Some results of a search on "Kristen Breitweiser",
includes info re Kean Commission and its
"9/11 Family Steering Committee" (FSC):
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/10/commission/
"Is the 9/11 commission too soft?"
By Eric Boehlert, 10/10/03
Family members of those who died on Sept. 11 are beginning to worry about the gentle treatment the outside commission is giving the White House.
...
"They want to run it in a polite, friendly fashion," complains Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband on Sept. 11. "Our confidence level is waning. There seems to be no sense of urgency."
There's a growing concern that the committee sees its job as putting the events of 9/11 in historical perspective and offering up some general policy suggestions, as opposed to getting to the bottom of a crime of mass murder. ...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082203E.shtml
Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush
By Gail Sheehy
The New York Observer
Thursday 21 August 2003
11/14/03 email action alert: "Sept. 11 victims' families need help NOW:"
contents:
1) NYTimes article, 11/14:
"Deal on 9/11 Briefings Lets White House Edit Papers"
By PHILIP SHENON
2) AP article, 11/13:
"Relatives of Sept. 11 victims criticize agreement between White House and
commission" by LAURENCE ARNOLD
3) UPI article, 11/12:
"9/11 panel gets docs deal with White House" By Shaun Waterman, UPI,
4) Call to Action
5) addresses
6) next commission meeting
go to 11-03alert.html
email comment, 11/26/03:
Re the "Kean 9/11 Commission" (so-called "Independent Commission"),
which recently caved in to Bush Admin's subversion: Commissioner Max
Cleland, who objected in the strongest terms to the capitulation, has been
removed from the Commission (the official story is that Bush "reappointed
him" elsewhere). There is a media blackout on this, see quotes below:
"> And then just yesterday we learn of a new outrage -- Max Cleland, the
commission member who is perhaps the most outspoken critic of the
administration's stonewalling over evidence, is appointed by the president
to another post and must leave the commission! The commission has barely a
half-year left to go, and it loses a member! So, why?
Which in turn begs an even bigger question. What good is an 'independent'
commission that can be *edited* by one of the subjects of its
investigation... Do you have a link to a story about Cleland's
reassignment?" (11/24)
"The news of this Cleland thing is so revealing in itself in light of how
he has recently been talking about the commission that just this news alone
could wake people up to the 9/11 coverup. So, the plea is extended to
getting this story in the mainstream press. Associated Press and Reuters
never picked it up. It's a blackout. "
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003
Subject: 2 new alternative press articles on Commission without Cleland switch mentioned
Two new articles on the 9/11 "investigation"
commission (from Alternet and from WSW) below, however
neither mention the bribe 9/11 Commission Cleland took
to step down from the Commission now, although both
cite to Cleland's comments harshly critical of the
Commission. This Cleland bribe/stepping down story
has still NOT been picked up by either the mainstream or
alternative press yet. I've emailed the two publications individually.
Media Silence on 9/11, Alternet
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17254
By Danny Schechter and Colleen Kelly, AlterNet
November 25, 2003
A subpoena can work like truth serum. Drag waffling officials and dissembling politicians before a serious investigatory body and suddenly secrets start to spill and disclosures mount. Dots are connected. Confessions emerge, and sometimes, indictments follow.
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were criminal acts, but with political causes and tragic consequences. Two years later, there is much that we don't know about all that happened on September 11th or its aftermath. That's why we now have a National Commission investigating the attacks.
Lest we forget, the commission was only set up because of pressure from 9/11 victim families, and over the stonewalling objections of the current administration. They didn't want an independent investigation at all, and when one was forced on them, this same administration ironically chose Henry Kissinger to head it.
The creation of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 commission) was announced just before Thanksgiving a year ago. President Bush appeared to welcome it saying that the "investigation should carefully examine all the evidence and follow all the facts, wherever they lead (sic)..... It's our most solemn duty."
A year later, what has happened with the implementation of that "solemn duty?"
Conspiracy theories about these events flourish because independently verified information has yet to see the light of day. More importantly no one has been held accountable for any lapses or misjudgments that left our country undefended.
We live in a county where crime scene investigation TV shows are all the rage. Yet, in one of the most serious crimes in this century, there has been no official rush to get all the facts.
If a person was shot in front of the World Trade Center, there would be more of an urgent inquiry into that killing than was accorded the murder of thousands of people in broad daylight. There would be a trial, witnesses giving sworn testimony, evidence presented in public for anyone interested to review and discern.
None of this has yet to happen with regard to 9/11. Is it any wonder that skepticism and suspicion flourish?
Many of us remember spending the summer of 1973 glued to the television, watching Sam Erwin's Watergate hearings. It was public, unrehearsed and very effective. It spotlighted a conspiracy orchestrated by the Oval Office. It helped the public see what was going on in the shadows. Will we ever see such a robust, no-holds-barred inquiry into 9/11?
We encourage the Kean Commission to set an even higher standard. But the latest compromise deal it struck with the White House to limit its own access to documents undercuts its stated mission of a "full and unfettered" investigation.
Commissioner Max Cleland, the former Senator from Georgia said, "If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised." This recent compromise has also been denounced by many family members of 9/11 victims.
The media has also compromised its role as an independent watchdog. Until recently, there has been minimal media coverage of the 9/11 commission. This apparent media indifference leads us to ask the media and our fellow Americans the following question: Which event has greater historical importance, a paranoid Nixon White House attempting to insure political victory, or the death of nearly 3000 people, unparalleled change in U.S. foreign policy, and a war on terror likely to change American life for generations? It leads us to wonder about why there is so much ho-hum follow-up.
What happened to a media that went into wall-to-wall patriotically-correct flag-waving mode after 9/11? Virtually all mainstream outlets have downplayed the issue, across the spectrum from right to left. We are not sure why.
Neither is Eric Alterman of the Nation who did some analysis of the numbers of stories airing on the Fox News Channel, which has built its reputation by stridently covering 9/11 and terrorism.
He concludes: "Fox has treated viewers to a virtual news blackout on commission-related news. And if this has been an accident, it has to be one of the most amazing news-gathering coincidences in cable history." His research on program content led him to conclude that the coverage overall was "closer to zero"
Alterman did credit the AP, the Dallas Morning News and the Newark Star-Ledger for breaking through the silence that surrounds the commission's work. But few television networks are picking up their lead or sending investigative reporters out to critically examine the administration's own case for an al Qaeda conspiracy.
The networks seem too busy refuting the Kennedy Assassination critics to look into the likelihood of White House incompetence and even complicity in the events of 9/11. We owe the victims the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Isn't it time for our media to wake up and do its job if the government won't do the same?
Colleen Kelly lost her brother Bill Kelly Jr. at the World Trade Center. She is a founder of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. Danny Schechter, editor of Mediachannel.org, is making a film about the unanswered questions of 9/11. He is the author of "Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception: How the Media failed to cover the war on Iraq." (Prometheus Books, 2003)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
World Socialist Website
Terrorism commission caves in to White House over 9/11 documents
By Patrick Martin
24 November 2003
The independent commission charged with investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington has backed down in the face of White House intransigence and agreed to let the Bush administration determine what information it will turn over to the panel.
An agreement reached November 13 between the White House and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States provides very limited access to the Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs), the daily summaries of all US intelligence reporting that are the most important documents being withheld from the commission.
The Bush administration has refused to turn over the PDBs, although it has no legal claim of executive privilege, since the independent commission is not part of the legislative branch, but was set up jointly by Congress and the White House.
It was a PDB dated August 6, 2001, that reportedly informed Bush and his top aides, more than a month before the destruction of the World Trade Center, that Al Qaeda terrorists were planning terrorist attacks within the continental US using hijacked airplanes.
One of the 10 members of the commission and one staff member will review hundreds of PDBs during the period leading up to September 11, covering both the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration. They will prepare summaries of relevant passages of the PDBs, which the White House will review and edit before they are given to the other members of the commission.
The two top leaders of the commission, Republican chairman Thomas Kean, former governor of New Jersey, and Democratic vice-chairman Lee Hamilton, a former congressman from Indiana, agreed to this White House-controlled procedure rather than issuing subpoenas for the material.
Administration foot-dragging has already compelled the commission to issue subpoenas for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Air Force records on the movement of air defense fighters on September 11. The White House instructed the FAA and Pentagon to comply with the subpoenas, but it vowed to fight any subpoena for the Presidential Daily Briefs, threatening a lengthy court battle.
The commission has also subpoenaed the tape recordings of New York City police and fire communications on September 11, after Mayor Michael Bloomberg refused to release them, citing privacy concerns.
Kean and Hamilton chose the two who will review the PDBs: staff director Philip Zelikow, a Republican, and commissioner Jamie Gorelick, a Democrat. Both are safe choices from the standpoint of protecting the US military/intelligence apparatus.
Zelikow is a University of Virginia professor with close ties to the Bush administration. He co-authored a book with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and worked on the National Security Council’s transition from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. Gorelick served eight years in the Clinton administration, first as general counsel to the Pentagon, then as deputy attorney general.
Representatives of the families of September 11 victims denounced the agreement limiting access to White House documents, calling it a violation of the commission’s mandate to investigate what US intelligence agencies and government officials knew in advance of the terrorist attacks.
The Family Steering Committee issued a statement saying the agreement would “prevent a full uncovering of the truth and is unacceptable... The commission should issue a statement to the American public fully explaining why this agreement was chosen in lieu of issuing subpoenas to the CIA and executive branch.”
A spokeswoman for the group, Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband Ronald was killed at the World Trade Center, told the press, “I think this entire deal needs to be explained to the public. This is an independent commission that is supposed to be transparent, that is supposed to be open.”
Breitweiser singled out the role of staff director Zelikow, saying, “Phil Zelikow has a very large conflict of interest. He is very close friends with Condi Rice, he was on the transition team, and some of these documents are going to pertain to that. It’s very disturbing. This was supposed to be an independent commission, not a presidential commission.”
Two Democratic members of the committee also condemned the agreement. Former Indiana congressman Timothy Roemer said that with the power to edit the PDBs before turning them over to the commission, the White House could remove the context of any references to terrorist threats and hide “smoking guns.” Under the agreement, he said, “Our members may see only two or three paragraphs out of a nine-page report.”
Max Cleland, a former senator from Georgia, called the agreement “unconscionable” and said the work of the committee was being “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States.”
“If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access,” Cleland said.
Cleland is a conservative Democrat and triple-amputee from the Vietnam War who once headed the Veterans Administration. But last month he issued a warning that White House stonewalling was making it impossible for the commission to meet its May 27, 2004, deadline for a final report on the September 11 attacks. He claimed that the delays were politically motivated, aimed at allowing the Bush administration to “run out the clock” and avoid accountability before the 2004 elections.
In a remark little noted by the media at the time—but extraordinary in its implications—Cleland declared, “As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted.”
The American media has reported the agreement between the September 11 commission and the White House in largely uncritical terms. There has been no outcry over the refusal of the Bush administration to cooperate with an investigation into the largest single act of mass murder in US history—in sharp contrast to the media frenzy over Clinton’s foot-dragging in the independent counsel investigation into his sex life.
The Washington Post portrayed the agreement as a remarkable concession by the White House. It wrote, on November 16, that the deal “marks a departure for an administration that frequently has fought attempts by Congress and government investigators to review other sensitive executive branch documents.”
The newspaper quoted Zelikow praising the administration: “Neither we nor the White House are aware of any precedent for this in the history of the republic. That is true not only for our access to these items, but for many of the other kinds of access to highly sensitive materials that we have been granted.”
The Post added its own benediction for the cover-up, with an editorial on November 17 headlined “Adequate Access.” The newspaper declared, “The Bush administration has provided a mountain of material to the commission. The latest negotiations concern especially sensitive material, and it is appropriate to take precautions to protect it... Our sense is that the agreement, though imperfect, should secure for the commission the access it needs.”
In its news article on the agreement, however, the New York Times commented, “Administration officials have acknowledged that they are concerned that intelligence reports received by Mr. Bush in the weeks before 9/11 might be construed to suggest that the White House failed to respond to evidence suggesting that Al Qaeda was planning a catastrophic attack.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/911-n24.shtml
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
see also a 3rd article at: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16054
9/11 widow files lawsuit against Bush, 11/03
Open Letter To The President Of The United States
Mr. Bush,
This ''open letter'' is coming from my heart. I want you to know that I am
neither a Republican nor a Democrat and that this is not an attempt to
''bash the Government''.
You Mr. Bush should be held responsible and liable for any and all acts
that were committed to aid in any "cover up" of the tragic events of
September 11, 2001. As President you have a duty to protect the American
people. On September 11th you did not instruct your staff to issue a
nationwide emergency warning/alert to advise us of the attack on America.
We had to receive the news of the attacks via the news networks.
In the months leading up to the attacks you were repeatedly advised of a
possible attack on American soil. During your daily intelligence briefings
you were given information that had been uncovered that the very real
possibility existed that certain undesirable elements would use commercial
aircraft to destroy certain "target" buildings. You never warned the
American people of this possible threat. Who were you protecting?
When you took no responsibility towards protecting the general public from
the possibility of attack, you were certainly not upholding the oath you
spoke when you took office. In that oath you pledged to uphold the
Constitution of the United States of America.
On the morning of the attack, you and members of your staff were fully
aware of the unfolding events yet you chose to continue on to the Emma E.
Booker Elementary School to proceed with a scheduled event and "photo
op". While our nation was under attack you did not appear to blink an eye
or shed a tear. You continued on as if everything was "business as
usual".
In the days following the attacks all air traffic was grounded and
Americans, including myself, were stranded wherever they had been when the
flight ban was imposed. I was stranded at Midway Airport in Chicago,
unable to continue on to California for my daughter's wedding. Imagine my
surprise when I later found out that during this "no fly" period a number
of people were flown out of the country on a 747 with Arabic lettering on
the fuselage. None of these people were interviewed or questioned by any
local, State or Federal agencies. Why were they allowed to leave and who
exactly was on that flight. We know for a fact that some of the people on
the flight were members of (or related to) the royal family of Saudi
Arabia and members of the Bin Laden family. Were these people allowed to
leave because of the long-standing relationships that your family has
with both families?
It is my belief that you intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen to gather
public support for a "war on terrorism". These wars, in Afghanistan and
Iraq, have not accomplished what you stated were your goals. Why have you
not captured Osama Bin Laden? Where are Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction? All that has happened is a bill that is passed before
Congress for 87 billion dollars to rebuild what you ordered blown to
bits. As an American who lost a loved one in the "war on terror" I do
pray and support our troops who were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq by you.
These troops have and will continue to die for your lies. As an American
I can make this statement as it appears that associates of your family
may stand to prosper from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr. Bush the time has come for you to stop your control over us. Stop
blocking the release of certain evidence and documents that were
discovered by the 9/11 Investigation Commission if you have nothing to
hide proving you did not fail to act and prevent the attacks of 9/11.
Your reason for not releasing this material is that it is a matter of
"national security". When in fact I believe that it is your personal
credibility/security that you are concerned with. You do not want the
public to know the full extent of your responsibility and involvement.
After 9/11 the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act were passed. Both of
these allow the government to tap your telephone, search your home, and
seize whatever they feel they need to do on a whim. They can do this
without a judge's review or a warrant. I feel that this is in direct
conflict with our rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of
Rights.
We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers to the following
questions:
1. Why were 29 pages of the 9/11 committee [Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry] report personally censored at your request?
2. Where are the "black boxes" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
3. Where are the "voice recorders" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
4. Why can't we gain access to the complete air traffic control records
for Flight 11 and Flight 175?
5. Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers
boarding the doomed flights?
6. When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be released?
7. Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the offices of
the Hoffman Aviation School and order that flight records and files be
removed? These files were then put on a C130 government cargo plane and
flown out of the country. Where were they taken and who ordered it done?
It has been over two years since hundreds of our lost loved ones "remains"
have still yet to be identified and their remains placed in a landfill at
Fresh Kill. We want our heroes brought back and given a public and proud
resting place where we all can pay our respects and honor them. These
innocent people never had a chance as they were taken from us on that sad
September Day.
In the court of public opinion Mr. Bush, your lies are being uncovered
each day. My husband, all of the other victims and their families and our
nation as a whole, has been victimized by your failed leadership prior to
and after 9/11!
I will prove this in a court of law!
Ellen M. Mariani
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0311/S00262.htm
(2) Press Release: Ellen Mariani Lawsuit
"The Attack Has Been Spectacular"
by Maureen Farrell July 1, 2003
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/03/07/01.html
"The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties
against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made.
Attack will occur with little or no warning."-- CIA Intelligence Report for
President Bush, July, 2001 (60 Days Prior to 9/11) http://tinyurl.com/fqw0
"President Bush and his top advisers were informed by the CIA early last
August that terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden had discussed the
possibility of hijacking airplanes." - The Washington Post, May 16, 2002
http://tinyurl.com/g4yl
"Family members of victims of the terror attacks say the White House has
smothered every attempt to get to the bottom of the outrageous intelligence
failures that took place on its watch."-- Salon.com, June 18, 2003
http://tinyurl.com/fqw9
"If I did anything like this as a policeman, and killed 3,000 people, with
this much evidence against me, I'd spend 100,000 years in jail." -- former
New York City police officer Bruce DeCell, the Nation, June 19, 2003
http://tinyurl.com/fqwf
* * *
On September 11, 2001, when most were too numb to contemplate much of
anything, Newsweek told us what to expect. "As a small army of fire
fighters struggled to put out the flames at the World Trade Center in New
York and at the Pentagon in Washington," Peg Tyre wrote, "federal law
enforcement agencies had already begun marshaling agents, readying them for
what promises to be the largest criminal investigation in the history of
the nation." http://tinyurl.com/eb7m Nearly two years (and two wars) later,
however, this huge investigation hasn't panned out. Attempts to uncover
intelligence failures have been routinely thwarted; Halliburton has
accomplished more in Afghanistan http://tinyurl.com/fqwq and Iraq
http://tinyurl.com/fqwv than Bush's "dead or alive" doctrine; and sadly,
the CIA's "spectacular attack" pertains not only to the trauma of 9/11, but
to subsequent assaults on Americans' faith and trust.
Regardless how anyone frames it, the White House duped us. From "they hate
us for our freedoms" to "solid evidence" of Al-Qaeda/Iraq connections, the
Administration skirted some issues and manipulated information on others.
In short, Bush Inc. lied and pressured others to do the same. The game plan
succeeded, however, as polls repeatedly indicated that more than half of
all U.S. citizens were consistently conned into believing Iraq was an
immediate threat and that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Meanwhile, millions of well-intentioned souls, unaware of how deeply Bush
cronies are lining their war-profiteering pockets http://tinyurl.com/fqx1,
still trust promises of Iraq's "liberation" -- even if hourly ambushes on
US soldiers http://tinyurl.com/fqxb suggest Iraqis aren't exactly dancing
in the streets.
Nicholas Kristof, fresh from a trip to Iraq, told NPR's Terry Gross that
women and Christians are especially vulnerable now that Iraq's Islamic
fundamentalists "are winning" http://tinyurl.com/fqxd, while Canada's Globe
and Mail reported that Iraq's children are in even greater peril -- with
Iraq's child mortality rate, already astronomical after 12 years of
sanctions, possibly "even higher since Saddam Hussein's regime fell and the
United States took over governing the country." http://tinyurl.com/fqxh
Given the circumstances, Iraqi rage, and the subsequent attacks, should
have been foreseen. "It was predictable," Iraqi political scientist Saad
al-Jawwad told the Guardian. "To any man or any woman or anybody who's
living in despair what could he do? He has nothing left but to carry arms
and defy the people who are here occupying his country and doing nothing
for him or his family. Where is democracy? Nonexistent. Where is stability?
Nonexistent. Where's electricity? Where's water?'' http://tinyurl.com/fqxk
The attack has been spectacular, hasn't it?
Despite ample evidence that Bush misled the nation into a pre-planned war
(and denounced anyone who tried to paint a realistic portrait of the
aftermath), sets of razor-sharp teeth that bared for the slightest Clinton
transgression have rescinded, and assorted bootlickers are now busily
concocting doozies to cushion the Deceiver in Chief from blame. "Bush's
reasons for invading Iraq seem to contradict reality," the Philadelphia
Inquirer's Dick Polman recently wrote. "But if those claims do prove false,
he won't be the first U.S. leader who has skewed evidence." If those claims
prove false? <insert eye roll here.>
Polman's "thank you, sir, may I have another?" tone notwithstanding, he
chronicles a few of Bush's more blatant lies, including the president's
Sept. 7, 2002 assertion that "Iraq was 'six months away' from building a
nuclear weapon" ("I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said,
citing a report that was apparently drafted in Brigadoon); his Oct. 7
charge that Iraq was planning "missions targeting the United States" via
unmanned aerial vehicles (an impossibility, given the UAVs' limited range);
the infamous State of the Union address in which Bush claimed Iraq was
attempting to purchase uranium from Niger (though the CIA had long since
told Cheney's office the documents containing this information were
forged); and Bush's assertion that Iraq was trying to buy "high-strength
aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production" (also discredited
beforehand). http://tinyurl.com/fqxw Polman missed several other fibs,
however, including one of the most creative -- that American soldiers had
found Iraq's weather balloons of mass destruction. http://tinyurl.com/fqy0
The attack has been spectacular, hasn't it?
Nonetheless, Senators Jim Jeffords and Robert Byrd were among those who
detected Bush's dissembling early on. "I am very disturbed by President
Bush's determination that the threat from Iraq is so severe and so
immediate that we must rush to a military solution. I do not see it that
way," Jeffords said in October, 2002. http://tinyurl.com/fqy5 "We are
rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly
considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what
steps we might take to avert conflict," Byrd warned.
http://tinyurl.com/1u7e
But they, like other conscientious patriots, were up against a rising tide
of coercion. Jeffords was subjected to frequent briefings by Donald
Rumsfeld, George Tenet, President Bush and other top officials; Dick Cheney
breathed down CIA necks http://tinyurl.com/fqyj; and the White House
reportedly pressured a State Department chemical and biological weapons
expert to "tailor his analysis on Iraq and other matters to conform with
the Bush administration's views." http://tinyurl.com/f7kk General Wesley
Clark was also encouraged to engage, sans evidence, in Sept. 11 spin. "I
got a call on 9/11," Clark told Tim Russert "I was on CNN, and I got a call
at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. . . This has to be
connected to Saddam Hussein.'" http://tinyurl.com/fqyl
The attack has been spectacular, hasn't it?
This assault didn't come solely from the White House, however. Last
December, the Guardian's Brian Whitaker wrote an article on "how the
American media [were] softening up public attitudes to war with Iraq,"
detailing ways the Washington Post, Reuters and most specifically, the New
York Times' Judith Miller, spread disinformation. http://tinyurl.com/3l4f
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern credited Miller's legendary aluminum tubes
scoop with providing the impetus for war -- just as the bogus "babies in
incubators" story http://tinyurl.com/fqyt convinced the Senate to vote for
war in 1991 "[The administration] looked around after Labor Day and said,
"OK, if we're going to have this war, we really need to persuade Congress
to vote for it," McGovern told William Rivers Pitt.
http://tinyurl.com/fqyw Saying that the Bush administration realized that
the hyped al Qaeda-Iraq connection would best resonate with traumatized
Americans, this 27 year CIA veteran also concluded that, without reliable
evidence, the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency would never "come around"
to the administration's view and would "undercut" Bush's agenda. So the
administration, McGovern surmised, said, "What have we got? We've got those
aluminum tubes!"
Though Daniel Ellsberg implored government insiders to expose Bush's lies
http://tinyurl.com/fqz1 and Scott Ritter tried to shed light on WMD deceit,
they, like "old Europe," were vilified as a chorus of pundits targeted
anyone who tried to tell the truth. "Americans broadly agree on two facts
about the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq," Daniel Pipes wrote, "its
brutality and the danger it poses to themselves, especially the danger of
nuclear attack." While few doubted Saddam's cruelty, those who didn't
blindly accept mushroom cloud propaganda were smeared on Pipes' tattle tale
Web site. http://tinyurl.com/fqz6 But like the FBI supervisor who thwarted
field agents' attempts to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer and was
later handed the "Presidential Rank of Meritorious Service" award,
http://tinyurl.com/fqzc Pipes was nominated by President Bush to the board
of directors of the United States Institute of Peace.
The attack has been spectacular, hasn't it?
If these incidents weren't sufficiently alarming, the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (of which Ray McGovern is a member) speculate that
WMDs might be planted in Iraq http://tinyurl.com/aer2. Bush apologist
Andrew Sullivan is holding out, however, hinting that two criticisms of the
Bush administration's "exaggerations" (i.e. those concerning Iraq's nuclear
capabilities and Saddam/Al Qaeda ties) may be premature. "I think we'll
soon know more about both arguments," he added. Others believe we'll know
more, too -- most likely in time for the 2004 election.
http://tinyurl.com/fqzm
But even if WMDs aren't found (or planted), the Inquirer's Dick Polman
assures that "Americans might overlook Bush's claims because the war in
Iraq was brief and had few U.S. casualties." As a matter of course, Polman
also compares George Bush's lies to Bill Clinton's, as if saying "I did not
have sexual relations with that woman" is somehow comparable to spilling
both blood and treasure. Given that thousands of Iraqis and more than 200
Americans have already lost their lives (even as US soldiers are ambushed
and murdered daily) and that the illegal occupation of Iraq is expected to
last somewhere between 5 and 60 years, weighing the consequential trauma of
Monica's soiled blue dress against the long-term consequences of Bush
Doctrine-related fabrications is like wondering if Martha Stewart is as
criminally diabolical as John Wayne Gacy.
With uranium sickness http://tinyurl.com/fqzq already a factor and
depressed soldiers aching to go home, the number of people who will
inevitably suffer from Bush's lies outweighs Clinton's victims on a scale
of hundreds of thousands to one. "I've been in the Gulf for five months and
I'm tired of all of this," one American soldier told the BBC. "We have
become a target now." http://tinyurl.com/fqzu
The attack has been spectacular, hasn't it?
The families of September 11 victims certainly don't appreciate Bush's
duplicity and callous opportunism, either. "We've been fighting for nearly
21 months -- fighting the administration, the White House," Monica
Gabrielle, whose husband Richard was killed in the World Trade Center, told
Salon. "As soon as we started looking for answers we were blocked, put off
and ignored at every stop of the way." Admitting that she is "disgusted"
that Bush is "[using] Sept. 11 and its victims to justify his agenda,"
Gabrielle echoed the concerns of Kristin Breitweiser, whose husband Ronald
was also killed at the World Trade Center. "I sat and listened to the State
of the Union speech when Bush mentioned 9/11 12 or 13 times," she said. "At
the same time, we were having trouble getting funding for the independent
commission."
Despite Dick Cheney's request that the Sept. 11 investigation be limited,
the House and Senate's bipartisan joint inquiry's findings were, as the New
York Times reported, "far more damaging" than expected and Bush may evoke
executive privilege to keep the information under wraps.
http://tinyurl.com/fr03 "Bush has done everything in his power to squelch
[the September 11] commission and prevent it from happening," one anonymous
911 advocate told Salon. "The Administration, and most politicians, really
don't want to get to the bottom of it, because they're all implicated in
some way, in too many different areas, for too many years," former New York
City cop told Bruce DeCell the Nation. But Newsweek explained the Bush
strategy most succinctly: "Even as White House political aides plot a 2004
campaign plan designed to capitalize on the emotions and issues raised by
the September 11 terror attacks," Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball wrote,
"administration officials are waging a behind-the-scenes battle to restrict
public disclosure of key events relating to the attacks."
http://tinyurl.com/fr07
The attack has been spectacular, hasn't it?
And so, the most devastating event in recent American history, while
serving as a GOP political prop, receives less attention than the Laci
Peterson case. The New York Times completely ignored the September 11
commission's latest hearings, while Breitweiser has been booked, and then
un-booked, on TV several times. "I'm very disappointed in the press," she
told Salon. "I think it's disgusting the independent commission is doing
the most important work for this nation and it's not even reported in the
New York Times or on the nightly news. I've been scheduled to go on Meet
the Press and Hardball so many times and I'm always canceled. Frankly I'd
like nothing better than to go head to head with Dick Cheney on Meet the
Press. Because somebody needs to ask the questions and I don't understand
why nobody is."
Amazingly, the American public, who expected the government to investigate
everything from the Titanic disaster to Pearl Harbor, doesn't seem to mind
-- and the cascade of events that would have rocked our more scrupulous
ancestors are met with disinterest. Never mind the manner in which our
president was selected (or the questionable help he received along the way
http://tinyurl.com/fr0b http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Fox_News_Bush_cousin_had_key_role_in_incorrect_call_of_election.shtml , in the past two years,
the government and media have habitually deceived us; our fears and
emotions have been manipulated; investigations into Dick Cheney's Energy
Task Force and 9/11 have been stonewalled; bunker governments and secret
arrests have barely raised eyebrows; the country is "dangerously
unprepared" to handle another terrorist attack; and future elections may,
like the last one, be rigged http://tinyurl.com/f90s. Yet public outcry is
reserved for whether Ruben or Clay won "American Idol."
This apathy is baffling, given that U.S. citizens have never been
comfortable with deceit, war profiteering or blatant political posturing.
In this topsy-turvy world, Truth has gone AWOL, Justice is secretly
detained and the American Way has lost its way. The entire country appears
to be in the throes of cognitive dissonance, with long-held beliefs about
our national character challenged by facts we'd rather ignore. "The United
States, as the world knows, will never start a war," John F. Kennedy
promised in a galaxy far, far away. And though we just waged our first
full-scale preemptive war on "cooked intelligence" and assorted lies,
Americans are already poised for the next preemptive war -- Sept. 11
families and U.S. soldiers be damned.
"I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States
as a result of this world disaster," Franklin D. Roosevelt warned as WWII
loomed. Yet presidential grandfather Prescott Bush forged lucrative
alliances with the Nazis anyway http://tinyurl.com/fr0u -- and war
profiteering remains a Bush family tradition. http://tinyurl.com/fr0z Does
the public realize this? Do they care? "When Kennedy got his highest rating
after the debacle of the Bay of Pigs," Gore Vidal wrote, "he observed,
characteristically: 'It would seem that the worse you fu*k up in this job
the more popular you get.'" Perhaps that explains Bush's approval ratings?
They certainly don't make sense otherwise. But then again, few things do.
In many ways, tangible and not, this country isn't recognizable anymore.
Take a look around. The CIA was right. The attack has been spectacular
indeed.
Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping
other writers get television and radio exposure.
© Copyright 2003, Maureen Farrell
9/11 Families (Family Steering Committee): Report Card - 9/11 Commission Sept. 2003
Our purpose in providing this report card is to motivate the Independent Commission to better serve the public interest by informing them of their progress and work.
Our hope is that the Commission will view this mid-term Report Card and act upon areas of weakness. And, in doing so, better assure the American public that they are doing the job that needs to be done.
* We understand that much of the Commission's work is done behind closed doors. This mid-term report card reflects the limited information that we have gleaned from open-hearings, meetings and conversations with the 9/11 Commission staff director and 9/11 Commissioners. We are publishing this report card due to requests for information on the Commission's progress from victims' families and concerned citizens, alike.
Investigative, Informative Open Hearings D
The topics and content of the prior three open hearings were disappointing. Both the selection of witnesses and the probing by Commissioners in public forum fell short of our expectations.
Preparedness and critical thinking/questioning is a keystone of a thorough and worthwhile hearing, and in turn, an effective commission. Because the Commissioners either lacked the information and education on certain issues (namely the FAA and NORAD protocols, the timeline of 9/11, the evacuation and emergency response protocols of the City of NY), or simply did not have the will, the Commissioners, individually and as a whole, did not carryout the necessary hard-hitting lines of questioning, cross-examination and crucial follow-up questioning all of which are critical in unearthing the truth.
The FSC feels that expert witnesses invited to testify before the Independent Commission should hold valuable and pertinent information that will yield fruitful insights into the systemic government failures that occurred on 9/11. As an example, in the most recent open hearing, we had an expert witness testifying on Iraq and no expert witness testifying about Saudi Arabia. The FSC would like to draw attention to the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and none were from Iraq. Additionally, the 900-page Joint Inquiry Report shows no Iraqi connection to 9/11.
The FSC did attempt to recommend both Open Hearing topics and Open Hearing expert witness lists. Our requests were left unanswered. When invited to do so, the FSC has also supplied information and questions to the Commissioners for each open hearing. We will continue to do so. However, whether the Commissioners choose to use our line of questioning remains in their sole discretion.
Frequency of Hearings C-
This Commission has been established for over nine months. Yet, there have only been three open hearings. At its inception, the Commission promised the FSC that there would be one open hearing per month.
To date, the FSC has expressed concern about the infrequency of open hearings. We have also requested that certain months double up on hearings. These requests remain unanswered.
The purpose and power of open hearings was illustrated during the Joint Inquirys investigation. Open hearings inform the public. Open hearings provide the impetus for change by shedding sunlight onto problems and failures. Perhaps, most importantly, open hearings ensure that not all of a committees work remains classified.
Family Member Testimony B-
The FSC had hoped to have more than one opportunity to testify before the Independent Commission. The purpose of family member testimony is to draw better attention to areas that the Independent Commission is unwilling to address.
To date, the FSC has requested the opportunity for family member testimony at each hearing. These requests have remained unanswered.
Staff Director Interim Reports D
The legislation mandating the Independent Commission does not require Staff Director Interim Reports. The FSC has requested public interim reports be given by Philip Zelikow, much in the same way that Staff Director Eleanor Hill gave interim reports during the Joint Inquirys investigation. Mr. Zelikow has denied such request.
One of the FSCs goals for this commission was to better inform the public. It is evident that public awareness saves lives. United Airlines Flight 93 and Richard Reid the shoe-bomber are excellent examples of the power and importance of public awareness.
Interim reports are critical in making the public more aware. Two years have passed since September 11th. Nine months have passed since this Commission has been established. And yet, the public still remains very much in the dark.
Structure and Conduct of Open Hearings D
This commission was established as an independent body of individuals to conduct an independent, non-political, bi-partisan, and unbiased inquiry into the failures that occurred on 9/11.
The FSC is shocked with the use of minders in the interrogatory process. And, despite the Commissioners similar objection to minders, as stated at the last press conference, minders continue to be present during witness examination and questioning. The FSC does not want minders present during any witness examination and questioning; it is a form of intimidation and it does not yield the unfettered truth.
Also a concern of the FSC is the failure of this Commission to swear witnesses in prior to their testimony. Without sworn testimony, witnesses cannot be held accountable for what they testify about before the Commission. While given assurances by the Staff Director that prior witnesses would be brought to task for their inaccurate statements made during open hearings, the FSC has been given no evidence that has been done.
The FSC has additional concerns regarding the Commissions reticence to subpoena witnesses. The FSC had wanted the Independent Commission to subpoena early and often.
The Commissions failure to subpoena, while polite, prohibits the ultimate claim by the Commission that they, themselves, were the victims of stonewalling by the agencies, organizations and councils. Nine months into their investigation, the Commission must use every avenue possible to gain the information and access to witnesses needed to make their investigation a success.
Understanding of the Commission's Mandate incomplete
Public Law 107-306, which established this commission states that "the function of this commission is to conduct an investigation that investigates relevant facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, including any relevant legislation, Executive Order, regulation, plan, policy, practice, or procedure; and may include relevant facts and circumstances relating to intelligence agencies; law enforcement agencies; diplomacy; immigration, non-immigrant visas, and border control; the flow of assets to terrorist organizations; commercial aviation; the role of Congressional oversight and resource allocation; and other areas of the public and private sectors determined relevant to the Commission for its inquiry.
The Commission is to identify, review, and evaluate the lessons learned from the terrorist attacks from September 11th, 2001, regarding the structure, coordination, management policies, and procedures of the federal government, and, if appropriate, state and local governments and non-governmental entities relative to detecting, preventing, and responding to such terrorist attacks."
Our interpretation of the Independent Commissions mandate is that the Commission would have investigated the Timeline of events that transpired on the morning of 9/11. There are a finite amount of facts that revolve around 9/11. These facts reveal a finite amount of glaring failures that occurred on behalf of our government and its agencies and institutions.
If the Independent Commissions open hearings are evidence of the Commissions understanding of their mandate, then the Independent Commissions obligation as required under law will not have been met. This failure will not only be for the 9/11 victims families, it will be a failure for all of the American people.
The Family Steering Committee,
Carol Ashley
Mother of Janice Ashley, 25
Bill Harvey
Widower of Sara Manley Harvey, 31
Kristen Breitweiser
Widow of Ronald Breitweiser, 39
Mindy Kleinberg
Widow of Alan Kleinberg, 39
Patty Casazza
Widow of John F. Casazza, 38
Carie Lemack
Daughter of Judy Larocque
Beverly Eckert
Widow of Sean Rooney 50
Sally Regenhard
Mother of Christian Michael Otto Regenhard, 28
Mary Fetchet
Mother of Bradley James Fetchet, 24
Lorie Van Auken
Widow of Kenneth Van Auken, 47
Monica Gabrielle
Widow of Richard Gabrielle, 50
Robin Wiener
Sister of Jeffrey Wiener, 33
http://www.911independentcommission.org/sept2003.html
Comment from FSC member Carol Ashley re Bush Administration putting "minders" in place to monitor testimony to the Kean Commission:
"Vice-chair Lee Hamilton qualified the remarks about minders by saying that it is very difficult to tell whether a person being interviewed feels intimidated by the presence of the minders. Also, all Americans should be aware that President Bush alone has the final say about what information or evidence becomes public in the 9/11 report. It is Bush's prerogative to cite executive privilege or classify certain portions of the report as was done with 28 pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry report. "
--Carol Ashley 9/24/03
"Who Knew?
The unanswered questions of 9/11"
By Seth Ackerman | 9.3.03 print |
By September 2002, Bush was forced to accept the one thing he had
been desperately hoping to avoid: an independent blue-ribbon
commission into the 9/11 attacks. ... Bush agreed to it only after a
series of contentious White House meetings with families of 9/11
victims who were outraged over the summer’s disclosures. Faced with
this powerful new political force, the administration saw no way
out. “There was a freight train coming down the tracks,” one White
House official said. The resulting National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks, formally established in late 2002, will not release its
final report until May 27, 2004.
In the meantime, the 858-page report of the congressional inquiry is
the fullest official accounting to date of what went wrong with the
government’s handling of the 9/11 plot. The picture that emerges
from its pages (and from information that didn’t make it between its
covers) entirely contradicts the administration’s initial portrayal
of how 9/11 happened: that a group of quietly efficient attackers
slipped unnoticed into the United States and blended into an
anonymous, open society, leaving the authorities no chance to pick
up their trail—what Seymour Hersh, citing a former FBI
counterintelligence official, has labeled “the superman scenario.”
Bush himself encapsulated this view two weeks after the attacks when
he said: “These terrorists had burrowed in our country for over two
years. They were well organized. They were well planned. They struck
in a way that was unimaginable.”
In reality, Hersh quotes a top CIA official as saying, the plotters
“violated a fundamental rule of clandestine operations.” Instead of
“working independently and maintaining rigid communications
security, the terrorists, as late as last summer, apparently mingled
openly and had not yet decided which flights to target. The planning
for September 11th appears to have been far more ad hoc than was at
first assumed.”
Moreover, the hijackers did not fly under the radar of the
intelligence agencies. The agencies, it turns out, did in fact
manage to spot—and even monitor—several several of the 9/11
hijackers before they carried out the attacks, in some cases long
before. Yet for reasons that so far remain a mystery,
counterterrorism officials at FBI headquarters and the CIA
consistently dropped the ball when it came to apprehending
them—sometimes acting in ways that ran counter to standard practice,
at times to the bafflement and anger of their colleagues.
It’s a point that was underlined during a revealing exchange that
took place at a recent meeting between senior FBI agents and
relatives of 9/11 victims. At the meeting, Kristen Breitweiser, a
widow of one of the dead, posed a question: “How is it that a few
hours after the attacks, the nation is brought to its knees, and
miraculously FBI agents showed up at Embry-Riddle flight school in
Florida where some of the terrorists trained?”
“We got lucky,” was the reply, according to an account of the
meeting by Gail Sheehy in the New York Observer.
Breitweiser then asked how the FBI had known exactly which Portland,
Maine ATM machine would turn up a videotape of Mohammed Atta, the
terrorist ringleader. “The agent got some facts confused, then
changed his story,” Sheehy reports. Finally, he asked Breitweiser:
“What are you getting at?”
“I think you had open investigations before September 11 on some of
the people responsible for the terrorist attacks,” she said.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=340_0_1_0_C
"Bush's 9/11 coverup?"
Family members of victims of the terror attacks say the White House has
smothered every attempt to get to the bottom of the outrageous
intelligence failures that took place on its watch.
By Eric Boehlert, June 18, 2003
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/18/911/index.html
"Kristin Breitweiser Wants to Go 'Head to Head' with Dick Cheney over
9-11 Coverup" 6/28/03
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/18/911/index.html
There's a growing sense among some 9/11 advocates that the news media have
let them -- and the nation -- down. 'I'm very disappointed in the press,'
says [9-11 victim's spouse Kristin] Breitweiser. 'I think it's disgusting
the independent commission is doing the most important work for this nation
and it's not even reported in the New York Times or on the nightly news.
I've been scheduled to go on 'Meet the Press' and 'Hardball' so many times
and I'm always canceled. Frankly I'd like nothing better than to go head to
head with Dick Cheney on 'Meet the Press.' Because somebody needs to ask
the questions and I don't understand why nobody is.' Among frustrated
family members of Sept. 11 victims, there's a feeling they're losing the
battle of time in their struggle to get answers from the Bush
administration. 'There's a very, very small window to effect changes,' says
one 9/11 widower, Bill Harvey. 'And unfortunately, that window is closing.
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 18:33:01 -0500
From: "Kyle F. Hence" kylehence@earthlink.net
Organization: UnansweredQuestions.org
Subject: White House/Cheney fear Independent Commission
Below, please find the attached editorial from The New York Times:
Clearly the Adminstration fears an investigation they can't control! How transparent must a 9/11 cover-up be for the American people and spineless or manipulated media to wake up? 9/11 widow Kristin Breitweiser's testimony and virtual 'grilling' of the Committee before the first open session of the joint inquiry has taken the lid off of 9/11; short of declaring martial law or starting World War III, this administration will not be able to get the lid back on or prevent the full truth from coming out.
If the White House does NOT get what they want and they are forced to sign a bill setting up a 9/11 commission, is there not a chance we actually might get answers and charges filed against those responsible for 9/11? Of course there is! Government officials will be held accountable! And with this clear intent in mind, I forward this article and encourage you to support the victim family groups and call the key senators like Graham and Shelby to voice your support for a truly independent commission, not one controlled be the Vice -'resident and his men.
In the meantime, to keep the pressure on the government to find the truth about 9/11, UQ is involved in the creation of a Citizens' Truth Commission to undertake a parallel people's investigation of what happened and why on September 11th 2001. More news to follow on that in the coming weeks! If you'd like to join the 9/11 Truth Alliance or support this Truth Commission please contact me directly at kylehence@earthlink.net
The Truth Force will not be stopped! No way, no how! Let's act with the utter confidence that we have already won! And all we need to do is take every step as if the outcome is assured. Anyone have any better ideas, I'm all ears!
Kyle F. Hence
Co-founder, UnansweredQuestions.org
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/02/politics/02COMM.html?todaysheadlines=&pagewanted=print&position=top
How a Deal Creating an Independent Commission on Sept. 11 Came Undone
By CARL HULSE, Nov. 1, 2002
WASHINGTON — An independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks seemed certain little more than a month ago, when the Bush administration dropped longstanding objections to it.
"We hope that a commission can begin its work quickly and report its findings to the American people as soon as possible," said a Sept. 20 letter from the White House to leaders of Congress.
But the proposal is stalled, and Democrats, some Republicans and families of people who died in the attacks accuse the White House of undermining an idea it only reluctantly embraced.
"There is a pattern of this White House announcing its support for a general principle, whether it be prescription drug coverage or No Child Left Behind," said Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat who as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee helped lead a Congressional inquiry into intelligence failures preceding Sept. 11. "Then, when it comes down to the actual realization of that goal, they — to use the president's term — crawfish."
White House officials and Congressional Republicans say they are committed to a commission but want one structured to produce a bipartisan result. "The manner in which the commission is created is vital to its outcome," said the White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer.
The impasse is a revealing example of how sensitive the issue of intelligence lapses before Sept. 11 remains for the administration. Although the White House denies thwarting approval of a commission, an almost completed Congressional deal was suddenly undone in October after a Republican lawmaker involved in the final negotiations received a call from Vice President Dick Cheney.
The unresolved dispute has left the families of those killed on Sept. 11 frustrated, particularly given the agreement on which lawmakers came excruciatingly close.
"I just don't get it," said Kristen Breitweiser of September 11th Advocates, whose husband, Ronald, died at the World Trade Center. "It is very disheartening that this has gone on for over a year and we still have not had a comprehensive investigation. If there is a car accident, you do an investigation."
The idea of an independent commission like those that investigated the attack on Pearl Harbor and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was broached soon after the attacks. The White House initially objected, saying effort devoted to the inquiry could detract from the fight against terror. The administration did ultimately agree to a joint inquiry by the House and Senate intelligence committees, viewing that approach, Congressional Republicans say, as more manageable because much of it would be conducted in secret and Republican lawmakers would share in lead roles.
But the leaders of the joint committee conducted an aggressive inquiry that uncovered previously undisclosed warnings of the attacks, and those results gave momentum to the push for a broader investigation, and to the White House's dropping its objections.
By late September, the Senate had followed the House in voting to approve an independent commission. But their versions differed, and negotiations among the two chambers and the White House became tortured. Many Democrats say it appeared that the White House strategy was to slow the very investigation it had endorsed.
Representative Porter J. Goss, the Florida Republican who heads the House Intelligence Committee, says he and the administration simply want to work through the sticking points. "The people who are pushing this," he said, "haven't gotten all the interested parties aboard."
Yet on Oct. 10, as Congress lurched toward a pre-election recess, it appeared for a moment that everyone was aboard.
After days of fruitless talks, senior members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, whose intelligence authorization bills for the 2003 fiscal year included the proposal for a commission, met in a hurried session to try to hash out final details.
The White House had been insisting on presidential appointment of the commission's chairman, arguing that the nine other members were going to be named by Congress. The administration also wanted at least six votes required for a subpoena, saying the need for a majority could keep the 10-member panel from becoming partisan. Critics say the administration was simply trying to ensure control of the commission, whose membership was to be evenly divided: five appointed by the Democrats, five by the Republicans.
Principals at the meeting say they reached a compromise: to have co-chairmen, one each named by the president and Congress, and to require five votes for subpoenas.
"We had agreed among ourselves," said Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Negotiators headed for the cameras of the Senate television gallery, where they were joined by other commission backers for a victory news conference. But Mr. Goss went to his office instead, and by the time he got there, his phone was ringing.
Lawmakers then trooped into an early-evening meeting of the conference committee that had been negotiating the intelligence authorization measure, thinking they would quickly vote to approve the commission. But Mr. Goss, serving as conference chairman, told them that people at a higher level continued to have concerns and that he was not ready to hold a vote.
"A lot of us were shocked," Senator Shelby said.
Mr. Goss said in an interview that the phone calls he received, one from Mr. Cheney, were not instructions to block the panel. Rather, he said, he was simply encouraged to keep negotiating on behalf of the original White House position.
"I am not going to get into who called me," he said, "but it was very clear there had not been leadership sign-off, and it was very clear there was still angst at the White House."
He said it was "flat-out untrue" that the White House had asked him to derail the deal reached earlier in the day.
"What I agreed to, I agreed to, I don't deny that," he said. "But it was not the whole loaf."
Similarly, Mr. Fleischer said Mr. Cheney had called only to push to keep the negotiations progressing. But the vice president's intercession, which soon became known, was read by many lawmakers and victims' families as a sign that the White House was backing away from a commission.
Mr. Fleischer says that is not so.
"The administration is foursquare behind the commission," he said, "and we are working very hard to make it happen, and it is important that it happen."
After the deal came undone, a commission backer, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, made a stab at further negotiations, in his office on Oct. 16. About 10 relatives of victims attended.
But there was little progress, and tensions boiled over as the relatives demanded answers from Nick Calio and Jay Lefkowitz, White House officials who were crowded into a conference room with a handful of lawmakers and several Congressional staff members. As the meeting neared an end, participants say, the families rose almost as one and insisted on knowing what it would take for President Bush to agree to the commission.
"They were about five feet from Calio and Lefkowitz," one person in attendance said, "and asked them: `Why can't we get this done today? Why can't you just say yes?' "
The White House officials, who had not expected the families' presence, retreated, promising to report back. But plans for a broad independent investigation into events surrounding Sept. 11 have not moved forward.
In Georgia, the families have turned the faltering of the commission proposal into a campaign issue against Representative Saxby Chambliss, a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee who is challenging Senator Max Cleland. Newspaper advertisements being run in the state call on Mr. Chambliss and other House Republicans to "stop putting politics before America's security."
Senator Graham says he is determined to pass legislation creating the commission before Congress adjourns, and Senator Shelby agrees that it could be approved in the coming post-election session. Congressman Goss said the commission could be "done in a minute if everybody would stop yelling at each other."
Last week Congressional backers of the commission wrote the president, asking whether he would veto the intelligence bill if it included the deal worked out on Oct. 10. The White House has not yet responded.
ACTION ALERT from 'find truth' 9/1/02:
Vanity Fair says "9-11 Widow WANTs ANSWERS from BUSH"
"Below is an interview excerpt on the 9-11 widow who is DEMANDING
ANSWERS FROM BUSH about 9-11. The media has almost completely ignored her
struggle. Demand the media follow Vanity Fair and Donahue's lead in
"LISTENING" to this woman's concerns, and letting America hear her. They
only USE 9-11 victims to help Bush war machine. [Media email addresses
below article --
URGE MANY OTHERS TO CONTACT THEM AS WELL.
["KRISTEN = Kristen Breitweiser, one of 3 Middletown, New Jersey 9-11
widows interviewed in Vanity Fair's September, 2002 issue. Excerpt from Page 282:]
By mid-April Kristen had connected with new blood - two live wire widows
from the East Brunswick area - to try to pull off a rally on Capitol Hill
demanding a full, independent investigation of the failures of 9/11.
Kristen was back in full battle mode.
""How could there be such a colossal, systemic, utter failure that
morning?" she fumed to me. "Between the F.A.A., the N.S.A. (National
Security Agency), the C.I.A., the Secret Service, the F.B.I., I don't
understand it. Two things really hang me up. There is no possible way that
four planes could be simultaneously hijacked above the United States and no
one know about it until they hit the buildings. And I don't understand how
George Bush went in and spoke to second-graders when he knew that the first
plane had hit the first tower. He was the commander in chief of the United
States of America. We were clearly under attack, and he continues to read
to second-graders?"
. . . "All planes were supposed to be grounded [after attacks on the
W.T.C.]. So, you've got two planes left up in the air that aren't accounted
for, and you're telling me the F.A.A. has no idea where they're going and
that one is allowed to crash into the Pentagon? Like, I don't understand
why normal American citizens don't find this, like, mildly disturbing"...
===========
"9/11-victim family on Donahue calls for investigation" MSNBC 8/13/02
"grieving 9/11 widow demands answers. Kristen Breitweiser lost her
husband when the second plane hit the Twin Towers. She spends her private
time grieving alone with her 3-year-old daughter and her public time
demanding an investigation not only of the CIA and FBI's failure to connect
the dots, but also the FAA, INS, and the military's failure on September
11th"
..."BREITWEISER: I want an independent investigation into the 24 hours
of September 11th. I want to know why certain things failed. I want to know
why my husband was told to return to his desk, when the FAA comes out on
Monday with a press conference saying that it was an excruciating 11
minutes for the controllers to think about that airliner heading dead
center on my husband's building. Eleven minutes on an express elevator in
tower two would have been my husband's life."
Donahue / Kristen Breitweiser complete interview:donahue.html
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=201052 (all indymedia links are extinct now)
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/13/gaddynews.htm
The "Jersey Girls" Take On The Feds
By Michael Gaddy, 6/13/03
It appears that a group of ladies who lost their husbands in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 have decided they've had enough and want some answers and accountability from the feds.
On Tuesday of this week, FBI director Robert Mueller ran into a buzz saw in a meeting of family members of those lost on September 11th. A group of young widows from northern New Jersey who lost their husbands in the World Trade Center disaster seem to have lost their patience with what they see as a serious failure on the part of the government to provide them with answers.
Infuriated by the "Janet Reno" response to most of their questions: "We cannot comment on an ongoing investigation," the "Jersey Girls" took the offensive. When told answers they sought might harm the case against Zacarias Moussaoui, the accused al-Qaeda operative, Patty Cassaza -- whose husband John perished in the attacks -- said, "I don't give a rat's ass about Moussaoui. Send him to Guantanamo and get what you can out of him there."
Another issue was why the FBI was not able to respond to the information sent from their branch in Phoenix. A July 2001 memo from an agent in that office speculated that Bin Laden might have dispatched terrorists to U.S. flight schools or to seek other airline jobs. The agent suggested that FBI field offices canvass flight schools nationwide to track Middle Eastern enrollees.
Another member of the "Jersey Girls," Kristin Breitweiser, demanded to know why the FBI did not coordinate this information with the other intelligence they had received from their Minneapolis office and the detention of Moussaoui before the attacks.
Mueller's response was that, because of problems with the agencies computer system, only one junior analyst had access to both reports in the summer of 2001. This would certainly appear to fly in the face of the allegations of FBI agent Coleen Rowley. Rowley caused a sensation when her testimony in front of Congress fingered higher-ups in the Bureau who inexplicably obstructed and effectively derailed the anti-terrorist effort in the crucial days prior to 9/11. She wrote a letter to the FBI's top brass that exposed the near-criminal incompetence of her superiors and set off a firestorm of recriminations.
The family members are irate and sickened that 21 months after the attacks, not one member of the U.S. Government intelligence community has been dismissed or disciplined for the colossal failure that lead to the attacks of 9/11!
Lorie Van Auken, whose husband Kenneth perished in the World Trade Center, said, "I don't think he (Mueller) understands. We're done with there being no accountability for what happened to our loved ones."
Excerpted Comments of 9/11 widows Mindy Kleinberg and Mary Fetchet at opening session of Kean Commission, 3/31/03
=============
Mindy Kleinberg
..." the 9/11 terrorists were not just lucky once: they were lucky over and over again. Allow me to illustrate. ...
Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Defense was at his desk doing paperwork when AA77 crashed
into the Pentagon.
As reported, Secretary Rumsfeld felt the building shake, went outside, saw
the damage and started helping the injured onto stretchers. After aiding
the victims, the Secretary then went into the 'War Room'.
How is it possible that the National Military Command Center, located in
the Pentagon and in contact with law enforcement and air traffic
controllers from 8:46 a.m. did not communicate to the Secretary of Defense
also at the Pentagon about the other hijacked planes especially the one
headed to Washington? How is that the Secretary of Defense could have remained
at this desk until the crash? Whose responsibility is it to relay emergency
situations to him? Is he then supposed to go to the war room?
President
At 6:15 a.m. on the morning of 9/11, my husband Alan left for work; he
drove into New York City, and was at his desk and working at his NASDAQ
Security Trading position with Cantor Fitzgerald, in Tower One of the WTC
by 7:30 a.m.
In contrast, on the morning of September 11, President Bush was scheduled
to listen to elementary school children read.
Before the President walked into the classroom NORAD had sufficient
information that the plane that hit the WTC was hijacked. At that time,
they also had knowledge that two other commercial airliners, in the air,
were also hijacked. It would seem that a national emergency was in progress.
Yet President Bush was allowed to enter a classroom full of young children
and listen to the students read.
Why didn't the Secret Service inform him of this national emergency? When
is a President supposed to be notified of everything the agencies know? Why
was the President permitted by the Secret Service to remain in the Sarasota
elementary school? Was this Secret Service protocol?
In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision could cost
thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that our government
has a whole network of adjuncts and advisors to insure that these top
officials are among the first to be informed--not the last. Where were
these individuals who did not properly inform these top officials? Where
was the breakdown in communication?
Was it luck or No Fault Government?
Is it luck that aberrant stock trades were not monitored? Is it luck when
15 visas are awarded based on incomplete forms? Is it luck when Airline
Security screenings allow hijackers to board planes with box cutters and
pepper spray? Is it luck when Emergency FAA and NORAD protocols are not
followed? Is it luck when a national emergency is not reported to top
government officials on a timely basis?
To me luck is something that happens once. When you have this repeated
pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot
still call it luck.
...
http://www.911independentcommission.org/pdf/MindyKleinberg_03_31_03.pdf
Mary Fetchett
I CHALLENGE the Commissioners, staff and all those involved in the success
of this commission to approach this important inquiry with the same manner
that Brad approached life. To approach it with an open mind and with
integrity. Above all with a sense of urgency and a full commitment to the
time and energy that will be necessary to do a complete and thorough job.
It is your MORAL responsibility to leave no stone unturned. The commission
will only be successful if it has the full support of the administration
and government agencies. It must begin with an executive order which
encourages full disclosure from all government agencies. OUR NATION
DESERVES FOR THIS COMMISSION TO BE DIFFERENT. We want answers to our
questions. We want recommendations. Despite the cost we want follow through
and we want accountability. You are accountable for the success of this
commission.
http://www.911independentcommission.org/pdf/MaryFetchet_03_31_03.pdf
4/9/04: Former Assistant Secretary of Housing, Catherine Austin Fitts' open letter to Condoleeza Rice re her sworn testimony before the Kean Commission: "You Are A Liar"
fitts2rice.html
London Daily Mail review of The New Pearl Harbor 6/24/04
...its findings have garnered an enthusiastic response
from sections of America's intelligentsia [Howard Zinn, Ed Asner] and a former
British Cabinet Minister, the MP Michael Meacher, wrote
the foreword of the book. In it he says: "Never in
modern history has an event of such cataclysmic
significance been shrouded in such mystery. So many of
the key facts remain unexplained on any plausible
basis, and so many of the key actors have put forward
contradictory accounts only to be forced to retract or
cover up later."...
Full review: nph.html
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:51:19 -0800 (PST)
From: David
To: Allan
Subject: Re: 7 hijackers trained at military bases (not 3)
...it is SEVEN, not three hijackers who were trained at US bases.
hijackmilbase.html
New York PRESS, Volume 16, Issue 53, 2004
http://www.nypress.com/16/53/news&columns/feature.cfm
"Nine-hundred and 11 Missing Pieces"
By Alan Cabal
What don’t we know, and why don’t we know it?
The Southern Solstice has passed, and with it the deadline for 9/11
families to file their claims with the "Feinberg Fund," as it has come to
be known. Of an official death toll of 2976, claims have been filed by for
2,851. The claim involves signing off on any future litigation against the
government, the airlines, the airports or any security firms.
One hundred and twenty-five claims remain outstanding, but little has been
written about any of these families. Where is the coverage of those
insisting on finding out what really happened on that day before they sign
away their "claims?"
First to stand up were five widows: Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza,
Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie van Auken. Breitweiser’s husband was killed in
his office at Fiduciary Trust on the 94th floor of the South Tower, while
Casazza, Kleinberg and van Auken are Cantor-Fitzgerald widows. They began
lobbying for answers early in 2002, navigating the labyrinth of American
bureaucracy and hammering the bureaucrats for direct answers to direct
questions. In September 2002, Breitweiser testified at the first televised
public hearing before the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry (JICI) in DC.
Like many others, she wanted to know why, on May 16, 2002, National
Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated that she didn’t "think anybody
could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it
into the World Trade Center… That they would try to use an airplane as a
missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."
Breitweiser knows the historical facts say otherwise. She noted the
following points in her statement. In her words:
• In 1993, a $150,000 study was commissioned by the Pentagon to investigate
the possibility of an airplane being used to bomb national landmarks. A
draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice
Department and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
• In 1994, a disgruntled Fed Ex employee invaded the cockpit of a DC-10
with plans to crash it into a company building in Memphis. That same year,
a lone pilot crashed a small plane into a tree on the White House grounds,
and an Air France flight was hijacked by members of the Armed Islamic Group
with the intent to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower.
• In January 1995, Philippine authorities investigating Abdul Murad, an
Islamic terrorist, unearthed a plot to blow up 11 airliners over the
Pacific, and in the alternative, several planes were to be hijacked and
flown into civilian targets in the U.S. Among the targets mentioned were
CIA headquarters, the World Trade Center, the Sears Tower and the White
House.
• In September 1999, a report, "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism,"
was prepared for U.S. intelligence by the Federal Research Division, an arm
of the Library of Congress. It stated, "Suicide bombers belonging to al
Qaeda’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high
explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA,
or the White House."
Like many others, Breitweiser believes that American intelligence had long
speculated that terrorist organizations could and would utilize airplanes
as weapons.
She also included a March 11, 2002 statement by the director of the CIA,
George Tenet: "[The United States] never had the texture–meaning enough
information–to stop what happened." She offered a similar statement by the
director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, from May 8, 2002: "[T]here was nothing
the agency could have done to anticipate and prevent the attacks."
Once again Breitweiser argued that the facts indicated otherwise. As she
said:
• Throughout the spring and early summer of 2001, intelligence agencies
flooded the government with warnings of possible terrorist attacks against
American targets, including commercial aircraft, by al Qaeda and other
groups. The warnings were vague but sufficiently alarming to prompt the FAA
to issue four information circulars, or ICs, to the commercial airline
industry between June 22 and July 31, warning
of possible terrorism.
• On June 22, the military’s Central and European Commands imposed "Force
Protection Condition Delta," the highest anti-terrorist alert.
• On June 28, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, "It is
highly likely that a significant al Qaeda attack is in the near future,
within several weeks."
• As of July 31, the FAA urged U.S. airlines to maintain a "high degree of
alertness."
• One FAA circular from late July noted, according to Condoleezza Rice,
that there was "no specific target, no credible info of attack to U.S.
civil aviation interests, but terror groups are known to be planning and
training for hijackings, and we ask you therefore to use caution." Two
counter-terrorism officials described the alerts of the early and
mid-summer 2001 as "the most urgent in decades."
Breitweiser is resolute in her assertions. Airport security officials, she
believes, could have done much more to prevent the hijackings. Beyond that,
however, she wonders what September 11 would have been like had the
government made the public aware of the threats. How many people, she asks,
would have chosen to board planes that morning? And how many of those in
World Trade Center 2 would have remained in their offices, watching the
inferno of Tower 1, had they known of the possibility of an air attack?
One of the more compelling passages in Breitweiser’s statement concerns a
July 5, 2001 White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI,
Secret Service and INS wherein a top counter-terrorism official, Richard
Clarke, stated that "[s]omething really spectacular is going to happen
here, and it’s going to happen soon." Despite being put on heightened
alert, intelligence agencies ignored–or at least dismissed–what is now
widely known as the "Phoenix Memo."
On July 10, an FBI field agent in Phoenix, AZ, named Kenneth Williams
reported suspicions of a hijacking plot. He recommended that the FBI
investigate the possibility that al Qaeda operatives were training at U.S.
flight schools, suggesting that Osama bin Laden’s followers may have been
securing jobs as security guards, pilots and other personnel.
Too many questions remain, and Breitweiser is very thorough in outlining
the possible failures of not only our government’s communication prior to
the attack, but its response. She wonders why, for instance, the NY/NJ Port
Authority didn’t evacuate the World Trade Center when they knew that a
second plane was heading in? And why weren’t the F-16s and Stealth bombers
that tracked on radar screens at approximately 8:05 a.m. used to prevent
tragedy?
Concerning the attack on the Pentagon, Breitweiser notes that Washington
Air Traffic Control Center was aware of the first plane before it hit the
World Trade Center. And yet, the third plane–American Airlines Flight 77,
soon to plunge into the Pentagon–made a few "loop de loops" over DC one
hour and 45 minutes after Washington Center was made aware of the
hijackings. Why, she asks, was our Air Force so late in its response?
In late 2002, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States–now known popularly as the "9/11 Commission"–was reluctantly
created, in large part due to the efforts of the widow Breitweiser. The
commission’s object is not so much to get the facts straight, but to assign
blame for "shortcomings" and "failures" in the bureaucracy. It’s what is
known in intelligence circles as a "limited hang-out."
On September 12, 2003, the widow Ellen Mariani filed a civil RICO suit in
the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania naming George W.
Bush, Richard Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Norman
Mineta, Peter G. Peterson, Condoleezza Rice, George H.W. Bush and Kenneth
Feinberg, in addition to "Other unnamed past, present, officials,
representatives, agents, and private consultants of the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA" as defendants. She is demanding a jury trial.
She also fired off an open letter to President Bush in which she claims
that he "intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen to gather public support for
a ‘war on terrorism.’" She accuses him of being "fully aware of the
unfolding events" yet "[choosing] to continue on to the Emma E. Booker
Elementary School to proceed with a scheduled event and ‘photo op.’" With
America under attack, she writes, our president "did not appear to blink an
eye or shed a tear [but] continued on as if everything was ‘business as
usual.’"
Speaking for the families of the victims, she poses the following questions
to President Bush:
Why were 29 pages of the 9/11 committee [Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry] report personally censored at your
request?
Where are the "black boxes" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
Where are the "voice recorders" from Flight 11 and Flight 175?
Why can’t we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for
Flight 11 and Flight 175?
Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers boarding
the doomed flights?
When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be released?
Why did your brother, Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida, personally go to
the offices of the Huffman Aviation School and order that flight records
and files be removed? These files were then put on a C130 government cargo
plane and flown out of the country. Where were they taken and who ordered
it done?
Her letter ends ominously: "I will prove this in a court of law!"
So many, many questions. Why did World Trade Center 7 collapse? No airplane
hit that building, and before September 11, no steel skyscraper had ever
collapsed because of a fire. Yet three fell–very neatly and virtually into
their own footprints. (Even if one allows the engineers their claims that
WTC1 and WTC2 were designed to collapse in on themselves, what of the
perfect collapse of WTC7?)
The firefighters who were in the two towers were not in the least concerned
about a collapse, as demonstrated in the fire department’s transcript of
their radio traffic. In fact, they stated that the fires were dying out and
could be extinguished with just a couple of lines of hose. Jet fuel burns
like kerosene or charcoal fluid–quickly and completely–yet Ground Zero
burned for 100 days.
The idea of rigging the buildings for a controlled demolition was dismissed
as unrealistic by even the most suspicious types. How to gain access? Well,
President Bush’s other brother, Marvin, had a security company covering the
World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines.
In The American Reporter (Jan. 20, 2003), Margie Burns raises the question
of Marvin Bush’s role in September 11. She notes that two of the planes
involved that day were United, and another took off from Dulles airport.
The firm that handled security, formerly named Securacom, "listed [Marvin]
Bush on its board of directors and as a significant shareholder. The firm,
now named Stratesec, Inc., is located in Sterling, Va., a suburb of
Washington, D.C., and emphasizes federal clients."
The company, Burns writes, was never investigated. Rather, it has benefited
from increased security measures instituted in the wake of the attacks.
Some doubt altogether that a plane hit the Pentagon. On Sept. 12, Arlington
County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher made some revealing statements. When asked
about aircraft wreckage, he responded that "there are some small pieces of
aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation…but
not large sections. In other words, there’s no fuselage sections and that
sort of thing."
When asked about jet fuel, he referred to a "puddle."
Look at pictures, however, and it’s hard to believe that a Boeing 757 flew
into the Pentagon. The damage is not in proportion to the claim, especially
when one considers that two Boeing 757s are said to have taken down three
skyscrapers. The Pentagon was dented, the plane evaporated.
Nothing that has been reported as truth escapes examination. Even the 19
men at the controls, now infamously known as the 9/11 hijackers, cannot be
tied with real evidence to the event itself. This, according to FBI
Director Robert Mueller. "Mohammed Atta" appears to have been a stolen
identity, as per the real Atta’s father and his passport, which went
missing in 1999, and on Sept. 23, 2001, the BBC reported that at least four
other of the 19 men identified as the hijackers were alive and well–and
considerably unsettled.
Why would seismographs in the NYC area register two tiny quakes at Ground
Zero at the commencement of the collapse of each tower?
Why were the planes up in the air for so long? And why did they fly over so
many military bases? Was America’s defense team on a crack break, or was it
a National Reconnaissance Office exercise, a wargame that involved hijacked
aircraft being splashed into buildings in New York and DC? The two that
took the towers flew within spitting distance of the Indian Point nuclear
reactor facility.
Condoleezza Rice’s preposterous May 16, 2002, statement that no one could
have foreseen this scenario was particularly ironic given that Pacifica
Radio identified her that day as the source of San Francisco Mayor Willie
Brown’s "airport security" call warning him not to fly on Black Tuesday.
The internet is boiling with analyses of the 9/11 event.
In Europe, a fair number of people believe the American government was
complicit in the attacks. According to recent polls, one-third of young
Germans believe this. Print and broadcast media here ignore the questions,
but it can’t be kept from public view forever. It’s all out there. It’s
been two years, and we still have nothing but questions and Grassy Knoll
theories. The answers lay scattered in shreds and pieces, waiting to be
assembled.
Now come the widows, asking the right questions. Mariani’s lawyer, Phil
Berg, makes a point to remind people that he is not in the least bit
suicidal, or given to playing with loaded guns. They may not be able to
reassemble or reanimate their loved ones in a literal sense, but these
families who are choosing the hard road, the Narrow Way, will get to the
truth.
Volume 16, Issue 53
©2004 New York Press
Cited for information purposes under fair-use provisions.
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
|
|
|
January 20, 2004 |
http:/johnbuchanan.org
=======================================================
!!!BULLETIN!!! At the invitation of their president, John Buchanan will
address the students and staff of Keene State College on "9'11, Media
Control and the Truth & Lies of Modern History". Time: 12:00 to 2:00 PM,
Thursday, 1/22, Place: Student Center, 229 Main St, Keene
Contact: Michael Matros, 603-358-2363 OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
=======================================================
THIRTEEN DAYS, THIRTEEN DECEPTIONS
- Lies the Media Turns Away From,
- Lies that Leave our People Blind…
A John Buchanan 9/11 Media Advisory
- Reminders of Responsibility, Invitations to a Pulitzer Prize
= DAY 8, LIE 8 =
"There were no open FBI investigations involving
any of the alleged hijackers prior to the 9/11 attacks."
In mid-June 2003, FBI Director Robert Mueller and aides met with 9/11
victim family members to answer their questions about the attacks. They
were asked how the FBI knew so quickly which flying school had trained
Mohammed Atta and which ATM the hijackers had visited in Portland, Maine
on September 11th, they responded, "We got lucky." 9/11 widow Kristen
Breitweiser confronted them saying, " I think you had open investigations
before September 11th on some of the people responsible for the terrorist
attacks." They replied, "We did not!"
THE FACTS
A month later, Kristen and other family members were briefed by
Congressional Joint Inquiry Staff Director, Eleanor Hill. They learned
that the FBI had open investigations on 14 individuals in direct contact
with the hijackers while they were in the U.S.
Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush, Gail Sheehy; NY Observer -- 8/25/03
Archived copy: http://www.911truth.org/observer.html
QUOTES
WASHINGTON - The FBI supervisor who allegedly hamstrung the pre-Sept. 11
Minneapolis investigation into the alleged 20th hijacker has been
transferred to a position where bureau sources say he'll actually have
more authority.
Michael Maltbie, the FBI supervisory special agent accused of blocking
field agents… has been moved out of the counterterrorism division at
bureau headquarters to the Cleveland office, where he'll work as a field
supervisor.
"That's really a promotion," a bureau veteran told WorldNetDaily, "because
a field supervisor is a big notch over a headquarters supervisor."
FBI spokesman Bill Carter told WorldNetDaily that the bureau will not be
opening an internal investigation into complaints about the Minneapolis
investigation. That means Maltbie's conduct and that of his boss, David
Frasca, the FBI's Radical Fundamentalists unit chief, as well as their
section chief, will not be reviewed by the FBI's Office of Professional
Responsibility, the bureau's version of internal affairs."
"Has FBI promoted 9-11 ball-dropper?" WorldNetDaily, June 7, 2002
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27876
"There was a lack of performance by individuals before Sept. 11. The
counterterrorism] work just flat didn't get done. Yet those same
individuals were promoted and given awards… I have a real problem with
that."
-- John Werner, longtime FBI internal investigator, now retired.
"FBI Bureaucrats got Top Bonuses" June 6, 2002
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27867
also: "FBI Rewarding Incompetence? Lawyer Criticized over 9/11 receives Large Cash Bonus," 1/10/03
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30426
QUESTIONS
Does this make the slightest bit of sense to you? FBI officials "fail"
murderously, but they are not prosecuted or even investigated, they are
handsomely promoted instead. And the Bureau as a whole gets a huge budget
boost and sweeping new powers. Why has no one in Congress or the corporate
media screamed about this macabre incentive plan?
In the normal world, people are rewarded if they accomplish some task
well. What were the tasks assigned to this crew? The only things they
succeeded in was foiling Al Qaeda/Saudi probes, allowing the killing of
3,000 civilians, and helping Cheney & Rumsfeld sell endless war…
Come to think of it, not exactly shabby work. Perhaps promotions would be
in order, if only to shut them up. Scapegoats tend to squeak.
===============================================
JOHN BUCHANAN 2004, "America's 9/11 Truth Candidate"
An Honest Republican for President
Fighting to Save the Nation from Endless War, Fiscal Ruin,
Constitutional Dismemberment and the Corporate Coup
===============================================
For more information, contact:
John Buchanan's Temporary Campaign Office: 603-624-0111 /
jtwg@bellsouth.net or
Interim Press Office: 207-967-2390 / buchanan@nancho.net
THE NEW YORK OBSERVER
4 Feb 2004 online (slated for 9 Feb 2004 issue, according to footnote)
http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage1.asp
Bob Kerrey Says 9/11 Group Meets With Condoleezza
by Gail Sheehy
... Part of the problem, family members say, is that the witnesses that come before the commission appear to be cherrypicked to provide testimony that paints a rosier picture of the Bush administration’s intelligence operations before Sept. 11.
"When the commissioners insist they’re doing a thorough, independent investigation, but their staff turns away valuable whistle-blowers like Sibel Edmonds [profiled in a Jan. 26 Observer story], claiming time problems, we worry about the picture the commissioners are getting," said Ms. Kleinberg. ...
This column ran on page 1 in the 2/9/2004 edition of The New York Observer.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0325/p03s01-usju.html
from the March 25, 2004 edition
A key force behind the 9/11 commission
Family and victims' groups have provided a 'road map' for the probe, asking
tough questions.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - William Rodriguez was the last man to run out of the World
Trade Center. Had he made it to work on time, he and the master key to the
stairwells would have been near the top of the complex when the second plane
hit.
Instead, he raced up the stairwells he had maintained for 20 years to unlock
doors and help people escape. "I was protected for another purpose," he
says. Credited with saving many lives, he received a National Hero Award
from the Senate of Puerto Rico and organized the Hispanic Victims Group.
Like many others who lost family or were personally involved in Sept. 11,
Mr. Rodriguez is convinced that much of what happened that day is still
behind locked doors, and the only way to open them is to keep hurling
questions at officials until they get answers. For such activists, the
appearance of top Clinton and Bush administration officials before the 9/11
commission this week was a key moment, long awaited.
>From the start, family and victims' groups have energized the official
investigations. They were a driving force behind the creation of the 9/11
commission and the joint congressional investigation than preceded it. They
describe themselves as the commission's best friends - and "worst
nightmare."
"We are flooded with questions," says Philip Zelikow, executive director of
the 9/11 commission, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States, which was to conclude its eighth public
hearing Wednesday. "A lot of people work this stuff very doggedly and may
not understand what it means. But it's healthy to have someone saying:
'What's the answer to this?' We do pay attention to what people are saying."
Commissioner Jamie Gorelick credits family groups with providing a "road
map" for the official investigation. Working through an official liaison,
family groups send questions and suggestions to the commission.
The families started with the most basic question: Why is there no official
investigation of what went wrong on Sept. 11? Their demand that there be
such an investigation - and quickly - muscled the 9/11 commission through
the Congress and the White House. [but it was not okayed until over a year after 9/11!]
Since then, families have sent the commissioners a constant stream of
questions - hundreds for President Bush alone, should he agree to testify
publicly. Among them:
* What defensive measures did you take in response to pre-9/11 warnings from
11 nations about a terrorist attack, many of which cited an attack in the
continental United States?
* Please explain why no one in any level of government has yet been held
accountable for the failures leading up to and on 9/11.
* Why was author Bob Woodward permitted access to confidential presidential
daily briefings while the joint inquiry, and subsequently the commission,
was not?
The groups say they get their information from a close reading of news media
and the Internet. "There is a national and international network of
investigators who work together on this thing," says John Judge, a founder
of 9/11 CitizensWatch, one of the groups observing the proceedings.
In anticipation of this week's hearings, CitizensWatch launched ads in the
Washington area newspapers calling for fuller disclosure. It reads: "We
deserve full disclosure on 9/11: The families of 9/11 victims and Americans
everywhere demand that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Bill
Clinton, and Al Gore testify publicly under oath to the 9/11 commission."
"You'll note we included Clinton and Gore," says 9/11 CitizensWatch
organizer Kyle Hence.
"Unless we get full disclosure, people will be able to argue that aliens did
it," he says, referring to the vast range of Sept. 11 theories on the
Internet. Many associated with CitizensWatch don't shrink from the term
"conspiracy," but prefer "Deep Politics."
For many seated in the front rows of the 9/11 hearings this week - and
keeping close notes on the proceedings - the questions are right on the
surface.
"Look at this!" says Mindy Kleinberg, a member of the Family Steering
Committee, which helped establish the 9/11 commission. She points to her
heavily annotated copy of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's testimony on
Tuesday. "Right here he says that at 9:38 he really had no idea that planes
had been hijacked.... Who didn't call and tell him that we were a nation
under attack and we needed to get fighter jets in the air?"
While welcoming the first appearance of top officials testifying under oath
this week, family groups say they want tougher questions and follow-up.
"They don't usually ask our questions, which disappoints us. We've done a
lot of work," says Lori Van Auken, another member of the Family Steering
Committee, which submitted 37 pages of questions for this week's hearings
alone.
Ms. Auken and other family activists lobbied successfully for an extension
of the 9/11 commission's work for another two months, although she said the
group had hoped for an extension until January 2005.
"We were flatly told there was no way the White House would agree," says
steering committee member Kristen Breitweiser. "The White House stonewalled
the commission for a year, and it's drastically behind. But because it's an
election year, we won't be able to do that."
Gary Cook, Editor/Publisher
Donahue spammers make their point any way they can
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
Boston Herald- Net Life
By Stephanie Schorow
Democracy can be a messy process. I got a lesson in free-society chaos one
recent morning when I found my e-mail box jammed with messages, all
demanding attention to how ``Phil Donahue breaks 9-11 Conspiracy Story.''
As readers of this space may recall (and for those of you still in the
dark), I HATE SPAM. I hate it with a fury that surpasses my frustration at
Boston traffic and my anger at ever-escalating cable TV bills.
So I deleted, and fumed, and deleted some more. Soon I was getting mail
from other spammed journalists, all of us griping and moaning.
But I did read almost all of those e-mails. I soon found each was
individually written - this was not a massive cut-and paste job. Some of
them were well-written. Others were even well-reasoned.
In essence, the mail praised the aging liberal talkmeister's Aug. 13 show
on MSNBC, in which he interviewed the French author of ``Forbidden Truth,''
a book that contends the Bush family's connections to Saudi oil interests
blindsided the administration to threats from Saudi-supported terrorists.
But the e-mail writers seemed even more affected by Donahue's interview
with Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband died in the World Trade Center.
Breitweiser is among those calling for an independent investigation into
Sept. 11 - just as there have been investigations into other American
policy failures. Her story obviously struck a nerve.
The e-mails ranged from calm calls to ``support further open discussion of
the oddities surrounding the 9-11 `surprise' attack'' to outrage (``The
whole real story must be told now''), to insults (``Are you real reporters
of the news, or stooges of the administration?''), to tinfoil-cap tirades
(``Are you conscious of their attempted mind-control scheme?'')
A good many of the writers seemed to be frequent surfers of such Web sites
as rumormillnews.net and whatreallyhappened.com, which had posted a call
for action with a long list of media contacts.
I began calling some of the spammers, first to complain (Don't you know I
hate spam? Why are you also spamming the Herald's food writer?) and then to
listen.
Angela Durso, 38, of Bronx, N.Y., indignantly denied her e-mail was spam;
didn't she have the right to contact newspapers about her Sept. 11
concerns? ``I think newspapers have a role to play in being watchdogs of
the government,'' she said. ``There's a lot of questions I have about what
happened on that particular day. . . . I mean, the Pentagon was hit.''
Greg Lopreato of Austin, Texas, a molecular pharmacologist, said he sent
e-mail because ``This is a subject I've been following since Sept. 11 and
the government line has made no sense at all.''
When I e-mailed Sy Knackstedt of Olympia, Wash., he replied, ``I feel we
(the American people) have been left in the dark about what happened.
Almost a year has passed and I'm afraid that if too much more time passes,
we will NEVER know what really happened.''
I managed to track down the guy (or at least one of them) behind the e-mail
blitz: Bill Douglas, a 45-year-old Midwesterner. We talked (and argued) at
length and exchanged e-mail. While I disagree with Mr. Douglas on about 90
percent of his assertions, he certainly has a right to express them using
today's communication currency: e-mail. He poses good questions that
perhaps more in the media should answer - even to prove them wrong. (See
above Web sites for some of those questions.)
I also hope someone removes that e-mail address list. OK, you made your
point, and I don't need more Nigerian scam come-ons or anti-Semitic rants.
Neither does the Herald food writer.
Spam is annoying and often obscures pressing e-mail. But that's the price
we in the media pay for presuming to be the guardians of free speech.
E-mail Stephanie Schorow at sstooge@mediaconspiracy.com. And when that
bounces back, try sschorow@bostonherald.com.
http://www2.bostonherald.com/lifestyle/lifestyle_trends/net08272002.htm
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Loughrey
http://www.webactive.com/page/121
(Requires RealPlayer)
Kristin Breitweiser, widowed from the 9/11 attacks,
along with a dozen of other families met with FBI
director Robert Mueller to ask questions about 9/11.
She is very articulate and clearly frustrated. She
says they asked Mueller about the building collapses,
NORAD's lack of a response and other questions.
Mueller answered nothing, citing the Moussaoui trial.
Mueller is in on this.
Scott
"Intelligence Flaws Anger Families" By Laurie Kellman, Associated Press,
Wednesday, 18 September, 2002
"Up went her hand, high over the table separating Kristen Breitweiser
from members of Congress as cameras flashed a blinding wall of light.
..."Lawmakers disclosed that the government had had far more warnings
than previously acknowledged that planes might be used to bomb buildings.
"That came as no surprise to Breitweiser and other relatives of people
killed on Sept. 11.
""If the intelligence community had been doing its job, my wife would
be alive today," said Stephen Push, whose wife, Lisa Raines, died in the
attack on the Pentagon.
"Breitweiser, of Sept. 11th Advocates, and Push, of Families of
September 11, Inc., were the only relatives of those killed to speak
directly to the committees.
"Behind them, a dozen others, many dressed in black, wept as
Breitweiser and Push angrily listed the government's failures that may have
permitted the attacks.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.22B.anger.families.htm