Philip David Zelikow: Catastrophic Terrorism More Shocking than PNAC!

Philip Zelikow, 9/11 insider, is scheduled to speak at Chautauqua Institution on August 9, 2007 (western New York, near Jamestown).
As Webster Tarpley notes, Zelikow is very important in the 9/11 cover-up.
In 1998, Philip Zelikow published an article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled CATASTROPHIC TERRORISM: Imagining the Transformative Event. Nearly two years later, PNAC picked up the CFR-Zelikow language, saying that the desired transformation "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor..."

In part one of this series, we hear from author Webster Tarpley, Professor Graeme MacQueen (religious studies, McMaster University, ret.), Ken Jenkins (filmmaker), and Peter Dale Scott, author.

Zelikow, hired as a Bush II transition team member for his expertise on al-Qaeda (according to Karen Hughes), didn't want to hear anything about al-Qaeda from Richard Clarke, chief counter-terrorism expert on George W. Bush's national security council. Similarly, John Ashcroft at the Dept. of Justice didn't want to hear anything about al-Qaeda before 9/11 from Thomas Picard, acting director of the FBI. In these and other instances, Zelikow as executive director of the 9/11 Commission, suborned perjury, Webster Tarpley charges.

Tarpley reveals Zelikow's cover-up role in the Able Danger FBI effort to expose "al-Qaeda" cells. Prof. Graeme MacQueen calls attention to Zelikow's unique role in predicting then explicating the consequences of "the transformative event" as head of the commission charged with investigating the catastrophic terrorism of 9/11. Ken Jenkins and Peter Dale Scott note that Zelikow's expertise is in creating and exploiting public myths, and that Zelikow's links to the neo-cons date to the early 1980s. The 9/11 investigation was itself an inside job.

Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger

Journal Article, Foreign Affairs, volume 77, issue 6, pages 80-94

November / December 1998

Authors: Dr. Ashton B. Carter, Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Harvard & Stanford Universities, John M. Deutch, International Council Member, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Philip D. Zelikow, Former Faculty Affiliate, International Security Program

Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security; Preventive Defense Project


Foreign Affairs

November/December 1998, Volume 77, Number 6


By Ashton Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. But today's terrorists, be they international cults like Aum Shinrikyo or individual nihilists like the Unabomber, act on a greater variety of motives than ever before. More ominously, terrorists may gain access to weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices, germ dispensers, poison gas weapons, and even computer viruses. Also new is the world's dependence on a nearly invisible and fragile network for distributing energy and information. Long part of the Hollywood and Tom Clancy repertory of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously, as demonstrated by the response to the attacks on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August, it is not yet prepared for the new threat of catastrophic terrorism.


A couple of weeks ago, I came across a similar article written by the same three authors, published by the same John Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, created in 1998.

The title of your blog entry by said authors is: Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger.
The title of the similar article I came across is: Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy.

When skimming over the two articles there are many similarities. The second part of each title is, indeed, interesting in that one states Elements of a National Policy, which I see clearly more aggressive in tone and nature, and more importantly the policy has been actualized. The other more defensive title of Tracking the New Danger, is perhaps for the public eye.

I need to study these two articles in a comparative sense when time permits. Both articles written in 1998, by the same three neo-neocons at that time, is extremely incriminating to say the least, this is evidence of the making of the myth, by the mythmaker himself ... IMHO.

Thanks for the Pointer

I had not noticed they were different articles. Thank you for pointing this out. I had assumed they were the same article posted in different places. I simply posted the first one I found when I searched the Internet, without comparing what I had previously seen.

Deutsch was shown for what he is when Ruppert confronted him.

It is interesting to note

the people who get thanked in the acknowledgements here. The Foreign Affairs article of the same name does not mention, I don't think, the other contributors such as Jamie Gorelick (of the future 9/11 Commission), Robert Gates, Herb "Pug" Winokur (former Director of Enron and the Harvard Endowment Fund), and Robert Zoellick (neocon and future President of the World Bank).


Yes, all the usual suspects.