9/11 and public disservice
Posted at SFGate.com
Review by Andrew S. Ross
Worth hearing: Philip Shenon interviewed today on KQED's 'Forum,' about his book, 'The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9-11 Investigation.'
The book is also worth reading, not, if some are thinking, because it exposes conspiracies of the black helicopter/Mossad kind, but as a reminder of how poorly the American people were served, both prior to the attacks, and, in large measure, by the oft-praised 9/11 Commission itself.
Among the most depressing, if not entirely surprising findings: the sheer lack of accountability for the actions, or inactions, of administration officials. Especially, for example, Condoleeza Rice, who, one comes away thinking, should, at the very least, retire from public life.
Other hall of shamers in Shenon's book include such usual suspects as former CIA chief George Tenet (Medal of Honor recipient), former attorney general John Ashcroft and "America's mayor," Rudolph Giuliani.
A reader might also come away with less charitable views of, among others, FBI director Robert Mueller, current NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton (for whom the word "pusillanimous" springs to mind), and -- drumroll -- the commission's executive director Philip Zelikow, who turned out to be a truly great and good friend of Rice who subsequently rewarded Zelikow with, as Shenon writes in the book's final sentence, "the sort of job he had always wanted."
Much of the book is, thankfully, on the record. A sad irony that the New York Times' ham-fisted handling of the McCain story overshadows this far more important one from one of its other scriveners.
- Carol Brouillet's blog
- Login to post comments
Challenging Shenon
I wish I had known that Shenon was to be interviewed by Krasney on KQED- one of the most listened to programs in the Bay Area. I listened to the show and it seemed an exercise in "damage control" and selling the "incompetence theory." There is another Shenon Interview posted at
http://www.counterpunch.org/wajahat02232008.html
An Interview with Phillip Shenon on the Uncensored History of the
9/11 Investigation
The Omissions of the Commission
By WAJAHAT ALI
What screams from the pages of both interviews and the book is "the cover-up of the cover-up".. a place to denounce "conspiracy theorists" and sell the "they were covering this up so as not to reveal how incompetent they were" excuse.
Carol Brouillet
http://www.communitycurrency.org
"InCompetence Theory"
Politicians like Ron Paul are also hiding behind this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it
Goodman interviews both Shenon and Zelikow
Amy Goodman on Democracy now had excellent interview with both Shenon one day and then Zelikow a day or two later. Transcripts are available.
Zelikow
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13761
Shenon
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13739
MP3 Audio Clip - Jon Stewart & Philip Shenon
Tuesday February 12, 2008
Jon Stewart hosted the New York Times' Philip Shenon on Monday night to discuss his new book, The Commission: An Uncensored history of the 9/11 Commission and credits Philip Zelicow, 9/11 Commission Director, for the 9/11 Commission Report which he says "is in many ways the most definitive account Of 9/11" and "is easily the most beautifully written government document of our lifetimes, and Zelicow is largely responsible for that fact, but there's alot of things they missed . . . .barf ad nauseam."
* source = http://www.thedaleyshow.com
-----------------------------------
More MP3 Audio Clips >
"black helicopter/Mossad kind"? Gee, thanks... not.
No, actually it is more like the obvious controlled demolitions/NORAD stand-down/Larry Siverstein "pull it" admission & insurance fraud windfall/put options windfall/"hijackers" still alive/no evidence of flights 77 & 93 at crash sites,NO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION,etc,etc,etc..."kind", Mr. Ross. Actually everything but black helicopters, and by signaling out the Mossad factor, you are of course implying that all 9/11 Truthers are really just nothing but a bunch of crazy, dumb Jew-haters, right?
Maybe we should let Mr. Ross know how we feel:
asross@sfchronicle.com
Thanks for acknowledging
Thanks for acknowledging that little underhanded quip.
The smears continue.
Thanks
I sent a comment and he responded right away. Everybody write in and post comments, we can never have enough.
grassroots
Both the SF Chronicle and Michael Krasney (KQEDForum) have had an avalanche of 9/11 research thrown at them and have chosen their path.
The Chronicle also does everything it can to demean those who protest the war -- it had embedded reporters in the war during the bombing. Sick stuff.
Krasney has on hardcore rightwingers often, particularly the Bush defenders that come from Stanford and the rightwing Institutes. He, personally, may be hopeless.
Nonetheless, the various individuals who work at these venerable institutions who see the emails, hear the phone calls, etc., are not hopeless and once on Krasney's show when a guest started chastising the "conspiracy theorists" they suddenly went to a break and the fundraising person quickly tried to play down his comments, showing that they KNEW they were going to get utterly slammed for that one comment because so many people know the truth.
This is grassroots. Make sure to cc the paper's editor and ombudsman when you write in so there is a record of your concerns.
letters@sfchronicle.com
readerrep@sfchronicle.com
Phillip Shenon - Judith Miller connection?
Not to say that people cannot change but Phillip Shenon seems to have been working in parallel with Judith Miller (of NYT "iraq has wmd" fame) in order to screw up Fitzgerald's iinvestigation. He definitely deserves close scrutiny.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=philip_shenon
Check out the first entry.
Google the two names & you can get more entries,
like this one... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR200510...
It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
It Wasn't Just Miller's Story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR200510...
By Robert Kagan WAPO
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Page A21
Many such stories appeared before and after the Clinton administration bombed Iraq for four days in late 1998 in what it insisted was an effort to degrade Iraqi weapons programs. Philip Shenon reported official concerns that Iraq would be "capable within months -- and possibly just weeks or days -- of threatening its neighbors with an arsenal of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons." He reported that Iraq was thought to be "still hiding tons of nerve gas" and was "seeking to obtain uranium from a rogue nation or terrorist groups to complete as many as four nuclear warheads."
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17644
Nice catch
Same person who is selling us lies/propaganda about Iraq WMD is responsible for a new limited hangout 9/11 book (Shenon). Interesting.
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but --
I happened to be in a bookstore today and saw the book. I thumbed through the index, looking for names like "David Ray Griffin," "Steven Jones," and "Willie Rodriguez." Not one mention of them, though the oh-so-key-to-everything (not) "Oakland Raiders" was listed.
I don't know how good or useful the text of this book is, but it's obviously tiptoeing around the false flag thesis. That the writer is a reporter in good stead for the Establishment/Zionist/Project Mockingbird New York Times casts a very dark shadow indeed over this book.
My suspicion -- admittedly I haven't read this book: The book, whatever its intrinsic merits, was purposely planned to misdirect attention and critics away from the central 9/11 Commission false flag coverup and toward politically "respectable" sniping at the politicization and bureaucratic deficiencies of the Commission. It probably aims at fooling the public that, sure, the Commission operated badly and sought to paint the Administration in a favorable light, even as the public is supposed to forget that the fundamental conclusions of the Commission about 9/11 events don't bear even minimal scrutiny.
This book will be a good companion to the above.
All part of GateKeeping 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it
Incompetence! They've
Incompetence! They've murdered a million people and stolen a trillion dollars. What else do they have to do to prove their competence?
I read the book
Shenon writes a lot about the partisan disputes, mostly notably Rice vs. Clarke (which was basically Bush vs. Clinton by proxy). He makes a big deal of Kean's steadfast commitment to bipartisanship. It should be noted that some people seem to buy into partisan arguments. For example, the idea that the Clinton crowd warned the Bush crowd but the Bush crowd failed to take their warnings seriously. This argument presumes that the Clinton team was completely honest about al Qaeda. Ali Mohamed's involvement in the '98 embassy bombings and the fact that Clinton was in office during the 01/00 Malaysia summit (attended by al-Mihdhar, al-Hamzi and possibly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) are two examples that dispute this notion. Another popular partisan argument is the idea that the Bush crowd hurt the WoT effort by invading Iraq. In fact, Richard Clarke is a leading advocate of this concept (along with Michael Scheuer). This talking point is based on the idea that the government has been honest about al Qaeda, Bin Laden and 9/11. We aren't supposed to question the validity of the WoT, just Bush's Iraq diversion.
It's weird the way Zelikow blamed Clarke and Tenet (suggesting they both perjured themselves) but protected Rice. Sure it worked in a D vs. R partisan sense but it doesn't work in a 'long run, standing the test of time' sort of way. That Zelikow and the Commissioners believed Tenet lied says it all. Tenet is key. Much of the 9/11 account rests on the idea that CIA told the truth. IMO, one of the most telling aspects of the official account is a reported urgent meeting on 7/10/01 between Rice, Tenet, Rich B. (head of Alec Station), Black (head of the CTC), Clarke and Hadley (deputy NSA). Isn't it interesting that both Clarke and Rice were at this meeting? Where was the FBI? Why weren't Pickard (acting FBI Director), Frasca (RFU), Middleton (UBLU) or Watson (head of the Counterterrorism Division) at this meeting? At the very least, why didn't anyone at this meeting call these FBI officials and give them a full briefing?
Especially when one considers this exchange:
Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke is told in private by Dale Watson, the head of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, “We got the passenger manifests from the airlines. We recognize some names, Dick. They’re al-Qaeda.” Clarke replies, “How the f_ck did they get on board then?” He is told, “Hey, don’t shoot the messenger, friend. CIA forgot to tell us about them.” link
We are supposed to believe that none of the officials at the July 10 meeting thought it might be helpful to share these names at the time. Even more absurd is that (according to the official account) we are told the names were finally shared in late August yet nobody at the CIA or FBI thought of calling the FAA and putting the names on the FAA watchlist.
What is missing from Shenon's book is a discussion of a deep state apparatus which transcends political party. IMO, that is the proper context in which to discuss 9/11. That said, Shenon's book is successful in demonstrating the extent of the 9/11 Commission's failure to produce an above board report.
You write:
"What is missing from Shenon's book is a discussion of a deep state apparatus which transcends political party."
What: you mean the ol' elephant in the living room?
Such a book wouldn't have gotten published by a major New York publisher. Such a book wouldn't have gotten reviewed in the New York Times or the San Francisco Chronicle. Such a book wouldn't have gotten interviews for its author with Michael Krasny and Counterpunch.
Mere awareness of such an unpublished manuscript would've gotten such an author fired from the New York Times.
Make no mistake, this Shenon book is a diversion, aimed at confusing a public that's grown increasingly uneasy by the outrageous indefensibility of the Commission and its report.
Sort of a we-can't-count-on-blithe-acceptance-of-the-Commission-report-anymore-keeping-the-public-fooled-so-let's-try-and-salvage-things-by-critiquing-it-along-the-lines-that-the-Administration-was-just-trying-to-cover-up-its-own-incompetence.
Naturally there's studied avoidance of the failure of the Commission to mention things like, oh, the collapse of Building 7, or the testimonies of Norman Mineta or Willie Rodriguez, or the pointedly unanswered questions asked by the families of 9/11 victims.
No, divert the public with the arcana of Commission office politics instead. Make sure that there's critical discussion in the MSM about the 9/11 Commission that never even raises the things that make it obvious that 9/11 was a false flag operation. That way the public'll imagine that the failures of the Commission have been aired, while nothing has been revealed except the usual cover-their-ass shenanigans characteristic of all politics and bureaucracy.
Evolution
I think people got to Shenon as the story broke. He looked afraid on the Daley Show . . . maybe he was just tired . . . but the stuff about the 911 Commission report beintg beautfiully written . . . .come on!
books
andhowe
Such a book -- actually books -- has been written by Peter Dale Scott but published way out west. The Clinton "ambition" may be driven by fear of justice as well as the usual political instincts.
I know
It was published by the University of California Press, just a few miles from me!
It's wonderful that something like that got through even that (considering the generally appalling way the University is operated, and by whom). But somehow it did.
Of course, the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle haven't it reviewed. The author wasn't interviewed by Michael Krasny or Counterpunch either. (Too bad for them: It would've increased their readership and listenership a little. But the powerful hidden forces behind them have their own higher priorities.)