New York Times
By Kurt Eichenwald
Published: September 10, 2012
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
Did FBI get wrong man for anthrax killings? Scientists raise possibility that man had help or was innocent
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 9, 2011
A decade after wisps of anthrax sent through the mail killed 5 people, sickened 17 others and terrorized the nation, biologists and chemists still disagree on whether federal investigators got the right man and whether the F.B.I.’s long inquiry brushed aside important clues.
Now, three scientists argue that distinctive chemicals found in the dried anthrax spores — including the unexpected presence of tin — point to a high degree of manufacturing skill, contrary to federal reassurances that the attack germs were unsophisticated. The scientists make their case in a coming issue of the Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense.
F.B.I. documents reviewed by The New York Times show that bureau scientists focused on tin early in their eight-year investigation, calling it an “element of interest” and a potentially critical clue to the criminal case. They later dropped their lengthy inquiry, never mentioned tin publicly and never offered any detailed account of how they thought the powder had been made.
The new paper raises the prospect — for the first time in a serious scientific forum — that the Army biodefense expert identified by the F.B.I. as the perpetrator, Bruce E. Ivins, had help in obtaining his germ weapons or conceivably was innocent of the crime.
Both the chairwoman of a National Academy of Science panel that spent a year and a half reviewing the F.B.I.’s scientific work and the director of a new review by the Government Accountability Office said the paper raised important questions that should be addressed.
Alice P. Gast, president of Lehigh University and the head of the academy panel, said that the paper “points out connections that deserve further consideration.”
[This may be the only piece the NYTimes does on the "truthers" this anniversary -- please consider posting a comment. They are moderated, but worth a try. It's an opportunity to speak to the many NYers who read that paper.]
September 9, 2011, 2:20 pm
9/11 ‘Truthers’ to Tone Protests Down, for a Day
By COREY KILGANNON
Benjamin Norman for The New York Times A meeting of people at a cafe in Greenwich Village on Thursday night of people who have alternate views of what happened on 9/11.
John Williamsburg from Niles, Ohio, chats by the protest signs.Benjamin Norman for The New York TimesJohn Williamsburg from Niles, Ohio, chats by protest signs.
“No bullhorning during the memorial.”
That’s always been the rule of thumb among “truther” demonstrators at ground zero on Sept. 11, out of respect for relatives of victims of the terror attack, said Mike Skuthan, 32, a Web designer from Long Island who attends the demonstrations every year.
Daily Telegraph, 5 September 2011
In the ongoing quest to define reality about the events of 9/11/01, the MSM is pretending to ask the public what they "learned" about 9/11, or as in the case with NPR, using the official story mouthpieces to simply tell the public their version. In response, so far, one person on a list I'm on wrote this:
"Yesterday NPR did a program on 9/11. The program’s title was “What We’ve Learned Since 9/11.” Being the dope I am, I called in and to the screener, I said that what I’ve learned is that 1,000 foot buildings can’t come down in 10 seconds. His response was, “We’re not even going to go there.” I hung up. What’s new?"
I wonder how many times that screener had to say that.
Drawing Lessons From 9/11, Ten Years Later
Talk of the Nation, June 28, 2011
Michael Chertoff, former secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Jane Harman, former chair, U.S. House Intelligence Committee
Amb. John Negroponte, former Director of National Intelligence
Thomas Friedman, columnist, New York Times
JANE HARMAN: What have I learned? Here are a few things. I was in Congress on 9/11, headed toward the dome of the Capitol where the intelligence rooms were then housed. They've since moved underground to a bunker that's called the National Visitors Center. But at the time we had no evacuation plan.
Los Angeles Times, 20 March 2003 and Los Angeles Times, 20 March 2011
New York Times, 20 March 2003 and New York Times 20 March 2011
Daily Telegraph, 21 March 2003 and Sunday Telegraph, 20 March 2011
Radical Cleric Still Speaks on YouTube
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: March 4, 2011
From the shootings at Fort Hood, Tex., to the stabbing of a British member of Parliament, investigators have identified Anwar al-Awlaki’s stirring online calls to jihad as an important instigator of terrorism. So members of Congress last year appealed to YouTube to remove calls for violence by Mr. Awlaki, the militant American-born cleric now hiding in Yemen, and in an announcement reported around the world last November, YouTube agreed.
End of story?
Not at all. A quick search of YouTube today for “Anwar al-Awlaki” finds hundreds of his videos, most of them scriptural commentary or clerical advice, but dozens that include calls for jihad or attacks on the United States.
From the article:
I distanced myself from my discomfort by regarding the event as theater and inventorying the dramatis personae. They were straight out of central casting. Sander Hicks, the master of ceremonies, looked like an amalgam of Johnny Depp, Sean Penn and Matt Dillon; he kept things moving and implored “put your hands together” as each speaker came to the podium. Paul Zarembka played (and was) the left-leaning academic economist. He said, “The ruling class will do anything to keep in power.” The Rev. Ian Alterman preached gentleness, humility and respect. He said that those who have an investment in the official lies because that’s all they’ve ever heard cannot be approached in a confrontational manner.
"So once again, and for the last time, we ask the question: How does this alter the prevailing conventional wisdom about the war?" Chris Floyd, Leaky Vessels: Wikileaks "Revelations" Will Comfort Warmongers, Confirm Conventional Wisdom, Empire Burlesque, July 26, 27
Wikileaks head honcho Julian Assange may be annoyed with the 911 Truth movement and all those conspiracy theories. But he may be appalled when he reads that one of the leading authors and researchers on imperialism and the Iraq war, Chris Floyd, has taken him to task for making much ado about nothing.
Floyd makes his case early on in the article, with maximum effect:
April 20, 2008 The New York Times broke the news that the Pentagon (and members of the Bush Administration) had been coordinating with retired military analysts on talking points to cover in their media appearances, as part of a 'psyop' on the American public to sell the 'post-9/11 world', the 'War on Terror', Guantanamo, torture, and the continued occupation of Iraq. These 'analysts', many of whom had undisclosed conflicts of interest such as financial ties to defense contractors, appeared over 4500 times in the media, as part of this campaign. The media outlets responsible for participating in the program- which includes the NY Times- have generally not acknowledged any fault on their own part, and some commentators attempted to spin the psyop as simply the Pentagon telling their side of things. A DOD Inspector General investigation found no wrong doing on the part of the Pentagon, but that report was later found to be so flawed, it was retracted and removed from the DOD's website.
C.I.A. Is Still Cagey About Oswald Mystery
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 16, 2009
WASHINGTON — Is the Central Intelligence Agency covering up some dark secret about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?
Probably not. But you would not know it from the C.I.A.’s behavior.
For six years, the agency has fought in federal court to keep secret hundreds of documents from 1963, when an anti-Castro Cuban group it paid clashed publicly with the soon-to-be assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. The C.I.A. says it is only protecting legitimate secrets. But because of the agency’s history of stonewalling assassination inquiries, even researchers with no use for conspiracy thinking question its stance.
The files in question, some released under direction of the court and hundreds more that are still secret, involve the curious career of George E. Joannides, the case officer who oversaw the dissident Cubans in 1963. In 1978, the agency made Mr. Joannides the liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations — but never told the committee of his earlier role.
BradBlog: Upcoming Cover Story on Edmonds 'Outs' Video-taped, 'Blackmailed' Dem Congresswoman; Alleges State Dept. Mole at NYT
By Brad Friedman on 9/21/2009 10:17AM
Exclusive: Upcoming Cover Story on Edmonds 'Outs' Video-taped, 'Blackmailed' Dem Congresswoman; Alleges State Dept. Mole at NYTimes; MUCH MORE...
'American Conservative' mag's description of interview with previously-gagged FBI whistleblower as 'explosive' may prove to be a gross understatement
Blackmail, bribery, infiltration, theft and sale of nuke secrets by Turkey, Israel explained in clearer detail than ever before...
On Friday, we reported on the coming exclusive American Conservative cover story interview with formerly-gagged FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by quoting the magazine's own teaser description of the piece as "explosive". Over the weekend, we received an embargoed look at the final version of the AmCon interview by former CIA officer Phil Giraldi, and yes, "explosive", may be a vast understatement. At least if the U.S. corporate media bothers to notice it this time.
by Sherwood Ross
Global+Research, June 2, 2009
Two years before the 9/11 attacks on America, George W. Bush told a Houston journalist if elected president, “I’m going to invade Iraq.”
Bush made the comments about starting an aggressive war to veteran Houston Chronicle reporter Mickey Herskowitz, then working with Bush on his book “A Charge To Keep,” later brought out by publisher William Morrow.
This disclosure was uncovered by Russ Baker, an award-winning investigative reporter when he interviewed Herskowitz for his own book, “Family of Secrets” (Bloomsbury Press) about the Bush dynasty. However, Baker says, when he approached The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times with the potentially devastating story to President Bush prior to the 2004 presidential election, they declined to publish it.
New York Times works hand in glove with the foreign policy establishment in plastering over the truth
A matter of Rape-Speak: The New York Times on Serbia
By Peter Duveen
PETER'S NEW YORK, Sept. 6, 2008--The manner in which the New York Times serves as an instrument of the foreign policy establishment is truly remarkable. Times reporters receive training (is brainwashing a better term?) in sessions sponsored by the New York Times Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations. These training sessions, of a sort that are regrettably common in the journalistic profession, instruct reporters on how they are to view and report on foreign affairs and other issues. As a result, Times reporters have inherited the mantle of those who have crafted foreign policy for a string of U.S. presidential administrations These reporters serve as sort of busy bees to get the program out there to the public.
August 20, 2008
Too Little Information
An F.B.I. briefing on Monday was supposed to bolster the agency’s conclusion that a lone, disturbed bioterrorism scientist was responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people, sickened 17 others and terrified the country. It fell short of its goal.
The F.B.I. spent years pointing a finger at a different suspect. It is not enough for the agency to brush off continuing skepticism. “There’s always going to be a spore on a grassy knoll,” Vahid Majidi, the chief of the agency’s weapons of mass destruction division told reporters.
A group of independent experts needs to look hard at the F.B.I.’s technical analysis and detective work that combined to convince investigators that the mailed anthrax must have come from Dr. Bruce Ivins, a scientist at the Army’s bioterrorism lab in Fort Detrick in Maryland.
Scrolling down to "T" on the NYT's 2007 list of popular Buzzwords reveals that they decided to included "Truther" in it:
I don't know if this can be seen as a compliment though considering some of the other words listed like:
A person who eats no meat, uses no animal-derived goods and prefers not to have sex with non-vegans."
The list seems to have been complied by a guy called Grant Barrett who is apparently a "co-host of the public radio show “A Way With Words” and a lexicographer."
A delicious piece of propaganda from the NY Times today. Apparently, Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, is really the+good+cop to Cheney's bad cop. The premise for the article is that Zelikow has been expressing the views of Condoleezza Rice recently, and those views contradict certain White House positions on torture and intelligence.
For example, one of his memos "described the potential for Iraq to become a 'catastrophic failure.' Another, among several that have come to light in recent weeks, was an early call for changes in a detention policy that many in the State Department believed was doing tremendous harm to the United States.
Others have proposed new diplomatic initiatives toward North Korea and the Middle East, and one went as far as to call for a reconsideration of the phrase 'war on terror' because it alienated many Muslims — an idea that quickly fizzled after opposition from the White House."
In terms of 9/11, this depiction of Zelikow attempts to distance him from his role as White House insider and cover-up artist; at one point, the Times speculates over Zelikow being "an in-house contrarian." The idea that Zelikow opposes current detention polices, or objects to the term "war on terror," is ludicrous. This is the man who crafted the 9/11 Commission Report and its recommendations for further centralization of intelligence gathering at the level of the executive branch.
An update on the Amerithrax story.
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: October 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 — A federal magistrate judge has ordered The New York Times to disclose the identities of three confidential sources used by one of its columnists, Nicholas Kristof, for columns he wrote about the investigation of the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001.
The order, issued Friday by Magistrate Judge Liam O’Grady, requires the newspaper to disclose the identities of the three sources to lawyers for Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, who has brought a defamation suit against The Times. The order was disclosed Monday.
Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The Times, said the newspaper would appeal the ruling.
Dr. Hatfill, a germ warfare specialist who formerly worked in the Army laboratories at Fort Detrick, Md., has asserted that a series of columns by Mr. Kristof about the slow pace of the anthrax investigation defamed him because they suggested he was responsible for the attacks.
Five people died in the attacks. Although the federal authorities identified Dr. Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the case, they have not charged him with any crimes.