Zelikow--9/11 Comm. Head AND Rice's aide--?

[pepsified thinker]

Maybe this is 'yesterday's news', but I wasn't aware of it until recently: the degree to which the 9/11 Commission was headed by folks linked to the administration. I saw <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/28/world/28zelikow.html?ei=5088&en=998202afa0ac36b8&ex=1319688000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print">this piece</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> today about Zelikow and it got me to wondering (again) about why Richard Clark first was an adversary of the administration (at the time off the commission's hearings) but more recently gave Rice some cover when Woodward's recent book raised the July 10 meeting with Tenent and Black--the urgent, emergency meeting that supposedly was a clear, ultimate warning of something like 9-11 being in the works. <br><br>I don't expect anything like a definitive answer on why Clark did what I see as a turn around, but does anyone have any thoughts on <br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>a) what's Rice's game? Why did she get cover from those who formerly attacker her? Why keep someone around who says things at odds with her (formal) statements of administration policy? <br></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>I don't trust her for a second, but is she playing some kind of game to ally herself and/or position herself for post-administration scenarios?<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>b) other Zelikow types? What, exactly, is his deal? Is he following a pattern established by others? What is there to know about him besides the 9-11 Commission and the NYT-type coverage? </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>Does this fit with anything known about infighting between factions within Bush/Cheney circles, and or other (intel?) circles? <br><br>I'm thinking the neo-cons are on the outs, but only will leave when pushed and shoved--and that calls for Rumsfeld's resignation and such are signs of that pushing and shoving. <br><br>Any thoughts? <br> <p></p><i></i>

[xsic bastardx]

<br> I read this in the Times this morning and about shit my Pants.<br><br> Ahhhhh.....Hello?.......<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :evil --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif ALT=":evil"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[maggrwaggr]

They wrote a book together. Maybe more, I can't remember.<br><br>They've been colleagues for a long long time, Rice and Zelikow.<br><br>Yes, having Zelikow head the 9/11 commission was EQUIVALENT to having Rice herself head it.<br><br>Is there any wonder it was a whitewash?<br><br>Max Cleland quit it, saying it was a disgrace, a joke. He was absolutely right. <p></p><i></i>

[pepsified thinker]

Lately I've heard more and more about why it was viewed as cover up. <br><br>--I get that general impression from comments here, <br>--in the recently-posted-about interview with a former NYPD detective who worked the pile and is now suffering serious respiratory problems--he calls for a new, REAL investigation<br>--and seeing how Zelikow and Ben Viniste (and others?) who headed it were allies/players on the team of the PTB<br><br>BUT hadn't heard that Cleland was on and quit--any links for/info on what he said when he did so? <br><br>I've been pondering where a Dem. majority House (and Senate, I hope) will direct investigations, and my cynical side is saying they won't really dig in such a radioactive 'heap '(figuratively speaking!?)--but Cleland has a lot of moral (political, now) weight. <br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>What kinds of questions will he want to ask?</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br><br>Republicans hammered Cleland pretty hard when he called their war a mistake (or however he criticized it). <br><br>Though I haven't followed him closely, he doesn't seem like a petty, vindictive person, BUT clearly there are legitimate reasons to call for open investigations of Republicans--wanting payback could just be the cherry on top of some 'just desserts' he could dish out. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br> <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

<!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/cache-370x173/arton12994-370x173.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/publication/trust_cover.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0393322599.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.gsnmagazine.com/images/aug_05/Zelikow.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[maggrwaggr]

Here he is, before he quit, complaining about the commission:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/112303A.shtml">www.truthout.org/docs_03/112303A.shtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Here's a little sample:<br><br>Q: What have some of the access problems been? <br><br>Cleland:   In May, the commission asked the FAA to give us the documents we're looking for. We've had to subpoena the FAA. We've now had to subpoena documents from Norad, which they have not given us. I for one think we ought to subpoena the White House for the presidential daily briefings, to know what the president knew, what the administration knew, and when they knew it so we can determine what changes ought to be made in our intelligence infrastructure, our warning system, so that we don't go through this kind of surprise attack again. <br><br>  Now, it's not partisan; Bill Clinton has already agreed to come personally before the 9/11 commission. But a majority of the commission has agreed to a bad deal. <br><br>  And what is the deal? <br><br>  A minority of the commissioners will be able to see a minority of the [PDB] documents that the White House has already said is pertinent. And then a minority of the commissioners themselves will have to brief the rest of the commissioners on what the White House thinks is appropriate. <br><br>  So the minority of commissioners will get a briefing on the documents? <br><br>  Yes, but first they have to report to the White House what they're going to tell the other commissioners. <br><br>  9/11 commission chairman Tom Kean has suggested if you issue subpoenas on the White House and they fight it, it's going to go to the courts and take months and months of legal wrangling. <br><br>  Well, that's up to the president, he's made this decision. I say that decision compromised the mission of the 9/11 commission, pure and simple. Far from the commissioners being able to fulfill their obligation to the Congress and the American people, and far from getting access to all the documents we need, the president of the United States is cherry-picking what information is shown to what minority of commissioners. Now this is ridiculous. That's not full and open access. <br> <p></p><i></i>