« Flu Stories: Announcing Pandemic Flu Awareness Week Oct 9-15 | Main | Summary of Predatorgate Scandal 10/1 »

October 01, 2006

Comments

If true, then Tenet and Black also have a credibility problem (not just Condi), seeing as how neither got around to telling the 9/11 commission about this meeting, either.

It will be interesting to see what Tenet has to say in his upcoming book. It seems Black was Woodward's source for this meeting.

If this was a deliberate omission in their testimony ("Hey, they never asked about July 10"), it calls into greater question the official 911 report.

true, though they apparently tried to get Condi to act. The cred issue here is Condi's attemted response to Bill Clinton - we did too do something. Gimme a minute to think what it was.

"true, though they apparently tried to get Condi to act."

It's only apparent due to what Woodward wrote about. If Cofer Black is lying to Woodward, then maybe George "Slam Dunk" Tenet and Black never really did try to warn Condi in the first place. Maybe the meeting never happened.

At this point, I am certainly *not* willing to give Condi the benefit of the doubt. It's just that I find it rather astounding that none of the three of them would tell the 9/11 commission about this, but one of them would tell Woodward.

The as-told-to Woodward meeting seems believable to me. But if it is true, I wonder if the 9/11 commission will prosecute them for obstruction. OK, I don't wonder -- it will never happen. (After all, they let Cheney lie about an entire conversation with Bush that never happened, and left it up to the reader to connect the dots.)

I know that they supposedly considered charging some of the military folk who testified with perjury, but they never did. There's no way the Republicans would ever allow legal questions to be raised concerning anyone in the good graces of this administration. But if the 9/11 commission sits back and does nothing, what good are they? How credible is their "report" if people are allowed to lie with impunity?

Jim E., that's the right question. the commision's cred is as challenged by woodward as Condi, tenet, etc.

Woodward's account is corroborated in an August 2002 Time magazine article.

9/11 commission (like any other similar commission) worked in two stages. First, the staff interviewed the players, prepared summaries for the members and briefed them. So if the staff did not think it was important, it never got reported upwards and the members didn't know to ask during the hearings. So who was running the commission staff? That zelnikow guy (former associate of Condi), who also made an appearance in Woodward's latest book as the guy that Condi sent in Feb 05 to Iraq to prepare a status report (by which time he was and stil is a top deputy to Condi at State). See the connection?

Zelnikow omitted any mention of the July 10 mtg in his reports to 9/11 commission members.

Another good reason to get a Dem majority in Congress. Do a thorough investigation of the decision making leading up to the invasion and during the occupation. Additional investigations on Afghanistan, fight against jihadists, rendition, torture, spying on Americans without warrants. Nothing can be fixed unless we know what actually happened.

"true, though they apparently tried to get Condi to act."

It's only apparent due to what Woodward wrote about. If Cofer Black is lying to Woodward, then maybe George "Slam Dunk" Tenet and Black never really did try to warn Condi in the first place. Maybe the meeting never happened.

I am no fan of Condi's (and am a bigger fan of Jim E), but even on its face this Woodward article was suspect.

In the third paragraph, Tenet is worried about the lack of "specific presidential orders called "findings" that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden".

Yet in the meeting, they complain about the need for "an overall plan and strategy".

And then Woodward explains that that process was in the pipeline and culmnated with a Sept 4 Principal's Meeting and a Sept 1o memo to the Pres requesting approval for the quite-comprehensive plan. This is all in the 9/11 report, as is a debunking of that Aug 2002 TIME story (both Berger and Clarke backpedaled).

So either (a) Tenet's July 10 pep talk accelerated that Sept 10 meeting from some later date (Condi Wins!), or (b) the meeting was already scheduled (no one meets in August), in which case, what was Tenet asking for (Condi Wins!)

But I smell a**-covering BS, with Woodward offering a valentine to George "Slam-dunk" Tenet from the previous book.

ab initio wrote:Nothing can be fixed unless we know what actually happened.

well, just to be on the safe side, let's lock them all up somewhere safe while we're figuring it out? Everyone who has ever served in the Bush II administration for starters, although I'm open to presuming guilt on the part of a number of other folks as well.

Seriously- I don't think the American people want to go through the effort of assigning blame if we can't exact punishment for it. So terribly unsatisfying. I think the Italians came out of their little flirtation with fascist dictatorship much happier than the Chileans have emerged from theirs. It's got to be pretty damn galling to a lot of people for Pinochet to still be drawing breath.

the condiliar was supposed to give a speech on "America's Greatest Current Threat" on September 11, 2001

Can anybody guess the topic ???

The Star Wars Missile Defense system was the prefered topic of discussion for the condiliar on 9-11

Cuz our biggest threat was a missile attack from North Korea, according to the condiliar, on September 10th, 2001

so if the question is "what did the condiliar do about the threat of terrorism", then the answer is NOTHING

A "candor" problem? You're being awfully generous.

Tom Maguire, all you need do is elect a D congress with subpoena power, and then we'll get to what truly happened. Do I believe Rice or Woodward? I never believed Rice and I hate trusting Woodward, so let's get the facts under oath.

Richard clark has an interesting article on T.O. My thought was that none of this is new information. There were many accounts after 9/11 about Bush doing nothing. Don't you all remember?? I was so frustrated that Oneill came out, Richard Clark came out and I do believe that Tennent made the assertions as well on the talk show circuit. This is not new, it's just that the first time around, the media did not follow the story. It drove me absolutely nuts at the time. It's time for the validation of facts to occur. It's time for the open discussion. It's time for us to face the truth. Bush did not one thing to prevent 9/11. And interestingly enough, there is supposedly an e-mail from Abramoff mentioning the upcoming was in Iraq. His e-mail was written 8 months before the Iraq war. I think we have plenty of verifiable facts that Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq. I think that while I do not believe Bush caused 9/11 now, more than ever the question about whether or not he allowed it to happen, is relevant. I used to think that this was an impossible thought. Given the crimes of this administration, the very real lack of compassion for human suffering that is factually validated by Katrina, the Iraq war and the fact that they do not regard the Taliban as terrorists, that any thing is possible with this administration. Then we have what appears to be a deliberate cover up regarding the facts surrounding 9/11 and I think the possibility exists that this administration allowed it to occur. Perhaps that why he handled it so well in the very beginning. Perhaps he was ready for the event.

I admit that this is not factual but theoretical, but it's a theory I wouldn't have considered as possible 3 years ago. Today, the facts certainly suggest that it is possible, and needs further investigation.

The Time article linked above does clearly state late in the piece that the meeting took place, so read it, Maguire. It also says that they stopped worrying so much after nothing happened at the Genoa summit.

Finally a journalist, who puts all the lies to res

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_n_EdGaZFM&mode=related&search

well, just to be on the safe side, let's lock them all up somewhere safe while we're figuring it out?

Can we waterboard them?

Tom Maguire, all you need do is elect a D congress with subpoena power, and then we'll get to what truly happened.

Well, lots of other things may happen, too.

Apparently, per today's Times and McLatchy, the 9/11 Commisison was briefed on the Tenet July 10 briefing.

Mclatchy:

Nor is it clear why the 9/11 commission never reported the briefing, which the intelligence officials said Tenet outlined to commission members Ben-Veniste and Zelikow in secret testimony at CIA headquarters. The State Department confirmed that the briefing materials were "made available to the 9/11 Commission, and Director Tenet was asked about this meeting when interviewed by the 9/11 Commission." The three former senior intelligence officials, however, said Tenet raised the matter with the panel himself, displayed slides from the PowerPoint presentation and offered to testify on the matter in public. Ben-Veniste confirmed to McClatchy Newspapers that Tenet outlined for the 9/11 commission the July 10 briefing to Rice in secret testimony in January 2004. He referred questions about why the commission omitted any mention of the briefing in its report to Zelikow, the report's main author. Zelikow didn't respond to e-mail and telephone queries from McClatchy Newspapers.

Some cover-up.


"What kind of a report was it?"

It was a whitewash, a Warren Commission kind of report. Based on a preconcieved notion that it was done by Al-Qaeda (false), it ignored anything that contradicted that false assumption. It's a pile of crap, not much more useful for understanding 9/11 than a paperback novel. If it was anything approaching a REAL INVESTIGATION then number one it would have started with the idea being "we DON'T know what happened on 9/11 and CANNOT assume anyone was the culprit, we are here to FIND OUT who was behind it". And number two, it wouldn't have had Henry Kissenger appointed as the one in charge of it (until Kissenger steadfastly refused to reveal his business contacts so they could see if there was any conflict of interest). Every member of the so-called "commission" had vested interests in keeping the truth under wraps and falsely shoring up the "nineteen hijackers" myth.

By the way, if you think the "9/11 Commission" was anything other than a whitewash, ask William Rodriguez, the janitor who went back into the South Tower several times to help firefighters get people out, the last time almost being killed when an explosion blew him across the street as he was exiting. Since explosions in the Twin Towers contradicts the "official" nonsense about them "collapsing from the jet fuel fires" his testimony was not included in the "9/11 Commission Report", and the congressional transcripts of his testimony were ordered sealed for 75 years. Since he realized they on the "Commission" were not there to find out the truth but instead to cover it up and say "See? We investigated it. Case closed." Rodriguez then started speaking out about the 9/11 cover-up and filed a R.I.C.O. lawsuit against the Bush regime for orchestrating 9/11, and that's when he started getting harrassed, receiving death threats, and his apartment was burglarized twice, one of the times his laptop computer being stolen. He now lives in fear for his life.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad