Ties Between White House, Sept. 11 Chief

This is being shot out across the "wire". This is such big news. If you are new to 9/11 Truth, this essentially verifies what we've been saying for a long time. The 9/11 Commission was not a real investigation into the attacks of 9/11. We need a real, criminal investigation. - Jon

Source: ap.google.com

By HOPE YEN – 35 minutes ago

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

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

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

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.

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 upfront in disclosing his background and White House contacts.

"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 Sept. 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.

Inspiring Post and another example that...

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way." ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Move Along ... Nothing To See Here ... Continue Shopping

Isn't the Super Bowl on right now?

; )

Perfect time to sneak some damaging info through

9/11 Commissioner: 'We had to go through Karl Rove'

Enough Blame for All

Philip Zelikow May Have Whitewashed 9/11 Findings as Head of Commission

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

Book: Sept 11 executive director had closer ties to White House than publicly disclosed

Great Compilation.

Copy & Paste this. Thanks AJF.

Thank you!

JK did you see this on the front page of the Red Star today?


I am amazed that they printed the AP article on the front page titled: Head of the 9/11 group was close to White House, book says.

I love our state.

AZ knows what's up ;-)


Seriously - Where The Heck Is 60 Minutes On This?

In the CFR's back pocket?

What a game.

"Isn't the Super Bowl on right now?"
And what a game:) it was. Best Superbowl in years.

Show "Who phoned who ?" by Peter

Which was 'biggest'?

'I mean, it's not even like 9-11 is the biggest crime these neo-conservative mad-men have committed.'

Sounds like a Chomskian rationalization to me.

Here's what 9/11 is: It's the Big Lie that has enabled them to get away with all the other lies;--not merely to survive politically, but to ram their militairist and authoritarian agenda down the public's throat. They knew they needed something big and shocking ('catastrophic and catalyzing') in order to get the public onboard with their plans. And now, in the last year of their second term, they still never fail to fall back on the still unchallengeable (that is, 'unchallengeable' where 'mainstream' media and polciticians are concerned) 9/11 official story whenever opposition to any of their policies gets troublesome. All this will remain the case with respect to this agenda of aggression abroad and repression at home--even after the current crew is gone from the White House--so long as the official story stands.

I thought all of this would have been a basic understanding of anyone who registered to this site.

Exposing Zelikow...

This should be a top priority for 9/11 Truth. If we're going to get behind a book, let's get behind "The Commission" by Philip Shenon! While it won't make the case for 9/11 being an inside job perhaps, it will shine a spotlight on Zelikow's ties to Karl Rove and his manipulation of the 9/11 Investigation. We truthers will then be able to bring out more evidence of official complicity and the fact that Building 7 was left out of the final report... This might even bring attention to "The Jersey Girls," who called for Phillip Zelikow's resignation, and the experiences they endured fighting for truth.

Thanks Jon for this excellent post!


Nobody died in Building 7

If we're going to get behind a book, let's get behind real books that explain how the Twin Towers were demolished, killing almost 3,000 people. Zelikow's ties to the Bush regime are old news.

Not to say this is not good news. Cite the book as a source, and be glad it came out, but promote it? Too weak, I say. We know so much more and don't need to wait another 20 years for the New York Times to say it. Or the Jersey Girls, for that matter

Small bits at a time ...

Dwightvw: To wake people up, baby steps are good and build character into disclosure.

Not if those baby steps are backward

I just saw the author interviewed, after claims by Hamilton and others that NSA had lots more information, and that none of their concerns changed the basic conclusions of their report. The author said nothing to contradict this. I say backwards, because this is just reinforcing the original unsupported story and Hamilton is now saying that the information they didn't get would not have changed their findings.


But that's just my view, and I see what you'e saying. All this does make it easier to argue that the findings of 9/11 Commission should be given no weight. Unfortunately, even the Center for Constitutional Rights can't seem to see that.

We're on the same page just different views

I understand your position and believe me appreciate it, however, the idea that Hamilton is acknowledging conflict and then covering his aus by saying it would have made no difference to the outcome ... is incriminating in its self. He knows that his name is going down in history and perhaps his desperate attempts are trying to cover his unworthy ignorance.

By no means do I desire any confrontation with a valued member on this team, just expressing ideas as surely you can appreciate.

What most people will remember

It's important to see this through the haze of the recall or awareness of the American public. What will they see this as?

The more headlines that say that there is reason to doubt the Commission Report, the better. In the end, it doesn't matter that much if in the details, they deny everything. The public will remember just a vague but definately red flag about the Report, not the details.

The details are important if we want legal action taken, of course. But the liklihood of anything happening now seems pretty remote. Bush still has control.

So for our own Commission, or some future independent Commission, it's important to get solid debunkings of the meaningless claims, false claims, or other rationales for not having done anything earlier into print (online, I mean) and permanent. Once their handwaving is taken apart, the deed is done and can be referenced later by a future potential Independent Commission.

Address the details sooner rather than later. Write an essay and explain the situation. Post it widely.

For now, the more that the HEADLINES are bounced around, the better.

I can see both sides

My concern is that this book talks about conflict of interest and how that might have prevented the Commission from properly investigating culpability of the Bush Administration for not preventing the attacks. Conflict of interest issues were raised years ago, and the failure to prevent is a false narrative of what happened. What I see happening is reinforcement of that false narrative.

I also don't understand people wanting to promote this book. I've never heard a call to promote books by Griffin, Tarpley, or Zwicker, even those those books all address the real crime, blowing up the buildings. Just the Shell Game and now this book. Both don't need promoting, as they are beng promoted commercially. And anything by the New York Times does not need promoting and is suspect, not just because of its lies about 9/11, but also its lies about the Iraq war, mainly by Judith Miller but also generally.

The ultimate result of a new investigation resulting from The Commission would be an investigation by the Democrats of whether the Republicans should have prevented the attacks. Whoopdie-do.

Speaking of Judith Miller

Now we learn that Shenon is warmongering against Iran while discussing this book on the radio.

Have these people no shame?

Keep up the good work Jon

"Truth comes in at the window when inquiry is denied at the door.'
Benjamin Jowett
Well ok, Jowett had 'doubt' at the window, but the 21st Century belongs to the Truth.

Zelikow: from March 29, 2004


Published on Monday, March 29, 2004 by Inter Press Service
Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
by Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.

”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States.

Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars.

Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role.

Known in intelligence circles as ”Piffy-ab”, the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make.

The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as ”code word” that is higher than top secret.

The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.

Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story.

Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration.

More : http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htm


Kean and Hamilton have much to answer for as well

Kean and Hamilton have as much to answer for as Zelikow. They keep telling outrageous lies that should not be tolerated. For example, they would have the public believe they were not aware of Zelikow's extensive conflicts of interest because Zelikow's resume was incomplete. Of course this is absurd as it would have taken about an hour to confirm Zelikow's links to the Bush administration.


"I mean, it's not even like 9-11 is the biggest crime these neo-conservative mad-men have committed."

Yeah, well it's the first crime the idiots did that left a trail of evidence big enough to hang them. So, we're supposed to just ignore it? I don't get you.

Patriots who worked with Zelikow knows he is a traitor ...


An interesting article that was written in March, 2004, by Emad Mekay, for IPS regarding the ties of the WH and Zelikow. A quote from the article I found interesting:

"Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000."

I came across this today while researching Clarke and his friendship with John O'Neill, actually I'm starting to understand Clarke and that his revelation is a journey that we have all experienced ... an epiphany that the OCT was the myth.



This Story Made the Rounds in 2004'

Paste this into a search engine and see what comes up:

And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell

And now we know why we invaded Iraq

Yes, I got to that part where Zelikow's disclosure that the US invaded Iraq to protect Israel, that was his explanation of why the US invaded Iraq.

You really think Clarke dis-believes the OCT?

Weren't Clarke's criticisms of the current administration all premised on the basic assumptions of the OCT--namely, that 9/11 was ultimately the work of foreign, autonomous enemies? His very position as a counterterrorism specialist depends on the widespread acceptance of the existence of enemy forces of the kind portrayed in the major news media as al Qaeda. I've never heard him say anything that questions the essential 'whodunit' question of 9/11, but would be very interested if you've come across any statements of his to that effect which I may have missed.


This post has been edited by me after reading about five articles today (and voting;) in search for any disclosures by Clarke that would lend any confirmation to my above and below assertions about Clark.

I have not come across any documentation that would confirm projections that Clarke might be questioning the OCT, other than his stated challenge to the WH about OBL *not* being connected to Iraq, and challenging the WH's actions of *not* heeding the warnings that was presented to him by Clarke, O'Neill, and other agencies and nations before 9/11.

Your right RM ... Clarke is definitely a proponent of the OBL is the US's greatest threat, which I do not agree with. The real enemy is within the US trying to dismantle it's greatness ... her citizens.

Posted earlier in the day:

Actually, I don't have a statement in my brief research where he has declared such. IMHO, though his stance against the WH is confrontational and would lead to his common sense that statement made by the WH against him would lead him to question the OCT, because he has been vilified by this administration.

Surely, his and John O'Neill investigation were focused on the "patsies", at this point it is questionable that what they were uncovering was actually set by the perps, whatever agency, nation, or special interest involved. These are my own speculations which is sometimes necessary when all documentation is classified. Common sense and reasoning is a good place to start when one doesn't have much else to go on because of all the covering up of evidence.

I did appreciate his standing up to the WH and his disclosures. In the future, I will try to have additional links to justify my assumptions. Until then, I need more research. Thanx for the question, it helps clarify my own thinking.

And how do we know who he was on the phone with?

He could've been speaking to Darth himself, or the boy emperor. Why does it seem like scandal after scandal are blamed on vassals of buscheney, and not on the dynamic duo themselves?

Why is it always Rove's fault?

Anyone with the slightest

Anyone with the slightest amount of intelligence can venture that the blame lies not with 1, 2, or 3 men. The perpetrators of 9/11 are a cabal of the most secretive operatives on the planet bent on global permanent dominion. This requires a good number of individuals to carry it out, compartmentalized though they're roles most likely are. My guess is that those involved are from several different countries, the vast majority of them being caucasion, all with a single agenda: to end individual soverignty in favor of planetary dicatorial hegemony. The keywords in this case are: global, secret, single agenda. The blame lies with the global wealthy elite from many continents. They've been planning this for a long, LONG time. Much longer than we've been aware of it, let alone resisting. Although the ferocity of our movement shocks them, they've been preparing for resistance as well. It's our duty to persevere as we attempt to dismantle what they've been building for centuries. A little daunting, yes. However our obligation to mobilize against them is just as ancient....and timeless. In a terrifyingly literal way, we're now nearing the Endgame. The Day of Reckoning is at hand.