Zelikow Appointed to Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board
September 7, 2011 — President Obama appointed Philip Zelikow, associate dean for graduate academic programs in the University of Virginia's Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, to serve on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, the White House announced Tuesday.
Zelikow, White Burkett Miller Professor of History, will remain with the University while serving on the board, which serves as an independent source of advice to the president on the intelligence community's effectiveness in meeting the nation's intelligence needs, and on the vigor and insight with which the community plans for the future.
"Philip is a valued colleague, exceptional scholar and highly skilled administrator with a distinguished record of service in government and academia," said Meredith Jung-En Woo, dean of the College and Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. "This appointment reflects his and the University's longstanding commitment to education and public service. We're pleased that he will be able to serve the president and our country in this important role while continuing to oversee the College's graduate academic programs as well as our international initiatives and partnerships. His experience on the president's advisory board will only deepen and enrich his work on behalf of the College."
Zelikow will serve with 13 others, including former U.S. Senators David Boren and Chuck Hagel, who co-chair the board.
"I'm glad to do what I can to help," he said.
Zelikow began his career as a trial and appellate lawyer in Texas, and is a former career diplomat whose posts overseas and in Washington include service on the National Security Council staff of President George H.W. Bush.
His books include "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed" (written with former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice), "The Kennedy Tapes" (with Ernest May), and "Essence of Decision" (with Graham Allison).
In recent years, Zelikow has taken two public service leaves from academia to return full time to government service: in 2003-04 to direct the 9/11 Commission, and in 2005-07 as counselor of the Department of State, a deputy to Rice. He also advises the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's program in global development and is a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
(updated below - Update II)
Few issues highlight Barack Obama's extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. As everyone knows, one of George Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world -- far away from any battlefield -- and then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court. Back in the day, this was called "Bush's legal black hole." In 2006, Congress codified that policy by enacting the Military Commissions Act, but in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo. Since then, detainees havewon 35 out of 48 habeas hearings brought pursuant to Boumediene, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention.
hyperlinks and video live at source: http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m11d...
If your Thanksgiving plans include thanking God, for Christians and those holding policy leaders accountable to their Christian values, please consider the families in Iran and what Jesus commanded as the basis for our interactions.
Previously, I’ve documented the two principle fears some Americans espouse with Iran and threaten war to prove beyond doubt they are without basis in fact:
· Iran’s nuclear energy program is in compliance with international treaty, fully inspected with all evidence showing energy-use only, and all US intelligence agencies in agreement of zero evident threat of nuclear weapon production. The US is out of compliance by refusing to help Iran achieve nuclear energy and accept inspections to ensure safety.
Activist editors at Wikipedia have changed the name of the "World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Hypothesis" page to "World Trade Center Demolition Conspiracy Theories", are removing all links to the paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" recently published in the refereed Open Chemical Physics Journal (including from the 9/11 Truth Movement page and even Dr. Steven Jones' page), and have banned and/or restricted some users that re-add the links and question their policy.
See the discussion thread at TruthAction.org- many links to relevant pages at Wikipedia; the "Talk" page is very revealing of their bias, hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty:
Wikipedia editors livid over new paper
The new paper has pulled the rug out from under the wikipedia front lines defending the official story and they have now suddenly changed the title of the demolition page from --
Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories
"God Is With Us": Hitler's Rhetoric and the Lure of "Moral Values"
by Maureen Farrell
December 7, 2004
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/12/far04041.html (pls see link for all the relevant sublinks)
"God does not make cowardly nations free." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
A couple weeks ago, while asserting that the Founding Founders intended for the U.S. government to be infused with Christianity, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Holocaust was able to flourish in Germany because of Europe's secular ways. "Did it turn out that, by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America?" Scalia asked a congregation at Manhattan's Shearith Israel synagogue. "I don't think so."
One might expect regular citizens to be ignorant of history, but a Supreme Court Justice? Does he imagine that the phrase "Gott mit Uns" was a German clothier's interpretation of "Got Milk"?
I just stumbled on this must-read article concerning Taliban and a US State Department paid Afghan businessman.
Cockburn and St. Clair lay out shocking evidence that implicates both Clinton And Bush (although they only blame Bush in their editorializing) for deliberately leaving bin Laden free and at large, despite numerous offers by Taliban to turn him over, kill him or deal with him in any other way -- unconditionally.
Note, that bin Laden was indeed on the FBI Most Wanted List for the African embassy bombings of 1998, at the time the article recounts. Bin Laden had also declared war on the US and "the Jews," in two fatwas issued in 1998. The fatwas encouraged Muslims to attack US and Israeli civilians as well as military targets.
So, why would the US government -- across two administrations -- repeatedly refuse the Taliban's offers of extradition?
The below information fits in seamlessly with other reports of a similar nature.
CounterPunch's editorializing (spin) is the weak part. This insider witness, Mr. Mohabbat, should be a household name and a part of any new investigation into 9/11.
The White House initially said that the President and VP would not testify before the 9/11 Commission. Then they said they would give the Commission about a 1/2 hour. Of course, through all of this we were livid and anytime the press wanted to hear our views on it, we did so. Finally, the WH announced that Bush & Cheney would meet with the commission on a limited basis, not under oath, not transcribed, only two commissioners, Kean & Hamilton.
We sent the attached press statement out (see below), but were told that they were testifying together and that was how it was going to be. - 9/11 Family Member and "Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza
A little while ago, I posted this.
Listen to what Mr. Davis thinks not wanting to testify under oath, with no notes implies...
Bush's Endless Hypocrisy on Terror
By Robert Parry
May 21, 2008
Is a government guilty of terrorism if it harbors known terrorists? What should one say about a country that permits open fund-raising on behalf of a terrorist implicated in the mass killing of civilians?
What about a government that secretly arms a guerrilla army that wantonly kills and abuses civilians while seeking to overthrow an elected government?
If your answer to those questions is to recite George W. Bush’s dictum that a government that harbors or helps terrorists should be punished just like the terrorists, then you must turn your wrath on the U.S. government and the Bush family -- guilty on all the above points.
But the U.S. political/media system continues to view the world through a cracked lens that focuses outrage on “enemy” regimes while refracting away a comparable fury from similar actions by U.S. officials.
For those who watch "REAL TIME" with Bill Maher have come to know him as a complete hypocrite when it comes to the government and 9/11. On one hand he constantly bashes the administration (and rightfully so) and lets everyone know who listens to him that he dislikes the president and the GOP. He does however choose to remain completely ignorant or in a state of denial that this government could have had anything to do with 9/11. This was made completely clear at the tail end of his show's most recent episode
US accused of fuelling arms race with $20bn Arab weapons sale
Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Monday July 30, 2007
The Bush administration is facing claims that it is fuelling an arms race in the Middle East following the disclosure of a plan to sell $20bn (£9.8bn) of advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
The plan, which will be announced today, will be balanced by a 25% increase in US military and defence aid to Israel. A further $13bn will be pledged to Egypt.
"This administration does not have an arms sales policy, except to sell, sell, sell," said Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association. "That approach in the Middle East can be like throwing gasoline on a brush fire."
Bill Maher is considered by most people to be a lefty liberal entertainer, and typifies the bankrupt gatekept left in America that assumes the moral high ground in opposing Bush but have no problem perpetuating a blood libel against Arabs and Muslims. How is Bill Maher, and others like him, any different than those who wrote and have promoted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Answer: Unlike the Protocols, very few people know that Maher and otehrs like him are frauds.
The 9/11 Truth Movement is now strong enough that we should be taking a strong stand against unfounded allegation of Arab/Muslim involvement in the attacks of 9/11. If not us, who? If not now, then when?
We have very properly marginalized intolerant voices like Eric Hufschmid--why do we not hold Bill Maher to the same standard and call him and others out for their clear bigotry against the new global scapegoats?
Excerpted from Why is Anti-Muslim Bigotry Tolerated?
Bill Maher's "Towel-Headed Hos"
By REMI KANAZI