Saturday, May 22, 2010

Government Whistleblower Protection: the Long Ignored Way to Better Connect the Dots

Coleen Rowley

Coleen Rowley

Posted: May 22, 2010 03:01 PM

By Tom Devine and Coleen Rowley

One month before 9/11, instructors at a Minnesota flight school call the FBI. Among other suspicious happenings, the most unusual "student" they have ever encountered just plopped down thousands in cash to learn to fly a 747, claiming his only purpose was "ego-boosting." Agents in the Minneapolis FBI Office immediately confirm the information and seek permission to search by warning FBI Headquarters in over 60 emails and frantic telephone calls that "this is a guy who could fly into the World Trade Center." Although the 'Director of Central Intelligence' is briefed within days with a presentation titled "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly", neither the FBI or CIA staff does anything until after 9/11. Right after the attacks, however, the officials quickly cover-up these pre 9/11 lapses -- actions hastened by internal repression.

This wasn't the first lapse. In the years before 9/11, an FAA "Red Team" warns that it breaches airport security 90 percent of the time, but is censored from writing its findings and banned from retesting. The same Logan Airport gate exploited by the 9/11 hijackers had flunked just months before. After the attacks, the government grounds and reassigns the Red Team leader (a whistleblower) to remedial duties.

In 2003 a Federal Air Marshal (FAM) warns that his agency plans to cancel FAM long distance coverage on the eve of a planned hijacking. His protest leads to congressional outrage, restoration of marshals and prevention of the hijacking. But in 2006, he is fired for "Unauthorized Disclosure of Sensitive Security Information" - an unclassified "hybrid secrecy" label the TSA retroactively applied to the disclosure.

In the wake of our national security and intelligence agencies' failures to stop Christmas passenger Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and "Times Square Bomber" Faisal Shahzad from attempting to ignite bombs, will any Congressman recognize why the glaring dots are still not being connected? Bureaucratic breakdowns and needless disasters keep recurring, in huge part, because government whistleblowers have been silenced. They do not even enjoy the simple freedom to communicate within the chain of command and defend themselves against near certain retribution.

The current Whistleblower Protection Act is a fraud that, ironically, is the primary reason would-be whistleblowers remain silent observers. It is a trap that rubberstamps almost any retaliation - 204 out of 207 cases have gone against whistleblowers since Congress last unanimously "strengthened" its free speech mandate. The Achilles' heel has been, among numerous loopholes, a lack of normal access to court. Rights are enforced by a system of administrative and limited judicial review that has been highly-politicized and permeated by unrestrained, hostile judicial activism. FBI and intelligence employees are excluded, despite often having the most significant evidence of threats to our country.

During the campaign, the Obama team promised to restore rights and fight for whistleblowers to receive normal court access. Thus far, it has fought relentlessly to complete legislation that restores rights (with jury trial access and normal appellate court review). The House of Representatives already has twice passed the reform, and Senate action appears imminent.

Unlike the House legislation though, the administration's policy and Senate bill offer only window dressing improvements for FBI and intelligence workers. Despite including best practice contractor whistleblower rights in the stimulus law, it entirely excludes them from ongoing contracts receiving some $700 billion annually.

When will the politicians respect reality? President Obama recently fired his National Director of Intelligence Dennis Blair in an ostensible effort to somehow remedy the intelligence community's failures in missing the clues to these last attempted terrorist attempts. High level agency officials such as Blair, however, sit in their offices in Washington. It is front lines government employees who actually do the work, respond to leads, conduct security checks, monitor procedures, and deal with passengers -- they are the ones who not only spot fraud, waste, and abuse but can also identify public safety problems. Without the freedom to warn for those on the front lines, the president and the public will keep getting blindsided.

The politicians need to stop stalling in the end game to restore a credible Whistleblower Protection Act. Delays could be deadly for Americans.

Let national security whistleblowers in from the cold. All national leaders should consider the President's stated realization: "It is increasingly clear that intelligence was not fully analyzed or fully leveraged. That's not acceptable, and I will not tolerate it. Time and again, we've learned that quickly piecing together information and taking swift action is critical to staying one step ahead of a nimble adversary." True enough. But without whistleblower protection for those on the front lines, improved security from current reviews will be as much a mirage as whistleblower protection is today.

My co-author Tom Devine is Legal Director of the Government Accountability Project. He and noted whistleblowers Frank Serpico, Daniel Ellsberg and many more (including myself) will be speaking on the freedom to warn at the 2010 National Whistleblower Assembly, a two-day conference on Capitol Hill in Washington DC this Monday, May 24, 2010 and Tuesday, May 25, 2010. Entitled "The Final Countdown: Honoring 10 Years of Commitment," this year's conference will act as a collective final push to get the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (S 372), out of Congress and adopted into law.

The public, who has the most to gain and the most to lose from recognizing the need to protect government whistleblowers, is of course invited!

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Any Questions?

Cheney is Full of Sh**


FILE -- In this June 1, 2009 file photo, former Vice President Dick Cheney speaks at the National Press Club in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA eight years ago not to inform Congress about a nascent counterterrorism program that CIA Director Leon Panetta terminated in June, officials with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

Subsequent CIA directors did not inform Congress because the intelligence-gathering effort had not developed to the point that they believed merited a congressional briefing, said a former intelligence official and another government official familiar with Panetta's June 24 briefing to the House and Senate Intelligence committees.

Panetta did not agree.

Upon learning of the program June 23 from within the CIA, Panetta terminated it and the next day called an emergency meeting with the House and Senate Intelligence committees to inform them of the program and that it was canceled.

Cheney played a central role in overseeing the Bush administration's surveillance program that was the subject of an inspectors general report this past week. That report noted that Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, personally decided who in Bush's inner circle could even know about the secret program.

But revelations about Cheney's role in making decisions for the CIA on whether to notify Congress came as a surprise to some on the committees, said another government official. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program publicly.

An effort to reach Cheney was unsuccessful.

A former intelligence official, who was familiar with former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden's tenure at the CIA, said Hayden never communicated with the president or vice president about the now-canceled program and was under no restrictions from Cheney about congressional briefings. The official said Hayden was briefed only two or three times on the program.

Story continues below
advertisement

Exactly what the counterterrorism program was meant to do remains a mystery. The former intelligence official said it was not related to the CIA's rendition, interrogation and detention program. Nor was it part of a wider classified electronic surveillance program that was the subject of a government report to Congress this past week.

The official characterized it as an embryonic intelligence gathering effort, and only sporadically active. He said it was hoped to yield intelligence that would be used to conduct a secret mission or missions in another country _ that is, a covert operation. But it never matured to that point.

The government official with direct knowledge of the Panetta briefing and the former intelligence official said the CIA has numerous efforts ongoing under its existing authorities that have not yet been briefed to Congress. He said they are not yet known to be viable for intelligence gathering.

The Cheney revelation comes as the House of Representatives is preparing to debate a bill that would require the White House to expand the number of members who are told about covert operations. The White House has threatened a veto over concerns that wider congressional notifications could compromise the secrecy of the operations.

That provision, however, would have no effect on programs like this one.

The former intelligence official familiar with Hayden said Congress has a right to contemporaneous information about all CIA activities. But he said there are so many in such early stages that briefing Congress on every one would be too time consuming for both the CIA and the congressional committees.

The New York Times initially reported about Cheney's direction not to tell Congress of the program on its Web site Saturday.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Iraq War Was Planned In 1998 - Four Years Before 9/11

Iraq War Was Planned In 1998 - Four Years Before 9/11:

"DEC 01 - 15, 2003


DEC 01 - 15, 2003

VOL. 1 ISSUE 16

IRAQ WAR WAS PLANNED IN 1998 – FOUR YEARS BEFORE 9/11

Letter Written In 1998 By Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz Shows That Their Plan To Preemptively Attack Iraq Was Made Before Bush Took Office

by Samuel A. Stanson

DECEMBER 2, 2003 – It was – and is – called Project For A New American Century. This was a group made up of, among others, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz – then not officeholders.

This group sat down and plotted their course of action to dominate the word through use of unilateral preemptive force. On Jan 26, 1998, they sent at letter to then President Clinton which said the following:

“The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing.

In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.

Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater.

We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.

In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.”

Sound familiar? Sound like exactly what the President said in the build-up to the pre-emptive attack on Iraq?

Yes, make no mistake, it is absolute fact that the plan the preemptively attack Iraq without UN involvement was created not by President Bush, not in response to 9/11, but by a handful of paranoid warmongers four years before 9/11 ever occurred. Other future Bush appointees, such as Abrams, a criminal whose crimes during his last tenure serving his country required a pardon from the first President Bush, were also a part of the group that drew up this plan.

This group sat around – seething about Clinton being President – back in 1998 wishing they could invade Iraq, go it alone without the UN.

So when you heard the President telling you 9/11 was why we were invading Iraq, that was a provable lie. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and their Project for a New American Century envisioned making the next century one of bullying war and preemptive attacks undertaken without UN participation.

They seized on 9/11 to implement their long-held plan. They planned a generation of war – not against Osama and the terrorists who threatened us, but against Iraq going around the UN structure.

Why President Bush and Dick Cheney insulted the world, didn’t even attempt to work with the UN in a useful manner, and went from hunting Osama to launching us into Iraq becomes very clear. The group running their Defense Department, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, had just been looking for an excuse.

Yes, you had heard the rumors about this. Now you have the facts. You can see the Project For A New American Century for yourself – they are on the web. The full text of the above letter is there, as is another interesting document.

There are two statements about post-war Iraq posted on the site. In the second statement, the group issues the asinine commentary: “Of particular concern, the effort to rebuild Iraq should strengthen, not weaken transatlantic ties. “ It was their plan to flip off even our closest allies, insult them as useless and “irrelevant” (as Cheney referred to Europe all summer long.) Yes, it didn’t take them long to realize we actually needed our allies, that their claim that working with our allies was “misguided” was a disastrous, stupid idea and miscalculation.

Now, we are in Iraq without an actual coalition and with no plan beyond “removing Saddam from power.” Remember, that was their “long term” plan. Nothing beyond removing Saddam.

Which explains exactly where we are now. Saddam got removed. Now what is the plan? Oops, forgot to think about that.

Good to know this mess wasn’t the result of rushed planning in response to 9/11. No, this planless, unilateral, preemptive invasion of Iraq was drawn up over 4 years before it actually occurred. Half a decade, and all they could come up with was telling our allies to screw off as we depose Saddam without a plan for what to do afterwards – on top of lying and pretending 9/11 had anything to do with this to sell it to the nation.

Wow, what an impressive group of thinkers this Project For The New American Century is. And how lucky the rest of our press plays along and pretends this easily obtainable, public information doesn’t actually exist.

How lucky The Moderate Independent now does.

Go to http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm and you can enjoy the people who brought us the Iraq War for yourself.

MAIN PAGE


ALL ISSUES

News

Absolutely No Decency Or Sense Of Morals

The Bush Administration's Actions Directly Parallel A Hostile Corporate Takeover

Let's Talk About How Friggin Stupid The Democratic Candidates Are For Debating On Fox News

A New Era Of Never Taking Responsibility

What Rumsfeld Really Thinks: "The US Is Putting Relatively Little Effort Into A Long-range Plan"

President Bush "Groped Repeatedly" By Schwarzenegger At California Meeting

"Joe Millionaire" To Be Season Long Campaign Commercial For President Bush

Case Closed: The Curse Is Not The Cause - Boston Exactly Follows The Cubs Lead And Lets Loser Thinking Send Them Home

Cubs Need A Ball Check

Absurdity Taken So Far It Has Become Assininity

Five Lies That Were Definitively Debunked By The California Recall Election

The Inside Scoop On The Most Powerful Man In Cyberspace

Bush Shows Himself To Be A Wimp After All

"Thank God Bush Was President on 9/11, Not Al Gore"

Getting The Left And Middle Right

Eight Things Democrats and Republicans Need To Change

British press reports Schwarzenegger’s groping and affair with former Little House on the Prairie actress; When will U.S. media do so? A column by guest writer Jackson Thoreau

Right-Wing Installs Another Puppet

The Moderate Independent To Sue President Bush

President Bush Takes Cowardice To A New Level

"Let Me Try To Confuse You Into Thinking This Has Anything To Do With The War On Terror." - A Simple Transcript Of The President's Recent Speech On Iraq

The Republicans' Choice For California's Next Governor

"President Eisenhower Must Be Speaking Out In His Grave About The Military Industrial Complex That He Warned About"

Gray Davis Changes Strategy

If Texas Wasn't A State, Would We Be Better Off?

Gray Davis Uses UCLA Speech To Give The Moderate Independent Free Advertising

California Recall Update: Strategies Of The Republicans And Democrats Go Into Action

Schwarzenegger To Be Replaced On Ballot By Howdy Doody

Yes, Arnold Is An N-Word-Using Racist, But Did He Also Harass Ronald Reagan's Daughter Patti?

David Kelly Had Said On Feb. 27 To Un Employee That If Iraq Was Invaded He Would, "Be Found Dead In The Woods."

Osama, Saddam Release Tape Of Britney Spears

Crisis Alert: Americans Accidentally Start Hating Americans

ENRON: Politics, Criminals, And Blame

Alpha Males Or Unintelligent, Big-Mouthed Morons?

Yes, Arnold Is An N-Word-Using Racist, But Did He Also Harrass Ronald Reagan's Daughter Patti?

Embattled California Governor Gray Davis Launches "Pre-Emptive" Strike On Cancun

At Last, Corporate Media Starts To Cover Schwarzenegger Story We Broke Months Ago

Davis Votes To Recall Himself

Schwarzenegger trails in latest poll - media that kissed his ass for weeks pretends poll doesn't exist

Blair And Friends Kick The Corpse Of Man Who Told BBC Lied About WMD's - Press, Of Course, Forgets About Story Within A Day

The Mission Of The Moderate Independent: Changing The, "They Both Suck, So I Don't Vote' Equation

John S. Ashton Is Back! Rewriting The Rewriting Of History - Mud To Throw Back In The Eyes Of Bush/Limbaughian Idiots

Counterpoint: Murder Or War Success?

Nation After Nation After Nation Is Joining Our "Coalition Of The Willing"

M/I Undercover: Racism And Politics? We Went Undercover To Find Out The Reality

Blair's Man Spits On The Corpse Of Man Who Told BBC Blair Lied

Dick Cheney Launches Attack On Peru

One policy that would improve all of our working conditions, and the cost to implement it is negligible

President Bush and Vice President Cheney Celebrate the 200th U.S. Death in Iraq With a Whirl-Wind of Fundraisers, Boasts of "Mission Accomplished"

Unraveling the fat trap: pt. 1 in a series two things you can do to lose weight - that will save you money as well

FBI Called In To Look For Missing Tax Cut Windfall

Battling Back: The Texas Three-Step

Governor Davis Launches Pre-Emptive Strike On Cancun

From The Mouths of Republicans: The Truth Behind The California Recall

Notes From The California Recall - Democrats Begin to Fight Back

President Lands On Aircraft Carrier To Celebrate End Of Palestinian/Israeli Conflict

Man Who Told Parliament Blair Lied About WMD's Believed To Be Dead

Battling Back: The Texas Three-step

Republicans Decide To Do Away With Elections

Umm, It's Another One Of Yours, George

FBI Called In To Look For Missing Tax Cut Windfall

Let's Get Something Straight: This New Breed Of Republican Is Pathetic

Republicans Begin To Cry Like Babies, Swear Like Bullies

"Pyrrhic Victory" Officially Renamed "Bush Victory"

Democrats Court The "Asshole Vote"

Democrats, Shocked And Awed As Gingrich Calls Bush's Role In War An "Unrelenting Defeat", Hire Him As New Spokesman

Like Father, Like Son: Bush To "Destabilize" Iran, Thinking It Will Somehow Stabilize Region

Why People Don't Belong To Either Party

On The Serious Side: President Bush's Great Diplomatic Success

Bush, Rove Start Planning Who to Blame, Bomb When 9/11 of Global Warming Arrives

Bush Admits He's Been Asking "Wrong Jesus" What He Would Do

Bush Hires Saddam's Information Minister

Could Bush Really Be To Blame For Ruining The Economy?

Democrats Suffering From 'SARS'

Is President Bush Being Exploitive, Landing "Top Gun" Style?

Santorum, Lott Sent Back To "Two-Shouldered" School

Tax Rate That Existed Throughout Booming Nineties Somehow Blamed For Current Downturn

Bush Thanks Osama, Saddam for Salvaging Republican Party

Schwarzenegger: "I'll make Bush Seem Like Mother Teresa"

Carter Ecstatic, Finally Freed Of "Worst President Ever" Label

Dick, Bush, And Colin: Fifth Graders, World-Leaders Laugh Hysterically At leaders' Combined Name Humor

Back to Top

Editorial

A Labor Day Message

What Exactly Are You Complaining About?

Ooo, He Really Makes You Mad, Doesn't He?

Does Frequently Attacking Bush/Limbaugh Republicans Make M/I Biased?

Without That Tax Cut Money, They Couldn't Get Laid - The Differences Between Bushies And The Rest Of Us

Point: Is There Anything We Weren't Right About?

Feedback - Have Republicans found any fault with Bush's Iraq policy yet?

Did The President Lie About WMD's?

Letters

The Idea of a “Moderate Independent” News Source

Bush's Greatest Success To Date: Not Getting UN Support for the Iraq War

Back to Top

Media Watch

CNN’S Christiane Amanpour Joins The Chorus Of Top 'Mainstream' Media People Saying They've Been Bullied To The Right By The Bushies

Talk Radio Host Rush Limbaugh Joins His Buddy Michael Savage Weiner In Getting Canned For Being Unacceptable Outside Of His Usual AM Radio Cave

The California Recall Debate

Larry Elder Proves Again To Be The Biggest Pussy On AM Talk Radio

ABC's Peter Jennings Admits ABC Has Been Bullied To The Right By The Bushies

Latest Press Report Ignores Poll, Pretends Arnold Is Still Frontrunner

Press-Trumpeted Lies About The 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals, And The Republican Plan To Take Redistricting To The Courts As Well

Savage Weiner Roasted Due To Anti-gay Rant

Rupert Mudoch On An Anti-American Rampage

Russian News Source 'Pravda' Sues Fox News For Stealing Its Format

AM Talk Host Savage Weiner Comes Out Of The Closet

CNBC'S Licklow And Kissass Invent 'Miscussion'

How To Still Sound Righteous When Caught Lying And Your Policies Are Found To Be Disastrous

Debunking The Media: ABC News' George Will Calls Vermont Communist

Debunking The Media: Man Kills 2 With Samurai Sword, Right Wing Rushes to Profit Off Of Corpses

Debunking The Media: The Confused, Psychotic Defining of "Conservative"

Debunking The Media: Texas Republicans Use Homeland Security Dept. To Try And Locate President Bush's Morals

Did Someone Actually Say "Liar"?

Right-Wing Commentators Distraught Murdoch Can't Buy Whole Internet

AM Radio Host Debate a Disaster

Australian-Owned Fox News, USA Today, NY Post Push "True American Agenda"

Axis of Murdoch Decides Who To Occupy Next

Back to Top

Arts/Entertainment

Ben Affleck Overheard Begging Matt Damon To Pinch His Ass In Public

Kelly Clarkson Ordered To Undergo Mental Evaluation

American Artists Vow To Continue Expressing Nothing Through Their Work

Dixie Chicks Treated With Southern Courtesy and Respect

Back to Top

Elections 2004

Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Disgrace Themselves, Hurt Their Election Changes By Bashing Clark For Being An Independent

Why Clark's Entry Into The Race Hurts Dean And Helps Kerry

Reassessing The Candidates

Cal Recall Update: 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals Recalls The Recall

Who Won Sept. 5 Dem. Debate?

Democrats Debate: In Their Own Words, The Sept. 5 Debate

Reassessing The Candidates

A Presidential Study In Ignorance And A Warning For Those Who Would Vote For Arnold

Dean Vs. Bush, According To The Corporate-Owned-And-Operated Media

Make No Mistake, For One Party The 2004 Presidential Election Has Already Begun

Dean In Charge

Rating The Dems On The Issues

The Moderate Independent Rates The Democratic Hopefuls Based On How Moderate And Independent They Are

Back to Top

Historical

George Pissed About French Interference With War

The History Of The 1st Amendment

Back to Top

World

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao Confused By Total Lack Of Enemies

Fashion Critics Doubt Lula's New Look For Real

Northrop, Occidental To Sponsor Shakira's Columbian Tour

Powerful French, German, Russian Alliance Shows Strength By Letting US Occupy Iraq, Take Its Oil

Back to Top

Awards

Coming Out Of The Closet Award: Country Music's Integrity On Display

Back to Top

Polls

See Who MI Readers Picked For First Choice For President in 2004

See what your fellow M/I readers had to say about their loyalty or lack of it to the current face of the Republican Party

Rating the War on Terror

Thoughts On Speaking Out During a War

Has President Bush Kept His Promise To Be A Uniter, Not A Divider

Back to Top


Wednesday, March 18, 2009

The Holey (riddled with HOLES) Lie.

9/11 Commission Kean-Zelikow Report: A 571-Page Lie
by DR. DAVID RAY GRIFFIN

9/11 Commission Kean-Zelikow Report:A 571-Page Lie

But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed.

Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible accountof the events surrounding 9/11 ." They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.

Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.

One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied.

However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.

Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidenceof explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's fa├žade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediatelyafter the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for USairspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledgeof the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goalof obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain controlof Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issueof the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the headsof the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretaryof Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference---although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mentionof this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a memberof the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most criticalof the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position onlyafter he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call "the Kean-Zelikow Report" by writing that it, "far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in chargeof this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?" (291)