Tim Russert, Dick Cheney, and 9/11
by Prof. David Ray Griffin
Information Clearing House
While we are remembering Tim Russert and his years as moderator of “Meet the Press,” we would do well to recall his interview with Vice President Dick Cheney at Camp David on September 16, 2001, just five days after the 9/11 attacks. 1 In fact, Cheney himself, during an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer the morning after Russert died, reminded us of that Camp David interview, saying: “I always, when I think of Tim and think of ‘Meet the Press,’ that’s the show that always comes to mind. . . . It was a remarkable moment in American history.” 2
Commenting that he himself “remember[ed] that interview vividly,” Lauer asked: “Anything stand out from that interview?” In his reply, Cheney said: “We went back and reminisced to some extent about what had actually happened on the morning of 9/11. So it was—it was a remarkable moment in my career.” 3
It was indeed. In reminiscing about his movements that morning, Cheney contradicted what was to become a crucial element of the account that the 9/11 Commission would give of those movements.
In praising Russert’s tenure on “Meet the Press,” Cheney said: “He would ask you tough questions, he would remind you of quotes you made previously in other settings or on earlier shows, so you never got away with anything going up vis-à-vis Tim.” 4
Given Cheney’s appraisal of his interview with Russert as… Continue reading
Posted at Crooks and Liars 4/1/08
By Logan Murphy
We brought you Attorney General, Michael Mukasey’s tearful remarks about 9/11 and the ongoing FISA battle in Congress last week and on Tuesday’s Countdown, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow dig deeper into what was either a series of lies from the AG or an admission of gross negligence on the part of the Bush Administration leading up to that tragic day.
Mukasey claimed that the U.S. received a phone call from a terrorist safe house in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, but couldn’t trace the call because the FISA laws were too restrictive — which is, of course, a lie. Mukasey was a Federal Judge, he knows that. Olbermann says that someone in the House or Senate needs to haul the Attorney General in and question him and find out whether he was lying to make a political point, or if the Bush administration really did receive such a call and chose not to act on it, leaving the country vulnerable to attack.
Maddow: “…Oh please, just let him have just been lying, because if he was telling the truth here, if there really was a call from a known al Qaeda safe house in Afghanistan to the United States before 9/11 which the Bush Administration did not tap and trace? That is huge news and we ought to get some answers about why we were left so unprotected and surprised on 9/11. Let’s hope that he was… Continue reading
By Jerry Meldon
Hamilton’s carefully honed skill for balancing truth against political comity has elevated him to the status of a Washington Wise Man. In this guest essay, however, Jerry Meldon suggests that attendees at a Tufts conference on the Middle East might want to ask Hamilton about his past compromises with history.
(Plus, at the end of the essay, you may want to read an addendum from reporter Robert Parry on two questions that might be posed to Hamilton about decisions he made in wrapping up the so-called “October Surprise” case):
When former Rep. Lee Hamilton gives the keynote address – entitled “Iraq: Today, Tomorrow, and Beyond” – at a Tufts University symposium on March 27, he may be thankful if he doesn’t have to discuss “yesterday.”
He probably would prefer not to revisit fateful decisions he made while chairing investigations into Republican dirty work, especially those that let George H.W. Bush off the hook and cleared George W. Bush’s path to the White House.
Whenever the Republicans have a touchy national-security scandal to put to rest, their favorite Democratic investigator is Lee Hamilton. Over the years, Hamilton has developed a reputation as a very reasonable fellow who knows how far he can go without ruffling too many important feathers.
As veteran journalist Robert Parry has persuasively argued at Consortiumnews.com, the Bush family name squeaked through the 80’s and early 90’s essentially mud-free, only because:
–On Christmas Eve 1992, lame-duck President George H.W.… Continue reading
Popular Mechanics Book Alleges FAA Source For Statistical Data; FAA Concedes No Such Data Records Exist.
Beginning on page 22 of a Popular Mechanics 2006 book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths, containing a forward comment by Republican presidential candidate John McCain, an attempt is made to clarify the role played by potential military aircraft intercepts during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Citing unnamed sources, part of this section reads as follows:
When contacted by Popular Mechanics, spokesmen for NORAD and the FAA clarified their remarks by noting that scrambles were routine, but intercepts were not – especially over the continental United States.
However, according to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Freedom of Information Act response dated March 3, 2008, the FAA concedes that records for the information alleged in part by Popular Mechanics’ unnamed FAA source, do not exist.
David Edwards and Adam Doster
Tuesday January 22, 2008
Families of firefighters killed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center rallied in Orlando Tuesday in anticipation of the state’s upcoming Republican primary. Unfortunately for Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, the firefighters are not in his corner.
“We want America to know that [the Giuliani campaign] is lying to America and to the American pubic,” said Jim Riches, a deputy chief in the New York Fire Department, “telling all of Florida that the New York City Fire Department backs him, when that’s another lie.”
Firefighters and their families vowed to dog the former New York mayor at all of his Florida campaign stops because the state figures prominently in Giuliani’s big-state primary strategy. The protesters think that Giuliani was aware that firefighters who responded to the World Trade Center attack were carrying defective radios and did not hear the order to evacuate.
“He didn’t prepare us before, during, or after,” says Riches.
Giuliani has campaigned strongly on his leadership during the attacks on New York, claiming he is the best suited to prevent an “Islamic terrorist war against us.” But the firefighters were quick to question that courage.
“Yeah, the decision he made was, which direction he was going to run,” says Riches. “And he ran north, and that’s all he did.”
The Giuliani campaign labeled the display a misleading, partisan attack. The former mayor is also emphasizing his ability to deal with the economy, distancing himself from the 9/11 pitch.…Continue reading
Title: “Transcript Of Japanese Parliament’s 911 Testimony”
Author: Benjamin Fulford
January 14, 2008
Student Researchers: Kyle Corcoran, Alan Scher, Bill Gibbons, and Elizabeth
Faculty Evaluator: Mickey S. Huff, MA
Testimony in the Japanese parliament, broadcast live on Japanese television in January 2008, challenged the premise and validity of the Global War on Terror. Parliament member Yukihisa Fujita insisted that an investigation be conducted into the war’s origin: the events of 9/11.
In a parliament Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee session held to debate the ethics of renewing Japan’s “anti-terror law,” which commits Japan to providing logistical support for coalition forces operating in Afghanistan, Fujita opened the session by stating, “I would like to talk about the origin of this war on terrorism, which was the attacks of 9/11, . . . When discussing these anti-terror laws we should ask ourselves, what was 9/11? And what is terrorism?”
Fujita pointed out that, “So far the only thing the government has said is that we think it was caused by al-Qaeda because President Bush told us so.
We have not seen any real proof that it was al-Qaeda.” He reminded parliament that twenty-four Japanese citizens were killed on 9/11, yet the mandate of a
criminal investigation by the Japanese government never followed. “This is a crime so surely an investigation needs to be carried out,” said Fujita
(Censored 2008, #16).
Fujita went on extensively to ask “about the suspicious information being uncovered and the doubts people worldwide are having about… Continue reading
Op-Ed Contributors Stonewalled by the C.I.A.
By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON
Washington: MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest possible account of the “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001” — and to offer recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president’s chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.
The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.
When the press reported that, in 2002 and maybe at other times, the C.I.A. had recorded hundreds of hours of interrogations of at least two Qaeda detainees, we went back to check our records. We found that we did ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that… Continue reading
CORRECTED & UPDATED
CIA claims it destroyed videotapes of interrogations central to the official story of September 11th. Writing in TIME magazine, former CIA agent and occasional “conspiracy theory” debunker, Robert Baer concedes that 9/11 skeptics seem all the more credible in the aftermath. Full-time debunker Gerald Posner also sees a cover-up.
The most important document in the official mythology of September 11th, The 9/11 Commission Report, is based largely on the reported statements of three prisoners: Khalid Shaikh Mohamed, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Abu Zubaydah. The Report describes these men as high-ranking members of Al Qaeda. U.S. authorities announced the captures of the three in the course of separate raids in 2002 and 2003. According to the CIA and U.S. military, they have been held ever since at “undisclosed locations,” and have had contacts only with a handful of interrogators. No U.S. agency has ever produced any of them in a public proceeding, or even provided photographs of them in captivity.
Khalid Shaikh Mohamed (see entries in the “Complete 9/11 Timeline”) was originally reported as killed during an attempt to capture him in Pakistan on September 10, 2002. He apparently survived, for he was reported as captured alive in March 2003. Until 2004, it was considered a security breach for a U.S. government source even to mention his name, although he was publicly identified as the “9/11 mastermind” in 2002.
The 9/11 Commission asked to see Mohamed and other prisoners, and was denied. The CIA… Continue reading
November 16, 2007
These explosive and revealing comments about 9/11 have been completely ignored by the Mainstream Media. While talking about the 9/11 commission, 9/11 family member Patty Casazza reveals that FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds had incriminating insider information about the 9/11 attacks:
The Government knew… other than the exact moment… they knew the date, and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come … And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the Commission.
And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, “What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation.” And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication.
The lack of Mainstream news coverage of these views is very apparent. Fox News in a secret memo implicitly admits that there is a problem with the ‘official story’ of 9/11:
“The so-called 9/11 Commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both former and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not ‘ what did he know and when did he know it’ stuff. Don’t turn this into Watergate.“
In fact, a similar… Continue reading
by Peter Zaza
There’s a wonderful optical illusion which involves a graphic of a ballerina spinning around on one leg. It’s called:
“The Spinning Silhouette Optical Illusion”
This illusion elucidates a very important principle concerning subjective reality, and helps to illustrate a point about the vastly differing views people can hold about events such as 9/11. Some people who look at the spinning figure will first affirm that she is bouncing on her left leg while twirling in a clockwise direction. Others may avow that she is instead bouncing on her right leg and spinning in a counterclockwise direction. Indeed, you can have many people looking at this animated graphic at the same time and not agree as to what is happening. This idea is not really foreign to many people who have made the journey from one belief about 9/11 to its diametrical opposite.
First – we must try and deconstruct the illusion and find out what is going on. When you look at a silhouette of a figure it is not possible to determine if it is facing you, or facing away from you. There is no depth to the figure, it’s just an outline – our Left/Right designation of what we visually perceive will set the stage for our belief of what follows. If the human cut-out is interpreted to be facing you then you will assume it is her left foot touching the ground, and vice versa if not. The information is not sufficient when viewing a black and white silhouette, our brain makes an assumption at first glance and then proceeds toward a logical eventuality based upon that assumption.…Continue reading
By Kevin Ryan
It has been nearly three years since I wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), about their World Trade Center investigation. Shortly after firing me for writing this letter, my former employer, Underwriters Laboratories (UL), began making some suspicious statements.
These included the following three claims related to the question of whether or not UL performed fire-resistance testing of materials used in the WTC. 
One might wonder why UL felt the need to claim that there was “no evidence” if they simply do not do such work. But what is the truth about UL‘s involvement in testing materials for the WTC, in terms of the fire resistance the buildings required, but apparently did not have according to the government’s fire-based “collapse” hypothesis?
UL’s first claim
Apart from steel column assemblies, there were several other materials used in the WTC towers… Continue reading
VDARE.COM – http://vdare.com/roberts/070910_911.htm
September 11, 2007
9-11, Six Years Later
By Paul Craig Roberts
On Sept. 7, National Public Radio reported that Muslims in the Middle East were beginning to believe that the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were false flag operations committed by some part of the U.S. and/or Israeli government.
It was beyond the imagination of the NPR reporter and producer that there could be any substance to these beliefs, which were attributed to the influence of books by U.S. and European authors sold in bookstores in Egypt.
NPR’s concern was that books by Western authors questioning the origin of the 9/11 attack have the undesirable result of removing guilt from Muslims’ shoulders.
The NPR reporter, Ursula Lindsey, said that “here in the U.S., most people have little doubt about what happened during the 2001 attacks.”
NPR’s assumption that the official 9/11 story is the final word is uninformed. Polls show that 36 percent of Americans and more than 50 percent of New Yorkers lack confidence in the 9/11 commission report. Many 9/11 families who lost relatives in the attacks are unsatisfied with the official story. Why are the U.S. media untroubled that there has been no independent investigation of 9/11?
Why are the media unconcerned that the rules governing preservation of forensic evidence were not followed by federal authorities?
Why do the media brand skeptics of the official line “conspiracy theorists” and “kooks”?
What is wrong with debate and listening to both… Continue reading
Osama bin Laden organized the 9/11 attacks right?
What is implied on TV is very different from the actual actions the US government
has taken in “pursuit” of the 9/11 conspirators.
Six years later, the US has filed no charges, presented no evidence and in
fact is not even seeking Bin Laden in connection with the crime!
Courageous investigative reporting by KSLA TV in Shreveport, LA (search youtube.com for even more of this from KSLA!):
Youtube description: Original Link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6443576002087829136.
The government has yet to properly explain why our generation’s Pearl Harbor, 9/11, is never mentioned on the FBI‘s Most Wanted poster of suspected mastermind Usama (Osama) Bin Laden. Reporter Jeff Ferrell, who recently broke the story on Homeland Security’s “Clergy Response Team” To Quell Public Dissent During Martial Law, investigates what on the surface seems to be a simple question: Why no mention of 9/11. The answers, or lack of them, are anything but simple.
See for yourself: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm. See also this article from Muckraker Report: FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11″
Source URL: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/150.html
Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.
Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.
Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.
However, just 8% of voters say the CIA was Very Truthful before the War in Iraq. Another 33% believe the CIA was Somewhat Truthful. Most, 52%, believe the CIA was Not Very Truthful or Not at All Truthful before the War.
Still, 57% have a favorable opinion of the CIA. Thirty-six percent (36%) have an unfavorable view.
Former CIA Director George Tenet doesn’t fare so well. He is viewed favorably by 29% of voters and unfavorably by 49%.
Just 12% have followed news stories about Tenet’s new book Very Closely. Another 29% have followed the stories Somewhat… Continue reading
Jenna Orkin, of WTC Environmental Organization www.wtceo.org, describes the envirotoxic disaster of 9/11, horrendous health effects on residents and rescuers, and lies of the administration that led to the situation.
“Jenna…details how the Bush administration Environmental Protection Agency told the public that the air in Lower Manhattan after the attacks of 9/11 was safe to breathe even while knowing is was not. This raises the question: if the Bush administration was willing to sacrifice the health and the lives of United States citizens, what else would they be willing to do?”
By SUSAN EDELMAN, HEATHER GILMORE and BRAD HAMILTON
September 24, 2006 — Condoleezza Rice’s office gave final approval to the infamous Environmental Protection Agency press releases days after 9/11 claiming the air around Ground Zero was “safe to breathe,” internal documents show.
Now Secretary of State, Rice was then head of the National Security Council – “the final decision maker” on EPA statements about lower Manhattan air quality, the documents say.
Scientists and lawmakers have since deemed the air rife with toxins.
This has not been a good couple of weeks for Condoleeza Rice. In addition to the story below, another appeared in the NY Post which, if accurate, makes her complicit in releasing “the air is safe to breathe” statements through EPA’s then-Director, Christie Todd Whitman. Whitman is currently co-defendant, with Michael Leavitt, administrator of EPA, in “a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of residents, students, and workers in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn”.
Some 70,000 people are sick as a result of the toxic air after 9/11. The actions of EPA head Christie Todd Whitman in declaring the air safe to breath have already been called “conscience-shocking” by a Federal Judge. Thousands of people are sick, and some have died–the first responders, the cleanup crews, those who went back to work and kids who went back to school, based on the government’s safety assurances. Again we must ask… if members of this government were willing to knowingly cast aside the wellbeing of tens… Continue reading
Image: CBC News: Sunday’s Evan Solomon interviews Lee Hamilton , 9/11 Commission co-chair and co-author of the book “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission” .
Evan Solomon : Tell me why you felt the need, with Thomas Kean, to write this book “Without Precedent”?
Lee Hamilton : We felt we had an important story to tell, 9/11 was a traumatic event in our history, every adult in America will remember exactly where they were on that day when they heard the news. We felt that the Commission’s work gave a lot of insights into how government works, and particularly how government in the national security area works. We had hundreds of people tell us, or ask us, how the Commission did its work, and so we responded by writing the book and tried to let people know the story, the inside story of the 9/11 Commission.
Solomon : Do you consider the 9/11 Commission to have been a success, and if so, under what ways do you measure that success? How do you call it a success?
Hamilton : The 9/11 Commission was created by statute. We had two responsibilities – first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we’ve done that reasonably well. We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11, but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report. I think we’ve been reasonably successful in telling… Continue reading
Is The Official Story Falling Apart? Or Are We Seeing An Un-Controlled Demolition?
– CNN, Westminster John Knox Press, Air America help move the story along
In the past few weeks the 9/11 Truth Movement has continued to move forward, propelled by a gentle nudge from a mainstream news source, a solid bump from the publishing arm of a major American church, and a full-fledged jolt from Air America.
The Nudge: CNN’s Lou Dobbs Wakes Up To 9/11 Lies
In this short clip, Lou discusses the new book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, written by 9/11 Commission co-chairmen Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, who claim that the commission was lied to, not once but consistently, by the FAA and NORAD.
… Continue reading
Among other comments, you will hear the following from Lou Dobbs: Well, this government doesn’t deserve much credibility, does it? In point of fact, if all of the after-action reports are untrue, for whatever reason, that’s a lie, because they were asserted as true by people who knew better, or should have.
Incompetence and ineptitude on the part of this government, on September 11th and in the weeks and months leading up to it, are established.