Book: Head of 9/11 panel had friends in White House

JumpInTheFire · #1 (**permalink**) 02-03-2008, 08:10 PM

Source: Book: Head of 9/11 panel had friends in White House - CNN.com

Quote:

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

Philip Zelikow, a friend of then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, spoke with her several times during the 20-month investigation.

Philip Zelikow, a friend of then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, spoke with her several times during the 20-month investigation that closely examined her role in assessing the al-Qaida threat.

He also exchanged frequent calls with the White House, including at least four from Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser at the time.

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

Shenon, a New York Times reporter, says Zelikow sought to intimidate staff to avoid damaging findings for President Bush -- who at the time was running for re-election -- and Rice. Zelikow and Rice had written a book together in 1995 and he would later work for her after the commission finished its job and she became secretary of state in 2005.

The Associated Press obtained an audio version of Shenon's book, which is to go on sale Tuesday.

Don't Miss
U.S. officials: CIA kills top al Qaeda terrorist in Pakistan
Reached by the AP, Zelikow provided a 131-page statement with information he said was provided for the book. In it, Zelikow acknowledges talking to Rove and Rice during the course of the commission's work despite a general pledge he made not to. But he said the conversations never dealt with politics.

The White House had no immediate comment Sunday.

According to the book, when Democratic commissioner Bob Kerrey learned the extent of Zelikow's ties to the administration, he confronted Republican chairman Tom Kean and demanded to know why someone with such apparent conflicts of interest had been hired.

"Look Tom," Kerrey is quoted as saying, "either he goes or I go." Kean eventually persuaded Kerrey to stay.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the panel's Democratic vice chairman, praised Zelikow as a "person of integrity" who was up front in disclosing his background and White House contacts. It made sense for commission staff to contact the White House regularly to get information, Hamilton said, and the book also notes that Zelikow was such a dogged negotiator that even then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales found him irritating and subsequently refused to meet with him.

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

The book says phone logs maintained by the commission's executive assistant showed at least two calls from Rove to Zelikow's office number in June 2003, and two more calls in September. During that time, the commission was in the midst of its fact-finding.

Zelikow ordered the assistant to stop keeping phone records of his contacts with the White House, the book said, but the panel's general counsel instructed her to ignore the order.

The phone logs do not record Zelikow's calls out, nor do they show calls on his cell phone, which he relied on for most outgoing calls. Records from the Government Accountability Office, which maintained some of the commission's phone records, showed frequent calls from Zelikow to telephone numbers in area code 202, with the telephone prefix 4-5-6 -- the prefix exclusive to the White House, the book says.

Zelikow, in his written statement, said Rove had called with questions about the Bush library and other business related to Zelikow's work at the University of Virginia. Zelikow also said he enlisted Rice's logistical aid on behalf of the commission at one point to get Saudi cooperation so the panel could interview their citizens.

"Rove and I didn't really know each other," he said in the statement. "I don't recall ever having an extended conversation with him, and certainly not about politics or the commission."

The book seeks to raise new questions about the independence of the bipartisan commission, which was created in 2002 to investigate government missteps that led to the September 11 attacks. Initially opposed by the White House, the panel issued a unanimous 567-page final report in July 2004 during the height of the presidential campaign that did not blame Bush or former President Clinton for the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people but did say they each failed to make anti-terrorism a priority.

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

Static · 02-03-2008, 08:49 PM

That's interesting, another conflict of interest case. There are more of these than you can count on one hand, and this one just happens to be the biggest yet. I doubt this will amount to anything other than people like me saying 'ok, more proof of something fishy going on' and people like rightwinger saying 'fishy doesn't imply guilt' or some other equally irritating remark like that.

rightwinger · 02-03-2008, 11:47 PM

Quote:

I doubt this will amount to anything other than people like me saying 'ok, more proof of something fishy going on' and people like rightwinger saying 'fishy doesn't imply guilt' or some other equally irritating remark like that.

Fishy doesn't imply guilt, and this doesn't say anything about "inside job" or anything like that.

What this could be implying is that the Bush Administration didn't want to share their part of the blame on 9-11 for their own failings. Just like the Clinton Administration. Both did not take terrorism seriously enough though.

But if you are going to use this to say that Bush was in on it based on this...I'd question your intelligence.

JumpInTheFire · 02-04-2008, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

Fishy doesn't imply guilt, and this doesn't say anything about "inside job" or anything like that.

What this could be implying is that the Bush Administration didn't want to share their part of the blame on 9-11 for their own failings. Just like the Clinton Administration. Both did not take terrorism seriously enough though.

But if you are going to use this to say that Bush was in on it based on this...I'd question your intelligence.

Nobody said that my friend.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 02-04-2008, 03:08 AM

I agree with you rightwinger, but when evidence like this mounts and more and more "fishy" dealings accrue, at what point do we stop making excuses for these people and start demanding some answers.

Investigating 9/11 on my own has only raised questions, ones that the government refuses to answer. I have my own thoughts, but I agree, guilt cannot be conferred without proof from a thorough investigation.

Don't hold your breath on that one though.

rightwinger · 02-04-2008, 06:40 AM

Quote:

I agree with you rightwinger, but when evidence like this mounts and more and more "fishy" dealings accrue, at what point do we stop making excuses for these people and start demanding some answers.

Feel free to demand answers at any time.

But I'm not sure what you think this is evidence of.

Quote:

Investigating 9/11 on my own has only raised questions, ones that the government refuses to answer.

What did your investigation entail?

Quote:

I have my own thoughts, but I agree, guilt cannot be conferred without proof from a thorough investigation.

They had one of the largest investigations in the history of....anything really. Please don't use the misleading "Spent more on investigating Clinton's blowjob" because they didn't. The 9-11 commission spent less to come up with a report, but that report was the product of a massive investigation.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 02-04-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

Feel free to demand answers at any time.

But I'm not sure what you think this is evidence of.

What did your investigation entail?

They had one of the largest investigations in the history of....anything really. Please don't use the misleading "Spent more on investigating Clinton's blowjob" because they didn't. The 9-11 commission spent less to come up with a report, but that report was the product of a massive investigation.

I think 9/11 could have been prevented. I think there were people who would rather keep their mouth shut and exploit the event for money and power. To what extent they exploited it remains in question for me. Do you realize how much our government infrastructure has increased since 9/11? Do you realize how much money was made by many people surrounding this horrendous event by the ensuing "War on Terror"?

My investigation entailed reading reports and findings from NIST, Colleges and Institutions, and news articles from dozens of sources, some mainstream some not. I researched histories of individuals that I viewed as questionable to see if there was any motivation for them to allow 9/11 to happen. The truth is, a lot of powerful people and their buddies curiously became filthy stinking rich(er) in the aftermath of this attack.

Do I think every person that benefitted was in on it? No absolutely not. I do think many people that were part of the Bush administration, among others, did know and, as said, expoited it.

What was entailed in their investigation exactly? Rubble and debris was cleared and mostly destroyed before it was ever looked at. I know this was to save lives, and I agree that was the right decision, but much of the steel was melted down before the commission even assembled. There are countless loose ends left untouched by the 9/11 commission, even admitted in the mainstream media (but that's before media lobbyists pressured the FCC to allow for media mega-corporations....but that's a different thread) not the least of which is the total absence of WTC7 from the report, and 28 blacked out pages released to the public, one name that I can't remember was blacked out after the fact, so we know the name, and the guy was basically some other asshole who got rich of the whole damn thing. I'll find that information and post the link.

Static · 02-04-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

Fishy doesn't imply guilt, and this doesn't say anything about "inside job" or anything like that.

What this could be implying is that the Bush Administration didn't want to share their part of the blame on 9-11 for their own failings. Just like the Clinton Administration. Both did not take terrorism seriously enough though.

But if you are going to use this to say that Bush was in on it based on this...I'd question your intelligence.

The only way you would ever hear me say "Bush was in on it" is if Bush himself stated it, or they found overwhelming evidence against him. That is it. I don't think Bush orchistrated the attacks, I don't think he had phonecalls with Osama, I don't think he shook hands with all the 'terrorists' on board the planes.

I do think however that if I'm the president, and I commit a crime (be it minor or major) the best way to get away with it is probably to appoint someone I know/like, and who likes me, to investigate it... maybe slide a few thousand Benjamins his way too. All this article says is 'a few phone calls between the one guys office and Rove's office', yes, before you say anything, I understand that, that doesn't mean shit, they could have been talking baseball for all we know... But that's the problem, we don't know, so people will speculate. And I just find it kind of odd, all these little coincidences, all these conflicts of interest.

I've heard someone famous, it might have been Einstein actually, say something like 'the simplest answer is usually the right one'. Take a look at how complicated this situation has become.

You have to think outside the box RW, you are never going to see a headline in the paper that reads "Bush imprisoned for 911", instead all you will ever see is some little miniscule piece of the puzzle that you will have to remember for the next time you see something like that, so you can put the two pieces together. I've been doing this shit for 3 or 4 years now, I have thousands of different pieces of the puzzle, and what happens when you have more pieces of the puzzle? That's right! You get a better view of the picture.

A politicians attitude/behavior should NEVER be questionable to anyone, let alone to the extent that Dick and Bush have created for themselves. I don't feel comfortable knowing my 'elected' representatives are lying to me. It would be the same for anyone, do you like it when people lie to you? Howbout when you think they're lying to you, in a sick kind of way that's kind of worse sometimes.

If you're perfectly cool with their behavior, then shit, I guess I envy the blindness. I want to just be able to forget about all these problems we have and they're making worse, but I'm certainly glad I can't.

rightwinger · 02-04-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

I think 9/11 could have been prevented.

A lot of that is hindsight bias though.

Quote:

not the least of which is the total absence of WTC7 from the report

If you are going to tell me you did all kinds of independent research. Don't throw truth movement red herrings at me. NIST is currently still looking into building 7. They have a FAQ up on their website that covers a lot of it. The 9-11 commission report didn't cover building 7 because it wasn't an engineering document. It doesn't go over the collapses. It goes over the background of the attack.

My question to you would be...what do you think about building 7? The collapse...the report on it...etc. etc.

Quote:

I'll find that information and post the link.

Cool.

Quote:

I've heard someone famous, it might have been Einstein actually, say something like 'the simplest answer is usually the right one'. Take a look at how complicated this situation has become.

Occam's razor.

Quote:

You have to think outside the box RW, you are never going to see a headline in the paper that reads "Bush imprisoned for 911", instead all you will ever see is some little miniscule piece of the puzzle that you will have to remember for the next time you see something like that, so you can put the two pieces together. I've been doing this shit for 3 or 4 years now, I have thousands of different pieces of the puzzle, and what happens when you have more pieces of the puzzle? That's right! You get a better view of the picture.

Yes. It is my experience, that a tactic is to throw as much shit at the wall as possible...phrase it as a question, and then hope nobody looks into the claims. It's a major tactic of the truth movement. And most of their info is based on misinformation anyhow.

Quote:

A politicians attitude/behavior should NEVER be questionable to anyone

Well. That has never been the case.

Quote:

If you're perfectly cool with their behavior, then shit, I guess I envy the blindness.

Christ almighty....

**Ristaron** · 02-04-2008, 04:02 PM

I have moved Static's political questionnaire (and Rightwinger's response) to a new thread. Let's keep this thread on topic.
The questionnaire can be located here, for everyone's view/participation.