Views From Within

Internet Political Prophecies And Subversive Material For Cool People

Archive for the ‘Revelations’ Category

Work Detail (Short Story-Fiction)

Posted by jeremiasx on May 17, 2012

I woke at six to the sound of sirens. Breakfast. What’s on the menu today? The same thing as every other day. A hard boiled egg and a piece of moldy toast. My first vision was the stained and decaying ceiling tiles above my rack. I get used to the scenery just like anyone else would in this situation. I have no choice.

A month ago I was living the good life with my family in my hometown. I had a good job, I had a car and a home. I played video games and visited friends. Sometimes we’d get drunk or high together. Listen to music. Simple stuff. One morning I woke up to a loud knock on the door. I could hear the loudspeakers in the street saying something about remaining in our homes. I think mine was the first door they knocked on, coincidentally or not. I’d said some abrasive things about the current regime on the Internet.

These days I don’t have to wonder what’s going to happen. They made the choices so much easier. There really aren’t any. I get up and eat a quick bite, hopefully food that isn’t going to make me sick. After chow we will line up in the courtyard for health inspections and work detail assignment. It’s always the same for me. I failed my aptitude tests and got stuck on shovel detail. We’re building a new light rail system. Someday people will ride on it and won’t even remember how it was built. They won’t hear the gunshots that ring out when a worker falls from exhaustion. No, they’ll be happy to have affordable and quick transportation to their work assignments. Everyone gets an assignment now, no one has to make a choice. Choices lead to disorder.

Last week I think I popped something in my spine. I asked about a doctor, but they said they can’t afford to treat camp workers like real citizens. Real citizens have demonstrated the patriotism and service that keeps our amazing country firing on all cylinders. Real citiizens understand the importance of keeping the economy going. All I could do in my ‘free life’ was sit around and write silly songs and poetry. There was no place for me in an industrious society.

The guards are passing out work gloves and shovels. When we first got here we lost about fifty people to blisters and the bullets that soon followed. I’m glad it’s not like that anymore. Now all I have to do is hide my chronic pain from the overseers and keep leveling the ground that will keep people moving on those “light” rails.

We head across the courtyard after roll-call into the cattle cars. Guards are screaming, dogs are snapping at our heels. An old man stumbles on his way into the car and is trampled underfoot. If you slow down, you die. No one wants to be that guy. Today wasn’t his day, I guess.

As I stepped up onto the high side of the cattle car I felt something give a little in my spine. Shit. This day isn’t starting out well. They say we’re increasing our production goal. The rail system isn’t on schedule. We’ve worked hard every day, and workers keep coming in, but just as many fall due to exhaustion and sickness. Is today my day?

A two hour ride to the jobsite over the highway isn’t bad, but we’re not on the highway. We’re trailblazing, man. We’re going where only the natives have gone before. Society has never stretched to this point in this country before. The rough and rugged road isn’t doing much for my sense of well-being. Pain shoots up and down my back and I don’t know if I’ll make it or not. Glancing around I see several have already given up hope and are sleeping on the metal floor. Some kids, some elderly. They won’t live to see tomorrow. So it goes.

We finally arrive at our assignment and I brace myself for the worst. When the overseers come in they usually come in kicking ass. The door slides open. More dogs snapping. The bitch is in charge today, I see. Who’s the bitch? Glad you asked.

The bitch is about thirty years old, she has blonde hair and blue eyes. She’s our medical supervisor and makes the determination on who lives or dies. That’s the truth of the fucking matter. She’s supposed to be watching out for us or giving medical attention, but I think the only medical attention she really administers around here is the terminal kind. She doesn’t take care of that herself. Armed guards do that. She just holds the clipboard and makes the final call.

We rush for the exit. I feel the head of a child squish a bit beneath my work boots. Do I have time to care about that? No..it’s just about survival. Remember, choices lead to chaos.

As we pile out orders are barked. We head to our assigned positions. They give us certain quotas on work performed. Workers get ‘units’ for work completed. If you get enough units you get a lunch. If you get more credits you get an actual break to eat the lunch. Get more than that, and you make all the workers look bad and are likely to be strangled to death in your rack . Crazy, huh?

I observe that the terrain we’re working with is particularly rocky. A bad omen for me. I press hard on the shovel in the hopes of finding purchase, or leverage. The tip of the shovel penetrates but I’ve hit a hard stone and the shockwave sends blinding pain up and down my arms, which circuits up into my back and suddenly I can’t feel my hands. I’m stunned for a moment.

A moment is all it takes. I hear a whistle blow, and the bitch is walking toward me, clipboard in hand. She asks me if I’m in too much pain to continue. I shake my head vigorously, ‘no’, but my body has betrayed me one final time. My muscles are twitching all around the injury site. She can see it through my shirt which is already soaked through with sweat and stuck to me.

“Guards, we have a patient in need of treatment. WORK DETAIL!! SEE!!  This is what happens when you don’t take care of yourself! Haven’t you learned yet? You MUST take care of yourselves! If you had done this in your lives before you wouldn’t be here for re-education and extra duties. When this man falls he represents the worst of what you are. Your weakness, your inability to give your all to the whole. Prognosis…unfit to work.”

I bow my head. I hear the racking of a machine gun bolt behind me. The birds are singing and shovels continue clicking merrily along.

Posted in Activism, America, Bizarre, Civil Rights, Conspiracy, Dissent, Economy, Fiction, Freedom, Freemasons, Human Rights, Journalism, Justice, Law, Law Enforcement, Liberty, Life, Money, Opinion, Politics, Prophecy, Protest, Resistance, Revelations, Revolution, Society, Tyranny, Uncategorized, Weird | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Nothing But Outrage Left

Posted by jeremiasx on March 18, 2008

Fellow Citizens,

Halfway through the current political season I see that we have been given two choices…bad or worse. When will we wake up and take back our country? How much lawlessness, brutality, and creeping fascism are we able to stand? Something must be done.  Ralph Nader weighs in on the situation:

Country of Laws

The Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, has resigned for being a longtime customer of a high-priced prostitution ring.

The President of the United States, George W. Bush, remains, disgracing his office for longtime repeated violations of the Constitution, federal laws and international treaties to which the U.S. is a solemn signatory. In his forthright resignation statement, Eliot Spitzer—the prominent corporate crime buster—asserted that “Over the course of my public life, I have insisted, I believe correctly, that people, regardless of their position or power, take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself.”

In a recent speech to a partisan Republican fund-raising audience, George W. Bush fictionalized his Iraq war exploits and other related actions, and said that next January he will leave office “with his head held high.”

Eliot Spitzer violated certain laws regarding prostitution and transferring of money through banks—though the latter was disputed by some legal experts—and for such moral turpitude emotionally harmed himself, his family and his friends.

George W. Bush violated federal laws against torture, against spying on Americans without judicial approval, against due process of law and habeas corpus in arresting Americans without charges, imprisoning them and limited their access to attorneys. He committed a massive war of aggression, under false preteneses, violating again and again treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, federal statutes and the Constitution.

This war and its associated actions have cost the lives of one million Iraqis, over 4000 Americans, caused hundreds of thousands of serious injuries and diseases related to the destruction of Iraq’s public health facilities. As the popular button puts it, “He Lied, They Died”.

From the moment the news emerged about Spitzer’s sexual frolics the calls came for his immediate resignation. They came from the pundits and editorialists; they came from Republicans and they started coming from his fellow Democrats in the Assembly.

Speaker Sheldon Silver told Spitzer that many Democrats in the Assembly would abandon him in any impeachment vote.

George W. Bush is a recidivist war criminal and chronic violator of so many laws that the Center for Constitutional Rights has clustered them into five major impeachable “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” (under Article II, section .4)

Scores of leaders of the bar, including Michael Greco, former president of the American Bar Association, and legal scholars and former Congressional lawmakers have decried his laceration of the rule of law and his frequent declarations that signify that he believes he is above the law.
Many retired high military officers, diplomats and security officials have openly opposed his costly militaristic disasters.

Only Cong. Dennis Kucinich (Dem. Ohio) has publicly called for his impeachment.

No other member of Congress has moved toward his impeachment. To the contrary, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Dem. Calif.), Rep. Steny Hoyer (Dem. MD) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Conyers (dem. Mich.) publicly took “impeachment off the table” in 2006.

When Senator Russ Feingold (Dem. Wisc.) introduced a Resolution to merely censure George W. Bush for his clear, repeated violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—a felony—his fellow Democrats looked the other way and ignored him.

Eliot Spitzer came under the rule of law and paid the price with his governorship and perhaps may face criminal charges.

George W. Bush is effectively immune from federal criminal and civil laws because no American has standing to sue him and the Attorney General, who does, is his handpicked cabinet member.

Moreover, the courts have consistently refused to take cases involving the conduct of foreign and military policy by the president and the Vice President regardless of the seriousness of the violation. The courts pronounce such disputes as “political” and say they have to be worked out by the Congress—ie. mainly the impeachment authority.

Meanwhile, the American people have no authority to challenge these governmental crimes, which are committed in their name, and are rendered defenseless except for elections, which the two Party duopoly has rigged, commercialized, and trivialized. Even in this electoral arena, a collective vote of ouster of the incumbents does not bring public officials to justice, just to another position usually in the high paying corporate world.

So, on January 21, 2009, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will be fugitives from justice without any Sheriffs, prosecutors or courts willing to uphold the rule of law.

What are the lessons from the differential treatment of a public official who consorts with prostitutes, without affecting his public policies, and a President who behaves like King George III did in 1776 and commits the exact kinds of multiple violations that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other founders of our Republic envisioned for invoking the impeachment provision of their carefully crafted checks and balances in the Constitution?

Well let’s see.
First, Bush and Cheney are advised not to travel to Brattleboro or Marlboro Vermont, two New England towns whose voters, in their frustrated outrage, passed non-binding articles instructing town officials to arrest them inside their jurisdictions.

Second, George W. Bush better not go to some men’s room at an airport and tap the shoe of the fellow in the next stall. While one lame-duck Senator barely survived that charge, for the President it would mean a massive public demand for his resignation.

We certainly can do better as a country of laws, not men.

Posted in 9/11, 9/11 Truth, Activism, Al Qaeda, America, Arkansas, Civil Rights, Democracy, Democrats, Dissent, Freedom, Freemasons, George Bush, GOP, Hillary Clinton, Justice, Law, Law Enforcement, Liberty, Life, Masons, News, Newton County, NSA Wiretapping Scandal, Opinion, Politics, Protest, REAL ID, Republicans, Resistance, Revelations, Revolution, Society, Tyranny, War | 1 Comment »

Bush’s Report Card…Looks Like Straight F’s

Posted by jeremiasx on January 29, 2008

From ThinkProgress.org :)

bushprogressreport.gif

Posted in 9/11, 9/11 Truth, Activism, Arkansas, Cheney, Comedy, Conspiracy, Democracy, Dissent, Economy, Education, Energy, Environment, Finance, Freedom, Freemasons, George Bush, GOP, Impeachment, Justice, Law, Liberty, Life, Masons, Military, Money, News, Newton County, Opinion, Politics, Poverty, Protest, Random, Republicans, Resistance, Revelations, Revolution, Ron Paul, Society, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

How Bushenomics Raped Our Nation

Posted by jeremiasx on January 21, 2008

REPOSTED ENTIRELY FROM ALTERNET

Originally Titled “The Fraud Of Bushenomics: They’re Looting The Country!”

by Larry Beinhart

The New York Times made it official. The Economy is a problem!

So, now, at last we can discuss it.

Not just discuss it, in rapid order “recession” became the word of the day, from White House, Congress, the Fed and the media.

It’s blamed, mostly, on the subprime crisis.

But that’s not the problem. It’s a symptom. It is the logical, and probably one of the necessary results, of Bushenomics.

Along with low, or no, job growth. Little or no business growth. Depressed wages. And the crashing dollar. (The president has a different vision of the economy. In his vision it’s booming! And the number of jobs is growing! Though there is this little blip.)

The idea under which Bushenomics was sold is this:

  • The rich are the investor class.
  • If the rich have more money, they will invest more.
  • Their investments will create more business.
  • Those businesses will create more wealth, thus improving everyone’s lives and making the nation stronger. They will also create new and better jobs.

Whether or not the people who say such things truly believe them, I cannot say. But that’s their pitch, and the media certainly seems to buy it, as do most of the establishment economists.

A more realistic — and less idealistic — view of Bushenomics is that the Bush administration and its cronies came at the economy with the attitude of oilmen.

  • They inherited a vastly wealth country.
  • They looked at it like the oil under the Alaskan wilderness. They craved to pump it out, turn it into cash and grab as much of that cash as possible.

Wherever possible, they literally sold off the assets. This was called privatization. Our biggest asset — in terms of size — is, of course, our defense establishment. With privatization, one dollar out of every three for direct military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan goes to private contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater. So when someone says, “Support the troops!” with budget appropriations, they should really yell, “Two-thirds support to the troops! One third support to Halliburton, et al.!”

This is just an estimate. The degree of privatization is unknown. Presumably, that’s deliberate. Nor does it count the amount of money the military spends with private purveyors to supply the troops and their operations. It is only the amount that goes directly to private contractors.

But for the most part, the assets of the United States, our collective wealth, could not be sold off in such a direct manner.

In order to turn them into cash, what the administration did was borrow against them.

That is, they cut taxes while continuing to spend lavishly, creating debt.

The debt is owed by all of us, the collective people of the United States.

The tax cuts hugely favored rich people. They also favored unearned income (dividends, capital gains, inherited money) as opposed to the kind of money people have to work for. The very richest got richer.

The spending was — to the degree possible — directed to themselves, their friends and their supporters: Big Pharma, the medical industry, insurance, banking and financial, among others. And, of course, Big Oil, from whom they have spent close to a trillion dollars of our money to conquer a big oil field for private exploitation.

Now let’s take a look at some numbers.

The numbers will tell us if their idealistic tale about unleashing the capitalists to create a better world for us all is correct. Or if it’s a fairy story that masks uncaring greed.

The big number is that the economy has grown.

As measured by the GDP it has. From 2001 to 2007 it went up by 35 percent.

GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product. It could more accurately be called Gross Domestic Transactions, because it is the sum of all the financial transactions in the country.

Now let us look at job creation.

In the first six years of the Clinton administration, 13.7 million jobs were created. In the same period, under Bush, only 3.7 million jobs were created. Barely keeping up with population growth, if that. (Source: Fox News)

Now let us look at median income. That’s as opposed to average income (If Bill Gates walks into a bar with 10 people, the average income of everyone in the room goes up by $17,5000,000. But the median income just moves up half a notch, from between the fifth and sixth person, to the sixth person’s income). From 2001 to 2005, median income, for people under 65, went down $2,000.

That’s worth restating. From 2001 to 2005, the income of the average working person declined by $2,000.

Now, let’s look at the value of America’s businesses.

A good rough measure of the market value of America’s best businesses is the stock market. Under Clinton, the Dow Jones went up 324 percent. Wall-to-wall, after the dot.com bubble burst, it more than tripled in value.

Bush arrived in 2001. Since then the Dow Jones is up just 10 percent. Adjusted for inflation, that’s absolutely flat. (It was briefly up 23 percent. It is now below the 10 percent mark, and tumbling down as this is written). Just pain, no gain.

If jobs have not increased, salaries have gone down, and the value of business has not risen, where is that 35 percent growth in the economy?

There is a number called the M3 money supply.

The M1 is basically cash, plus checking and “current” accounts. The M2 adds savings accounts, money market accounts and CDs up to $100,000. The M3 adds in the big CDs, Eurodollar accounts and other large exotics.

Already rising very fast, the M3 took off like a rocket after 2001. The Fed stopped publishing the M3 in 2006 (conspiracy theorists, please note.) But a quick look at the chart of its growth, and assuming its trajectory continued, clearly shows that the M3 grew by something in the range of 35 percent.

The entire growth of the economy under Bushenomics is accounted for by growth in the money supply.

The administration did not directly inflate the economy by 35 percent.

They pumped it by the size of the deficit. The rest happened this way.

When a government is “printing money” (running big deficits), the big fear is inflation.

Particularly in the financial community. Bankers make their money on interest, and inflation eats their profits, point for point.

The administration, very proudly, grew the economy (or at least the amount of money in circulation), without inflation. Which actually is a pretty good trick.

In part, they were able to do so precisely because the policy was a failure.

If it had created business growth — actual business, not just financial business — that would have created jobs. Then there would have been inflationary pressure. Especially if they were good, high paying jobs. If salaries for ordinary people go up, even a little, the total is a big sum because there are so many of us.

But due to free trade, outsourcing, bad economic policy, policies aimed at keeping wages down, and relentless union busting, good jobs were lost, to be replaced with low-wage jobs, when they were replaced at all. The proof is in that median income figure (down $2,000 per worker).

Due to free trade and outsourcing, consumer goods mostly went down too. The exception being in favored industries like pharmaceuticals, insurance and oil.

Finally, and this the key to the next step in the process, the Fed kept interest rates down.

Low interest rates mean that it’s cheap to borrow.

The administration largely believes in supply-side economics (otherwise known as “trickle down,” or “piss on the people.”); if you increase the supply of something, consumers will appear to buy it.

The actual results are a perverse triumph of the idea.

The supply of money was increased. The price of money was kept artificially low.

Think of borrowing as buying money. It is.

People (and businesses and corporations) did rush forward to buy it. Once they had it, what was there to do with it? There was no new trend, no dot.coms, no high techs, no bio techs, no nothing.

So they went out and sold money. That is, they made loans.

There are two big retail loan areas, credit cards and housing loans. Both were pushed very aggressively. With cheap, cheap money available to finance home buying, that market heated up. At the same time, commercial interests started aggressively buying up loans, packaging them together, and reselling them as financial instruments. That created more desire to make more loans (sell money). Financial institutions bought more money (borrowed), in order to sell it at a profit (make loans). Since the loans were quickly resold — and profit taken off the top — the quality of the loans didn’t matter to the people who made them. The housing market — or rather the loans that fueled it — grew into a bubble.

The subprime crisis, the housing bubble, whatever you want to call it, is not the problem.

It’s a symptom of pumping in money with no place to go.

Other symptoms are no job growth, no business growth, no stock market growth, falling median incomes, disappearing pensions and health plans, and the fall of the dollar.

When Bush came into office, a Euro cost 95 cents. Now it costs a $1.50. The Canadian dollar (the Loony) was 70 cents. Now it costs a dollar. Most mainstream economists and pundits will opine that a low dollar is good for American industry, because it will help us sell our goods. That’s only true if we’re producing things that no one else is — or producing them better or cheaper — and we’re not.

Also, many foreign exchange rates are being kept artificially low against the dollar. Some, like many of the oil countries, are pegged to the dollar. They’re making up for it by raising the price of oil (currently traded in dollars). Others, like the Asian manufacturing countries, are keeping their currency down to retain their edge in selling here, thereby canceling whatever advantage we’re supposed to get from declining currency.

One way to think of what the administration has done, is as a leveraged buyout. That’s when someone buys a company, using the company itself as the collateral for the loan used to purchase it, usually at very high interest, then pays off the interest by cutting the work force and salaries, selling outsets and even breaking up the company.

It’s good for the guy who makes the deal, skims the cream off the top and gets rich. (The company that Mitt Romney got rich working for specialized in doing that.) It’s good for the lenders, who get a good return (if the buyer is able to squeeze enough money out of his purchase), but it’s bad for the work force, bad for the company, and, if no one comes along to replace it, bad for the business as a whole.

We’ve experienced a leveraged buyout of the national economy.

Our politicians, the media and economists are just now waking up to the fact that the economy is in trouble.

The current numbers make it clear that we are probably in, or probably headed for, a recession.

Also, the polls show that people are concerned about the economy, and it’s an election year. The people are out ahead of our governing and media and professional economic classes on this, because they live in the real economy, the one that’s been leveraged, and the professionals are either in, or work for, the investor class that has been doing well.

So there is, at last, talk about doing something about the economy.

The Feds will cut interest rates!

George Bush wants a stimulus package. Tax cuts, tax cuts and make my tax cuts permanent! After all, that policy has worked so well. He said the cuts must be at least 1 percent of the GDP. That will be $145 billion.

Harry Reid and Nancy Policy (the King and Queen of Effective Politics) will offer a competing one (tax cuts, tax cuts!). Although they promised pay-as-you-go economic policies from a Democratic legislature.

Pundits in the media talk about a crisis in consumer confidence. And how the fix is to restore it. So we will go out and buy. Presumably on credit.

How about consumers think there’s a problem because there is one. Not because they’re weird emotionally. They reasonably see themselves so overextended, with so little hope of being better earners, that they won’t be able to pay things off. Not even with a one-time government check of somewhere between $300 and $1,200.

In short, most of those solutions will go to making things worse.

The real solutions are pretty obvious and pretty simple.

First, we have to make a choice: Do we want a sound economy for all of us and a strong America? Or do we want to have a few people of unlimited wealth who use that wealth, among other things, to control the government so that it helps them milk more money from the rest of us?

By the way, this is not a call for socialism! Or other ism! Except a call for sensible and effective capitalism. Based on what we’ve seen work and seen fail.

In the real world, there are no such things as free markets.

In the real world, business people manipulate and conspire to control markets, and governments both control and collude with business, while tax policies and government spending have a major affect on the economy.

Let us accept that, and then the argument is only over how best to do it.

Simply giving money to rich people doesn’t work.

Bob Novak, the conservative commentator who calls the investor class “the most creative class,” is flat out wrong. As we’ve seen, outside of their ability to buy influence in politics, the media and the law, the rich are like the rest of us, relatively passive and unimaginative, prone to putting their money in the easiest place that promises a return, in whatever bubble is in fashion at the moment and wherever some salesman who gets their attention tells them.

Money has no mind of its own. It has to be directed toward areas that will generate and support business and good jobs at good wages. As it happens, our economic goals are on the same road as the social good.

The No. 1 target has to be alternative energy.

Energy that can be produced here, in the United States, renewable, nonpolluting, and not, like corn-based ethanol, requiring as much petroleum to produce it as it replaces. One-third of our balance of trade deficit is oil, year in and year out. If the United States can become the world leader in alternative energy and conservation technology, we will, at last, have something to export.

The No. 2 target is infrastructure.

By it’s nature, infrastructure has to be largely produced here with local labor and it stays here.

Hard infrastructure, like roads and bridges, cleaning up New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, protecting our coasts from future storms, internet and phone service as good as Europe’s, Japan’s and Singapore’s.

Soft infrastructure, like education, youth services, parks and recreation programs, public safety, and a saner criminal justice system. The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of the incarcerated population. That’s expensive. And wasteful. Unsafe streets and high crime are expensive and wasteful.

Infrastructure makes doing business easier, quicker and cheaper. It becomes an invisible subsidy for all businesses. Try to imagine, for example, Fed Ex, that entrepreneurial triumph, without a national web of airports, flight controllers and roads.

The No. 3 target is health care.

Health care in the United States costs at least 50 percent more than the next-highest spending country and double what it does in most other modernized countries. All of them have better health than we do. They live longer and in better condition.

The difference is that they have national health plans. Mostly single-payer, usually tax-supported. Our plans are based on a hodge-podge of a thousand private insurers.

A single-payer national health plan should cut the costs of our health care by at least 25 percent, possibly 50 percent. That’s an astonishing number. That money could go to more productive things. Or to even more health care.

American businesses who supply health care to their employees claim they are noncompetitive with companies from countries that have national health. This will make them more competitive. This will make American labor more competitive.

The No. 4 four target is a balanced budget.

There are, in fact, times for deficit spending. Just as there are times in our personal lives to borrow and times for business to borrow.

This is probably not one of them.

There is an ocean of money sloshing all around the world, looking for a home. If there are real business opportunities in America (like taking the lead in alternative energy, bio tech, and whatever is next around the corner), it will come.

Especially if there is a sound business environment and dollar investments return to being the most reliable in the world. That means paying down our debt.

How can all this be done?

Raising taxes…on the wealthy. And on corporations. That’s not class warfare. That’s simple practicality.

After your first $20,000, how much of the next 20 do you need, to live, thrive and survive? Damn near all of it. After your first 20 million, now much of the next 20 million do you need? Not a nickel.

The rich will whine, writhe and scream that they won’t do business, they’ll be driven out of business, that business will collapse. Bullshit. If they dislike keeping 20 or 30 or 40 cents of each dollar of profit so much that they won’t take the dollar, someone will come along who gladly will. That’s how markets work.

All of this is pretty straightforward and common sense.

The illogic of Bushenomics is obvious. The results were foreseeable. After all, similar effects took place under Reagan and Bush the Elder, until they reversed courses.

The alternatives are equally obvious. The facts bear out the theory. Go back to Hoover and Roosevelt, then look at the down, up, down, of Bush the Elder, Bill Clinton, and Bush the Lesser. (We do note that there are minor industries dedicated to proving that Franklin Roosevelt was, in the words of CNN’s Glenn Beck, “an evil son of a bitch,” that the New Deal really, really, really didn’t work, and that Bush the Elder was really, really, really responsible for the boom of the Clinton years and that Clinton was responsible for the first recession during the reign of Bush the Lesser. But they are like people who see the image of the Virgin Mary in bread sticks and crullers.)

None of our politicians, pundits or economists are addressing the fundamentals.

The last time we switched from the nonsense of worshiping unmitigated greed, disguised as free marketeering, it took a market crash and the Great Depression to move us out of our public relations-manufactured delusions and make us understand that when we all do well the rich get richer too, so let’s start with the common good.

Based on the dialogue as it stands now, we will go with tinkering and twaddle, doing more of what doesn’t work. And only if the whole things collapses will we address the real problems.

Larry Beinhart is the author of “Wag the Dog,” “The Librarian,” and “Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin.” All available at nationbooks.org.

Posted in Activism, America, Arkansas, Censorship, Cheney, Civil Rights, Conspiracy, Democrats, Dissent, Economy, Education, Federal Reserve, Finance, Freedom, Freemasons, George Bush, GOP, Impeachment, Investing, Journalism, Law, Law Enforcement, Liberty, Life, Media, Money, News, Newton County, Opinion, Patriotism, Politics, Poverty, Prophecy, Protest, Religion, Republicans, Resistance, Revelations, Revolution, Ron Paul, Society, Stock Market, Tyranny, Uncategorized, Wall Street, WTC | 4 Comments »

GAO Comptroller David Walker Warns Of Financial Crisis

Posted by jeremiasx on January 12, 2008

This guy has been running through the streets ringing alarm bells for YEARS now…not that Bush would have anyone know that or dwell too much on it in the past.  

Via BlackListedNews

Posted in Activism, America, Bizarre, Censorship, Conspiracy, Democracy, Democrats, Dissent, Economy, Education, Federal Reserve, Finance, Freedom, Freemasons, George Bush, GOP, Hillary Clinton, Impeachment, Investing, Journalism, Life, Media, Money, News, Opinion, Politics, Poverty, Prophecy, Random, Republicans, Resistance, Revelations, Revolution, Ron Paul, Society, Stock Market, Uncategorized, Wall Street | 1 Comment »

Faux News W/Frank Luntz FRAUD EXPOSED (Video)

Posted by jeremiasx on January 7, 2008

I found this over on Digg posted by “VoteRonPaul” a bit ago…they (FOX NEWS) are SO BUSTED. Watch it! Sorry for all the tags…but hey…I want maximum exposure and PLEASE REPOST this FAR AND WIDE. OH YEA, DROP FOX NEWS FROM YOUR CABLE SERVICE…it’s time they pay for this masquerade as a “fair and balanced” news program. I hear their stock is dropping anyhow. Might as well throw some well-deserved salt on an open wound while we’re at it, right?

Posted in 9/11 Truth, Activism, Al Qaeda, America, Ann Coulter, Arkansas, Bill O'Reilly, Bizarre, Brit Hume, Censorship, Cheney, CIA, Civil Rights, Comedy, Conspiracy, Conspiracy Theories, Democracy, Dissent, Economy, Education, Energy, Environment, Federal Reserve, Finance, FISA, Florida, Football, Fox News, Freedom, Freemasons, Funny, George Bush, Global Warming, GOP, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, Human Rights, Immigration, Impeachment, Investing, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Journalism, Justice, Karl Rove, Law, Law Enforcement, Liberty, Life, Masons, Media, Medicine, Military, Money, Music, Myanmar, MySpace, NAACP, New Hampshire, New York, News, Newton County, NSA Wiretapping Scandal, NYC, Opinion, Pakistan, Patriotism, Peace, Politics, Poverty, Prophecy, Protest, Psychology, Race, Rainbow Family, Random, REAL ID, Religion, Republicans, Resistance, Revelations, Revolution, Ron Paul, Science, Society, Sports, Stock Market, Technology, Television, Terrorism, Turkey, TV, Tyranny, Uncategorized, Unexplained, US Attorneys, US Attorneys Scandal, Wall Street, War, War on Drugs, War on Terror, Weird, WTC | 2 Comments »

Six Degrees Of Bin Laden

Posted by jeremiasx on December 27, 2007

Interesting that at 6:10 into the video she claims Omar Sheikh killed OBL…bad English or inside info? We’ll never know, I guess…

Bhutto’s Security Was Handled By Bin Laden’s Former Handler In Pakistani ISI

Bin Laden to Omar Sheikh

Omar Sheikh to Musharraf…

Pretty easy game, huh?

-J

Posted in 9/11, 9/11 Truth, Activism, Al Qaeda, America, BBC, Bizarre, Censorship, CIA, Civil Rights, Conspiracy, Conspiracy Theories, Democracy, Democrats, Dissent, Freedom, Freemasons, George Bush, GOP, Impeachment, Journalism, Justice, Law, New York, News, Newton County, NYC, Opinion, Pakistan, Patriotism, Peace, Politics, Prophecy, Protest, Random, Republicans, Resistance, Revelations, Revolution, Ron Paul, Society, Terrorism, Tyranny, War, War on Drugs, War on Terror, Weird, WTC | 3 Comments »

Burnin Down Teh House…

Posted by jeremiasx on December 27, 2007

Two thumbs up for creativity and timeliness.

talkingheads.jpg

HOUSTON (Reuters) – A home where President George W. Bush lived as a young boy with his parents in Odessa, Texas, and that is now part of a presidential museum there was damaged on Thursday by a fire that investigators blamed on arson.

“I can tell you it has been determined that it was intentionally set, but I cannot discuss anything about evidence or possible suspects because this is an ongoing criminal investigation,” said city of Odessa spokeswoman Andrea Goodson.

Museum administrator Lettie England said no motive for the blaze had been determined and there was no reason at this point to believe it was a political act. She said there were no notes or messages left at the scene. (authors note: I believe the act speaks for itself…lolz…)

England said in a telephone interview from the west Texas city that the arsonist spread some kind of flammable liquid on the door and front windows and set the fire.

The then 2-year-old Bush lived in the two-bedroom home from September 1948 to April 1949 with his father, former President George Bush, then a trainee for an oil company, and his mother, Barbara Bush.

The Bushes had come to Texas from the Northeastern United States after World War Two to get into the oil business.

Goodson said the front door and windows and the attic were badly damaged.

Posted in Activism, Bizarre, Cheney, Civil Rights, Comedy, Democracy, Democrats, Dissent, Education, Federal Reserve, Freedom, Freemasons, Funny, George Bush, GOP, Impeachment, Investing, Law, Law Enforcement, Liberty, Life, Media, Music, Opinion, Patriotism, Peace, Politics, Prophecy, Protest, Random, Republicans, Resistance, Revelations, Revolution, Ron Paul, Society, Tyranny, Uncategorized, Unexplained, Weird | 1 Comment »

New Independent 9/11 Investigation NOW…

Posted by jeremiasx on December 22, 2007

(This is a repost but in light of the revelations that the CIA withheld evidence from the investigation…obviously this needs to be looked at AGAIN. America deserves the truth.)

Here is a timeline of the farce that was the original 9/11 investigation…it comes from an open source coordinated project, therefore I feel pretty comfortable re-posting it here. Heavily sourced and referenced for your convenience…call or write your Congressman…America deserves better than THIS!!!

December 21, 2001: Senators Introduce Bills to Create Independent 9/11 Commission

Two bipartisan pairs of senators introduce legislation to create independent 9/11 commissions. Senators Joe Lieberman (D) and John McCain (R) propose to create a 14-member, bipartisan commission with subpoena power. At the same time, Robert Torricelli (D) and Charles Grassley (R) propose to create a 12-member board of inquiry with subpoena power. White House spokeswoman Anne Womack is noncommittal about the proposals, saying, “We look forward to reviewing them. Right now, the president is focused on fighting the war on terrorism.” [New York Times. 21 December.')" onmouseout="return nd()">New York Times, 12/21/2001]

Entity Tags: John McCain, Charles Grassley, Joseph Lieberman, Robert Torricelli

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

January 24, 2002: Cheney and Bush Pressure Senator to Avoid 9/11 Inquiry

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D) later claims that on this day, Vice President Cheney calls him and urges that no 9/11 inquiry be made. President Bush repeats the request on January 28, and Daschle is repeatedly pressured thereafter. Newsweek summarizes one of these conversations: “Bush administration officials might say they’re too busy running the war on terrorism to show up. Press the issue … and you risk being accused of interfering with the mission.” [Newsweek. 4 February.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Newsweek, 2/4/2002] Cheney later disagrees: “Tom’s wrong. He has, in this case, let’s say a misinterpretation.” [Reuters. 27 May.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Reuters, 5/27/2002]

Entity Tags: Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Tom Daschle, George W. Bush

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

May 23, 2002: Bush Opposes Special Inquiry into Terrorism Warnings

President Bush says he is opposed to establishing a special, independent commission to probe how the government dealt with terrorism warnings before 9/11. [CBS News. 2002. “Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel.” 23 May.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>CBS News, 5/23/2002] He later changes his stance in the face of overwhelming support for the idea (see September 20, 2002), and then sabotages an agreement that Congress had reached to establish the commission.

Entity Tags: Zahed Sheikh Mohammed, George W. Bush

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

Summer 2002-Summer 2004: 9/11 Investigations Glance over Intercepts of Hijackers’ Calls

Both the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission examine the NSA’s intercepts of various calls made by the hijackers to an al-Qaeda communications hub in Sana’a, Yemen (see Early 2000-Summer 2001). The 9/11 Congressional Inquiry refers to several of the calls and gives an idea of the content of some of them. But it does not mention those made by Nawaf Alhazmi and possibly other hijackers from the US after the USS Cole bombing, which are only disclosed later in the media (see Mid-October 2000-Summer 2001 and 2004 and After). However, this section of the Inquiry report is heavily redacted so most details remain unknown. It states that, although the NSA intercepted the calls and disseminated dispatches about some of them, the NSA did not realize the hijackers were in the US at the time the calls were made. [Report Of The Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11, 2001. 108th Cong., 1st sess.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. xii, 11-12, 143-146, 155-157 pdf file] The 9/11 Commission Report contains a briefer section on the intercepts and deals with those which led to the surveillance of the Malaysia meeting. In addition, it mentions that Almihdhar called his wife from San Diego in the spring of 2000, but fails to mention that his wife lived at an al-Qaeda communications hub and that the calls were intercepted by the NSA (see Spring-Summer 2000). [Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 181, 222] The Los Angeles Times comments: “The [9/11 Congressional Inquiry] and the Sept. 11 commission that came after it referred indirectly to the calls from Yemen to San Diego. But neither report discloses what the NSA gleaned from the calls, or why they were never disclosed to the FBI.” [Los Angeles Times. 21 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Los Angeles Times, 12/21/2005] The publication of the 9/11 Commission report and revelations about domestic surveillance by the NSA will lead to increased media interest in and revelations about the intercepts starting from 2004 (see 2004 and After).

Entity Tags: National Security Agency, Hoda al-Hada, Khalid Almihdhar, 9/11 Commission, Ahmed al-Hada, Nawaf Alhazmi, 9/11 Congressional Inquiry

Category Tags: Remote Surveillance, Yemen Hub, 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Congressional Inquiry

June 22, 2002: 9/11 Inquiry Member Appears Biased in Defending FBI

Internal FBI documents show that Thomas Kelley, in charge of matters relating to the FBI in the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, blocked an inquiry into the FBI’s role in Waco. For instance, an internal FBI memo from December 2000 states that Kelley “continued to thwart and obstruct” the Waco investigation to the point that a special counsel was forced to send a team to search FBI headquarters for documents Kelley refused to turn over. [Washington Post. 22 June.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 6/22/2002]

Entity Tags: Thomas Kelley, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

October 10, 2002: Bush Backtracks on Support for Independent 9/11 Investigation

A tentative congressional deal to create an independent commission to investigate the 9/11 attacks falls apart hours after the White House objected to the plan (it appears Vice President Cheney called Republican leaders and told them to renege on the agreement [New York Times. 2 November.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 11/2/2002] ). Bush had pledged to support such a commission a few weeks earlier (see September 20, 2002), but doubters who questioned his sincerity appear to have been proven correct. Hours after top Republican leaders announced at a press conference that an agreement had been reached, House Republican leaders said they wouldn’t bring the legislation to the full House for a vote unless the commission proposal was changed. There are worries that if the White House can delay the legislation for a few more days until Congress adjourns, it could stop the creation of a commission for months, if not permanently. [New York Times. 11 October.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 10/11/2002] Another deal is made a few weeks later (see November 15, 2002) and the commission goes forward.

Entity Tags: Richard (“Dick”) Cheney

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

October 17, 2002: Tenet Misinforms Congressional Inquiry about CIA Knowledge of Hijackers’ Entry into US

In sworn testimony to the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, CIA Director George Tenet repeatedly claims that a March 2000 cable sent to CIA headquarters reporting that hijacker Nawaf Alhazmi had entered the US was not read by anybody. He says, “I know that nobody read that cable,” “Nobody read that cable in the March timeframe,” and “[N]obody read that information only cable.” [New York Times. 2002. “Testimony From the Joint Intelligence Committee.” 17 October.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 10/17/2002] Former Counterterrorist Center Director Cofer Black will also claim that the cable was not read. [Report Of The Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11, 2001. 108th Cong., 1st sess.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 51 pdf file] However, a later investigation by the CIA Office of Inspector General will find that numerous CIA officers had actually read the cable shortly after it was sent (see ). Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission will later assert that, “No-one outside the Counterterrorist Center was told any of this” (about Alhazmi’s arrival in the US) and neglect to mention that Tenet had previously misstated the CIA’s knowledge of the hijackers. Neither will the 9/11 Commission investigate the cause of the CIA’s apparent inaction. [Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 181]

Entity Tags: George J. Tenet, 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, Cofer Black, 9/11 Commission, Nawaf Alhazmi

Category Tags: 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Congressional Inquiry

November 15, 2002: Congress Starts New 9/11 Investigation

Congress approves legislation creating an independent commission—the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States—to “examine and report on the facts and causes relating to the September 11th terrorist attacks” and “make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks.” President Bush signs it into law November 27, 2002. [Establishing the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, Public Law 107-306. 107th Cong., 2nd sess.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>US Congress, 11/27/2002] Bush originally opposed an independent commission (see May 23, 2002), but he changes his mind over the summer (see September 20, 2002) after political pressure. The Democrats concede several important aspects of the commission (such as subpoena approval) after the White House threatens to create a commission by executive order, over which it would have more control. Bush will appoint the commission chairman and he sets a strict time frame (18 months) for the investigation. [CNN. 15 November.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>CNN, 11/15/2002] The commission will only have a $3 million budget. Senator Jon Corzine (D) and others wonder how the commission can accomplish much with such a small budget. [Associated Press. 20 January.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Associated Press, 1/20/2003] The budget is later increased (see March 26, 2003).

Entity Tags: Jon Corzine, George W. Bush, US Congress, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

November 27, 2002: Kissinger Named Chairman of New 9/11 Commission

Henry Kissinger. Henry Kissinger. [Source: Public domain]President Bush names Henry Kissinger as Chairman of the 9/11 Commission. Congressional Democrats appoint George Mitchell, former Senate majority leader and peace envoy to Northern Ireland and the Middle East, as vice chairman. Their replacements and the other eight members of the commission are chosen by mid-December. Kissinger served as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser for Presidents Nixon and Ford. [New York Times. 2002. “The Kissinger Commission.” 29 November.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 11/29/2002] Kissinger’s ability to remain independent is met with skepticism. [Sydney Morning Herald. 29 November.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Sydney Morning Herald, 11/29/2002; CNN. 2002. “Mark Shields: The strange choice of Henry Kissinger.” 30 November.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>CNN, 11/30/2002; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 3 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/3/2002; Washington Post. 17 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 12/17/2002] He has a very controversial past. For instance, “Documents recently released by the CIA, strengthen previously-held suspicions that Kissinger was actively involved in the establishment of Operation Condor, a covert plan involving six Latin American countries including Chile, to assassinate thousands of political opponents.” He is also famous for an “obsession with secrecy.” [BBC. 2002. “Henry Kissinger: Haunted by His Past.” 26 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>BBC, 4/26/2002] It is even difficult for Kissinger to travel outside the US. Investigative judges in Spain, France, Chile, and Argentina seek to question him in several legal actions related to his possible involvement in war crimes, particularly in Latin America, Vietnam, Cambodia (see March 1969-1973), Laos (see 1969-1973), Bangladesh, Chile, and East Timor (see December 7, 1976). [Village Voice. 15 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Village Voice, 8/15/2001; BBC. 18 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>BBC, 4/18/2002; Chicago Tribune. 1 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Chicago Tribune, 12/1/2002] The New York Times suggests, “Indeed, it is tempting to wonder if the choice of Mr. Kissinger is not a clever maneuver by the White House to contain an investigation it long opposed.” [New York Times. 2002. “The Kissinger Commission.” 29 November.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 11/29/2002] The Chicago Tribune notes that “the president who appointed him originally opposed this whole undertaking.” Kissinger is “known more for keeping secrets from the American people than for telling the truth” and asking him “to deliver a critique that may ruin friends and associates is asking a great deal.” [Chicago Tribune. 2002. “The Kissinger Commission.” 5 December.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Chicago Tribune, 12/5/2002]

Entity Tags: George Mitchell, 9/11 Commission, Henry A. Kissinger, George W. Bush

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

December 11, 2002: Mitchell Resigns from New 9/11 Commission

George Mitchell. George Mitchell. [Source: Public domain]George Mitchell resigns as vice chairman of the recently-created 9/11 investigative commission. Lee Hamilton, an Indiana congressman for more than 30 years and chairman of the committee which investigated the Iran-Contra affair, is named as his replacement. [CNN. 11 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>CNN, 12/11/2002] Mitchell cites time constraints as his reason for stepping down, but he also does not want to sever ties with his lawyer-lobbying firm, Piper Rudnick, or reveal his list of clients. Recent clients include the governments of Yemen and the United Arab Emirates. [Newsweek. 15 December.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Newsweek, 12/15/2002]

Entity Tags: Lee Hamilton, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, 9/11 Commission, George Mitchell

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

December 13, 2002: Kissinger Resigns from New 9/11 Commission

Henry Kissinger resigns as head of the new 9/11 Commission. [Associated Press. 13 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 12/13/2002; Associated Press. 13 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 12/13/2002] Two days earlier, the Bush administration argued that Kissinger was not required to disclose his private business clients. [New York Times. 12 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 12/12/2002] However, the Congressional Research Service insists that he does, and Kissinger resigns rather than reveal his clients. [MSNBC. 13 December.')" onmouseout="return nd()">MSNBC, 12/13/2002; Seattle Times. 14 December.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Seattle Times, 12/14/2002] It is reported that Kissinger is (or has been) a consultant for Unocal, the oil corporation, and was involved in plans to build pipelines through Afghanistan (see September-October 1995). [Washington Post. 5 October.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 10/5/1998; Salon. 3 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Salon, 12/3/2002] Kissinger claims he did no current work for any oil companies or Mideast clients, but several corporations with heavy investments in Saudi Arabia, such as ABB Group, a Swiss-Swedish engineering firm, and Boeing Corp., pay him consulting fees of at least $250,000 a year. A Boeing spokesman said its “long-standing” relationship with Kissinger involved advice on deals in East Asia, not Saudi Arabia. Boeing sold $7.2 billion worth of aircraft to Saudi Arabia in 1995. [Newsweek. 15 December.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Newsweek, 12/15/2002] In a surprising break from usual procedures regarding high-profile presidential appointments, White House lawyers never vetted Kissinger for conflicts of interest. [Newsweek. 15 December.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Newsweek, 12/15/2002] The Washington Post says that after the resignations of Kissinger and Mitchell, the commission “has lost time” and “is in disarray, which is no small trick given that it has yet to meet.” [Washington Post. 2002. “False Start on 9/11.” 14 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 12/14/2002]

Entity Tags: Henry A. Kissinger, Congressional Research Service, Bush administration, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

December 16, 2002: Ex-Governor Kean replaces Kissinger as Chairman of New 9/11 Commission

Thomas Kean. Thomas Kean. [Source: Public domain]President Bush names former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean as the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission after his original choice, Henry Kissinger, resigned (see December 13, 2002). [Washington Post. 17 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 12/17/2002] In an appearance on NBC, Kean promises an aggressive investigation. “It’s really a remarkably broad mandate, so I don’t think we’ll have any problem looking under every rock. I’ve got no problems in going as far as we have to in finding out the facts.” [Associated Press. 17 December.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Associated Press, 12/17/2002] However, Kean plans to remain president of Drew University and devote only one day a week to the commission. He also claims he would have no conflicts of interest, stating: “I have no clients except the university.” [Washington Post. 17 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 12/17/2002] However, he has a history of such conflicts of interest. Multinational Monitor has previously stated: “Perhaps no individual more clearly illustrates the dangers of university presidents maintaining corporate ties than Thomas Kean,” citing the fact that he is on the Board of Directors of Aramark (which received a large contract with his university after he became president), Bell Atlantic, United Health Care, Beneficial Corporation, Fiduciary Trust Company International, and others. [Multinational Monitor. November.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Multinational Monitor, 11/1997]

Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Thomas Kean, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

Mid-December 2002-March 2003: 9/11 Commission Gets Off to Slow Start

After experiencing some problems at its inception due to the resignation of its chair and vice-chair (see December 11, 2002 and December 13, 2002), the 9/11 Commission spends much of the next four months hiring staff, getting security clearances (see March 27, 2003), finding office space, and asking for a budget increase (see March 26, 2003). One of the first employees hired is executive director Philip Zelikow, but disputes within the Commission over who will be general council last until March, when Dan Marcus is hired. The Commission is unable to even have a telephone until February, when it finds an official security facility for its offices. However, then most of the Commission’s staff cannot enter their offices, because they do not have the relevant security clearances yet, even though there are no secret documents actually in the offices at this point. [Without Precedent. New York: Knopf.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Kean and Hamilton, 2006, pp. 34-45]

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, Dan Marcus

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

January 27, 2003: 9/11 Commission Starts Off with Little Funding

The 9/11 Commission, officially titled the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, holds its first meeting in Washington. The commission has $3 million and only a year and a half to explore the causes of the attacks. By comparison, a 1996 federal commission to study legalized gambling was given two years and $5 million. [Associated Press. 2003. “9/11 Commission Meets Behind Closed Doors.” 27 January.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 1/27/2003] Two months later the Bush administration grudgingly increases the funding to $12 million total (see March 26, 2003). Philip Zelikow, the director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia and formerly in the National Security Council during George H. W. Bush’s administration, is also appointed executive director of the commission. [Associated Press. 2003. “9/11 Commission Meets Behind Closed Doors.” 27 January.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 1/27/2003] Zelikow cowrote a book with National Security Adviser Rice and was also, in 2002, responsible for completely rewriting President Bush’s national security strategy. [9/11 Commission, 3/2003; Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush\’s War Cabinet. New York: Penguin.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Mann, 2004, pp. 316-317] A few days later, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton says, “The focus of the commission will be on the future. We want to make recommendations that will make the American people more secure. … We’re not interested in trying to assess blame, we do not consider that part of the commission’s responsibility.” [United Press International. 6 February.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>United Press International, 2/6/2003]

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, Bush administration, Lee Hamilton, Philip Zelikow

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

March 26, 2003: Bush Turns Down Increased Budget for 9/11 Commission

Time reports that the 9/11 Commission has requested an additional $11 million to add to the $3 million for the commission, and the Bush administration has turned down the request. The request will not be added to a supplemental spending bill. A Republican member of the commission says the decision will make it “look like they have something to hide.” Another commissioner notes that the recent commission on the Columbia shuttle crash will have a $50 million budget. Stephen Push, a leader of the 9/11 victims’ families, says the decision “suggests to me that they see this as a convenient way for allowing the commission to fail. they’ve never wanted the commission and I feel the White House has always been looking for a way to kill it without having their finger on the murder weapon.” The administration has suggested it may grant the money later, but any delay will further slow down the commission’s work. Already, commission members are complaining that scant progress has been made in the four months since the commission started, and they are operating under a deadline. [Time. 26 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Time, 3/26/2003] Three days later, it is reported that the Bush administration has agreed to extra funding, but only $9 million, not $11 million. The commission agrees to the reduced amount. [Washington Post. 29 March.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Washington Post, 3/29/2003] The New York Times criticizes such penny-pinching, saying, “Reasonable people might wonder if the White House, having failed in its initial attempt to have Henry Kissinger steer the investigation, may be resorting to budgetary starvation as a tactic to hobble any politically fearless inquiry.” [New York Times. 31 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 3/31/2003]

Entity Tags: Stephen Push, 9/11 Commission, Bush administration

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

March 27, 2003: Security Clearance of 9/11 Commission Members Stalled

It is reported that “most members” of the 9/11 Commission still have not received security clearances. [Washington Post. 27 March.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Washington Post, 3/27/2003] For instance, Slade Gorton, picked in December 2002, is a former senator with a long background in intelligence issues. Fellow commissioner Lee Hamilton says, “It’s kind of astounding that someone like Senator Gorton can’t get immediate clearance. It’s a matter we are concerned about.” The commission is said to be at a “standstill” because of the security clearance issue, and cannot even read the classified findings of the previous 9/11 Congressional Inquiry. [Seattle Times. 12 March.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Seattle Times, 3/12/2003]

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, Slade Gorton, Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Congressional Inquiry

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

March 28, 2003: Independence of 9/11 Commission Called Into Question

An article highlights conflicts of interest amongst the commissioners on the 9/11 Commission. It had been previously reported that many of the commissioners had ties to the airline industry (see December 16, 2002), but a number have other ties. “At least three of the ten commissioners serve as directors of international financial or consulting firms, five work for law firms that represent airlines and three have ties to the US military or defense contractors, according to personal financial disclosures they were required to submit.” Bryan Doyle, project manager for the watchdog group Aviation Integrity Project says, “It is simply a failure on the part of the people making the selections to consider the talented pool of non-conflicted individuals.” Commission chairman Thomas Kean says that members are expected to steer clear of discussions that might present even the appearance of a conflict. [Associated Press. 28 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 3/28/2003]

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, Bryan Doyle

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

March 31, 2003: US Government Draws Harsh Criticism at First 9/11 Commission Hearing

Mindy Kleinberg.Mindy Kleinberg. [Source: Public domain]The 9/11 Commission has its first public hearing. The Miami Herald reports, “Several survivors of the attack and victims’ relatives testified that a number of agencies, from federal to local, are ducking responsibility for a series of breakdowns before and during September 11.” [Miami Herald. 31 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Miami Herald, 3/31/2003] The New York Times suggests that the 9/11 Commission would never have been formed if it were not for the pressure of the 9/11 victims’ relatives. [New York Times. 1 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 4/1/2003] Some of the relatives strongly disagreed with statements from some commissioners that they would not place blame. For instance, Stephen Push states, “I think this commission should point fingers. … Some of those people [who failed us] are still in responsible positions in government. Perhaps they shouldn’t be.” [United Press International. 31 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>United Press International, 3/31/2003] The most critical testimony comes from 9/11 relative Mindy Kleinberg, but her testimony is only briefly reported on by a few newspapers. [United Press International. 31 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>United Press International, 3/31/2003; Newsday. 1 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Newsday, 4/1/2003; New York Times. 1 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 4/1/2003; New York Post. 1 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Post, 4/1/2003; New Jersey Star-Ledger. 1 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New Jersey Star-Ledger, 4/1/2003] In her testimony, Kleinberg says, “It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100 percent of the time and the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value. Because the 9/11 terrorists were not just lucky once: They were lucky over and over again.” She points out the insider trading based on 9/11 foreknowledge, the failure of fighters to catch the hijacked planes in time, hijackers getting visas in violation of standard procedures, and other events, and asks how the hijackers could have been lucky so many times. [Statement of Mindy Kleinberg.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 3/31/2003]

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, Mindy Kleinberg, Stephen Push

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

March 31-July 9, 2003 and After: 9/11 Commission Initially Conducts Little Noticed Background Policy Hearings

The 9/11 Commission holds its first three hearings in the spring and summer of 2003 on topics such as the experience of the attack, congressional oversight, and whether Iraq was behind 9/11 (see March 31, 2003). [Public Hearing.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003; Public Hearing: September 11, 2001: The Attacks And The Response and Reforming Civil Aviation Security: Next Steps.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003; Hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States: Terrorism, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim World.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 7/9/2003 pdf file] These hearings do not receive much publicity and Commission Chairman Tom Kean and Vice-chairman Lee Hamilton will later call them “background policy hearings in front of a C-SPAN audience.” The victims’ families are frustrated by this, by the lack of tough questioning, and by the fact that witnesses are not placed under oath. Kean and Hamilton later say that at this point the Commission “was not ready to present findings and answers” since the various staff teams are nowhere near completing their tasks. For example, the team investigating the air defense failure on the day of 9/11 does not even issue a subpoena for the documents it needs until autumn (see Late October 2003 and October-November 2003). [Without Precedent. New York: Knopf.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Kean and Hamilton, 2006, pp. 127-8]

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, Lee Hamilton

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

April 24, 2003: 9/11 Commission Member Barred from Viewing Intelligence Material

9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer tries to review the transcripts of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry. However, he learns that he has no permission to see them, even though he served on the Inquiry and had read the material before. [Associated Press. 2003. “Panel\’s Lack Of Access to 9/11 Papers Is Decried.” 26 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 4/26/2003] Roemer says the arrangement is outrageous: “No entity, individual, or organization should sift through or filter our access to material.” [Associated Press. 30 April.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Associated Press, 4/30/2003]

Entity Tags: Tim Roemer, 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Congressional Inquiry

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

July 8, 2003: 9/11 Commission Denounces Lack of Cooperation

A status report released by the 9/11 Commission shows that various government agencies are not cooperating fully with the investigation. Neither the CIA nor the Justice Department have provided all requested documents. Lack of cooperation on the part of the Department of Defense “[is] becoming particularly serious,” and the commission has received no responses whatsoever to requests related to national air defenses. The FBI, State Department, and Transportation Department receive generally positive reviews. [Associated Press. 9 July.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Associated Press, 7/9/2003] Commissioner Tim Roemer complains, “We’re not getting the kind of cooperation that we should be. We need a steady stream of information coming to us … Instead, We’re getting a trickle.” [Guardian. 10 July.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Guardian, 7/10/2003] Chairman Thomas Kean is also troubled by the Bush administration’s insistence on having a Justice Department official present during interviews with federal officials. [Associated Press. 9 July.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Associated Press, 7/9/2003] The 9/11 Commission is eventually forced to subpoena documents from the Defense Department and FAA (see October-November 2003).

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, Central Intelligence Agency, US Department of Justice, US Department of Defense, Tim Roemer, Thomas Kean, Bush administration, US Department of State, Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Transportation

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

October-November 2003: 9/11 Commission Subpoenas FAA and Pentagon for Missing Documents

The 9/11 Commission unanimously agrees to subpoena the FAA after it refuses to produce records relating to FAA notification to US air defenses concerning the hijacked planes on 9/11. The panel states, “This disturbing development at one agency has led the commission to reexamine its general policy of relying on document requests rather than subpoenas.” [Associated Press. 15 October.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Associated Press, 10/15/2003] The commission also votes to subpoena the Pentagon for documents related to NORAD’s fighter response on 9/11. The commission says it is “especially dismayed” by incomplete document production on the part of NORAD. The commission explains, “In several cases we were assured that all requested records had been produced, but we then discovered, through investigation, that these assurances were mistaken.” [Associated Press. 7 November.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Associated Press, 11/7/2003]

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, US Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration, North American Aerospace Defense Command

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

Late October 2003: 9/11 Commission’s Tour of NEADS Facility Suspended Over Discrepancies

Several months into its investigation, the 9/11 Commission is already dissatisfied with the Department of Defense (see July 8, 2003). When its staff take a tour of a Northeast Air Defense Sector facility in Rome, New York, which helped coordinate the air defense on the day of 9/11, the staff enter the operations room, which has “more than twenty banks of operators: some weapons controllers and some flight controllers.” The staff find that the operators’ conversations are always tape-recorded, but the tapes for 9/11 have not yet been sent to the commission and, according to Commission Chairman Tom Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton, “there were also discrepancies between things NORAD was telling [the commission] about their performance on the morning of September—things that the agency had stated publicly after 9/11—and the story told by the limited tapes and documents the commission had received.” Upon learning of the existence of the tapes, team leader John Farmer immediately suspends the tour and the interviews and flies to meet Kean in New Jersey. The commission subsequently subpoenas NORAD for the tapes (see October-November 2003), but, according to Kean and Hamilton, this means that “the staff had lost so much time that our hearing on the 9/11 story in the skies was postponed for months. Indeed, the delays from NORAD and the FAA made it highly unlikely that the team could complete its work as scheduled.” [Without Precedent. New York: Knopf.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Kean and Hamilton, 2006, pp. 85-88] Chapter 1 of the commission’s final report will draw heavily on the tapes. [Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 1-46] However, the commission does not make the same effort with all day of 9/11 recordings. For example, it does not even find out which person(s) from the Department of Defense participated in a White House video conference chaired by counter-terrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke during the attacks. [Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 36]

Entity Tags: Thomas Kean, Lee Hamilton, Northeast Air Defense Sector, John Farmer, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

October 21, 2003: 9/11 Commission Staff Meet Member of Able Danger Unit

Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, along with two members of the commission’s staff and an unnamed “representative of the executive branch,” meets at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan with three individuals doing intelligence work for the US Defense Department. [CNN. 2005. “Officer: 9/11 Panel Didn\’t Receive Key Information.” 17 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>CNN, 8/17/2005; Sacramento Bee. 24 November.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Sacramento Bee, 11/24/2005] Among these is Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, an Army intelligence officer who worked closely with a military intelligence unit called Able Danger, which between fall 1999 and spring 2001 was tasked with assembling information about al-Qaeda networks around the world (see Fall 1999 and January-March 2001). According to Shaffer’s own later account, he gives the commission staff a detailed account of what Able Danger was, and tells them, “We found two of the three cells which conducted 9/11, to include [Mohamed] Atta.” At the end of the meeting, Philip Zelikow approaches him and says, “This is important. We need to continue this dialogue when we get back to the states.” [Government Security News. September.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Government Security News, 9/2005] Following the meeting, Zelikow calls back to the 9/11 Commission’s headquarters in Washington to request that staff draft a document request, seeking information on Able Danger from the Department of Defense. [Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, 8/12/2005 pdf file] According to Anthony Shaffer, “My understanding from talking to another member of the press is that [Zelikow’s] call came into America at four o clock in the morning. He got people out of bed over this.” [Government Security News. September.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Government Security News, 9/2005] Shaffer subsequently tries contacting Philip Zelikow in January 2004 (see Early January 2004). After it is revealed in the press that the commission, which includes no mention of Able Danger in its final report, had been briefed on the unit, spokesmen for commission members will insist that while they were informed of Able Danger at this time, they were not informed that it had identified Mohamed Atta or any other hijackers as threats. [New York Times. 10 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 8/10/2005] Head commissioners Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton will later say in an official statement that a memorandum prepared by the commission staff after the meeting “does not record any mention of Mohamed Atta or any of the other future hijackers, or any suggestion that their identities were known to anyone at DOD before 9/11. Nor do any of the three Commission staffers who participated in the interview, or the executive branch lawyer, recall hearing any such allegation.” [Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, 8/12/2005 pdf file]

Entity Tags: US Department of Defense, Able Danger, Philip Zelikow, Mohamed Atta, Anthony Shaffer, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: Able Danger, 9/11 Commission, Able Danger, 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

November 12, 2003: 9/11 Commission and White House Agree to Terms of Access

Senators of both parties have been accusing the White House of stonewalling the 9/11 Commission by blocking its demands for documents despite threats of a subpoena. [Associated Press. 2003. “White House Is Said to Ignore 9/11 Panel.” 27 October.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Associated Press, 10/27/2003] On this day, the White House and the 9/11 Commission strike a deal. The main issue is access to the presidential daily briefings given to President Bush. Under the deal, only some of the ten commissioners will be allowed to examine classified intelligence documents, and their notes will be subject to White House review. Some 9/11 victims’ relatives complain that the agreement gives the White House too much power. The Family Steering Committee complains, “All ten commissioners should have full, unfettered, and unrestricted access to all evidence.” It urges the public release of “the full, official, and final written agreement.” [Associated Press. 13 November.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 11/13/2003] Commissioner Max Cleland is unsatisfied with the deal and resigns a short time later (see December 9, 2003).

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, George W. Bush, Bush administration

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

December 9, 2003: Bob Kerry Replaces Max Cleland on 9/11 Commission

Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator who also served as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is appointed to the 9/11 Commission, replacing Max Cleland, who leaves the commission to accept a position on the board of the Export-Import Bank. [Washington Post. 10 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 12/10/2003] Just before resigning, Cleland called the Bush administration’s attempts to stonewall and “slow walk” the commission a “national scandal.” He criticized the commission for cutting a deal with the White House that compromised their access to information, and said, “I’m not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I’m not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I’m not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I’m not going to be part of that. This is serious.” [Salon. 21 November.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Salon, 11/21/2003]

Entity Tags: Export-Import Bank, Bush administration, Bob Kerrey, 9/11 Commission, Max Cleland

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

January-March 22, 2004: National Security Adviser Rice Privately Regrets Comments, Then Publicly Repeats Them

The New York Times later reports that in private discussions with the 9/11 Commission in January 2002, National Security Adviser “Rice [is] asked about statements she made in 2001 and 2002 [(see May 16, 2002)] that ‘we could not have imagined’ that terrorists would use aircraft as weapons by piloting them into buildings. She [tells] the commission that she regret[s] those comments, because at the time she was not aware of intelligence, developed in the late 1990s, that some terrorists were thinking of using airplanes as guided missiles. She told the commission in the private session that she should have said, ‘I could not have imagined,’ according to one official familiar with the testimony, making it clear that some in the intelligence community knew about those threats but that she did not.” [New York Times. 6 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 4/6/2004] However, in a March 22, 2004 op-ed for the Washington Post entitled “For the Record,” she essentially repeats her 2002 comments, claiming, “Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free US-held terrorists.” [Washington Post. 22 March.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Washington Post, 3/22/2004]

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

Early 2004: Weldon Fails to Convince 9/11 Commission to Look into Data Mining Programs

Rep. Curt Weldon. Rep. Curt Weldon. [Source: House of Representatives]Rep. Curt Weldon (R) is not yet familiar with Able Danger, though he will help bring information about the program to light in 2005. However, he is familiar with the closely related Land Information Warfare Activity (LIWA) program, having had dealings with it before 9/11. He says he is frustrated at the apparent lack of understanding about programs like LIWA based on the lines of questioning at public 9/11 Commission hearings in early 2004, so, “On at least four occasions, I personally tried to brief the 9/11 Commissioners on: NOAH [Weldon’s pre-9/11 suggestion to have a National Operations and Analysis Hub]; integrative data collaboration capabilities; my frustration with intelligence stovepipes; and al-Qaeda analysis. However, I was never able to achieve more than a five-minute telephone conversation with Commissioner Thomas Kean. On March 24, 2004, I also had my Chief of Staff personally hand deliver a document about LIWA, along [with] questions for George Tenet to the Commission, but neither was ever used.” [US Congress. Senate. Committee on Judiciary, 9/21/2005] He says, “The next week, they sent a staffer over to pick up some additional materials about the NIWA, about the concept, and about information I had briefed them on. They never followed up and invited me to come in and meet with them. So they can’t say that I didn’t try.” [Office of Congressman Curt Weldon, 9/17/2005]

Entity Tags: Curt Weldon, Land Information Warfare Activity, 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, George J. Tenet

Category Tags: Able Danger, 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Investigations

Early January 2004: Able Danger Intelligence Officer Tries Contacting 9/11 Commission

Following an October 2003 meeting with three members of the 9/11 Commission’s staff (see October 21, 2003), Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer tries contacting Philip Zelikow, the commission’s executive director, as requested by Zelikow himself. Shaffer is an Army intelligence officer who worked closely with a military intelligence unit called Able Danger, which identified Mohamed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers in early 2000 (see January-February 2000). He phones Zelikow’s number the first week of January 2004. The person who replies tells him, “I will talk to Dr. Zelikow and find out when he wants you to come in.” However, Shaffer receives no call back, so a week later he phones again. This time, the person who answers him says, “Dr. Zelikow tells me that he does not see the need for you to come in. We have all the information on Able Danger.” [Government Security News. September.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Government Security News, 9/2005] Yet the commission doesn’t even receive the Able Danger documentation they had previously requested from the Defense Department until the following month (see February 2004). [Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, 8/12/2005 pdf file]

Entity Tags: Able Danger, Philip Zelikow, Philip Zelikow, 9/11 Commission, Anthony Shaffer

Category Tags: Able Danger, 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Investigations

January 19, 2004: White House Opposes 9/11 Commission Extension

The Washington Post reports, “A growing number of [9/11 Commission] members [have] concluded that the panel needs more time to prepare a thorough and credible accounting of missteps leading to the terrorist attacks.” As a result, the commission is asking Congress to vote on approving a several month extension to finish their report. “But the White House and leading Republicans have informed the panel that they oppose any delay, which raises the possibility that Sept. 11-related controversies could emerge during the heat of the presidential campaign.” [Washington Post. 19 January.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 1/19/2004] The White House will reverse its stance a month later (see February 5, 2004).

Entity Tags: White House, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

February-April 2004: Bush Administration Withholds Clinton Documents from 9/11 Commission

The Bush administration withholds thousands of documents from the Clinton administration that had already been cleared by Clinton’s general counsel Bruce Lindsey for release to the 9/11 Commission. [New York Times. 2 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 4/2/2004] In April, after a public outcry, the Bush administration grants access to most of the documents. [Washington Post. 3 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 4/3/2004; Fox News. 2004. “Sept. 11 Panel to Decide Fate of Clinton Counterterror Papers.” 4 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Fox News, 4/4/2004] However, they continue to withhold approximately 57 documents. According to the commission, the documents being withheld by the Bush White House include references to al-Qaeda, bin Laden, and other issues relevant to the panel’s work. [Washington Post. 8 April.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Washington Post, 4/8/2004]

Entity Tags: Bruce Lindsey, Clinton administration, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, 9/11 Commission, Bush administration

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

February 2004: 9/11 Commission Receives Documentation Relating to Able Danger Program

The 9/11 Commission receives documents that it had requested from the Department of Defense, relating to a military intelligence unit called Able Danger, which had allegedly identified Mohamed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers more than a year before the attacks. [New York Times. 9 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 8/9/2005; Times Herald (Norristown). 13 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Times Herald (Norristown), 8/13/2005] The commission requested the documents in November 2003, after a meeting in Afghanistan with Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, an Army intelligence officer who had worked closely with the unit (see October 21, 2003). Some documents are given directly to the commission, others are available for review in a Department of Defense reading room, where commission staff make notes summarizing them. Some of the documents include diagrams of Islamic militant networks. However, an official statement later claims, “None of the documents turned over to the Commission mention Mohamed Atta or any of the other future hijackers. Nor do any of the staff notes on documents reviewed in the DOD reading room indicate that Mohamed Atta or any of the other future hijackers were mentioned in any of those documents.” [Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, 8/12/2005 pdf file; Washington Post. 13 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 8/13/2005] Shaffer responds, “I’m told confidently by the person who moved the material over, that the Sept. 11 commission received two briefcase-sized containers of documents. I can tell you for a fact that would not be one-twentieth of the information that Able Danger consisted of during the time we spent.” [Fox News. 2005. “Agent Defends Military Unit\’s Data on 9/11 Hijackers.” 17 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Fox News, 8/17/2005]

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, US Department of Defense, Anthony Shaffer, Able Danger

Category Tags: Able Danger, 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Investigations

February 5, 2004: White House Reverses Position and Backs 9/11 Commission Extension

In January 2004, the White House announced that it opposed giving the 9/11 Commission more time to complete its work (see January 19, 2004). But on this day, CNN reports, “After resisting the idea for months, the White House announced … its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work.” 9/11 victims’ relatives and some politicians had been pressuring the White House to support the deadline extension. [CNN. 5 February.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>CNN, 2/5/2004]

Entity Tags: White House, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

February 9, 2004: Full 9/11 Commission Allowed To View Summaries of Presidential Briefings

The 9/11 Commission gets greater access to classified intelligence briefings under a new agreement with the White House. The 10-member panel had been barred from reviewing notes concerning the presidential daily briefings taken by three of its own commissioners and the commission’s director in December 2003. The new agreement allows all commission members the opportunity to read White House-edited versions of the summaries. The White House had faced criticisms for allowing only some commissioners to see the notes. Still, only three commissioners are allowed to see the original, unclassified documents. [Associated Press. 10 February.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Associated Press, 2/10/2004]

Entity Tags: Bush administration, Central Intelligence Agency, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

February 11, 2004: Hijackers Said to Use Short Knives, Not Box Cutters

It is reported the 9/11 Commission now believes that the hijackers used short knives instead of box cutters. The New York Observer comments, “Remember the airlines’ first reports, that the whole job was pulled off with box cutters? In fact, investigators for the commission found that box cutters were reported on only one plane [Flight 77]. In any case, box cutters were considered straight razors and were always illegal. Thus the airlines switched their story and produced a snap-open knife of less than four inches at the hearing. This weapon falls conveniently within the aviation-security guidelines pre-9/11.” [New York Observer. 11 February.')" onmouseout="return nd()">New York Observer, 2/11/2004] It was publicly revealed in late 2002 that box cutters were illegal on 9/11. [Associated Press. 11 November.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Associated Press, 11/11/2002]

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

February 11, 2004: FBI Whisteblower Tells 9/11 Commission that Wiretapped Conversionations Pertaining to the Attacks Were Not Translated

Sibel Edmonds testifies before the 9/11 Commission in a specially constructed “bug-proof” secure room for three and a half hours, describing in detail problems she witnessed while working as an FBI linguist (see, e.g., September 20, 2001 and After, (After September 14, 2001-October 2001), Early October 2001, (Late October 2001), (November 2001), and December 2, 2001). A month later, she tells the Independent: “I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily. … There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers (see April 2001).” [Independent. 2 April.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Independent, 4/2/2004] In its final report (see July 22, 2004), the 9/11 Commission will make no mention of the problems Edmonds witnessed with the FBI’s translation unit, save for a single footnote. [Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 222; Edmonds, 8/1/2004] One month earlier, a reporter had asked one of the Democratic commissioners about the Edmonds case, and he replied, “It sounds like it’s too deep in the weeds for us to consider, we’re looking at broader issues.” [New York Observer. 22 January.')" onmouseout="return nd()">New York Observer, 1/22/2004]

Entity Tags: Sibel Edmonds, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission, Sibel Edmonds, 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

March 21, 2004: Victims’ Relatives Demand That 9/11 Commission Executive Director Resign

Philip Zelikow.Philip Zelikow. [Source: Miller Center]The 9-11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch demand the resignation of Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission. The demand comes shortly after former counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke told the New York Times that Zelikow was present when he gave briefings on the threat posed by al-Qaeda to National Security Adviser Rice from December 2000 to January 2001. The Family Steering Committee, a group of 9/11 victims’ relatives, writes, “It is clear that [Zelikow] should never have been permitted to be a member of the commission, since it is the mandate of the commission to identify the source of failures. It is now apparent why there has been so little effort to assign individual culpability. We now can see that trail would lead directly to the staff director himself.” Zelikow has been interviewed by his own commission because of his role during the transition period. But a spokesman for the commission claims that having Zelikow recluse himself from certain topics is enough to avoid any conflicts of interest. [New York Times. 20 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 3/20/2004; United Press International. 23 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>United Press International, 3/23/2004] 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean defends Zelikow, calling him “one of the best experts on terrorism in the whole area of intelligence in the entire country” and “the best possible person we could have found for the job.” [NBC Meet the Press. 4 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>NBC, 4/4/2004] However, Salon points out that the “long list” of Zelikow’s writings “includes only one article focused on terrorism,” and he appears to have written nothing about al-Qaeda. [Salon. 6 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Salon, 4/6/2004]

Entity Tags: al-Qaeda, 9-11 Citizens Watch, Philip Zelikow, Condoleezza Rice, Richard A. Clarke, 9-11 Family Steering Committee, Thomas Kean, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

March 21, 2004: Counterterrorism Tsar Clarke Goes Public with Complaints Against Bush Response to Terrorism

Richard Clarke, counterterrorism “tsar” from 1998 until October 2001, ignites a public debate by accusing Bush of doing a poor job fighting al-Qaeda before 9/11. In a prominent 60 Minutes interview, he says, “I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he’s done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. … I think he’s done a terrible job on the war against terrorism.” He adds, “We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al-Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.” He complains that he was Bush’s chief adviser on terrorism, yet he never got to brief Bush on the subject until after 9/11. [CBS News. 2004. “Did Bush Press For Iraq-9/11 Link?”. 21 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>CBS News, 3/21/2004; CBS News. 2004. “Clarke\’s Take On Terror.” 21 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>CBS News, 3/21/2004; Guardian. 23 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Guardian, 3/23/2004; Salon. 24 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Salon, 3/24/2004] The next day, his book Against All Enemies is released and becomes a best seller. [Washington Post. 22 March.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Washington Post, 3/22/2004] He testifies before the 9/11 Commission a few days later (see March 24, 2004).

Entity Tags: Richard A. Clarke, George W. Bush, al-Qaeda, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

March 24, 2004: Counterterrorism ‘Tsar’ Clarke Gives High-Profile Testimony

Richard Clarke sworn in before the 9/11 Commission.Richard Clarke sworn in before the 9/11 Commission. [Source: CBC]Just a few days after releasing a new book, former counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke testifies before the 9/11 Commission. His opening statement consists of little more than an apology to the relatives of the 9/11 victims. He says, “Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you. For that failure, I would ask … for your understanding and forgiveness.” Under questioning, he praises the Clinton administration, saying, “My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al-Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration—certainly no higher priority.” But he’s very critical of the Bush administration, stating, “By invading Iraq … the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism.” He says that under Bush before 9/11, terrorism was “an important issue, but not an urgent issue. … [CIA Director] George Tenet and I tried very hard to create a sense of urgency by seeing to it that intelligence reports on the al-Qaeda threat were frequently given to the president and other high-level officials. But although I continue to say it was an urgent problem, I don’t think it was ever treated that way.” He points out that he made proposals to fight al-Qaeda in late January 2001. While the gist of them were implemented after 9/11, he complains, “I didn’t really understand why they couldn’t have been done in February [2001].” He says that with a more robust intelligence and covert action program, “we might have been able to nip [the plot] in the bud.” [Washington Post. 24 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 3/24/2004; New York Times. 24 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 3/24/2004; Wednesday 9/11 Commission Hearings: A Transcript of Today\’s Testimony.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004] It soon emerges that President Bush’s top lawyer places a telephone call to at least one of the Republican members of the commission just before Clarke’s testimony. Critics call that an unethical interference in the hearings. [Washington Post. 1 April.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Washington Post, 4/1/2004] Democratic commissioner Bob Kerrey complains, “To call commissioners and coach them on what they ought to say is a terrible mistake.” [New York Daily News. 2 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Daily News, 4/2/2004]

Entity Tags: Bob Kerrey, Clinton administration, George J. Tenet, al-Qaeda, Richard A. Clarke, 9/11 Commission, Bush administration

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

March 30, 2004: White House Makes Deal to Prevent Additional Public 9/11 Hearings for Bush Officials

The Bush administration bows to growing pressure in the wake of former counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission (see March 21, 2004) and agrees to allow National Security Adviser Rice to testify before the commission in public and under oath. However, according to the New York Times, “In exchange for her appearance, the [9/11 Commission] agreed not to seek testimony from other White House aides at public hearings, although it can continue to question them in private.” [New York Times. 31 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 3/31/2004]

Entity Tags: White House, Bush administration, 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

Late March 2004: Clarke Attacked by Republicans

Republicans attack Richard Clarke in the wake of his new book and 9/11 Commission testimony (see March 24, 2004), while Democrats defend him. [New York Times. 25 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 3/25/2004] Senator John McCain (R) calls the attacks “the most vigorous offensive I’ve ever seen from the administration on any issue.” [Washington Post. 28 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 3/28/2004] Republicans on the 9/11 Commission criticize him while Democrats praise him. The White House violates a long-standing confidentiality policy by authorizing Fox News to air remarks favorable to Bush that Clarke had made anonymously at an administration briefing in 2002. National Security Adviser Rice says to the media, “There are two very different stories here. These stories can’t be reconciled.” However, in what the Washington Post calls a “masterful bit of showmanship,” Clarke replies that he emphasized the positives in 2002 because he was asked to, but did not lie. [Fox News. 2004. “Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in \’02.” 24 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Fox News, 3/24/2004; Washington Post. 25 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 3/25/2004; Washington Post. 26 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 3/26/2004] Republican Senate leader Bill Frist asks “If [Clarke] lied under oath to the United States Congress” in closed testimony in 2002. [Washington Post. 27 March.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Washington Post, 3/27/2004] However, a review of declassified citations from Clarke’s 2002 testimony provides no evidence of contradiction, and White House officials familiar with the testimony agree that any differences are matters of emphasis, not fact. [Washington Post. 4 April.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Washington Post, 4/4/2004] Republican leaders threaten to release his 2002 testimony, and Clarke claims he welcomes the release. The testimony remains classified. [Associated Press. 26 March.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Associated Press, 3/26/2004; Associated Press. 2004. “Ex-Bush Aide Calls for Testimony on Terrorism to Be Opened.” 28 March.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Associated Press, 3/28/2004] Clarke also calls on Rice to release all e-mail communications between the two of them before 9/11; this is not released either. [Guardian. 29 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Guardian, 3/29/2004] Vice President Cheney calls Clarke “out of the loop” on terrorism. A Slate editorial calls Cheney’s comment “laughably absurd. Clarke wasn’t just in the loop, he was the loop.” [Slate. 23 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Slate, 3/23/2004] Even Clarke’s later political opponent Rice says Clarke was very much involved. [New York Times. 25 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 3/25/2004] Clarke responds by pointing out that he voted Republican in 2000 and he pledges under oath not to seek a post if Senator John Kerry wins the 2004 Presidential election. [Washington Post. 24 March.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Washington Post, 3/24/2004] According to Reuters, a number of political experts conclude, “The White House may have mishandled accusations leveled by their former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke by attacking his credibility, keeping the controversy firmly in the headlines into a second week.” [Reuters. 29 March.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Reuters, 3/29/2004]

Entity Tags: Bill Frist, Richard A. Clarke, Condoleezza Rice, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, John McCain, John Kerry

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

April 8, 2004: Rice Testifies Before the 9/11 Commission

Condoleezza Rice sworn in before the 9/11 Commission.Condoleezza Rice sworn in before the 9/11 Commission. [Source: Larry Downing/ Reuters]National Security Adviser Rice testifies before the 9/11 Commission under oath and with the threat of perjury. The Bush administration originally opposed her appearance, but relented after great public demand. [Independent. 3 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Independent, 4/3/2004] In her statement she repeats her claim that “almost all of the reports [before 9/11] focused on al-Qaeda activities outside the United States. … The information that was specific enough to be actionable referred to terrorists operation overseas.” Moreover, she stresses that the “kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us.” But she concedes, “In fact there were some reports done in ’98 and ’99. I think I was—I was certainly not aware of them…” [Washington Post. 2004. “Transcript: Rice\’s Testimony on 9/11.” 8 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 4/8/2004] During heated questioning several subjects are discussed:
bullet Why didn’t counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke brief President Bush on al-Qaeda before September 11? Clarke says he had wished to do so, but Rice states, “Clarke never asked me to brief the president on counterterrorism.” [Washington Post. 2004. “Transcript: Rice\’s Testimony on 9/11.” 8 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 4/8/2004]
bullet What was the content of the briefing President Bush received on August 6, 2001 (see August 6, 2001)? While Rice repeatedly underlines that it was “a historical memo … not threat reporting,” Commissioners Richard Ben-Veniste and Tim Roemer ask her why then it cannot be declassified. [Washington Post. 2004. “Transcript: Rice\’s Testimony on 9/11.” 8 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 4/8/2004] Two days later the White House finally publishes it, and it is shown to contain more than just historical information.
bullet Did Rice tell Bush of the existence of al-Qaeda cells in the US before August 6, 2001? Rice says that she does not remember whether she “discussed it with the president.” [Washington Post. 2004. “Transcript: Rice\’s Testimony on 9/11.” 8 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 4/8/2004]
bullet Were warnings properly passed on? Rice points out, “The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to federal, state, and law enforcement agencies, and specifically stated that although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI tasked all 56 of its US field offices to increase surveillance of known suspected terrorists and to reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities.” But Commissioner Jamie Gorelick remarks, “We have no record of that. The Washington field office international terrorism people say they never heard about the threat, they never heard about the warnings.” [Washington Post. 2004. “Transcript: Rice\’s Testimony on 9/11.” 8 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 4/8/2004] Rice does not apologize to the families of the victims, as Clarke did weeks earlier. The Associated Press comments, “The blizzard of words in Condoleezza Rice’s testimony Thursday did not resolve central points about what the government knew, should have known, did and should have done before the September 11 terrorist attacks.” [Associated Press. 8 April.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Associated Press, 4/8/2004] The Washington Post calls “her testimony an ambitious feat of jujitsu: On one hand, she made a case that ‘for more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America’s response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient.’ At the same time, she argued that there was nothing in particular the Bush administration itself could have done differently that would have prevented the attacks of September 11, 2001—that there was no absence of vigor in the White House’s response to al-Qaeda during its first 233 days in office. The first thesis is undeniably true; the second both contradictory and implausible.” [Washington Post. 9 April.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Washington Post, 4/9/2004]

Entity Tags: Tim Roemer, Jamie Gorelick, Bush administration, Richard Ben-Veniste, al-Qaeda, George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Richard A. Clarke, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

April 29, 2004: Bush and Cheney Privately Meet with 9/11 Commission; Decline to Provide Testimony Under Oath

There were no pictures allowed of the Bush and Cheney joint testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Here are Commissioners Thomas Kean, Fred Fielding, and Lee Hamilton preparing to begin the testimony.There were no pictures allowed of the Bush and Cheney joint testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Here are Commissioners Thomas Kean, Fred Fielding, and Lee Hamilton preparing to begin the testimony. [Source: New York Times]President Bush and Vice President Cheney appear for three hours of private questioning before the 9/11 Commission. (Former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore met privately and separately with the commission earlier in the month. [Washington Post. 30 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 4/30/2004; New York Times. 30 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 4/30/2004] ) The commission permits Bush and Cheney to appear together, in private, and not under oath. The testimony is not recorded. Commissioners can take notes, but the notes are censored by the White House. [Knight Ridder. 31 March.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Knight Ridder, 3/31/2004; Newsweek. 2 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Newsweek, 4/2/2004; New York Times. 2004. “The Mystery Deepens.” 3 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 4/3/2004] The commission drew most of their questions from a list submitted to the White House before the interview, but few details about the questions or the answers given are available. [Washington Post. 29 April.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Washington Post, 4/29/2004] Two commissioners, Lee Hamilton and Bob Kerrey, leave the session early for other engagements. They claim they had not expected the interview to last more than the previously agreed upon two-hour length. [New York Times. 1 May.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 5/1/2004]

Entity Tags: Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission, Bob Kerrey, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, George W. Bush

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

May 11, 2004: White House Gives Top Prisoner Access to Some, Denies Custody to Others

In a secret agreement with the White House, the 9/11 Commission obtains the right to question at least two top al-Qaeda leaders in US custody. The two men are believed to be Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, two accused masterminds of the 2001 attacks. [Baltimore Sun. 12 May.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Baltimore Sun, 5/12/2004] The results of the commission’s questioning of these suspects are published in a 9/11 Staff Statement released in June 2004. [9/11 Commission Staff Statement No. 16: Text as submitted to Natl. Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon United States.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004] However, in an ironic twist, during a 9/11-related lawsuit hearing held in June, US authorities refuse to acknowledge whether or not they have Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in custody. [Associated Press. 2004. “US Government Blocks Lawsuits by Sept. 11 Victims.” 23 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 4/23/2004; Associated Press. 15 June.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 6/15/2004] Insurance companies representing 9/11 victims had requested that the US Justice Department serve a summons against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, but a judge rules that the US government does not have to disclose whether it is holding alleged terrorists in custody. [Associated Press. 2004. “US Government Blocks Lawsuits by Sept. 11 Victims.” 23 April.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 4/23/2004; Associated Press. 15 June.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 6/15/2004]

Entity Tags: White House, US Department of Justice, 9/11 Commission, al-Qaeda, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shibh

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

May 19, 2004: 9/11 Commission Reaches Self-Confessed ‘Low Point’ in Giuliani Questioning

The first day of the 9/11 Commission’s eleventh public hearing in New York produces an adverse reaction in the New York press, due to questioning of former city officials by Commissioner John Lehman. The second day is begun by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose opening statement draws considerable applause from the audience and who won Time magazine’s Person of the Year award for 2001. [Time. 22 December.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Time, 12/22/2001; Without Precedent. New York: Knopf.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Kean and Hamilton, 2006, pp. 226-228] According to Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Co-chairman Lee Hamilton, “Each commissioner opens his or her questioning with lavish praise.” For instance, Richard Ben-Veniste: “Your leadership on that day and in the days following gave the rest of the nation, and indeed the world, an unvarnished view of the indomitable spirit and the humanity of this great city, and for that I salute you.” Jim Thompson thanks him for “setting an example to us all.” John Lehman: “There was no question the captain was on the bridge.” Kean: “New York City on that terrible day in a sense was blessed because it had you as a leader.” This draws a mixed reaction from the audience, some of whom support Giuliani and some of whom want “real questions.” Kean and Hamilton will later say that: “The questioning of Mayor Giuliani was a low point in terms of the commission’s questioning of witnesses at our public hearings. We did not ask tough questions, nor did we get all of the information we needed to put on the public record. We were affected by the controversy over Lehman’s comments, and by the excellent quality of the mayor’s presentation.” [Without Precedent. New York: Knopf.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Kean and Hamilton, 2006, pp. 228-231]

Entity Tags: Rudolph (“Rudy”) Giuliani, John Lehman, Lee Hamilton, Richard Ben-Veniste, Thomas Kean, James Thompson

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

June 16, 2004: 9/11 Commission Gives Account of Prisoner Interrogations

The 9/11 Commission releases a new report on how the 9/11 plot developed. Most of their information appears to come from interrogations of prisoners Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM), the 9/11 mastermind, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a key member of the al-Qaeda Hamburg cell. In this account, the idea for the attacks appears to have originated with KSM. In mid-1996, he met bin Laden and al-Qaeda leader Mohammed Atef in Afghanistan. He presented several ideas for attacking the US, including a version of the 9/11 plot using ten planes (presumably an update of Operation Bojinka’s second phase plot (see February-Early May1995)). Bin Laden does not commit himself. In 1999, bin Laden approves a scaled-back version of the idea, and provides four operatives to carry it out: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Khallad bin Attash, and Abu Bara al Taizi. Attash and al Taizi drop out when they fail to get US visas. Alhazmi and Almihdhar prove to be incompetent pilots, but the recruitment of Mohamed Atta and the others in the Hamburg al-Qaeda cell solves that problem. Bin Laden wants the attacks to take place between May and July 2001, but the attacks are ultimately delayed until September. [9/11 Commission Staff Statement No. 16: Text as submitted to Natl. Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon United States.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004] However, information such as these accounts resulting from prisoner interrogations is seriously doubted by some experts, because it appears they only began cooperating after being coerced or tortured. For instance, it is said that KSM was “waterboarded” (see September 11, 2002) a technique in which his head is pushed under water until he nearly drowns. Information gained under such duress often is unreliable. Additionally, there is a serious risk that the prisoners might try to intentionally deceive. [New York Times. 17 June.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 6/17/2004] For instance, one CIA report of his interrogations is called, “Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s Threat Reporting—Precious Truths, Surrounded by a Bodyguard of Lies.” [Los Angeles Times. 23 June.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Los Angeles Times, 6/23/2004] The commission itself expresses worry that KSM could be trying to exaggerate the role of bin Laden in the plot to boost bin Laden’s reputation in the Muslim world. [9/11 Commission Staff Statement No. 16: Text as submitted to Natl. Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon United States.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004] Most of what these prisoners have said is uncorroborated from other sources. [New York Times. 2004. “Account of Plot Sets Off Debate Over Credibility.” 17 June.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 6/17/2004]

Entity Tags: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, 9/11 Commission, Osama bin Laden

Category Tags: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

July 12, 2004: 9/11 Commission Staff Meet with Navy Officer Involved with Able Danger Unit

Ten days before the 9/11 Commission releases its final report, a senior member of its staff, Dietrich Snell, accompanied by another commission staff member, meets at one of the commission’s Washington, DC offices with a US Navy officer who worked with a US Army intelligence program called Able Danger, which had been tasked with assembling information about al-Qaeda networks around the world. This officer, Captain Scott Phillpott, tells them he saw an Able Danger document in 2000 that described Mohamed Atta as part of a Brooklyn al-Qaeda cell. He complains that this information about Atta, and information about other alleged members of the Brooklyn cell, was deleted from the document soon after he saw it, due to the concerns of Department of Defense lawyers. However, despite having this meeting with Phillpott, and having met previously with an Army intelligence officer who was also involved with Able Danger (see October 21, 2003), the 9/11 Commission makes no mention of the unit in their final report. The commissioners later claim that Phillpott’s information “[does] not mesh with other conclusions” they are drawing from their investigation. Consequently, the commission staff conclude “that the officer’s account [is] not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation.” Able Danger is not mentioned in their final report, they claim, because “the operation itself did not turn out to be historically significant.” [Associated Press. 2005. “9/11 Report Omitted Reference to Data About Lead Hijacker.” 11 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 8/11/2005; New York Times. 11 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 8/11/2005; Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, 8/12/2005 pdf file; New York Times. 13 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 8/13/2005; Washington Post. 13 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 8/13/2005; New York Times. 22 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 8/22/2005] Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer additionally claims, “Captain Phillpott actually told the 9/11 Commission about the fact that Able Danger discovered information regarding the Cole attack. … There was information that Able Danger found that related to al-Qaeda planning an attack. That information unfortunately didn’t get anywhere either. So that is another clue that was given to the 9/11 Commission to say, hey, this [Able Danger] capability did some stuff, and they chose not to even look at that.” [Jerry Doyle Show. 20 September.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Jerry Doyle Show, 9/20/2005]

Entity Tags: Able Danger, Mohamed Atta, US Department of Defense, al-Qaeda, Anthony Shaffer, Scott Phillpott, 9/11 Commission, Dietrich Snell

Category Tags: Able Danger, 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Investigations

July 16, 2004: 9/11 Commission Chairman’s Comments Lead to Flurry of Reporting on Iran, None on Pakistan

Shortly before the 9/11 Commission is due to release its final report (see July 22, 2004), Commission Chairman Thomas Kean says, “We believe. . . . that there were a lot more active contacts, frankly, [between al-Qaeda and] Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq.” [Time. 16 July.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Time, 7/16/2004] The US media immediately runs prominent stories on the Commission’s evidence regarding Iran and nearly completely ignores evidence regarding Pakistan. The Commission’s final report mentions that around ten of the hijackers passed through Iran in late 2000 and early 2001. At least some Iranian officials turned a blind eye to the passage of al-Qaeda agents, but there was no evidence that the Iranian government had any foreknowledge or involvement in the 9/11 plot. [Time. 16 July.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Time, 7/16/2004; Reuters. 2004. “CIA: 9/11 Plotters Transited Iran, Govt Tie Unseen.” 18 July.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Reuters, 7/18/2004] In the wake of these findings, President Bush states of Iran, “As to direct connections with September 11, we’re digging into the facts to determine if there was one.” This puts Bush at odds with his own CIA, which has seen no Iran-9/11 ties. [Los Angeles Times. 20 July.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Los Angeles Times, 7/20/2004] Bush has long considered Iran part of his “axis of evil,” and there has been talk of the US attacking or overthrowing the Iranian government. [Reuters. 2004. “CIA: 9/11 Plotters Transited Iran, Govt Tie Unseen.” 18 July.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Reuters, 7/18/2004] Provocative articles appear, such as one in the Daily Telegraph titled, “Now America Accuses Iran of Complicity in World Trade Center Attack.” [Daily Telegraph. 18 July.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Daily Telegraph, 7/18/2004] Yet, while this information on Iran makes front page news in most major newspapers, evidence of a much stronger connection between Pakistan and 9/11 is nearly completely ignored. For instance, only UPI reports on a document suggesting high-level Pakistani involvement in the 9/11 attacks that is revealed this same week. [United Press International. 22 July.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>United Press International, 7/22/2004] Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission’s final report will contain almost nothing on Pakistan’s ties to al-Qaeda, despite evidence given to the Commission that, according to one commissioner speaking to the Los Angeles Times, showed that Pakistan was “up to their eyeballs” in intrigue with al-Qaeda. [Los Angeles Times. 16 July.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Los Angeles Times, 7/16/2004; Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004]

Entity Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, al-Qaeda, Iran, Pakistan, Thomas Kean, George W. Bush, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, Media, Pakistani ISI, 9/11 Commission

Shortly before July 22, 2004: 9/11 Commission Debates Referring Military and Aviation Officials to Justice Department for Criminal Investigation

Towards the end of its tenure, the ten members of the 9/11 Commission secretly meet to discuss whether military and aviation officials deliberately misled them and the public. For over two years following 9/11, NORAD and the FAA had given information in testimony and media appearances later found to be incorrect. Authorities claimed that America’s air defenses reacted quickly on 9/11, with fighters launched in response to the last two hijackings and ready to shoot down Flight 93 if it threatened Washington, DC. Yet audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD obtained by the commission under subpoena showed that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and only became aware of Flight 93 after it crashed. John Farmer, a senior counsel to the commission, says the military’s original story was “a whole different order of magnitude than spin. It simply wasn’t true.” The commissioners debate whether to refer the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, but as a compromise they instead refer it to the inspectors general for the Pentagon and the Transportation Department (which includes the FAA). The Pentagon inspector general’s office will issue a secret report to Congress in May 2005, blaming the inaccuracies partly on “inadequate forensic capabilities,” including poor log keeping at the military air traffic control centers (see May 27, 2005). However, Farmer and other commission staff will later point out that the military had already reviewed the NORAD audiotapes before its officials gave their inaccurate testimonies. The 9/11 Commission’s concerns over whether it was deliberately misled will only come to light in news reports in August 2006. Thomas Kean, its former chairman, will say, “We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth.” [Vanity Fair. 1 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006; Washington Post. 2 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 8/2/2006; New York Times. 5 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 8/5/2006] The Transportation Department’s inspector general’s office will issue its report in response to the commission’s referral in September 2006 (see September 1, 2006).

Entity Tags: North American Aerospace Defense Command, John Farmer, 9/11 Commission, Federal Aviation Administration

Category Tags: 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

July 22, 2004: 9/11 Commission Finds No Insider Trading

In a footnote contained in its Final Report, the 9/11 Commission dismissed allegations of insider trading in the days preceding 9/11. According to the Final Report, the put options of the parent companies of United Airlines were placed by a “US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda” “as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.” With respect to the highly suspicious trading on the parent company of American Airlines, the Commission stated that much of the trades were “traced to a specific US-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.” According to the Commission, “The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.” [Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 499]

Entity Tags: United Airlines, 9/11 Commission, American Airlines, Federal Bureau of Investigation, al-Qaeda, Securities and Exchange Commission

Category Tags: Insider Trading/ Foreknowledge, 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

July 22, 2004: 9/11 Commission’s Final Report is Released; Conclusions are ‘Gentle’ on Bush Administration

The 9/11 Commission’s final report. The 9/11 Commission’s final report. [Source: 9/11 Commission]The 9/11 Commission completes its work and releases its final report. They blame incompetence for the reason why the US government did not prevent the attack. The Washington Post summarizes the report, “The US government was utterly unprepared on Sept. 11, 2001, to protect the American people from al-Qaeda terrorists.” [Washington Post. 23 July.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 7/23/2004] The report itself states, “We believe the 9/11 attacks revealed four kinds of failures: in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management.” [Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004] The Washington Post reports, “Though openly dreaded for months by many Republicans and quietly feared by the White House, the report was much gentler on the Bush administration than they feared. Rather than focus criticism on the Bush administration, the commission spread the blame broadly and evenly across two administrations, the FBI, and Congress.” [Washington Post. 23 July.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 7/23/2004] More to the point, as former counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke notes in a New York Times editorial, “Honorable Commission, Toothless Report,” because the commission wanted a unanimous report from a bipartisan group, “it softened the edges and left it to the public to draw many conclusions.” [New York Times. 25 July.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 7/25/2004] The Washington Post comments, “In many respects, the panel’s work has been closer to the fact-finding, conspiracy-debunking Warren Commission of the mid-1960s, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, than to the reform-oriented Church Commission, which exposed assassination plots and CIA abuses during the mid-1970s.” [Washington Post. 18 July.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 7/18/2004]

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, John F. Kennedy, US Congress, Richard A. Clarke, Bush administration, al-Qaeda, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Church Commission, Warren Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

July 30, 2004: Senator Mark Dayton Says NORAD and FAA Lied About 9/11 Failures

Senator Mark Dayton. Senator Mark Dayton. [Source: Publicity photo]Senator Mark Dayton (D) charges that NORAD and the FAA have covered up “catastrophic failures” that left the nation vulnerable during the 9/11 hijackings. He says, “For almost three years now, NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history.” He notes major discrepancies between various accounts and chronologies given by officials. He says NORAD officials “lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people.” He calls the FAA’s and NORAD’s failures “the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence that I’ve ever, under those extreme circumstances, witnessed in the public sector.” He says that he grew upset about these failures after staying up late and reading the 9/11 Commission’s final report. [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis). 30 July.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 7/30/2004]

Entity Tags: Mark Dayton, Federal Aviation Administration, North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

October 2004: Harper’s Magazine Cover Story Slams 9/11 Commission Report

The cover of Harper’s Magazine, October 2004, depicting the whitewashing of the 9/11 Commission. The cover of Harper’s Magazine, October 2004, depicting the whitewashing of the 9/11 Commission. [Source: Harper's Magazine]Bucking the trend of generally positive reviews of the 9/11 Commission’s final report, Harper’s Magazine publishes a cover story harshly criticizing the report. The story opines, “The plain, sad reality … is that The 9/11 Commission Report, despite the vast quantity of labor behind it, is a cheat and a fraud. It stands as a series of evasive maneuvers that infantilize the audience, transform candor into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation. … In the course of blaming everybody a little, the Commission blames nobody—blurs the reasons for the actions and hesitations of successive administrations, masks choices that, fearlessly defined, might actually have vitalized our public political discourse.” [Harper\’s. October.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Harper’s, 10/2004]

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, Media, 9/11 Commission

February 10, 2005: Censored Version of Critical 9/11 Report Completed Before Presidential Elections Is Finally Released

A report by the 9/11 Commission on the FAA and 9/11 is publicly released. The fact that the report reveals nearly half of all FAA daily briefings between April and early September 2001 mentioned al-Qaeda, bin Laden, or both causes headlines (see April 1, 2001-September 10, 2001). However, the report was actually completed in August 2004 but was held up by the Bush administration. Some speculate that the publication of the report was delayed until after the November 2004 presidential election to help Bush get reelected. For instance, 9/11 victim’s relative Carol Ashley states, “I’m just appalled that this was withheld for five months. That contributes to the idea that the government knew something and didn’t act, it contributes to the conspiracy theories out there.” Representative Henry Waxman (D) asks for a hearing on whether the Bush administration played politics with the report’s release, but the Republican-controlled House of Representatives doesn’t allow such a hearing. [Associated Press. 2005. “9/11 Commission: FAA Had al Qaeda Warnings.” 11 February.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 2/11/2005] Additionally, the released version of this report is heavily censored in some areas. The 9/11 Commission asserts that the whole report should be released, but the Bush administration is blocking their efforts to release the censored portions. Politicians, 9/11 victims’ relatives, open-government advocates, and others call for the release of the entire report, but to no avail. [New York Times. 11 February.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 2/11/2005]

Entity Tags: Bush administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Henry A. Waxman, 9/11 Commission, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

February 28, 2005: 9/11 Commission’s Executive Director Gets Job With Bush Administration

It is announced that Philip Zelikow, Executive Director for the 9/11 Commission, has been chosen to serve as a senior adviser for Condoleezza Rice in her new position as Secretary of State. [Richmond Times-Dispatch. 28 February.')" onmouseout="return nd()">Richmond Times-Dispatch, 2/28/2005] 9/11 victims’ relatives groups had demanded Zelikow’s resignation from the 9/11 Commission, claiming conflict of interest, including being too close to Rice (see March 21, 2004).

Entity Tags: Condoleezza Rice, Philip Zelikow

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

August 11, 2005: 9/11 Commission Admits Being Informed of Intelligence Unit That Identified Mohamed Atta in 2000

In response to new revelations about a military intelligence unit called Able Danger, which allegedly identified Mohamed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers more than a year before the attacks, Al Felzenberg—formerly the chief spokesman for the 9/11 Commission—acknowledges that a uniformed officer briefed two of the commission’s staff members about the unit in early July 2004 (see July 12, 2004). He also admits that the officer said the program had identified Mohamed Atta as part of an al-Qaeda cell in Brooklyn. This information was not mentioned anywhere in the commission’s final report. [New York Times. 11 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 8/11/2005] The existence of the Able Danger program was first revealed two days ago in an August 9 New York Times article (see August 9, 2005). In that article, the Times reported that Felzenberg had confirmed that an October 2003 briefing had taken place which did not include any references to Mohamed Atta or the Brooklyn al-Qaeda cell. But Felzenberg did not tell the newspaper about the July 2004 briefing, which apparently had provided the commission with far more details about the Able Danger program. [New York Times. 9 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 8/9/2005; New York Times. 11 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 8/11/2005] It is not clear who exactly in the commission was aware of the program. Former 9/11 Commissioners Tim Roemer and John Lehman say they were never briefed about Able Danger before the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report was published. [Government Security News. August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Government Security News, 8/2005 Sources: Curt Weldon]

Entity Tags: Al Felzenberg, 9/11 Commission, Curt Weldon, al-Qaeda, Able Danger, Mohamed Atta

Category Tags: Able Danger, 9/11 Commission, Able Danger, 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

August 12, 2005: 9/11 Commission Heads Says Officer Who Briefed Commission on Able Danger Provided ‘No Documentary Evidence’

Former leaders of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, release a statement saying that panel staff members have found no documents or other witnesses that support allegations that hijacker Mohamed Atta was identified by a secret Pentagon program, known as Able Danger, before the 9/11 attacks. The existence of Able Danger first received wide public attention a few days before by the New York Times (see August 11, 2005). According to the commissioners, “The interviewee had no documentary evidence” to back up his claims and “the Commission staff concluded that the officer’s account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation.” [Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, 8/12/2005 pdf file; Washington Post. 13 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Washington Post, 8/13/2005]

Entity Tags: Thomas Kean, Lee Hamilton

Category Tags: Able Danger, Able Danger, 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

September 13, 2005: Revised Version of 9/11’s Commission’s FAA Report Released; Some Material Still Blacked Out

A new version of a report by the 9/11 Commission on the FAA and 9/11, which was completed in August 2004, is publicly released. A heavily censored version of the same report came out in February 2005 (see February 10, 2005). Commission members complained that the deleted material included information crucial to understanding what went wrong on 9/11. The newly released version restores dozens of portions of the report, but numerous references to shortcomings in aviation security remain blacked out. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the former heads of the 9/11 Commission, state: “While we still believe that the entire document could be made available to the public without damaging national security, we welcome this step forward.” Commission officials say they were perplexed by the White House’s original attempts to black out material that they considered trivial or mundane. [Associated Press. 13 September.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 9/13/2005; New York Times. 14 September.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 9/14/2005]

Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, Thomas Kean, Federal Aviation Administration

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

September 14, 2005: Former 9/11 Commission Members Dismiss Able Danger Evidence

Former members of the 9/11 Commission dismiss recent allegations regarding a secret military intelligence unit called Able Danger, which had been set up in 1999 to bring together information about al-Qaeda. Several former members of the unit have come forward claiming the program identified Mohamed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers more than a year before the attacks (see August 17, 2005; August 22-September 1, 2005). The 9/11 Commission has been criticized for not mentioning Able Danger in its final report. In response, its former chairman, Thomas Kean, claims there is no evidence that anyone in the government knew about Mohamed Atta before 9/11, and there are no documents that verify the claims made by former members of the unit. However, the Pentagon has recently confirmed that documents associated with Able Danger were destroyed in accordance with regulations about gathering intelligence on people inside the US. Another former commissioner, Slade Gorton, says, “Bluntly, it just didn’t happen and that’s the conclusion of all 10 of us.” But a spokesman for Rep. Curt Weldon (R), who helped bring to light the existence of the program, says that none of the commissioners met with anyone from Able Danger, “yet they choose to speak with some form of certainty without firsthand knowledge.” [Associated Press. 15 September.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 9/15/2005; Fox News. 2005. “Sources: Pentagon Wants \’Able Danger\’ Hearings Closed.” 16 September.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Fox News, 9/16/2005] The commission’s claim that no one in the US knew about Mohamed Atta before 9/11 is further contradicted by reports stating that the CIA had been tracking him while he was still in Germany, early in 2000 (see January-May 2000). And soon after 9/11, Newsweek reported US officials stating that Atta “had been known as [an associate] of Islamic terrorists” well before 9/11. [Newsweek. 20 September.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Newsweek, 9/20/2001]

Entity Tags: Mohamed Atta, Able Danger, Curt Weldon, 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, Slade Gorton

Category Tags: Able Danger, 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Investigations

August 15, 2006: Former Heads of 9/11 Commission Release Book; Claim Their Commission was ‘Set Up to Fail’ by Bush Administration

Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the former chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, release a book giving a behind-the-scenes look at their 20-month investigation of the September 11 attacks. [Associated Press. 4 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 8/4/2006] They begin their book, titled Without Precedent, saying that, because their investigation started late, had a very short time frame, and had inadequate funding, they both felt, from the beginning, that they “were set up to fail.” [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 21 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 8/21/2006; Rocky Mountain News. 25 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Rocky Mountain News, 8/25/2006] They explain the difficulties they faced in obtaining certain government documents and describe how the commission almost splintered over whether to investigate the Bush administration’s use of 9/11 as a reason for going to war. It says that if original member Max Cleland—a strong proponent of this line of inquiry—had not resigned (see December 9, 2003), the commission probably would not have reached unanimity. It also calls their gentle questioning of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani during his May 2004 testimony, “a low point” in the commission’s handling of witnesses at its public hearings (see May 19, 2004). [Associated Press. 4 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Associated Press, 8/4/2006; New York Daily News. 5 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Daily News, 8/5/2006; New York Times. 6 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 8/6/2006] Despite the problems it faced, when discussing his book with the CBC, Hamilton says he thinks the commission has “been reasonably successful in telling the story” of 9/11. [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 21 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 8/21/2006] Without Precedent, however, contains little new information about the events of 9/11. Intelligence expert James Bamford says there is “an overabundance of self-censorship by the authors.” [New York Times. 20 August.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>New York Times, 8/20/2006]

Entity Tags: Thomas Kean, Lee Hamilton

Category Tags: 9/11 Commission

September 25, 2006: 9/11 Commissioner Reveals Secret Deal to Keep Bush and Clinton Testimony Secret until 2009

The 9/11 Commission interviewed presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in 2004 (see April 29, 2004) but the details of what was revealed in these interviews were not included in the commission’s final report (with one exception, see August 6, 2001). On this day, former 9/11 Commission Richard Ben-Veniste says, “I had hoped that we had—we would have made both the Clinton interview and the Bush interview a part of our report, but that was not to be. I was outvoted on that question. … I didn’t have the votes. … I think the question was that there was a degree of confidentiality associated with that and that we would take from that the output that is reflected in the report, but go no further. And that until some five years’ time after our work, we would keep that confidential. I thought we would be better to make all of the information that we had available to the public and make our report as transparent as possible so that the American public could have that.” [CNN. 2006. “Unexpected Extension for US Soldiers; Iraq: Fueling Terror?; NSA Wiretap Bill.” 25 September.’)” onmouseout=”return nd()”>CNN, 9/25/2006]

Entity Tags: George W. Bush, 9/11 Commission, William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton, Richard Ben-Veniste

Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, 9/11 Commission

Ordering

Date ascending Date descending

Time period

This site is optimized for Firefox

Categories

Before 9/11

Soviet-Afghan War (24) Al-Qaeda in Balkans (38) Warning Signs (302) Insider Trading/ Foreknowledge (39) Counterterrorism Before 9/11 (281) Hunt for Bin Laden (98) Military Exercises (55) Pipeline Politics (57) Warning Signs: Specific Cases

1993 WTC Bombing (22) Bojinka Plot (25) 1998 US Embassy Bombings (54) 2000 USS Cole Bombing (26) Foreign Intelligence Warnings (29) Projects and Programs

Al-Qaeda Malaysia Summit (72) Able Danger (60) Sibel Edmonds (45) Phoenix Memo (21) Randy Glass/ Diamondback (7) Robert Wright and Vulgar Betrayal (65) Remote Surveillance (63) Yemen Hub (22) The Alleged 9/11 Hijackers

Alhazmi and Almihdhar (119) Marwan Alshehhi (78) Mohamed Atta (126) Hani Hanjour (40) Ziad Jarrah (22) Other 9/11 Hijackers (72) Other Al-Qaeda Operatives

Al-Qaeda in Germany (58) Ali Mohamed (52) Ayman Al-Zawahiri (24) Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (46) Mamoun Darkazanli (16) Nabil Al-Marabh (33) Osama Bin Laden (41) Zacarias Moussaoui (84) Geopolitics and 9/11

Iraq (49) Israel (36) Pakistani ISI (170) Saudi Arabia (141) Terrorism Financing (153) US Dominance (50) Terrorism Financing: A More Detailed Look

Al Taqwa Bank (20) Bin Laden Family (44) BMI and Ptech (19) Drugs (47) The ISI: A More Detailed Look

Saeed Sheikh (42) Mahmood Ahmed (17) Day of 9/11

All Day of 9/11 Events (488) Flight AA 11 (74) Flight UA 175 (55) Flight AA 77 (79) Flight UA 93 (124) George Bush (67) Dick Cheney (24) Richard Clarke (22) Donald Rumsfeld (26) The Post-9/11 World

Afghanistan (132) Escape From Afghanistan (51) Civil Liberties (55) Media (36) 9/11 Denials (23) 9/11 Investigations (275) War on Terrorism (77) Other events (62) Investigations: A Detailed Look

9/11 Commission9/11 Congressional Inquiry (27) FBI 9/11 Investigation (24) WTC Investigation (65)

Posted in 9/11, 9/11 Truth, Activism, Al Qaeda, America, Arkansas, Civil Rights, Conspiracy, Conspiracy Theories, Democracy, Democrats, Dissent, Economy, Freedom, Freemasons, George Bush, GOP, Human Rights, Impeachment, Israel, Journalism, Justice, Law, Law Enforcement, Liberty, Life, Masons, Media, Military, Money, Music, New York, News, Newton County, Opinion, Patriotism, Peace, Politics, Protest, Rainbow Family, Random, Republicans, Resistance, Revelations, Revolution, Ron Paul, Society, Tyranny, Uncategorized, Unexplained, WTC | 1 Comment »

Secret Prisons? Army Civilian Inmate Labor Programs? USA???

Posted by jeremiasx on November 16, 2007

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Say it ain’t so, Jeremias!!!

“Oh yes, it’s so.” -Me

But don’t take MY word for it…follow the links to an article from Market Watch and a PDF file right off the Army’s website…thanks to TruthOut.org for bringing this to my attention.

KBR GETS CONTRACTS TO BUILD PRISON CAMPS (Jan 06)

ARMY CIVILIAN INMATE LABOR PROGRAM REGS (Jan 05)

Posted in 9/11, 9/11 Truth, Activism, Al Qaeda, America, Amnesty, Antichrist, Arkansas, Bizarre, Censorship, Cheney, CIA, Civil Rights, Conspiracy, Conspiracy Theories, Democrats, Dissent, Education, Freedom, Freemasons, George Bush, GOP, Hillary Clinton, Human Rights, Immigration, Impeachment, Journalism, Justice, Law, Law Enforcement, Liberty, Life, Masons, Media, Military, News, Newton County, Opinion, Patriotism, Peace, Politics, Prophecy, Protest, Random, REAL ID, Religion, Republicans, Resistance, Revelations, Revolution, Ron Paul, Society, Television, Terrorism, Tyranny, Uncategorized, Unexplained, Weird | 5 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.