Image courtesy of David under CC BY 2.0.
A never-ceasing and disturbing mystery continues to shroud the events of December 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Was our Pacific fleet deliberately exposed to air attack? Was the reassignment of Admiral Husband E. Kimmel predicated upon his predecessor’s incessant complaints of inadequate air support at the base after the fleet was positioned there to enforce FDR’s threat of an oil embargo against the Japanese? In all likelihood, we’ll never know for sure.
But just as in the case of the disquieting mystery surrounding our entry into World War II, September 11, 2001 is taking on similar onerous overtones. The primary difference is that in the case of 9-11, the event that serves as our nation’s retaliatory justification for our unprovoked attack on Iraq, ongoing inquiries are being stonewalled and resisted by the Bush administration. It is doubtful that the Roberts Commission of 1941, assembled to investigate the attack upon Pearl Harbor, was hampered by anywhere near a similar level of resistance from the administration of FDR that Kean’s National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States is currently experiencing in attempting to gather information from the Bush administration concerning 9-11 data.
Not only has the Bush administration stonewalled and openly refused to cooperate, taking advantage of the protective shield citing “national security,” but Bush has come full forward citing “executive privilege” as well! The Kean Commission has been so successfully blocked in its investigation that it has resorted to striking an agreement with the Bush administration and necessitating also the issuances of a flurry of subpoenas to the Pentagon, the FAA and even New York City.
According to a November 24th article by Patrick Martin on WSWS.org entitled “Terrorism commission caves in to White House over 9/11 documents,” Martin relates, “The independent commission charged with investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington has backed down in the face of White House intransigence and agreed to let the Bush administration determine what information it would turn over to the panel.” How would this exemption from the investigation, which in all likelihood would merely expose possibly embarrassing bureaucratic incompetence or criminal negligence, compromise national security at this late stage of our retaliatory posture? How could this compromise Bush’s popularity?
In fact, considering Bush’s current level of popularity, wouldn’t this settle permanently any disquieting, nagging suspicion of even greater wrongdoing on the part of the administration? Yet, as concerns the potential exposure of either incompetence or criminal negligence, doesn’t government of, by and for the people owe an explanation to America considering the loss of 3,000 of our fellow citizens’ lives in such a horrible conflagration? It is certain that “coming clean” would assure Bush’s re-election unequivocally! So why the stonewalling on the part of President George W. Bush and his administration?
Patrick Martin continues his assessment, “An agreement reached November 13 between the White House and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States provides very limited access to the Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs), the daily summaries of all US intelligence reporting that are the most important documents being withheld from the commission. The Bush administration has refused to turn over the PDBs, although it has no legal claim of executive privilege, since the independent commission is not part of the legislative branch, but was set up jointly by Congress and the White House.”
Writing for the Philadelphia Daily News, carried on-line as philly.com, William Bunch poses some disturbing reflections in his article entitled, “Why don’t we have answers to these 9-11 questions?” Posted on the second anniversary of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2003, Bunch asks 20 questions, the first of which offers: “What did National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice tell President Bush about al Qaeda threats against the United States in a still-secret briefing on August 6, 2001?” Clearly, of the “PDBs” mentioned by Martin, none would be more relevant that this singularly vital briefing conducted a mere month before 9-11!
Bunch continues, “Rice has suggested in vague terms that the president’s brief – prepared daily by the CIA – included information that morning about Osama bin Laden’s methods of operation – including hijacking. But when the congressional committee probing Sept. 11 asked to see the report, Bush claimed executive privilege and refused to release it.” As Martin pointed out, President Bush has no valid claim here as regards executive privilege.
Clearly, whatever breakdowns in national security existed at the time, or whatever embarrassing bureaucratic bumbling comes to light, or even if prosecutable criminal negligence is uncovered, all those inconveniences are dwarfed by the inconvenience of a suspicion that perhaps an element of deliberate intent is what is really being masked. Considering both the cushion and passage of time, this apparent cover-up can no longer be considered as silence hinging upon the priority of national security. There are some astonishing inconsistencies relative to the Bush administration’s failings in terms of an effective defense posture that must be addressed. Bunch poses some serious questions, as do others, for which there are no direct, simple responses for the direct, simple questions asked.
Philip Shenon, writing for the November 20th edition of the New York Times expounds upon the across-the-board resistance reported by Martin. In his article, “9/11 Commission Orders New York to Hand Over Documents,” Shenon writes, “The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks announced today that it had subpoenaed New York City for a variety of police tapes and other material about the attacks. It said that the city’s refusal to hand over the material had ‘significantly impeded the commission’s investigation.’”
The article continues, “The 10-member commission said that the subpoena required the city to turn over tapes and transcripts of emergency 911 calls made that day, as well as transcripts of hundreds of interviews of firefighters that were conducted after the terrorist attacks. ‘The city’s failure to produce these important documents has significantly impeded the commission’s investigation,’ the panel said in a statement, adding the initial request for materials was made more than four months ago. ‘Given its statutory deadline, the commission cannot wait any longer for these vital records.’”
It appears that the stonewalling is not just from the White House, but across all federal agencies as well as the City of New York. The only linkage identifiable to this seeming conspiracy of resistance is the domination and control of information by the now all-controlling Republican Party of Washington and New York. “City officials said that the city has withheld the tapes and documents from the commission in hopes of reaching an agreement that would allow the city to edit the materials to remove ‘personal last-words’ commentary by victims of the attacks that was captured in many of the police and fire department tapes,” writes Shenon. Why would such concerns preclude releasing the data – wouldn’t the commission also be sensitive to such recordings, and how would these compromise national security or invoke mayoral executive privilege?
The Bush administration, in only three short years, has managed to immunize a government of, by and for the people from that the press to such an extent, that even if reporters wanted to get at the truth and all the facts, they’d be seriously precluded from doing so. But in reality, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the press is compliant and is helping the Bush administration along with its secret government of, by and for the Republican Party and its politicians.
Posted on Rense.com, and originated on lifeboatnews.com, Senior Correspondent William Thomas posted an article on December 14th entitled, “911 Smoking Gun – The Story They Don’t Want You To Read.” Thomas raises many excellent points that ask some very disturbing questions, which even without the Kean commission stonewalling and 28 page redaction, point to government inconsistencies that in all likelihood go beyond the irregularities that could be uncovered by such inquiry. The focus of Thomas’ article is the unexplainable, and unbelievably slow response time of our air defense systems.
Thomas begins, “It happens all the time. When a small private plane recently entered the 23-mile restricted ring around the U.S. Capital, two F-16 interceptors were immediately launched from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away. In a similar episode, a pair of F-16 “Fighting Falcons” on a 15-minute strip alert was airborne from Andrews just 11 minutes after being notified by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) of a Cessna straying towards the White House. [AP Nov 11/03; CNN June20/02]”
Thomas goes on, “These are well-practiced routines. With more than 4,500 aircraft continuously sharing U.S. airspace, between September 2000 and June 2001 the Pentagon launched fighters on 67 occasions to escort wayward aircraft. [FAA news release Aug/9/02; AP Aug13/02] But on Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD and the FAA ignored routine procedures and strict regulations. In response to a national emergency involving hijacked airliners as dangerous as cruise missiles, interceptors launched late from distant bases flew to defend their nation at a fraction of their top speeds. [NORAD news release Sept. 18/01]”
Thomas’ article goes on to document the astonishing breakdown, incompetence, and seemingly deliberate belated and non-urgent responses from our defenders. One explanation Thomas documents is that our air defenses “didn’t hear from the FAA that American Airlines Flight 11 had been hijacked until 8:40 that fateful morning. [NORAD news release Sept. 18/01] But at the National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the basement of the Pentagon, Air Force staff officers monitoring every inch of airspace over the northeastern seaboard would have caught that first hijacking when Flight 11’s identification transponder stopped transmitting at 8:20 – automatically triggering a radar alarm.”
Virtually all aircraft, especially airliners, are equipped with transponders. They are radar homing devices employed to provide a locating signal for FAA officials and rescuers to locate a downed aircraft. The interruption of a transponder signal, and its identification to a large airliner, would indeed trigger an immediate and intensive series of actions. Yet, the signal transmission was stopped and the radar alarm triggered, and “38 vital minutes passed before a pair of F-15s was scrambled from Otis.”
Bunch asks, “Why did the NORAD air defense network fail to intercept the four hijacked jets? During the depths of the Cold War, Americans went to bed with the somewhat reassuring belief that jet fighters would intercept anyone launching a first strike against the United States. That myth was shattered on 9/11, when four hijacked-airliners-turned-into-deadly-missiles cruised the American skies with impunity for nearly two hours.” American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked and under the control of terrorists for 47 minutes before crashing into the Pentagon.
Why are answers to these matters not being presented to the American people? And why aren’t members of our free and independent mainstream press asking these questions? These are no longer matters of “national security,” nor would their discussion make us more vulnerable than we already are based upon enemy agents flying in airspace over the homes and businesses of the American people for two hours. And although there may be some embarrassment to one or more of our allies, or to one or more bureaus and bureaucrats, what’s wrong with holding the guilty accountable? Are these matters to remain secret because the guilty are at higher levels in our government than any of us dare imagine?
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”