2 on 9/11 Panel Are Questioned on Earlier Security Roles -NYT

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 — The executive director of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has become a witness in the inquiry and has been interviewed by his own staff about his involvement in shaping the Bush administration's early counterterrorism strategy, officials said on Wednesday.

In addition, one of the 10 commissioners on the panel, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, was also interviewed this week. The unusual dual roles of the director, Philip D. Zelikow, and the commissioner, Jamie S. Gorelick, have raised fresh questions about potential conflicts of interest in the commission, which has been dogged by concerns about its independence since it was created in 2002.

In the transition before President Bush's inauguration in January 2001, Mr. Zelikow worked on Mr. Bush's team to help formulate national security policy. Because he participated in those discussions, investigators interviewed him to learn how much information the incoming administration had about the possibility of a major attack and what steps it took to guard against that threat.

The transition period between the Clinton and Bush administrations remains a sensitive issue, particularly in an election year. Many conservatives and supporters of Mr. Bush have argued that President Bill Clinton did not do enough to deal with the threat from Al Qaeda. Some Democrats and former Clinton administration officials have countered that the Bush administration did not take terrorism seriously enough, either, before 9/11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/15/national/15TERR.html

[goforit]

1. Super Conservative NYT!!!!....May be cause to cancel subscription!!

I have just about had it with this now propagandize paper.

They only report the Neo-conservative view point.

Yep......I am gonna cancel them!!!

[ixion]

3. yep

I used to get the NY Times, but I cancelled it when they turned WH mouthpiece.

[JasonDeter]

2. Mr. Zelikow a close associate of Condoleezza Rice

Now THATS outrageous. And a Clinton crony on the commission too? What are they worried about? America finding out they both screwed up?

[Rex]

4. What I want to know is why no one is asking the 64 thousand dollar

question:

Who gave the stand down order NOT to intercept those airliners? Technically, no one would have known, beforehand, that hijackers had taken over those planes. It would have been SOP to go up there and check to see what was going on. Someone gave the order to keep those fighter planes out of the sky.

Has anyone on the commission asked that question?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

5. No, they have not asked that one... nor have they asked who

made all the money selling stocks short on American Airlines

nor have they asked

why the President was allowed to keep a scheduled photo op with grade school kids, but the vice president and national security advisor were dragged out of the white house

nor have they asked

about the connections between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family


and nor will they.

Get real.

[worldgonekrazy]

8. That does seem to be the big one

There are plenty of questions that could be asked of the Bush Administration about 9/11, but I think you are right that the stand down orders is the biggest of them all.

Of course, one answer could be that the planes were scrambled and that the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down by such an interceptor. I am curious: would you believe such a statement if it were given? It seems plausible to me, but my gut instinct would say no.

[paulthompson]

6. classic propaganda example

Check out the propaganda in these sentences:

"The transition period between the Clinton and Bush administrations remains a sensitive issue, particularly in an election year. Many conservatives and supporters of Mr. Bush have argued that President Bill Clinton did not do enough to deal with the threat from Al Qaeda. Some Democrats and former Clinton administration officials have countered that the Bush administration did not take terrorism seriously enough, either, before 9/11."

By adding the word "either," it's taken as a given that the Clintons failed to deal with al-Qaeda, and the only question is did the Bushes fail also.

[americaheldhostile]

7. Re: "classic propaganda example"

It is also biased in the fact that it says "Many conservatives..." and "Some Democrats..." Liberal bias, my a**! This whole election season is going to be reported the same way by the corporate whore media. Just as in 2000, Bush will get a pass on every issue while the Democratic nominee will be smeared at every turn. I don't even recognize America anymore...

James G. Wilson - America Held Hostile

[DUreader]

9. kick for the folks who still need to wake up

good detail to point out there 

[RainDog]

10. Want to know about conflicts of interest?

This has been available for the New York Times to acknowledge since the inception of the commission.

It's surely strange to me that the NYTimes has so little regard for the people who lost their lives in the WTC and their family members that it has never bothered to look at conflicts of interest on its own...

Who's Who on the 9/11 "Independent" Commission

by Michel Chossudovsky

www.globalresearch.ca   17 July 2003

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO307B.html

Several members of the Commission served in the Reagan and Bush Senior administrations. They have links to the Iran Contra officials of the Reagan administration. Needless to say, several of those Iran Contra officials now hold high office in the current Bush administration.

While lower level officials will no doubt be investigated for "intelligence failures", the Commission will not investigate the lies underlying US foreign policy, including the support provided by successive administrations to the Islamic brigades since the presidency of Jimmy Carter, (not to mention the role of the CIA and of key Bush officials in this process including Colin Powell and Richard Armitage)

In other words, the Commission's hidden agenda is cover-up and "damage control".  Its objective is not to inform but to distract public opinion, from the real issues. by churning out piles of irrelevant intelligence. To gain legitimacy and public support,  it must convey the impression that it is committed to "going after" the Administration, and that government officials as well as politicians in high office "must be held accountable", etc.