_____
From:
Subject: David Ray Griffin: Philip Zelikow Authored Both The Bush Doctrine &
The 9/11 Commission Report
One last posting for the week.
<http://the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5450&Disp=1#C1>
http://the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5450&Disp=1#C1
The Bush Doctrine & The 9/11 Commission Report: Both Authored by Philip
Zelikow
"Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda: We Haven't Seen the Evidence yet. But
Really. We're Sure."
by David Ray Griffin
Thanks to the interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson of ABC News on
September 11, the "Bush Doctrine" has become part of American political
discourse much more fully than it was before. Thanks to that interview and
the commentary that followed, Governor Palin and millions of other
Americans learned of the existence and meaning of this fateful
doctrine---fateful because, as New York Times reporter Philip Shenon has
pointed out, it was used to "justify a preemptive strike on Iraq."1
Thus far, however, the commentary following that interview has not brought
out the fact that the document in which the Bush Doctrine was first fully
articulated---the 2002 version of The National Security Strategy of the
United States of America (NSS 2002) [pdf]---was written by the same person
who was primarily responsible for the 9/11 Commission's report: its
executive director, Philip Zelikow.
This fact constituted an enormous conflict of interest that should, at the
very least, keep Americans from referring to the 9/11 Commission as a model
to be emulated---as did John McCain this September 15 in suggesting that "a
9/11-type commission" should be set up to study the causes of the recent
financial crisis. As Shenon shows in his 2008 book, The Commission: The
Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, Zelikow's authorship of NSS
2002, in conjunction with his close relationship to the Bush White House
that this authorship illustrated, means that when the 9/11 Commission was
formed in 2003, he should never have been chosen to be its executive
director.
In the first part of this essay, I discuss the Bush Doctrine as articulated
in NSS 2002. In the second part, I discuss Zelikow's authorship of this
document. In the third part, I discuss how he, in spite of this authorship,
became the Commission's executive director, and why this was problematic
for the credibility of The 9/11 Commission Report.
The Bush Doctrine
According to international law as reflected in the charter of the United
Nations, a preemptive war is legal in only one situation: if a country has
certain knowledge that an attack by another country is imminent---too
imminent for the matter to be taken to the UN Security Council.
Preemptive war, thus defined, is to be distinguished from "preventive war,"
in which a country, fearing that another country may some time in the
future become strong enough to attack it, attacks that country in order to
prevent that possibility. Such wars are illegal under international law.
Preventive wars, in fact, belong under the category of unprovoked wars,
which were declared at the Nuremburg trials to constitute the "supreme
international crime."2
This traditional distinction between "preventive" and "preemptive" war
creates a terminological problem, because preventive war, being illegal, is
worse than preemptive war, and yet to most ears "preemption" sounds worse
than "prevention." As a result, many people speak of "preemptive war" when
they really mean preventive war. To avoid any confusion, I employ the term
"preemptive-preventive war" for what has traditionally been known as
preventive war.3
People known as neoconservatives (or simply neocons), the most powerful
member of whom has been Dick Cheney, did not like the idea that America's
use of military power could be constrained by the prohibition against
preemptive-preventive war. In 1992, Cheney, in his last year as secretary
of defense, had Paul Wolfowitz (the undersecretary of defense for policy)
and Lewis ("Scooter") Libby write the Defense Planning Guidance of 1992,
which said that the United States should use force to "preempt" and
"preclude threats."4
In 1997, William Kristol founded a neocon think tank called the Project for
the New American Century (PNAC).5 In 1998, a letter signed by 18 members of
PNAC---including Kristol, Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Donald
Rumsfeld, and James Woolsey---urged President Clinton to "undertake
military action" to eliminate "the possibility that Iraq will be able to
use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction."6
Only after 9/11, however, were the neocons able to turn their wish to leave
international law behind into official US policy. As Stephen Sniegoski
wrote, "it was only the traumatic effects of the 9/11 terrorism that
enabled the agenda of the neocons to become the policy of the United States
of America."7 Andrew Bacevich likewise wrote: "The events of 9/11 provided
the tailor-made opportunity to break free of the fetters restricting the
exercise of American power."8
The idea of preemptive-preventive war, which came to be known as the "Bush
doctrine," was first clearly expressed in the president's address at West
Point in June 2002, when the administration began preparing the American
people for the attack on Iraq. Having stated that, in relation to "new
threats," deterrence "means nothing" and containment is "not possible,"
Bush dismissed preemption as traditionally understood, saying: "If we wait
for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long." Then,
using the language of preemption while meaning preemptive-prevention, he
said that America's security "will require all Americans . . . to be ready
for preemptive action."9
Having been sketched in June 2002, the Bush Doctrine was first fully laid
out that September in NSS 2002. This document's covering letter, speaking
of "our enemies' efforts to acquire dangerous technologies," declares that
America will, in self-defense, "act against such emerging threats before
they are fully formed."10 Then the document itself, saying that "our best
defense is a good offense," states:
"Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no
longer rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to
deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the
magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice
of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike
first."11
In justifying this change of doctrine, NSS 2002 argues that the United
States must "adapt" the traditional doctrine of preemption, long recognized
as a right, to the new situation, thereby turning it into a right of
anticipatory (preventive) preemption:
"For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer
an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against
forces that present an imminent danger of attack. . . . We must adapt the
concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's
adversaries. . . . The United States has long maintained the option of
preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security.
The greater the threat, . . . the more compelling the case for taking
anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to
the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such
hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act
preemptively."12
With this argument, NSS 2002 tried to suggest that, since this doctrine of
preventive preemption simply involved adapting a traditionally recognized
right to a new situation, it brought about no great change. But it did.
According to the traditional doctrine, one needed certain evidence that an
attack from the other country was imminent. According to the Bush Doctrine,
by contrast, the United States can attack another country "even if
uncertainty remains" and even if the United States knows that the threat
from the other country is not yet "fully formed."
The novelty here, to be sure, involves doctrine more than practice. The
United States has in fact attacked several countries that presented no
imminent military threat. But it always portrayed these attacks in such a
way that they could appear to comport with international law---for example,
by claiming, before attacking North Vietnam, that it had attacked a US ship
in the Tonkin Gulf. "Never before," however---point out Stefan Halper and
Jonathan Clarke, who call themselves Reagan conservatives---"had any
president set out a formal national strategy doctrine that included
[preventive] preemption."13
This unprecedented doctrine was, as we have seen, one that neocons had long
desired. Indeed, neocon Max Boot described NSS 2002 as a "quintessentially
neo-conservative document."14 And, as we have also seen, the adoption of
this doctrine was first made possible by the 9/11 attacks. Halper and
Clarke themselves say, in fact, that 9/11 allowed the "preexisting
ideological agenda" of the neoconservatives to be "taken off the shelf . .
. and relabeled as the response to terror."15
Zelikow and NSS 2002 The 9/11 attacks, we have seen, allowed the Bush-
Cheney administration to adopt the doctrine of preemptive-preventive war,
which the neocons in the administration---most prominently Cheney
himself---had long desired. One would assume, therefore, that the 9/11
Commission would not have been run by someone who helped formulate this
doctrine, because the Commission should have investigated, among other
things, whether the Bush-Cheney
administration might have had anything to gain from 9/11 attacks--- whether
they, in other words, might have had a motive for orchestrating or at least
deliberately allowing the attacks. Amazing as it may seem, however, Philip
Zelikow, who directed the 9/11 Commission and was the primary author of its
final report, had also been the primary author of NSS 2002.
Lying behind Zelikow's authorship of NSS 2002 was the fact that he was
close, both personally and ideologically, to Condoleezza Rice, who as
National Security Advisor to President Bush had the task of creating this
document. Zelikow had worked with Rice in the National Security Council
during the Bush I presidency. Then, when the Republicans were out of power
during the Clinton years, Zelikow and Rice co-authored a book together.
Finally, when she was appointed National Security Advisor to Bush II, she
brought on Zelikow to help with the transition to the new National Security
Council. Given that long relationship, Zelikow evidently came to mind when
Rice found the first draft of NSS unsatisfactory.
According to James Mann in Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War
Cabinet, this first draft had been produced by Richard Haass, who was the
director of policy planning under Colin Powell in the State Department.16
Although this draft by Haass is evidently not publicly available, an
insight into what it contained might be provided by an address Haass had
given in 2000 entitled "Imperial America."
While Haass called on Americans to "re-conceive their global role from one
of a traditional nation-state to an imperial power," his foreign policy
suggestions were very different from those of the neocons. Saying that
"primacy is not to be confused with hegemony" and that "[a]n effort to
assert U.S. hegemony is . . . bound to fail," he called for acceptance of
the fact that the world in coming decades "will be a world more multipolar
than the present one." Also, insisting that "[a]n imperial foreign policy
is not to be confused with imperialism," which involves exploitation, he
stated that "imperial America is not to be confused with either hegemonic
America or unilateral America." In the new world order that he envisaged,
"The United States would need to relinquish some freedom of action," which
would mean that it "would be more difficult to carry out preventive or
preemptive strikes on suspect military facilities." He suggested, moreover,
that "[c]oercion and the use of force would normally be a last resort." The
United States would instead rely primarily on "persuasion," "consultation,"
and "global institutions," especially the UN Security Council.17
In any case, whatever the exact nature of the draft for NSS 2002 that Haass
produced, Rice, after seeing it, wanted "something bolder," Mann reports.
Deciding that the document should be "completely rewritten," she "turned
the writing over to her old colleague . . . Philip Zelikow."18
Given the hawkish tone of the resulting NSS 2002, we might assume that
Zelikow was simply taking dictation from Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz.
According to Mann, however, "the hawks in the Pentagon and in Vice
President Cheney's office hadn't been closely involved, even though the
document incorporated many of their key ideas. They had left the details
and the drafting in the hands of Rice and Zelikow, along with Rice's
deputy, Stephen Hadley."19
It would seem, therefore, that we can take this "quintessentially neo-
conservative document," which used 9/11 to justify exempting the United
States from international law, as reflecting Zelikow's own thinking. This
means that, besides being aligned with the Bush-Cheney White House
personally (by virtue primarily of his friendship with Rice) and
structurally (by virtue of helping her set up the new NSC), he was also
closely aligned ideologically with Cheney and other neocons in the
administration.
Such a person obviously should not have been put in charge of the 9/11
Commission, given the fact that one of the main questions it should have
investigated was whether the Bush-Cheney administration had any
responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, whether through incompetence or
complicity. Pursuing the possibility of complicity in particular would have
required the Commission to ask whether the administration would have had
motives for wanting the attacks. Given the fact that Zelikow had authored
the document that provided the doctrine of preemptive-preventive warfare
desired by leading members of this administration, he would have been one
of the worst possible choices to lead such an investigation.
The story of how Zelikow was, nevertheless, chosen to be the executive
director has been told by Philip Shenon in The Commission.
Zelikow and the 9/11 Commission
In their preface to The 9/11 Commission Report, Thomas Kean and Lee
Hamilton, the Commission's chair and vice chair, respectively, said that
the Commission "sought to be independent, impartial, thorough, and
nonpartisan." In light of the fact that the 9/11 attacks had occurred
during the watch of the Bush-Cheney administration, being "independent" and
"impartial" would have meant, above all, being fully independent of this
administration.
With Zelikow as its executive director, the 9/11 Commission could have been
independent of the Bush-Cheney administration only if the executive
director's role was merely that of a facilitator, meaning a person who did
not influence either the Commission's research or the content of its final
report. Some people, in hearing Zelikow described as the 9/11 Commission's
"executive director," may assume that he had that kind of role. As Shenon
has shown, however, nothing could be further from the truth. Zelikow ran
the Commission and took charge of the writing of its final report.
With regard to the work of the Commission, Zelikow sought, and largely
achieved, total control. He achieved this control through several means.
First, the work of the Commission was done not by Kean, Hamilton, and the
other commissioners who, by virtue of appearing on television during the
Commission's open hearings, became the public face of the Commission. The
work, instead, was done by the 80-some staff members.
Second, Shenon points out, these staff members worked directly under
Zelikow: "Zelikow had insisted that there be a single, nonpartisan staff."
This meant that none of the commissioners would "have a staff member of
their own, typical on these sorts of independent commissions." Zelikow
thereby prevented "any of the commissioners from striking out on their own
in the investigation."20
Third, none of the commissioners, including Kean and Hamilton, were given
offices in the K Street office building used by the Commission's staff. As
a result, "most of the commissioners rarely visited K Street. Zelikow was
in charge."21
Fourth, even though the Commission would not have existed had it not been
for the efforts of the families of the 9/11 victims, "the families were not
allowed into the commission's offices because they did not have security
clearances."22
Fifth, Zelikow made it clear to the staff members that they worked for him,
not for the commissioners. He even prevented direct contact between the
staff and the commissioners as much as possible. "If information gathered
by the staff was to be passed to the commissioners, it would have to go
through Zelikow."23 Although the commissioners forced Zelikow to rescind
his most extreme order of this nature---that the staff members were not
even to return phone calls from the commissioners without his
permission24---he largely, Shenon reports, achieved his goal: "Zelikow's
micromanagement meant that the staff had little, if any, contact with the
ten commissioners; all information was funneled through Zelikow, and he
decided how it would be shared elsewhere."25 Indeed, Shenon says, Zelikow
insisted "that every scrap of secret evidence gathered by the staff be
shared with him before anyone else; he then controlled how
and if the evidence was shared elsewhere."26
Although the fact that the 9/11 Commission was controlled by someone who
was essentially a member of the Bush-Cheney White House was bad enough,
even more contrary to the Commission's alleged independence was the fact
that Zelikow had determined its central conclusions in advance. In their
2006 book, Without Precedent, which is subtitled The Inside Story of the
9/11 Commission, Kean and Hamilton claimed that, unlike conspiracy
theorists, they started with the relevant facts, not with a conclusion:
they "were not setting out to advocate one theory or interpretation of 9/11
versus another."27 They admitted, however, that after Zelikow divided the
staff into various teams and told them what to investigate, he told team 1A
to "tell the story of al Qaeda's most successful operation---the 9/11
attacks."28 So, the question that most Americans probably assume to have
been one of the 9/11 Commission's main questions---"Who was responsible for
the 9/11 attacks?"---was not asked. The Bush-Cheney administration's theory
was simply presupposed from the outset.
The fact that the Commission's conclusion had been predetermined was made
even clearer by Kean and Hamilton's admission that an outline of the final
report was prepared in advance by Zelikow and his former professor Ernest
May (with whom he had previously coauthored a book).29
Shenon revealed more about this startling fact. Pointing out that Zelikow
and May had prepared this outline secretly, Shenon wrote: "By March 2003,
with the commission's staff barely in place, the two men had already
prepared a detailed outline, complete with `chapter headings, subheadings,
and sub-subheadings.'" When Zelikow shared this document with Kean and
Hamilton, they realized that the staff, if they learned about it, would
know that they were doing research for a predetermined conclusion.30 And so
the four men agreed upon a conspiracy of silence. In Shenon's words:
"It should be kept secret from the rest of the staff, they all decided. May
said that he and Zelikow agreed that the outline should be `treated as if
it were the most classified document the commission possessed.' Zelikow . .
. labeled it `Commission Sensitive,' putting those words at the top and
bottom of each page."31
The work of the 9/11 Commission began, accordingly, with Kean and Hamilton
conspiring with Zelikow and May to conceal from the Commission's staff
members the fact that their investigative work would largely be limited to
filling in the details of conclusions that had been reached before any
investigations had begun.
When the staff did finally learn about this outline a year later (in April
2004), some of them began circulating a two-page parody entitled "The
Warren Commission Report--Preemptive Outline." One of its chapter headings
was: "Single Bullet: We Haven't Seen the Evidence Yet. But Really. We're
Sure."32 The point, of course, was that the crucial chapter of Zelikow and
May's outline could have been headed: "Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda: We
Haven't Seen the Evidence yet. But Really. We're Sure."
Besides controlling the Commission's work and predetermining its
conclusions, Zelikow also, Shenon says, largely "controlled what the final
report would say."33 He could exert this control because, as Ernest May
reported, although the first draft of each chapter was written by one of
the investigative teams, Zelikow headed up a team in the front office that
revised these drafts.34 Indeed, Shenon adds, "Zelikow rewrote virtually
everything that was handed to him--- usually top to bottom."35
Given the control exerted by Zelikow over the investigative work of the
9/11 Commission and its final product, it is not inaccurate to n think of
the report of the 9/11 Commission as the Zelikow Report.
In light of the foreseeable fact that the executive director of the 9/11
Commission would be able to exert such control over its work and final
product, how could Kean and Hamilton, knowing that the Commission needed
to be---or at least appear to be---independent of the Bush administration,
have chosen Zelikow for this position? Did they not fear that his personal,
structural, and ideological closeness to the Bush-Cheney administration
could easily lead him to be more interested in protecting it from blame
than in discovering and publishing the truth about how the 9/11 attacks
were able to succeed? That this would not have been an unreasonable fear is
shown by the fact that many members of the
Commission's staff, Shenon reports, said that Zelikow's conflicts of
interest resulted in a "pattern of partisan moves intended to protect the
White House."36
At least part of the answer as to how Zelikow became the executive
director, Shenon reveals, is that Zelikow, in applying for the position,
concealed some of his conflicts of interest from Kean and Hamilton.
The résumé he gave them mentioned the book he had co-authored with Rice and
his appointment to the White House intelligence advisory board---two
conflicts of interest that Kean and Hamilton deemed "not insurmountable."37
But Zelikow's résumé failed to mention some other problems---most crucially
his authorship of NSS 2002. Given the fact that this document had been used
to "justify a preemptive strike on Iraq," as Shenon says, it would have
been in Zelikow's interest "to use the commission to try to bolster the
administration's argument for war--- a war that he had helped make
possible."38 And in fact, Shenon points out, Zelikow did try to use it for
just this purpose, even trying to insert statements into the final report
connecting al-Qaeda to Iraq (this being one of few times that Zelikow did
not get his way).39
Zelikow was also dishonest with the Commission in another way, Shenon
reports. Although "Zelikow had promised the commissioners he would cut off
all unnecessary contact with senior Bush administration officials to avoid
any appearance of conflict of interest," he had continuing contacts with
both Karl Rove and Condoleezza Rice. "More than once, [the Commission's
executive secretary] had been asked to arrange a gate pass so Zelikow could
enter the White House to visit the national security adviser in her offices
in the West Wing."40 The secretary's logs also revealed that Rove---who was
the White House's "quarterback for dealing with the Commission" (according
to Republican member of the 9/11 Commission John Lehman)--- called the
office "looking for Philip" four times in 2003, after which, she said,
Zelikow ordered her to quit keeping logs of his contacts with the White
House.41
Implications for The 9/11 Commission Report
Shenon's revelations of Zelikow's close and ongoing relationship with the
White House, his authorship of NSS 2002, and his duplicity should make
people, at the very least, suspect that The 9/11 Commission Report is less
of a truth-seeking than a political document, designed to protect the
Bush-Cheney administration.
However, as helpful as Shenon's book is, it fails to mention an even more
serious conflict of interest created by Zelikow's authorship of NSS 2002:
If the Bush-Cheney White House enabled the 9/11 attacks in order to reap
foreseeable benefits---such as the Bush Doctrine and carte blanche to
attack Iraq and Afghanistan---it would have been in Zelikow's interest to
cover up this fact.
In my 2005 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I
have provided abundant evidence that this is indeed what he did. In my most
recent book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the
Exposé, I have pointed out---in what must be one of the longest footnotes
of all time42---that Shenon, while revealing many problematic facts about
Zelikow's behavior, failed to mention any of the ways in which the Zelikow
Report used dishonesty to support the Bush-Cheney administration's
implausible interpretation of 9/11, according to which the attacks were
orchestrated and carried out solely by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.43
David Ray Griffin is Professor Emeritus at Claremont School of Theology and
Claremont Graduate University in California. He has published 34 books,
including seven about 9/11, most recently The New Pearl Harbor Revisited:
9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), from
which the present essay has been drawn.
1 Philip Shenon, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11
Investigation (New York: Twelve, 2008), 170.
2 See Steven R. Ratner, "Crimes against Peace" (
<http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-peace.html>
www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-peace.html).
3 I previously used the term "preemptive-preventive war" in "Neocon
Imperialism, 9/11, and the Attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq," Information
Clearing House, February 27, 2007 (
<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17194.htm>
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17194.htm).
4 Barton Gellman, "Keeping the U.S. First: Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival
Superpower," Washington Post, March 11, 1992 (
<http://www.yale.edu/strattech/92dpg.html>
www.yale.edu/strattech/92dpg.html); cited in Stefan Halper and Jonathan
Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 141.
5 See Halper and Clark, America Alone, 26, and "Project for the New American
Century," Right Web, updated June 20,
2008(rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1535.html).
6 PNAC, Letter to President Clinton on Iraq, May 29, 1998 (
<http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm>
www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm).
7 Stephen J. Sniegoski, "Neoconservatives, Israel, and 9/11: The Origins of
the U.S. War on Iraq." In D. L. O'Huallachain and J. Forrest Sharpe, eds.,
Neoconned Again: Hypocrisy, Lawlessness, and the Rape of Iraq (Vienna, Va.:
IHS Press, 2005), 81-109, at 81-82.
8 Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced
by War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 91.
9 "President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point," June 1, 2002
(www.whitehouse.gov/news/r.../2002/06/20020601-3.html).
10 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September
2002 (www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/nss.pdf), cover letter; this document
henceforth referred to as NSS 2002.
11 NSS 2002, 6, 15.
12 Ibid., 15.
13 Halper and Clarke, America Alone, 142.
14 Max Boot, "Think Again: Neocons," Foreign Policy, January/February
2004 (www.cfr.org/publication/7592/think_again.html), 18.
15 Halper and Clarke, America Alone, 4.
16 James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet
(New York: Viking, 2004), 316.
17 Richard N. Haass, "Imperial America," delivered November 11, 2000,
Brookings Institution
(www.brookings.edu/article...9/09diplomacy_haass.aspx).
18 Mann, Rise of the Vulcans, 316.
19 Ibid., 331.
20 Shenon, The Commission, 69, 83.
21 Ibid., 69-70, 86.
22 Ibid., 167.
23 Ibid., 83.
24 Ibid., 84-85.
25 Ibid., 317.
26 Ibid., 277.
27 Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton (with Benjamin Rhodes), Without
Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 2006), 269-70.
28 Ibid., 116.
29 Ibid., 270.
30 Shenon, The Commission, 388-89.
31 Ibid., 389.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid., 390.
34 Ernest May, "When Government Writes History: A Memoir of the 9/11
Commission," New Republic, May 23, 2005; cited in Bryan
Sacks, "Making History: The Compromised 9-11 Commission," in Paul Zarembka,
ed., The Hidden History of 9-11 (New York: Seven Stories,
2008), 223-60, at 258n10.
35 Shenon, The Commission, 321.
36 Ibid., 319.
37 Ibid., 59.
38 Ibid., 170.
39 Ibid., 104, 130-33, 181, 321.
40 Ibid., 106-07.
41 Ibid., 175-76, 106-07. In their 2006 book giving "the inside story of the
9/11 Commission," Kean and Hamilton said, after reporting that the 9/11
families had protested Zelikow's appointment as executive director because
of his conflicts of interest: "But we had full confidence in Zelikow's
independence" (Without Precedent, 28-29). In light of Shenon's revelations,
we must conclude that Zelikow was not the only one who shaded the truth.
42 David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-
Up, and the Exposé (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 333-38n70.
43 To read statements by architects, engineers, firefighters, pilots,
political leaders, scholars, scientists, former CIA officials, retired
military officers, and others who find the official theory of 9/11
implausible, see the Patriots Question 9/11 website (
<http://www.patriotsquestion911.com> www.patriotsquestion911.com).
----------------------------------------------------------
Comment:
In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, Phillip D
Zelikow co- authored an article with Ashton B. Carter, and John M.
Deutch entitled "Catastrophic Terrorism" describing a "Pearl Harbor"
type of event that might occur in the United States that would result
in the suspension of civil liberties and the increased surveillance
of citizens. It seemed to describe exactly what has come to pass
under the Bush Administration. They speculated that if the 1993
bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, "the resulting
horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such
an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in
American history. It could involve loss of life and property
unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense
of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl
Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and
after. The United States might respond with draconian measures
scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of
citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More
violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S.
counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders
negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently."
Phillip D Zelikow's comments on the preemptive invasion of Iraq as a
war for Israel:
Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his
tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which reports
directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?
I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been
since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd
at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel
of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future
of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.
"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the
Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you
frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on
it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.
Phillip D. Zelikow's doctoral thesis was "Myth Making and the JFK
Assassination".
Of course he was indespensible heading up the 9/11 commision.
*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only ***
CAVEAT LECTOR ***
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. NOTE: Some links
may require cut and paste into your Internet Browser.
Please check <http://tinyurl.com/33c9yr> http://tinyurl.com/33c9yr
<http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/topics?gvc=2>
http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/topics?gvc=2 for more
real news posts and support the truth! (sorry but don't have time to email
all posts)
free book download: <http://www.lulu.com/content/165077>
http://www.lulu.com/content/165077 or
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/165000/165077/21/print/165077.pdf
<http://blogs.albawaba.com/alexanderjames>
http://blogs.albawaba.com/alexanderjames
http://blogs.albawaba.com/Alexanderjames/page/links
http://bb.domaindlx.com/alexjames999
*** Revealing the hidden Truth For Educational & Further Research Purposes
only. *** Welcome to Real News Edited excerpts, non-partisan,
pro-truth-honesty-peace, and anti-war-lies-crime. The purpose is to expose
corruptions, frauds, deceptions, lies, criminal plans, cover-ups and
free-speech silencing by powerful people in governments, foundations,
corporations and media, which are done using the name of democracy, human
rights, false interpretations of religions, cults, occults, patriotism,
economy, business, media, elections, justice, charity, etc., and are used to
trick the public into hatred & wars and out of their lives, money and
freedoms, while the propaganda we are subjected to makes us believe that we
have evolved to where such things cannot happen [remember slavery,
apartheid…]. Please share what you learn with others who do not have access
to the internet. This is only a tip of the iceberg. Stop the hatred that is
used to promote the dehumanization of the victims of predatory
aggressions;spread the truth;free your mind from being a Zioncon occupied
territory of the neo-feudal lords by rejecting the mainstream news
propaganda. Caution: real news may induce a kind of schizophrenia because it
provides a true vision of reality which is so different from the one we are
presented by the mass media spins. Latest real infonews available at
alternate news. ***** Check whatreallyhappened.com, inforwars.com, whtt.org,
savethemales.ca & other alternative news sites for latest news flashes. In
Truth We Trust! The opinions expressed herein contain positions and
viewpoints that are not necessarily those of the recipient, disseminator or
others mentioned in the information. These are offered as a means to
stimulate dialogue and discussion.
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency
(NSA) may have read emails without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do
this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse,
nor protection.......... IF anyone other than the addressee of this e-mail
is reading it, you are in violation of the 1st & 4th Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States. Patriot Act 5 & H.R. 1955 Disclaimer
Notice: This post & all my past & future posts represent parody & satire &
are all intended for entertainment and amusement only.
To be removed from the list, please reply with the subject line "REMOVE"
To receive email at another address, please reply with subject line “CHANGE”
To receive email, please reply with "WEEKLY"
|
