Corruption on the 9/11 Commission?

[Walter Ego]

Ex-9/11 Panel Chief Denies Secret White House Ties

Book Charges Zelikow May Have Interfered With the 9/11 Commission's Report
By JUSTIN ROOD
Jan. 30, 2008—

The former executive director of the 9/11 Commission denies explosive charges of undisclosed ties to the Bush White House or interference with the panel's report.

The charges are said to be contained in New York Times reporter Philip Shenon's unreleased book, "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation," according to Max Holland, an author and blogger, and generally confirmed by the book's publisher. Although the book is not slated to hit stores until early next month, Holland says he bought a copy of the audio version at a bookstore. (Attempts to purchase the book, in any format, at the Barnes & Noble across the street from ABC News headquarters were unsuccessful.)

Edited down to shorter length for Rule 4 violation.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=4218157

Any speculation on what the truthers will do with this?

[Sizzler]

Any speculation on what the truthers will do with this?

Even if one accepts wholeheartedly that 9-11 was not an inside job, which is a very reasonable stance to take, it is still hard to accept that the 9-11 commision report is whole, and complete.

For the sake of national security, in the event of another attack, I think a lot remaining questions need to be addressed. I'm not referring a conspiracy at all, rather, an inability by a lot of people on that day to do their jobs efficiently.

[T.A.M.]

They will turn what amount to a disgusting, but all to typical attempt to "cover their asses" into...

"See...9/11 was definitely an inside job."

Watch!

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Even if one accepts wholeheartedly that 9-11 was not an inside job, which is a very reasonable stance to take, it is still hard to accept that the 9-11 commision report is whole, and complete.

For the sake of national security, in the event of another attack, I think a lot remaining questions need to be addressed. I'm not referring a conspiracy at all, rather, an inability by a lot of people on that day to do their jobs efficiently.

Yes and I believe it was one of the leaders of the commission, Lee Hamilton, who made a comment that basically made the point that...

The report was a first account of the history of that event, and like many first accounts of history, much they got right, but much perhaps would prove to need revision.

TAM:)

[Sizzler]

They will turn what amount to a disgusting, but all to typical attempt to "cover their asses" into...

"See...9/11 was definitely an inside job."

Watch!

TAM:)

they will:(

[CptColumbo]

They were just talking about it on "Countdown" on MSNBC. Nothing about 9/11 being an inside job, but the commission may not have blamed everyone for the intelligence failure that they could have.

[Sizzler]

Yes and I believe it was one of the leaders of the commission, Lee Hamilton, who made a comment that basically made the point that...

The report was a first account of the history of that event, and like many first accounts of history, much they got right, but much perhaps would prove to need revision.

TAM:)

I really feel for the families and their struggles to have answers to their qustions. I would go insane with anger if I were in their shoes.

A lot of their questions have been taken out of context by the truth movement and that is too bad because its pushed the agenda of a possible second investigation way out into left field.

[boloboffin]

The 9/11 Commission was molded into a committee that would tell as much as the truth as possible without venturing into areas where fingers might get pointed at specific people. As more and more of these efforts come into the public view, the Report's reputation will be irreparably damaged.

It is becoming radioactive, and all the good it does do and the research it did do well will suffer in comparison.

[T.A.M.]

I agree Sizzler, and to that effect the commission did a great job in answering a lot of the legitimate questions posed by the families during its sitting. Did they answer them all...no. Could they have answered more...perhaps...should they have, sure.

Perhaps books like this one coming out will eventually get some more answers.

In the end though it will not change the narrative of what happened that day, with the exception of revealing a LIHOI/LIHOA (Let It Happen Out of Ignorance/Arrogance) scenario on the part of elements of the the USG and its interests.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

The 9/11 Commission was molded into a committee that would tell as much as the truth as possible without venturing into areas where fingers might get pointed at specific people. As more and more of these efforts come into the public view, the Report's reputation will be irreparably damaged.

It is becoming radioactive, and all the good it does do and the research it did do well will suffer in comparison.

Sadly you are likely correct...

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

And yet another new article on Zelikow's connections to the White House during the Commission's "investigation."

It looks like this new book could debunk the Commission Report in a way that will be palatable to those readers who are put off by DRG.

Ties Between White House, Sept 11 Chief
By HOPE YEN – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Sept. 11 commission's executive director had closer ties with the White House than publicly disclosed and tried to influence the final report in ways that the staff often perceived as limiting the Bush administration's responsibility, a new book says.

Philip Zelikow, a friend of then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, spoke with her several times during the 20-month investigation that closely examined her role in assessing the al-Qaida threat. He also exchanged frequent calls with the White House, including at least four from Bush's chief political adviser at the time, Karl Rove.

Zelikow once tried to push through wording in a draft report that suggested a greater tie between al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and Iraq, in line with White House claims but not with the commission staff's viewpoint, according to Philip Shenon's "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWQCjbQNbAq13eIw2NMreAthexSgD8UJ290G0

[Open Blinded]

This AP article is now on the front page of CNN.

Some items that truthers will probably leave out of their propaganda:

"Did he try to sway the report to protect the administration? I think the answer was no," Hamilton told the AP.

The book says that in early 2004, Zelikow allegedly sought to add to an initial staff report wording that linked al-Qaida to Iraq. The wording would have said the terrorist network repeatedly tried to communicate with the government of Saddam Hussein, a claim of cooperation the administration had cited to justify the war in Iraq. After a staff protest, Zelikow backed down; the final report said there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam and al-Qaida. Zelikow has said that he simply wanted the panel to keep an open mind on the issue.

So, the allegation is that he tried to influence the Commision but failed.

[RedIbis]

A commissioner is reported as saying that they had to go through Karl Rove. That should instill a great deal of confidence that the Commission was fair and thorough.

[Corsair 115]

A commissioner is reported as saying that they had to go through Karl Rove.You can provide a link to said report, yes? It's always good to provide the source material so one can read it for themselves.

[dudalb]

The 9/11 Commission was molded into a committee that would tell as much as the truth as possible without venturing into areas where fingers might get pointed at specific people. As more and more of these efforts come into the public view, the Report's reputation will be irreparably damaged.

It is becoming radioactive, and all the good it does do and the research it did do well will suffer in comparison.

I strongly suspect when that a lot of reputations in both the Bush and Clinton administrations will suffer when all the facts are known.
I have always suspected that the people in both parties wanted the report to keep away from pointing fingers at specific people.

[RedIbis]

You can provide a link to said report, yes? It's always good to provide the source material so one can read it for themselves.

Sure that's understandable, but I'm curious why you'd even be interested.

Once I post the link and the quote, will it disturb you that the WH was reluctant to provide the Commission the necessary information, that the Commission had to go through the Rove/Gonzalez gauntlet, that Zelikow had direct links to the WH, that the information that was received from terrorists was the result of torture?

In short, does any this flood of information make you question the veracity of the Commission Report, even in the slightest?

[RedIbis]

I strongly suspect when that a lot of reputations in both the Bush and Clinton administrations will suffer when all the facts are known.
I have always suspected that the people in both parties wanted the report to keep away from pointing fingers at specific people.

True, but why? I thought the fingers were pointed squarely at Al Qaeda.

And please don't forget that the attacks and investigation all took place during Bush's administration, not Clinton's.

[johnny karate]

True, but why? I thought the fingers were pointed squarely at Al Qaeda.

As they are. The issue here is failures in intelligence, not complicity.

And please don't forget that the attacks and investigation all took place during Bush's administration, not Clinton's.

And Bush was in office all of eight month when the attacks took place, which had been planned and implemented years in advance. Anyone who has actually read the 9/11 Commission Report knows this.

[RedIbis]

As they are. The issue here is failures in intelligence, not complicity.



And Bush was in office all of eight month when the attacks took place, which had been planned and implemented years in advance. Anyone who has actually read the 9/11 Commission Report knows this.

I'm all too familiar with the very flawed Report. I'm also familiar with the enormous amount of intel Bush and his administration were ignoring.

If I were nothing more than a leftwing, liberal Bush basher I would say that Al Qaeda planned their attack during Bush's administration, knowing the dolt would ignore the warnings, screw up the response and enflame the Middle East. But I'm not that naive.

[Corsair 115]

Sure that's understandable, but I'm curious why you'd even be interested.

Once I post the link and the quote, will it disturb you that the WH was reluctant to provide the Commission the necessary information, that the Commission had to go through the Rove/Gonzalez gauntlet, that Zelikow had direct links to the WH, that the information that was received from terrorists was the result of torture?

In short, does any this flood of information make you question the veracity of the Commission Report, even in the slightest?I see a lot words above, but no link. If this report says what you say it says, then it seems to me you should be eagerly and enthusiastically posting it since it would bolster your claim.

[Walter Ego]

Philip Shenon, Scrutinizing the 9/11 Commission

Fresh Air from WHYY, February 4, 2008 Missed evidence, ignored clues, political considerations—did the 9/11 Commission really issue the definitive report on the September 2001 terror attacks?

In his new book, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, New York Times investigative journalist Philip Shenon scrutinizes those charged with analyzing the terror attacks and uncovers new information about the commission's complicated relationship with the Bush White House.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18660248

NPR interview with audio.