look for a moment how the Bush administration used the excuse the 'national secret' in various situations, thus avoiding to disclose certain facts. For example, let's first opinion of the leaders of the inquiry themselves on this subject, as reported here by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 15, 2004.
"Too many routine government documents are marked secret ˝ ˝, leaders say the commission on Sept. 11, which prevents people from public to become aware of all warnings and information they might need to protect themselves.
Thomas Kean, chairman of the committee, said that most secret documents he had seen in the context of investigations into the tragedy of September 11, 2001 consisted of hearsay or other publicly available information, and were not, therefore, genuine secrets. [...]»
This seemingly innocuous statement on the surface from the President of the Commission of Inquiry on September 11 conceals yet crucial when you think about a bit. The fact that Thomas Kean says neither more nor less than rumors and information surrounding the events of September 11 are kept secret should already be enough to ring a few bells ... But after seeing the same article.
"˝ The three quarters of what I read that was classified as confidential and would not have been ˝, said former Republican governor of New Jersey.
[...] Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the committee, said he had already concluded that the government should solve the problem of abuse of confidence.
˝ We have a serious problem of over-classification ˝, said Hamilton, a former Democratic representative from Indiana in Congress.
[...] Kean remembers watching a document classified as confidential under the watchful eye of an FBI agent assigned to the supervision of the committee of inquiry. After reading the document, Kean said he had asked the FBI agent to find out why the document was classified confidential because it contained no information that he had learned by reading the newspapers.
˝ Yes, but you did not know it was true ˝, had answered the agent. "M5
Why would you classify confidential information reported by some newspapers on September 11, especially if they are really true? It would probably also surprising to learn what proportion of information cited in this book can be found decked out in secrecy nationally.
Enchaînons with a more recent article in USA Today, dated March 15, 2007, confirming the phenomenon.
"More than one million pages of government documents historical - the equivalent of a stack [of paper] higher than the U.S. Capitol - have been removed from public view since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, according to a report obtained by The Associated Press. Some records date back more than a century. [...]
The archives administration began to withdraw the material in November 2001 after the Department of Justice has ordered agencies to be more cautious in making public government documents. The agency has removed about 1.1 million pages, according to reports published monthly development partially and reviewed by the AP. The reports have been obtained through a request under freedom of access to information. [...]
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Archives Administration has signed a secret pact with the Pentagon and the CIA to allow intelligence officials to review and withdraw tens of thousands of pages of public domain if they believe they were released too quickly. [...]» W71
In other words, the attacks of September 11 served as a pretext to enable such officials of U.S. intelligence agencies to raise a Notch the scope of their authority on the classification of documents.
However, while the over-classification of documents is a thing that should be closely monitored, the failure of free during a public inquiry is another, very different. And the first months of existence of the commission investigating the attacks of 11 September, the obstruction of it began. Let us first see what the British Guardian reported July 10, 2003.
"The American committee to investigate the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 yesterday accused the Pentagon and the Department of Justice to obstruct the investigation and affirmed that the witnesses were intimidated.
The federal commission of inquiry was appointed by the White House eight months ago while it was under intense pressure from Congress, which wanted the allegations that the CIA, the FBI and the Pentagon could have done more to prevent attacks by Al Qaeda in 2001 are examined. [...]
The investigation was delayed by the withdrawal of its original director, Henry Kissinger, for reasons of conflict of interest, and due to difficulties funding. The bipartisan committee now says that his work was blocked by bureaucracy.
Tim Roemer, former congressman and member of the commission, said yesterday, 'We do not receive the kind of cooperation we should. We need a constant stream of information reaches us ... Instead, we get [information] in dribs and drabs. "
In a statement the committee said that lack of cooperation from the Pentagon was "particularly serious".
Director survey, Thomas Kean, has criticized the Department of Justice for its insistence that intelligence officials who testify are accompanied by 'supervisors' of their agency.
'I think the commission is unanimous that this is intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you at all times, for whom you work or who works for the same agency you', he said. [...]
But Steven Push, who lost his wife on Sept. 11 and who represents the families of victims, said 'I think there is a filibuster in progress [in proceedings]. "
He added 'It Starts to resemble a form of cover-up. " "W234
And since the families of the victims were possibly the most likely to be shocked by the lack of cooperation from the government levels with the inquiry, let us then turn our attention this article from the AP (Associated Press), dated November 13, 2003.
"Relatives of people who perished in the Sept. 11 attacks say a federal commission accepted too many conditions to reach an agreement with the White House over access to documents containing secret information.
The Family Steering Committee ˝ ˝, a group of family members of victims who oversees the work of the independent commission, criticized the agreement announced late Wednesday. Under this agreement, only some of the ten commissioners will be allowed to examine classified documents and their notes will be subject to inspection by the White House.
˝ The ten commissioners should have free access, full and unhindered to all documentation ˝, said the group Thursday in calling for what is published in full ˝ and writing the final agreement and official ˝.
Neither the commissioners nor the White House revealed the terms of the agreement, although sources familiar with the inquiry have described in some modalities. [...]
The chairman of the commission, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, defended the agreement.
˝ The most important thing for me is that there is no document that will not be seen by a member of the commission, and these documents will be used to guide our report ˝, said Kean.
Two commissioners, former Indiana Representative Tim Roemer and former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, criticized the agreement after its announcement, saying she asked unjustified restrictions to the work of the commission. M2 [...]»
How an investigation committee can establish a uniform and authentic portrait of the attacks with the arrangement whereby only certain members have access to certain documents? Is not this the equivalent, during a murder trial, to present certain evidence from some board members, and some other evidence to different juries? Why is the government of a country victim of a terrorist attack as horrible would it hinder the work and its own investigators? The U.S. administration should it not rather be the first to want to shed light on this issue in order to expose the culprits in broad daylight?
now observe this Washington Post article published January 31, 2004, less than three months later.
"The White House, already facing a public debate on the maturity of the independent inquiry into the attacks of September 11, refuses to provide the committee notes on presidential briefing papers taken by a some of its own members, officials said this week.
The impasse prompted ten members of the Committee to consider issuing subpoenas to get those notes and highlights bitter relations between the Bush administration and the bipartisan panel, according to sources familiar with the subject. The inaccessibility of documents mean that the information they contain could not be included in the final report on the attacks, officials said.
˝ We have discussions on this issue practically every hour, or at least daily ˝, said the vice-chairman of the commission, Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic Indiana congressman. ˝ We defend all our rights to get the access we need. ... This is a priority that we must solve, and we are working to resolve it.
˝
This disagreement is the latest obstacle has met the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks against the United States, pressed by time to complete its work before the deadline of May 27 after months of struggle to access government records. The Committee requested that the deadline be postponed by at least two months, but the White House and Republican leaders in Congress oppose the idea. [...]
The latest conflict stems from an agreement reached in November to a team of four members of the Committee to review highly classified documents known as the presidential daily briefings (PDBs), including a controversial memo from August 2001 which discussed the possibility of hijackings of airliners by terrorists of Al Qaeda. The agreement allowed the team - composed of three members of the Committee and the Executive Director Philip D. Zelikow - to take notes from these documents that could then be supplied to the rest of the commission, but only after the White House has given its authorization.
The team completed its work for several weeks but was unable to reach agreement with the White House on how to share their summaries with the seven committee members who are not aware of the contents of the documents, officials said.
The impasse has prompted members of the committee to discuss the issuance of subpoenas to obtain the summaries or complete files presidential daily briefings, said several sources.
A Democratic member of the commission, Timothy J. Roemer, a former member of Congress from Indiana, said ˝ labyrinthine and tortuous process established by the White House is blocked. If not resolved in the coming days, I think we will pursue other options.
˝ [...] After months of delays last fall, the Committee issued subpoenas to obtain Pentagon documents, the Federal Aviation Administration and the City of New York to eventually reach agreements in all three cases. The committee had also threatened to subpoena White House about the PDB, but had accepted a compromise because officials said they did not want to get bogged down in a court battle.
The White House had indicated at that time it considered declaring documents PDB as protected by executive privilege and that they would not be cause for review by external parties. "M11
Thus, having opposed for over a year to create a commission of inquiry, the Bush administration then refused to open its books to it and be transparent.
continue with an excerpt from the article published by Reuters October 26, 2003, dealing specifically with these obstacles fall by the commission.
"The leader of the federal commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001 says that the White House refuses to provide documents containing highly confidential information and is prepared to issue a subpoena if they can not get the next few weeks, according to a report.
Thomas Kean, chairman of the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks against the United States, said he also thought that the commission would soon be forced to issue subpoenas for other executive branch agencies, reported the New York Times in its Sunday edition. [...]
Earlier this month, the commission voted to send a subpoena to the Federal Aviation Administration after determining that the agency was withholding documents related to the attacks.
˝ Any document related to the above investigation may be beyond our reach ˝, said Kean, former Republican governor of New Jersey. [...]» M10
note in passing that the executive director of the commission of inquiry, Philip Zelikow, maintained at the time of the investigation official direct links with the White House. This news, which was not revealed publicly until February 2008, in turn compromises the integrity of the already dubious process of investigation. Recall that Zelikow, as executive director, was among only four people with access to confidential documents during the investigation.
Here is an excerpt from article published by CNN, February 3, 2008.
"The executive director of the commission on September 11 had closer ties with the White House than has been previously disclosed and attempted to influence the final report in such a way that the staff of [the commission] often perceived as limiting the liability of the Bush administration, says a new book.
Philip Zelikow, a friend of the national security adviser at the time, Condoleezza Rice, spoke with her several times during the investigation of twenty months, which [inter alia] closely examined its role in assessment of the threat of Al Qaeda.
He also exchanged frequent calls with the White House, including at least four from Karl Rove, the adviser Bush's chief political at the time.
On one occasion, the executive director of the commission has tried to push the formulation of a preliminary report suggesting a link between the most important leader of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and Iraq, which was consistent with White House claims but not with the view of commission staff, according to "The Commission: The story uncensored investigation on September 11, Philip Shenon.
Shenon, a New York Times, says Zelikow sought to intimidate staff [the commission] to avoid damaging findings For President Bush - who tried at that time to get re-elected - and Rice. [...]
Contacted by the AP [Associated Press], Zelikow presented a statement of 131 pages including the information he claims to have provided for the book. In it, Zelikow acknowledges talking with Rove and Rice during the commission's work despite his general commitment not to do so. But he said the conversations never dealt with politics.
The White House had no immediate comment Sunday. [...]
The book seems to raise new questions about the independence of the bipartisan commission, which was created in 2002 to investigate government missteps that led to the attacks of September 11. [...]» W190
Thus, the executive director of the Commission of Inquiry acknowledges having had several conversations with the White House during the investigation. But of course, never the subject of September 11 or the investigation itself would have been addressed ...
In this regard, consider how John Lehman, a commissioner on the commission, tried to mitigate the appearance of conflict of interest between Philip Zelikow and White House. The following excerpt is from a telephone interview with Lehman, which aired February 3, 2008 in connection with the issuance NewsLive MSNBC.
"[...]" We intentionally assembled a staff based on people who, in a sense, conflicts of interest. Several of them had worked for the Clinton administration in positions high enough, while others have served under the Bush administration. We need these people to find our way through the doldrums and the large amount of information. Then presented to all staff some point a conflict of interest, but we were confident that Philip [Zelikow] - and we are aware of every detail contained in Shenon's book - we were confident it was a very independent scholar and could maintain its independence. [...]' "W191
In simpler terms, no need to worry about with the appearance of conflicts of interest between Philip Zelikow and the White House since each member of the board of inquiry had also its own conflicts of interest. Very reassuring.
And, just to be reassured little more, add more than one quarter of the information contained in the report of the commission on Sept. 11 was obtained through interrogations by the CIA controversy of alleged members of Al Qaeda. It is important to know that during these meetings, the CIA use of 'enhanced interrogation techniques', a term meaning that the individuals interviewed were subjected to mental and physical abuse, they were exposed to heat and extreme cold, they were deprived of sleep and / or they were subjected to simulated drowning until the interrogators have considered cooperative.
In other words, they were tortured. Yet, as suggested by the logic, an abused prisoner is likely to say anything to put an end to a prolonged ordeal.
Observe this excerpt from NBC News article posted on January 30, 2008.
"The Sept. 11 commission suspected that critical information it used in its landmark report was the result of harsh interrogations of al Qaeda - interrogations that many critics characterize as torture. Yet the commission staff has never questioned the agency on its interrogation techniques and even ordered a second round of questions to ask new questions specific to the same inmates, NBC News has learned. [...]
The analysis shows that a significant portion of what was reported [in the report of the Committee] about the planning and execution of terrorist attacks against New York and Washington came from interrogations key members of Al Qaeda. Each of them had been subjected to 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. Some have even been subjected to 'waterboarding', the most controversial techniques in which drowning is simulated.
NBC News analysis shows that over a quarter of all footnotes in the report page on September 11 refer to CIA interrogations of al Qaeda members who were subject to interrogation techniques now controversial. In fact, information derived from these interrogation sessions is at the heart of the most crucial chapters of the report, those dealing with planning and executing attacks. [...]
At least four members of the [Al Qaeda] whose interrogations included in the report of the Committee stated that they had provided their interrogators critical information to put an end to their 'torture'. [...]
officials said the senior U.S. intelligence, always active and retired officers of [Al Qaeda] cited by the commission were subject to the harshest methods of the CIA, 'techniques interrogation enhanced '. These techniques include physical and mental abuse, exposure to heat and extreme cold, sleep deprivation and waterboarding. [...]
A former top official of U.S. intelligence says that the commission has ever expressed concern about the techniques [of interrogation] and has even ordered the new series [of questions].
'Remember', the official said the information, 'The committee had access to intelligence reports that came from interrogations. That does not satisfy. They demanded direct personal access to detainees and the [Bush] administration has simply refused them. " [...]
The commission staff interviewed by NBC News does not contradict the assertion of responsibility that they did not question on interrogation techniques. [...]
The first request of the committee to have access to detainees came early in 2004, about the same time as the Abu Ghraib scandal surfaced. In this scandal, military interrogators in the prison's most famous Baghdad were accused of torturing prisoners of low security. [...]
[Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights] claims that 'if [the commission] suspected that there might be torture, they should realize that by law, information obtained under torture are unreliable, partly because of the possibility of a false confession ... the bare minimum, they should add a caveat to all these references. " [...]
Fourteen of the most important prisoners had their preliminary hearing this spring before the Court of Revision of the Statute of Affairs at the Pentagon. [...]
Four of them said they provided information simply to stop torture. Although the details have been published in all the testimonies of prisoners, the court allowed a case to include a letter written by the father of an inmate who described what he claims to be the torture of her son by the Americans.
In this letter included in the register, Ali Khan claims that his son, Majid, suffered prolonged torture before and after the interrogation sessions.
'Americans tortured him with blows of eight hours at a time, tying it firmly to a small chair in unpleasant positions until his hands, his feet and his mind numb. " [...]
'When he was not interrogated, the Americans placed Majid in a small cell with no light, too narrow for it may extend or sit with legs stretched. He had to crouch. The place was swarming with mosquitoes too. The torture ended only when Majid agreed to sign a statement that he was not even allowed to read. But [torture] was then resumed when Majid was unable to identify certain streets and neighborhoods of Karachi [Pakistan] which were unknown to him. " [...]
Ironically, two former members of the Committee noted that the commission's final report essentially recommended that the United States encouraged to end torture. [...]» W196
Thus, by law, information obtained under torture are unreliable, but over a quarter of the official report is yet made of these, and what the heart of the most important chapters. That allows again to assess the credibility of the Commission of Inquiry on September 11. Not only was the report he prepared on the basis of information obtained from torture of prisoners, but we also learn that even if members of the committee suspected that the interrogation techniques of detainees did not follow conventional rules, they never rested on that question. The question remains
So whether waterboarding, exposure to extreme temperatures and other abuse are actually torture. To answer this question, who better placed than the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN? The following excerpt is from the news agency Reuters, February 8, 2008.
"The controversial interrogation technique known as the 'waterboarding' and used by the United States is torture, said on Friday the director of Human Rights at the United Nations.
'I would have no problem saying that this practice falls under the prohibition of torture, 'said Louise Arbour, High Commissioner for Human Rights at the United Nations, during a press conference in Mexico City. [...]» W199
The official version of the September 11 attacks could she not be supported other than torturing prisoners?
*****
Now take a moment to look closer at the point of view of people involved in more emotional than political in this whole affair. In summer 2003, a first group of families of victims sounded the alarm, as reported by CBS News article published July 24, 2003.
"They are known as the Jersey Girls ˝ ˝ - widows who lost their husbands on Sept. 11 and having found a mission. [...]
After the attacks, they fought fiercely for an independent investigation, traveling to Washington on a regular basis. They wanted to know why so many government agencies had failed to prevent the terrorist acts of September 11.
˝ Two years later, he still seems to be a veil of secrecy ˝, she said [Kristen Breitweiser].
Thursday, they were back on Capitol Hill to personally express their dissatisfaction with the Congress report on attacks against the United States.
˝ At best, the report is incomplete ˝ said Breitweiser. ˝ Fifteen of the nineteen terrorists were Saudis. We have clear and convincing money trail linking the Saudi princes to the terrorists. Why this is not reflected in the report, I do not know.
˝
Patti Casazza said why.
˝ geopolitical interests. Saudi Arabia provides a large amount of oil.
˝
When asked if the Bush administration was withholding information, Casazza replied ˝ They blacken the sections in the report. They retain information. [...]» ˝ M1
Patti Casazza The same was also much later in 2007 during his remarks at a conference aimed at exposing the facts and anomalies surrounding the attacks. Explaining that she had the chance to connect with some insiders who had inside information about the events of September 11, it stated.
"[...] They had information. Put simply, the government not only knew the precise moment, but he also knew the date and the method by which the attacks were to take place. And none of this is reached in the mainstream media. None of this has appeared in the Commission. Yet, the day the Commission report was published, all your representatives [in Congress] were at their posts and said 'What fantastic job this Commission has done. A real service to the nation. " And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication. [...]» W187
Let then a look at an excerpt of interview has given Robert McIlvaine on Italian TV through the issuance Maurizio Costanzo Show October 23, 2007. Mr. McIlvaine lost his son Sept. 11, 2001 and since then questioned the official version of the attacks.
"[...] I spent every day of my life since 2001 to try to discover who was responsible for the death of my son. I worked independently, I introduced myself to all hearings of the commission on Sept. 11. According to Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the committee, the purpose of this commission was not to investigate. He said that this was a mere exhibition. Then imagine that someone This tells you when your child was killed, 'I'm sorry, but we can not investigate. We can qu'étaler facts on a table and you take a decision. " [...] During the commission hearings, members of the families [of victims] have asked hundreds and hundreds of issues that I also took to heart, and the commission refused to answer. The report of the Committee on 11 September is a book of fiction [applause]. [...]» W205
What should we think that the father of a victim of September 11 must go to Italy for a string TV agrees to devote airtime?
Then there was the example of Donna Marsh O'Connor, who lost his daughter aged 29 years September 11, 2001. It worked in the South Tower of the World Trade Center and was five months pregnant at the time of the attacks. Let's see what his mother had to say at a press conference broadcast on the parliamentary network C-SPAN, a public television station nonprofit.
"I have not seen my daughter for five years if there is an exception because it's always present in my mind, and the government has made me a victim conspiracy theories because he did not respond fully or allowed anyone to ask the real questions about Sept. 11. That's what I ask you [reporters] today: airtime. We are not fools: we have questions, we demand answers. [...] We can create a safer environment for ourselves by refusing to continue to hide the truth. [...] We demand a new investigation into the events of 11 September, and this time it is truly bi-partisan, global, and it includes the families [of victims] from beginning to the end. [...]» W212
Speaking of families of victims, note that following the tragedy, the U.S. government offered them an impressive amount of compensation in return for a commitment from them to do file no charges in this case. Here's a short excerpt from CNN article published April 26, 2006.
"Prosecutors have asked a judge to reconsider his decision to allow the families [of victims] on 11 September that the airlines continue to have access to materials assembled in the criminal case against the terrorist Al Qaeda , Zacarias Moussaoui. [...] The
[65] prosecutors have continued in 2002 the airlines for negligence causing death, rather than accepting compensation from a federal fund that was allocated seven billion dollars to families. Brinkema agreed with their lawyers, that law which was based on the compensation fund for victims protected the rights of nonparticipating families to file a lawsuit for negligence. [...]» T5
A quick calculation can be deduced that the fund of seven billion dollars, more or less divided into 2900 families, representing approximately $ 2.4 million dollars per family victim. Difficult to refuse, is not it?
But back on topic. Nearly two years after the publication of the final report of the committee, the history that we are taking a turn at the very least strange. Here's an excerpt about this article appeared in the Washington Post on August 2, 2006.
"Some staff members and commissioners of the committee on Sept. 11 concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how they reacted to the terrorist attacks of 2001 may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public, rather than a reflection of the confusion of events that day, reported sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing were so present that the Committee of ten members, at a secret meeting at the end of his tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several sources at the commission. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other documents provided sufficient cause to believe that military officials and aviation had violated the law by making false statements to Congress and the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the attacks, officials say.
Finally, the committee accepted a compromise by putting the allegations to the inspectors general of the departments of Defense and Transportation, which may require a criminal investigation if they feel justified, officials said.
˝ To date, we do not know why NORAD (North American Aerospace Command) told us what they told us ˝, says Thomas H. Kean, former Republican governor of New Jersey who headed the commission. ˝ It was just so far from reality. ... This is one of the questions that remained unanswered.
˝ Although the report of the Committee clearly indicates that early versions of the Defense Department on the events of the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it was considered to require a criminal investigation shows skepticism with which these reports were received by the Committee and provides an overview of the tension between it and the Bush administration. [...]
For more than two years after the attacks, NORAD officials and FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] provided inaccurate information on their response to the hijacking of aircraft, in testimony and in appearances before the media. The authorities had suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that fighter planes were deployed to meet the last two hijackings and that they were ready to descend on United Airlines Flight 93 if it were to threaten Washington.
In fact, the commission reported a year later than the audio command center northeast of NORAD and other documents show clearly that the military never had any aircraft line diverted to and have at some time pursued a phantom aircraft - American Airlines Flight 11 - long after he crashed into the World Trade Center.
Major General Larry Arnold and Colonel Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had first spotted the United Flight 93 at 9:16, but the commission has determined that the aircraft was not hijacked until twelve minutes later. The military had no knowledge of the flight until after its crash in Pennsylvania.
These differences, as well as others, have been clarified that when the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained records from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The reluctance of agencies to provide records - combined with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence - led some members to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what s event occurred on September 11.
˝ I was amazed at how the truth was different to how it was described ˝, said John Farmer, former Minister of Justice of New Jersey who led the staff investigation into the events of 11 September, in a recent interview. ˝ The records revealed a history radically different from what we had been told to us and the public for two years. ... This is not the manipulation of information. This is not true. [...]» ˝ M8
All of this is certainly complicate the story a little more. But whether before or after delivery of the final report of the inquiry, misinformation occurred somewhere.
And one thing is certain: the slow the American reaction to protect their airspace on Sept. 11 is undeniable. How is it then that nobody was fired after the deadly incompetence? And most importantly, why many individuals occupying strategic positions in the chain of command were they instead promoted?
We'll give more details on this aspect. But should we really believe that the military system of air defense of the United States, the most sophisticated in the world, was able to join any of the four commercial aircraft before they crashed?
recall once again that the September 2000 to June 2001, NORAD had successfully deployed its fighter aircraft on 67 occasions, as indicated by the AP (Associated Press) (W17). Yet, September 11, the same defense system failed four times to subjects under two hours, resulting in nearly 3,000 deaths, which was followed by false statements, promotions and no dismissal.
The example of inaccurate statements ˝ ˝ Major General Larry Arnold and Colonel Alan Scott returns us to an article by the Associated Press reported earlier, in which it is reported just two days after the attacks that ˝ F-16 fighter stayed in pursuit a short distance with another commercial airliner under the yoke of the terrorists until it crashed in Pennsylvania, according to the employee.
˝
information from the Regional air traffic control center in Nashua, New Hampshire, and consistent with the initial statements of Arnold and Scott, who had initially claimed that Flight 93 was spotted at 9:16. This statement was also supported by the statements of eyewitnesses, those civilians who claimed he saw an unidentified aircraft and flames in the sky above Somerset County, at the time of the crash.
added that during their testimony before the inquiry commission about two years later, during which they contradicted their original statements, or Major General Larry Arnold, either Colonel Alan Scott were not placed under oath, nor that no other military elsewhere (V3).
But why not put under oath, those individuals who held key positions in the military chain of command? The subject of the investigation it was not serious enough? The failure of the defense system does not justify it alone close questioning, in good and due form?
then look very revealing article published by CNN January 29, 2002, this time involving President George W. Bush directly.
"President Bush personally asked Tuesday to Tom Daschle, majority leader in the Senate to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, learned to CNN sources of Congress and the White House.
The motion was thrown during a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday morning. The sources said Bush initiated the conversation.
He asked that only intelligence committees of the House and Senate consider the potential errors of some federal agencies that could allow terrorist attacks to occur, rather than conducting a broader inquiry, as some lawmakers have proposed, according to sources.
Discussion on Tuesday followed a rare call from Vice President Dick Cheney Daschle last Friday, during which the same query was put.
˝ The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on Sept. 11 would divert resources and staff for their efforts in the war against terrorism ˝, Daschle told reporters. [...]» M9
's a little subtle diplomatic way to explain that the U.S. administration was opposed to investigations in depth. With hindsight, one wonders how such a justification could be provided without raising the ire of the people. After all, it seems absurd that a superpower like the United States does not have sufficient resources to both investigate in depth the worst terrorist attacks in its history and ensure properly defend himself.
The logical process to follow in an event the magnitude of September 11 Is it so little obvious? In-depth investigation and appropriate response. How the U.S. system could he let the country go to war even before an investigation worthy of the name is taken? And what is the reason why this government désira then limit the scope of the investigations?
*****
Another, equally important and unavoidable, was the initial response of President George W. Bush when he was informed that his country was under attack. Thanks to Michael Moore's documentary, Fahrenheit 911, millions of people could witness the reaction President. In fact, it would be more appropriate to talk about his lack of reaction. For those who have not seen these images, remember that President Bush was at Emma E. Primary School Booker Sarasota, Florida on the morning of September 11 as part of a previously announced visit publicly. There had to meet young students and take the opportunity to indulge in a photo to the press.
Before arriving at school, the president was first informed that the first plane struck the north tower of the World Trade Center. However, it is then he was in the presence of children Andrew Card, his chief of Staff at the time, whispered in his ear that a second plane had just fit into the World Trade Center and the United States was under attack. Then, for at least eight long minutes, the President stood still, children choir chanting in a book called The Pet Goat ˝ ˝.
While America was ostensibly in the grip of an attack, so where were the Secret Service and the bodyguards assigned to protect the president? Since Bush's presence had been announced publicly, it does not it soon became a favorite target for terrorists? The safety of children, therefore, was undermined by the mere presence of the chairperson. Thus, unless the secret services have been absolutely convinced that the president would not be at risk, what reason could there be to continue the photo shoot with these children for eight long minutes? In addition, the president was still in the school at 9:30 because there briefly addressed reporters in a room modified to accommodate the press conference. While
infer that some intelligence services were aware that the president was not in danger at this location and at that precise moment, others prefer to believe all other explanations, ranging from lack of intelligence to demonstrate composure on the part of President Bush. It is interesting in this context, read this excerpt from the Washington Times dated 7 October 2002.
"˝ A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.
˝
Chief of Staff of the White House had leaned to whisper these words the right ear of the President at 9.07 on September 11.
˝ I looked and that's all he said ˝, remembered Mr. Bush a few months later, during a series of in-depth interviews for the Washington Times in the office oval and aboard Air Force One. ˝ Then he left. There was no time to talk or anything.
˝ [...] While the children continued their history [The Pet Goat], the President stared still empty, lost in a tumult of thoughts pressing. The first plane that crashed was not an accident. The second aircraft had to prove that. [...]
President noticed someone who was gesticulating at the back of the room. It was Ari Fleischer, press secretary for the White House, trying to attract his attention without alerting the press. Mr. Fleischer exhibited a pad of paper.
Big block letters were scrawled on the back on the cardboard surface: DO NOT SAY FOR NOW. The comments written previously on the draft would be sadly inadequate. [...]» W41
Is not it interesting that the lack of reaction of the president was in fact justified by what he dictated his immediate professional entourage? Thus, so everything was under control during those eight minutes the President had remained motionless. Far from wanting to remove President Bush from students for the safety of all, the reference was rather to continue to play the game media session before the children, as if nothing unusual had happened.
Consider then a new element on the American president. At various times, it was questioned by the media about his initial reaction to the morning of September 11. Here one of his answers, reported by CNN while Bush was at the Convention Center in Orlando, Florida, December 4, 2001. To better situate the context, the President then received a question from a student in third grade.
"[...] QUESTION: How did you feel when you learned to terrorist attack?
BUSH: Thank you, Jordan ... Well, you will not believe what state I was when I learned about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff Andy Card - actually, I found myself in a class for discuss a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to enter, and saw a plane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on, and I've been a pilot myself, and I ' I said that's a terrible driver ˝ ˝, ˝ and I said it must be a horrible accident ˝.
But I was quickly out of there - I have not had much time to think about it, and while I was sitting in class, Andy Card, my chief who was sitting nearby came and m 'A second said ˝ plane hit the tower. America is under attack. [...]» ˝ W42
A mere detail, Mr. President: no image of the first plane hitting the north tower, the first to be hit, was broadcast on television on September 11 . These images were all subsequently released, having been captured by chance by civilians.
President had it so inaccessible image to the world at that time? Or did he simply serious memory problems? But Bush kept repeating the exact same story a month later at the other end of the country, at a conference as part of a forum on the economy in California. The following excerpt comes directly from the official website of the White House and was published January 5, 2002.
"[...] Q: What is the first thing that went through your head when you learned that a plane had crashed in the first building?
Yes. While I was sitting in a classroom in Florida. I went down to tell my little brother what to do, and - just kidding, Jeb. And - the mother in me. Anyway, I was just learning about a reading program that works.
[...] Anyway, I sat there and my Chief of Staff - well first of all, when we entered the classroom, I had seen the plane hit the first building. A television was on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that people could do such a terrible mistake. And something was not right with the aircraft, or - anyway, I'm sitting there listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said ˝ America ˝ is under attack. [...]» W43
Certainly, the president certainly does not seem to have difficulty remembering this story. While virtually everyone in America, and probably the world remembers where she was and how she became aware of the September 11 attacks, how the president himself can retain a memory as inaccurate? Let us finally
ABC News reported that during its television coverage of the events live on Sept. 11. The following words are those of the correspondent John Cochran, discussing with the presenter Peter Jennings.
"Cochran : [...] Peter, as you know, the president is in Florida to discuss education. He emerged from his hotel suite this morning, he was about to leave when journalists saw the Chief of Staff of the White House, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The journalists then asked the president 'Are you aware of what happened in New York?'. He said yes and he would have something to say about this later. [...]» W161
The President however said to have twice read the attacks once went to primary school only.
And if this was not a memory problem?
0 comments:
Post a Comment