - not aid) to cease its drug production. Never mind that we had been notified of the Taliban's horrendous treatment of women for many years. Never mind that we watched (via television) the Taliban destroy thousand year old Buddhas that had been created by what they determined were a faithless people. These three young Americans can be stripped of their citizenship, can be called "terrorists" for aiding the Taliban, can be tried in secret military tribunals and executed. That was a Military Order signed on November 13, 2001, by George Walker Bush.

We have the USA Patriot Act, drawn and enlarged upon by Mr. Ashcroft, that is in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Thirteenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights. In the eyes of Bush and Ashcroft our Constitutional freedoms and the Bill of Rights mean nothing. This is what the actions of Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft are telling us. If you agree, nothing need be done. That's the path that we (the United States) are taking. Congress and its lawmakers have no voice in these decisions and thus, you the represented public are allowed no voice either.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft have decided that those freedoms that have made us a unique and special country are the very things that we Americans must relinquish in order to protect them. Somehow their logic escapes me. How can we be "free" if we give up our freedoms? How can one lose the very rights that set their country apart from all others and still remain the same?

The United States of America was a country of law. Our forefathers were disillusioned by the elite rule of the English King. They decided that a country of law would be best served by those laws and not in the trusting of men. We have been told to "trust" George Bush and John Ashcroft. They will make those decisions for us. They want additional powers not allowed by the Constitution and are insisting that our representatives give it to them. Somehow I do not think that was what Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and the other founding fathers had in mind.

You had better speak up soon or you should forget that First Amendment, too. You know the one. The one with the part that says "freedom of speech."

[Karenina]

15. . .

[defendandprotect]

11. Ashcroft also got constant earfuls about "terorism" ...said he never wanted to

hear any of it again!!!

[Echo In Light]

14. Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11

Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11
by Harley Sorensen

Don't let them fool you, folks: They knew.

They might have been surprised by the ferocity of the attacks, but the highest-ranking members of the George W. Bush administration knew before Sept. 11 that something terrible was going to happen soon.

Bush knew something was going to happen involving airplanes. He just didn't know what or exactly when. His attorney general, John Ashcroft, knew. His national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, knew. They all knew.

And, in spite of its apparent ineptness, the FBI knew, too.

Not only did they all know, but they told us. Obliquely. And we didn't pay attention. Why would we? Then, as now, terrorist threats were a dime a dozen.

Is this my opinion? No, it's published fact.

On July 26, 2001, cbsnews.com reported that John Ashcroft had stopped flying on commercial airlines.

Ashcroft used to fly commercial, just as Janet Reno did. So why, two months before Sept. 11, did he start taking chartered government planes?

CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart asked the Justice Department.

Because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI, he was told. But "neither the FBI nor the Justice Department ... would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it," CBS News reported.

The FBI did advise Ashcroft to stay off commercial aircraft. The rest of us just had to take our chances.

The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind. Why else would it have Ashcroft use a $1,600-plus per hour G-3 Gulfstream when he could have flown commercial, as he always did before, for a fraction of the cost?

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0603-06.htm

[stubtoe]

16. LIHOP is the only logical inference we can make.

It's all there, waiting for investigators to connect the dots.

[Richard Steele]

7. K&R

[Truth2Tell]

9. KR nt

[leftofthedial]

10. coverup

pure and simple

[LibDemAlways]

12. I heard an interview with Shenson on

Air America and wasn't impressed. It was clear he doesn't get that the entire commission was a fraud from the get-go - a smokescreen to appease the 911 families, with no mandate for or interest in getting at the truth.

[creeksneakers2]

17. I'm reading Shenon's book now

and I highly recommend it. The 9/11 Commission ran a cover up job for Bush.

[wiggs]

18. It was clear and obvious at the time that Zelikow was a mistake. Everyone

let it happen.

[HamdenRice]

19. Wow, quite a list of messages! LIHOP is pretty obvious and the 9/11 Comm

was just a coverup.

[Octafish]

20. Tenet's hair was on fire. He wasn't allowed to phone Smirko, so he called Condesdcenda.

According to Tenet, his hot line went straight through to NSA Condoleeza Rice:

Neck Deep: The Real 9/11 Scandal

By Robert, Sam and Nat Parry
September 11, 2007
consortiumnews.com

Editor’s Note: As George W. Bush tries to squeeze 16 more months of political advantage from America’s 9/11 memories, it is worth recalling how different history might have been had the Bush administration heeded intelligence warnings in the summer of 2001.

EXCERPT...

Alarm Bells

By late spring 2001, other alarm bells were ringing, frequently and loudly. Credible evidence of an impending attack began pouring in to U.S. intelligence agencies.

“It all came together in the third week of June,” said Richard Clarke, who was the White House coordinator for counterterrorism. “The CIA’s view was that a major terrorist attack was coming in the next several weeks.”

In late June, CIA Director George Tenet was reported “nearly frantic” about the likelihood of an al-Qaeda attack. He was described as running around “with his hair on fire” because the warning system was “blinking red.”

On June 28, a written intelligence summary to Bush’s national security adviser Condoleezza Rice warned that “it is highly likely that a significant al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks.”

On July 5, 2001, at a meeting in the White House Situation Room, counterterrorism chief Clarke told officials from a dozen federal agencies that “something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it’s going to happen soon.”

But instead of sparking an intensified administration reaction to the danger, the flickering light of White House interest in the terror threat continued to sputter.

By July 10, senior CIA counterterrorism officials, including Cofer Black, had collected a body of intelligence that they presented to Director Tenet.

“The briefing gave me literally made my hair stand on end,” Tenet wrote in his memoir, At the Center of the Storm. “When he was through, I picked up the big white secure phone on the left side of my desk – the one with a direct line to Condi Rice – and told her that I needed to see her immediately to provide an update on the al-Qa’ida threat.”

After reaching the White House, a CIA briefer, identified in Tenet’s book only as Rich B., started his presentation by saying: “There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!”

Rich B. then displayed a chart showing “seven specific pieces of intelligence gathered over the past 24 hours, all of them predicting an imminent attack,” Tenet wrote. The briefer presented another chart with “the more chilling statements we had in our possession through intelligence.”

These comments included a mid-June statement by Osama bin Laden to trainees about an attack in the near future; talk about decisive acts and a “big event”; and fresh intelligence about predictions of “a stunning turn of events in the weeks ahead,” Tenet wrote.

Rich B. told Rice that the attack will be “spectacular” and designed to inflict heavy casualties against U.S. targets.

“Attack preparations have been made,” Rich B. said about al-Qaeda’s plans. “Multiple and simultaneous attacks are possible, and they will occur with little or no warning.”

When Rice asked what needed to be done, the CIA’s Black responded, “This country needs to go on a war footing now.” The CIA officials sought approval for broad covert-action authority that had been languishing since March, Tenet wrote.

Despite the July 10 briefing, other senior Bush administration officials continued to pooh-pooh the seriousness of the al-Qaeda threat. Two leading neoconservatives at the Pentagon – Stephen Cambone and Paul Wolfowitz – suggested that the CIA might be falling for a disinformation campaign, Tenet recalled.

But the evidence of an impending attack continued to pour in. At one CIA meeting in late July, Tenet wrote that Rich B. told senior officials bluntly, “they’re coming here,” a declaration that was followed by stunned silence.

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/091107.html

Of course, she just, kind of, blew him off.

[blm]

21. Clarke was vilified in media, too, who put up polls Condi was more honest and credible than

Clarke to the American people.

I never believed they actually surveyed people who WATCHED the hearings.

They also used their attack on Clarke to try and damage Kerry campaign as if Clarke was only testifying to fit the needs of Kerry - the same tactic they used against Joe Wilson, smearing him as a liar.

The sad thing is that so many BIGNAME Dems allowed this to happen. Clinton was on his book tour for 3 weeks supporting Bush on terrorism and Iraq war. He could have taken shots at what BushInc was doing to both Clarke and Wilson and the lies about Kerry....but he didn't.