Why hasn't Zelikow explained his Able Danger conduct?

[noise]

It's rather pathetic that the guy gets a pass for this. Shaffer states that Zelikow expressed interest during the interview in Bagram yet completely lost interest once Shaffer returned to the US. What happened?

It's not like Shaffer's claims are out of left field. We have other mainstream accounts that are similar in nature. For example, the NSA ID'ed al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar as al Qaeda operatives in late '99. Alec Station tracked them at the 1/5/00 - 1/9/00 al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. They later lived with an FBI informant!

[SDuderstadt]

1. Maybe you should read the...

9/11 Commission Report.

I think they explained it very well.

[deconstruct911]

10. Oh yea that commission worked so well

Just ask Giuliani. Remember though, they didn't want to "grill" the guy.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Maybe you should read the public law that...

created the 9/11 Commission and pay particularly close attention to what they were chartered to actually do.

[Octafish]

2. Depending on one's POV, Zelikow is a professional story-teller or a liar..

The guy was hand-picked because he's perfect for writing the "official story."

Is Fix in at 9/11 Commission?

by Paul Sperry
March 31, 2004

EXCERPT...

His name is Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the commission. Though he has no vote, the former Texas lawyer arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses. He also picks which fights are worth fighting, legally, with the White House, and was involved in the latest round of capitulations – er, negotiations – over Rice's testimony. And the commissioners for the most part follow his recommendations. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.

He also carries with him a downright obnoxious conflict-of-interest odor, one that somehow went undetected by the lawyers who vetted him for one of the most important investigative positions in U.S. history.

There's a raft of evidence to suggest that Zelikow has personal, professional and political reasons not to see the commission hold Rice and other Bush officials accountable for pre-9/11 failings, and may be the de facto swing vote for Republicans on the panel. Here are just a few of them:

He and Rice worked closely together in the first Bush White House as aides to former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. Zelikow was director of European security affairs, and Rice was senior director of Soviet and East European affairs, as well as special assistant to the president. Rice reportedly hired Zelikow. Both started in 1989 and left in 1991.

A few years after leaving the White House, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together called, "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft."

The two associated again when Zelikow directed the Aspen Strategy Group, a foreign-policy strategy body co-chaired by Rice's mentor Scowcroft. Rice, along with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, were members.

Zelikow also directed the Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age under co-chairman James Barksdale, a Bush adviser and major Bush-Cheney donor. A 9/11 commissioner, Republican Sen. Slade Gorton, also served with Zelikow on the task force. (Interestingly, the pair serves together on yet another panel – The National Commission on Federal Election Reform – with Gorton acting as vice-chairman and Zelikow as executive director.)

After the 2000 election, Zelikow and Rice were reunited when George W. Bush named him to his transition team for the National Security Council. Rice reportedly asked Zelikow to help organize the NSC under the Scowcroft model, which was insular and steeped in Cold War worldview.

Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke says he briefed not only Rice and Hadley, but also Zelikow about the growing al-Qaida threat during the transition period. Zelikow sat in on the briefings, he says.

A month after the 9/11 al-Qaida attacks, President Bush appointed Zelikow to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which is chaired by Scowcroft.

Zelikow's regular job, the one he'll return to after the commission releases it final report in late July, is director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. The center is dedicated to the study of the presidency, and maintains contact with the Bush White House, which fought the creation of the commission.

Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow, insists Zelikow has a "clear conflict of interest." And she suspects he is in touch with Bush's political adviser, Rove, which she says would explain why the White House granted him, along with just one other commission official, the greatest access to the intelligence briefing Bush got a month before the 9/11 suicide hijackings.

CONTINUED...

http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2209

Zelikow has worked his magic lots of places.

[SDuderstadt]

3. You obviously don't know how...

commissions work, dude.

Serious question: why did Bush oppose Zelikow's selection by Kean and Hamilton?

[Octafish]

4. You mean I understand how these commissions work to cover-up the truth, right, sduderstadt?

It doesn't take a genius to see that. Just familiarity with the facts.

As for Bush opposing the appointment of Zelikow: It wasn't for show. It was to keep his lip zipped. Didn't matter. Zelikow knew what to say and what not. Seriously, Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

5. How do commissions work, dude?

Posing your strawman argument as a question doesn't make it less obvious, dude. Are you really saying that Lee Hamilton, Bob Kerrye, Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie Gorelick and Tim Roemer worked to cover-up the truth? Please enlighten us on who decides what the commission concludes. I'm really not impressed with your generic charge that commissions work to "cover-up the truth", dude. Just because someone rejects your goofy CT bullshit, doesn't make them an enemy of the truth.

Is there ANYONE you won't smear in your search for the "truth", dude?

[Octafish]

6. Just because you say so doesn't make it so, sduderstadt.

Zelikow is the official mythmaker. That's what the record shows:

Key 9/11 Commission Staffer Held Secret Meetings With Rove, Scaled Back Criticisms of White House.

Why you call that a smear is your business, sduderstadt. If I were you, I'd ask "Why isn't this on the tee vee or on the front page of the newspaper?"

I would think that is something all Americans should know.

[SDuderstadt]

7. And, once again...

you duck the hard question I asked you, dude. How does the final commission report get put together? Is it just the executive director's call? Hint: no. Why don you think Hamilton, Kerrey, Gorelick, Ben-Veniste and Roemer would participate in a cover-up?

[whatchamacallit]

8. They were tools

The commission was intentionally hobbled from inception. The scope, evidence, testimony... all severely restricted by design. Zelikow, as the official myth keeper, was the perfect director to keep it "in bounds". When glorifying the commission, Sdude seems to forget the Bush administration never wanted it in the first place. That fact is reflected in the compromised proceedings and the near meaningless conclusions.

[SDuderstadt]

9. So, tell me something...

dude. How did the Bush administration control/direct/compromise the 9/11 Commission?. If Bush had really had that degree of power over them, couldn't he have kept it from being empaneled to begin with? After all, this is the same administration that was so incompetent, they couldn't manage to plant WMD in Iraq.

[whatchamacallit]

15. Ultimately too much public and political pressure to avoid it

Of course they would have preferred to, but their resistance was beginning to look suspicious. So they did the next best thing; fixed it. They tilted at the windmill of "intelligence stove-piping", and made sure to leave the nastiest, most bug-infested rocks, unturned. As far as planting WMD is concerned, I'm pretty sure it was seriously considered and would have been attempted had it been necessary. Obviously they got their war without it.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Dude...

why would the Bush administration want to be profoundly embarrassed by the lack of WMD? Your rationalization of anything that contradicts your goofy CT bullshit is nothing short of hysterical.

[whatchamacallit]

21. Well dude

Lies about yellowcake, reactor parts, mobile bioweapon labs, Saddam kicking out the inspectors... They did everything short of planting weapons, which would have been a huge risk. They didn't need to. I guarantee nobody in BushCo felt the slightest embarrassment. *Your* rationalization of everything in the official lie is nothing short of tragic.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Dude...

you say those things are not important, but they are.

And, I'd love for you to show me where I have "rationalized everything in the eventual lie".

[deconstruct911]

11. Hamilton is a very credible guy

No cover up in the Iran/Contra or anything crazy like that right?

[SDuderstadt]

12. How, specifically, did Hamilton...

"cover-up" Iran/Contra, dude?

[deconstruct911]

30. How was he part of the cover up?

[Octafish]

42. Lee Hamilton, the Un-Wise Man

Robert Parry pegs the fellow and the horse he rode in on.

Lee Hamilton, the Un-Wise Man

By Robert Parry
September 17, 2010

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius has become the latest voice of influence to sing the praises of former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who is almost universally hailed in U.S. power circles as a modern-day Wise Man, a Democratic centrist who shuns partisanship and puts love of country over politics.

But the sad truth is that Lee Hamilton has done great damage to the U.S. political process by elevating bipartisanship above a commitment to the truth. One reason why many Americans buy into baseless conspiracy theories today is that Hamilton failed to expose real conspiracies when he was in Congress.

For instance, it was surely "bipartisan" in August 1986 when Hamilton joined other members of the House Intelligence Committee, including Rep. Dick Cheney, in concluding that stories about White House aide Oliver North running money and guns to the Nicaraguan contras were false.

Hamilton, then the committee’s chairman, accepted denials from North and his boss, National Security Adviser John Poindexter, and agreed to kill a proposed congressional investigation into what was then known as “the North network.”

Since I and my Associated Press colleague Brian Barger had been writing the stories about North’s secret operation (based then on about two dozen sources), I got a call from one of Hamilton’s aides and was told that Hamilton and the panel had the choice of “believing you and your 24 sources or these honorable men. And it wasn’t a close call.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/091710.html

"Honorable men" do not avoid the truth or cover it up.

[immune]

14. Louis Freeh

Louis Freeh – Director of FBI, 1993-2001. Former U.S. District Court Judge for Southern District of New York, appointed by President George H.W. Bush. Former Deputy United States Attorney in New York. Former FBI agent. Former officer in United States Army.

Wall Street Journal 11/17/05: "Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it 'was not historically significant.' This astounding conclusion—in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings—raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself. No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a 'new' commission."

http://www.op... - Link to Wall Street Journal article


Bio: http://www.fbi.gov/libref/directors/... - FBI Website

[SDuderstadt]

16. Of course...

"immune" neglects to mention that Shaffer could never substantiate that Able Danger had ever identified Atta prior to 9/11.

[immune]

18. Jesus man,

how the hell do you substantiate unless you investigate. Freah said they failed to INVESTIGATE. Matter of fact, the systematic failure to investigate any evidence of importance is the hallmark of that entire collection of hollow words.

[SDuderstadt]

19. They DID investigate and...

Shaffer could not document any of his claim.

[immune]

20. Wow,

how'd the big investigation slip past Louis Freeh's jaundiced eye?

[SDuderstadt]

23. Beats me...

dude. Why don't you ask him?

[immune]

25. Beats me why I should ask Freeh or Weldon.

Seems to me they've both made their positions very clear for anyone who isn't wearing OCT blinders.

[SDuderstadt]

27. "OCT blinders"....

CT shortcut for "I really don't want to debate on the facts, so I'll just try to foreclose the discussion by accusing you of wearing 'OCT blinders'."

[immune]

24. And then there's this guy ...

Rep. Curt Weldon – Ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania. House Armed Services Committee Vice Chairman. Homeland Security Committee Vice Chairman.
U.S. House of Representatives Speech 10/19/05:
"Intelligence officers ... identified Mohammed Atta and three terrorists a year before 9/11, tried to transfer that information to the FBI, were denied, and the FBI Director has now said ... the FBI could have used it to perhaps prevent the hijackings. The 9/11 Commission totally ignored this entire story.

....

Fox News 8/28/05: "'There's something very sinister going on here that really troubles me,' Weldon told Fox News on Thursday, blasting the 9/11 commission for not taking the claims more seriously. He said some panel members were trying to smear Shaffer and Able Danger. 'What's the 9/11 commission got to hide?'"

http://www.foxnews.... - Fox News webpage with quote
http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

[SDuderstadt]

26. Yes...

Curt Weldon. The same guy that tried to shift the blame for 9/11 from Bush to Clinton and also wanted to go to Iraq to "find the WMD himself".

[immune]

28. Crucifying the messenger again.

Jesus wouldn't stand a chance against you guys. Probably why he hasn't come back.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Do you deny those facts about....

Weldon?

[immune]

31. Like I've said before

no one is right about everything, but neither are they wrong about everything.

That said, there is no one on earth who hasn't at one point in time made bad decisions that damaged their credibility. I won't give Clinton a pass on that either. And you can add poppy Bush to the list. Leveling Iraq was a long time in the planning.

And how do you know Weldon wasn't thinking about going to Iraq to prove there WERE no WMDs? You don't.

[zappaman]

32. "no one is right about everything, but neither are they wrong about everything."

Not true.
You have demonstrated that you are WRONG about EVERYTHING.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Actually, dude...

I do:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/009093.php

[immune]

34. You have some strange friends, dude.

Benen does mention the Heroes and Accomplishments sections of the RNC website. It is worth explaining that I wrote the Heroes and Accomplishments sections of the RNC website. The information is based on Back to Basics for the Republican Party, my history of the GOP cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision. I also wrote the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar, with its daily list of GOP heroics and Democrat perfidy.

http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com/blog/2010/08/jefferson-davis-was-a-democrat.html

[SDuderstadt]

35. WTF are you babbling about now, dude?

I cited an article by Kevin Drum.

[immune]

36. You're right

I got these two guys mixed up somehow, so my apologies for that. But since I always try to correct my errors, I went looking for articles by Kevin Drum and found them to be articulate and well thought out. Kudos for that, Kevin Drum.

Then I ran across this one ....
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012765.php
By: Kevin Drum

SIMON SAYS....In the annals of unconvincing excuses, this one is now quickly rising into gold medal territory. The question is why the CIA never turned over its interrogation videotapes to the 9/11 Commission:

(continued at link)

... and I wondered why you would use him as a source. Looks like he has some questions of his own regarding 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Investigating why the CIA did not turn over...

the interrogation tapes is a perfectly valid pursuit. On the other hand, wondering how someone might have emplaced a missile inside a jetliner to fool people into thinking a plane crashed into the towers isn't.

Moral of the story: you shouldn't presume to understand my position on 9/11 based solely upon my rejoinders to your goofy CT bullshit, dude.

[immune]

39. "the interrogation tapes is a perfectly valid pursuit. "

Yep, and the failure of the commission to successfully subpoena the tapes would be an indication of what?

How is one to determine your position on 9/11 since you don't make that position clear in your posts? All you do is ridicule everyone else's positions. Fess up, dude, what's your position?

[SDuderstadt]

40. Here's my "position"...

dude. Let me quote William Seger:

"Bullshit never did anyone any good".

That would especially apply to your bullshit. Now, I have a clogged drain to clear and GOTV calls to make to Democratic voters. I think your bullshit is fairly clear to most reasonable people.

[immune]

41. Whoa back

You agreed that "the interrogation tapes is a perfectly valid pursuit", but your bullshit response to the question neglected to explain the failure of the commission to subpoena those tapes and what you think that failure would indicate.

[Octafish]

45. Zelikow Played Key Role in 9/11 Cover-up

Some things need to be repeated:

Pentagon Author Exposes Zelikow’s
Key Role in 9/11 Cover-up

by Maidhc O'Cathail

In an interview on “Fox Business Network”, a retired US intelligence officer accused the official in charge of the 9/11 Commission of a cover-up of intelligence failures leading up to the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001.

Appearing on the political talk show “Freedom Watch”, Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Shaffer, a former Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) officer and the author of Operation Dark Heart, a much-hyped new book on the war in Afghanistan, spoke about his mid-October 2003 encounter with Dr Philip Zelikow, then executive director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States.

During a fact-finding mission to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, Zelikow’s team was briefed by Shaffer on Able Danger, a DIA data mining project that had allegedly identified Mohammed Atta as a threat to the US a year before 9/11.

Parenthetically, the “Mohammed Atta” identified by Able Danger may have been an imposter operating under a stolen identity, as occurred in the assassination of a senior Hamas official in Dubai. In an interview with a German newspaper, reported by the Guardian, Mohammed Atta’s father claimed that his son had nothing to do with the attacks and was still alive a year after 9/11.

Whichever Mohammed Atta was referred to by Shaffer in Bagram, Zelikow reportedly “fell silent with shock at the news”.

CONTINUED...

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/7165-zelikows-key-role-in-911-cover-up.html

Zelikow is a cover-up artiste.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Dude...

why couldn't Shaffer produce any actual evidence of his claim?

[Octafish]

47. Why did the Pentagon do all they can to shut Shaffer up, sduderstadt?

They burned his book. It's logical to assume they'd burn everything else on the subject.

[SDuderstadt]

48. You mean like...

his multiple interviews on networks like CNN? How is that an example of them "doing all they can to shut him up", dude? As far as his book is concerned, it has exactly one chapter on Able Danger, despite conspiracists exaggerating it to be completely and solely about Able Danger.

Tell me something, dude. How do you know what the Pentagon's reason for their action was?

[zappaman]

49. "How do you know what the Pentagon's reason for their action was?"

I've long suspected Blofish works for the government.
It's only speculation, but I would like for him to prove he doesn't.

[Octafish]

50. You must know I can't say for certain. Do you believe what they tell you, sduderstadt?

That's a question you can answer.

And, by the way, why bring up something so tangental? Shaffer was on active-duty. One book. One chapter. One sentence alleging what he has should be enough to start investigations.

As I believe in democracy, they should be open investigations.

[SDuderstadt]

51. Investigate WHAT....

dude? Shaffer's goofy bullshit allegations? The same allegations for which he could not provide a single speck of substantiation?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Able_Danger

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Able_Danger

Since you're such a "crack researcher", one should ask why you don't know this stuff. Unless, of course, like conspiracists, your "research" stops when you've found the evidence you want.

[defendandprotect]

38. Great question ... !!

[immune]

44. self delete

[Guggenheim]

43. Atta should have been imprisoned as soon as he was identified as a terrorist

Unless U.S. higher-ups wanted him to succeed with his plans, in which case they would not want to imprison him.