Dan Rather and CBS News have doggedly refused to reveal their sources for the memos that are increasingly suspected to be forgeries. In a recent statement they claim that they are “not prepared to reveal its confidential sources or the method by which 60 MINUTES Wednesday received the documents.”
Their statement is rather peculiar considering that they’ve all but left a trail of breadcrumbs to their source’s door. A review of the known facts makes it increasingly likely that at least one of the sources was Bill Burkett, the former National Guardsman who made the unsubstantiated charges that George Bush's National Guard files in Texas were "cleansed" back in 1997.
Here is why the evidence appears to lead back to Burkett:
-- Rather and Mapes were “able to glean the contents of the memos” before they actually acquired them, and while they worked to convince the source to hand over the memos" implying that they had received a working copy before they obtained the “original.” (1)
--The documents were faxed from a Kinko’s in Abilene, TX, 21 miles from Burkett’s home in Baird. (2) Kevin McCullough called the store and was told that Burkett had an standing account at that location.
--"Within the last few months," said Rather, "we got a look at the documents, and we said we’d like to have a copy of the documents." He adds that they met the source in a "remote location." "[The source] said they were copies of the documents, and he told us some of the history of where they came from and how they came to him," noted Rather. (1)
-- CBS producer Mapes flew to Texas to interview Burkett over the summer. (1) [Note: I drove through Baird on my way to Abilene this past weekend. Baird is a very small town and a three hour drive from the closest major airport. It certainly qualifies as a “remote location.”]
--The New York Times reported that a CBS staff member, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that Burkett was a source for the "60 Minutes" report but "did not know the exact role he played." (2)
-- After returning from a trip to Panama in January of 1998, Burkett was stricken by a deadly case of meningoencephalitis that eventually caused him to have a nervous breakdown and later be hospitalized for depression. He claims, in an article for the online journal of “Veterans for Peace”, that he was denied his health benefits, for which he blames Bush:
George W. Bush and his lieutenants were mad. They ordered that I not be accessed to emergency medical care services, healthcare benefits I earned by my official duty; and I was withheld from medical care for 154 days before I was withdrawn from Texas responsibility by the Department of the Army, by order of the White House.
I was a pawn then caught in a struggle for right and wrong, but also caught within a political struggle between a man who would do anything to be 'king' of America and an institution of laws that we knew as America.
--Even though he blames the governor for denying him benefits, he called Bush's office and talked to Dan Bartlett who was working as the Deputy to the Policy Director. Burkett says, “Needless to say, we know the White House counsel personally. We know Dan Bartlett, Karen Hughes, Joe Allbaugh, Don Evans, and many others very personally. Dick Cheney used to be a close friend. No longer.”
--In a personal interview with blogger Kevin Drum, Burkett admitted that “he came very close to threatening extortion over Bush's file cleansing unless he got the medical help he needed. Burkett says now, ‘I was probably out of line in a way and yet I will tell you now that I was begging for what I at that point considered life saving help.’"
--Burkett was a plaintiff in an appeal to the US Supreme Court in the case which he claims was “in regard to the retaliation against him following breaking the Bush records issue.” The petitions for writs of certiorari was denied.
-- While Rather would not reveal his source he said it was a man who had been reluctant to come forth with them because he’d been harassed by political operatives. "Whether one believes it or not, this person believed that he and his family had been harassed and even threatened," he said. "We were not able to confirm that, but his fear was that what had already been threats, intimidation, if he gave up the documents, could get worse—maybe a lot worse." (1)
-- Burkett’s lawyer, David Van Os, issued a statement on Burkett's behalf saying he "no longer trusts any possible outcome of speaking to the press on any issue regarding George W. Bush and does not choose to dignify recent spurious attacks upon his character with any comment." It should be noted that Van Os isn’t a local West Texas attorney but a former Democratic candidate for the Texas Supreme Court who, as his website attest, traveled to “Palm Beach, Florida, November-December 2000, to assist Democratic Party in vote recount efforts.”
(1) New York Observer
(2) Washington Post
(Hat tip: Wizbang)
Is there a good reason why we have all expended so much energy on these questions. Is there anyone who supports Bush who would abandon him if these allegations were true? Is there anyone who opposes Bush who change their vote if they turned out to be false? These simply aren't meaningful issues. Doesn't it behoove us as Christians to be the ones who keep this election about things that really matter, instead of playing to these trivialities?
Sorry, but I look at my little girl and then I look at where we're at in terms of political discourse, and it leaves me utterly despondent. I want to give her a country better than the one I grew up in, and instead it seems that everyone is more interested in the short term power politics.
My apologies, this is getting maudlin. It's really, really late.
Hobbs Online is reporting that Burkett left the following message "on August 13, 2004, for Democrats.com, before the memos surfaced":
I have found no documentation from LTC Killian's hand or staff that indicate that this unit was involved in any complicit way to either cover for the failures of 1LT Bush, or to provide him pay or certification for training not completed.
It's possible that Burkett that did not forge these memos himself -- that they came into his hands from somewhere else and he passed them on to CBS.
There is some evidence that if Burkett had forged the memos himself he would not have made some of the mistakes these memos contain. For example, AllahPundit notes that Burkett left the following text on a blog in February 2004:
Of the files that I saw within the 15 gallon waste can were numerous documents which detailed why 1LT George Bush was grounded from flying including a two-page counseling statement signed by LTC Jerry Killian.
AllahPundit says, "Compare the abbreviation of Bush's rank used by Burkett with the one used by the forger in the August 1, 1972 memo ('1st Lt.'). According to several readers, '1LT' is the correct form. Query, then: If Burkett is the forger, if he knows the proper abbreviation, and if he wants the documents to be believed, why on earth would he screw it up?"
By the same token, it could be asked, if the memos came into Burkett's hands and he only passed them on, why wouldn't he recognize that the abbeviations were incorrect? Maybe he noticed but didn't care.
I have a feeling that CBS' source for the documents may be Burkett, but the "replicator" may be someone else.
Is there a good reason why we have all expended so much energy on these questions.
Of course there is. The media can't sell air time with real stories on the real issues. No one tunes in for that. They will however tune in to hear about bs attacks against Kerry by the Swifties or bs attacks against Bush about his coke snorting days in the national guard. More importantly, and the Bush/Cheney team love this, they can spin up the news organizations on bs minutia about memos so that their utter failure as an administration and their complete pushing of the religious right and neocon agenda can be masked away from the voter's minds in November.
And we can ignore stuff like the Borders employees talking online about how to prevent the Swift Vets books from being sold. After all, the Bush folks would censor what you read so why shouldn't the other side start doing it now?
The reason we are not talking about the issues is that Kerry can't run on his Senate record. No one is really for him. They are just anti-Bush. And we are dealing with the most closed minded set of people I've seen since the anti-war fanatics in the late 60s. They aren't interested in talking about how they'd do things differently. They just want the "right kind" to be elected. They can run the richest man ever to try to become president and not have a single qualm about it.
Teri,
Good job packing in as many GOP talking points into one message. I think I count six, and that was olny with 8 sentences. Good call. What part of Kerry's Senate record do you refer to? His voting against weapons systems that the Department of Defense and White House (including Dick Cheney) said they didn't want anymore? Good job.
I think there are many people that are pro-Kerry. I'm not one of them. I'm anti-Bush and voting for "anybody but Bush" Kerry.
Mr. Matkin - This is exactly the type of story that should concern someone who is worried about the level of political discourse. How will political discourse be improved by ignoring a fraud perpetrated by a major broadcasting figure employed by a media giant whose biases are well known?
Here is an accusation for you. Burkett possibly had access to Bush's files. He knew about his transfer to Alabama, and that there was some controversy about it. In the file were documents that provided a complete trail of Bush's duty during 72-73. Bartlett selects a few of these documents and puts them in a shredder. Now there is no proof that Bush fulfilled his obligation. Instead of those missing files exonerating Bush, everyone believes those missing files will damn him.
I love seeing the level of activity relating to the Bush National Guard documents and CBS. Remember my friends, only by sending a strong message to those entrusted to provide us with true and acurate news, by investigating and questioning their accuracy,will we be sure they can no longer influence our thought process with their personal bias. In truth, what is going on here is a wonderful example of how we can continue our personal control of the liberty we enjoy. Liberty will no longer exist when the source of our daily information can no longer be trusted. Trust me, all other news sources are watching this story with great interest. Because of it, they will be more inclined to be factual and less biased when they know they could become the next CBS.
Hey Bob,
You are right. We know we can't trust any of the media outlets to give us accurate news anymore. Journalism by definition now takes a back seat to what sells. That's true for literally every single one of them. This CBS thing won't change anything at all. It will simply make them more cunning in their deception. The best special effects in movies are the ones where you don't know they are there. The best propaganda is the kind where people don't know they are getting it. Welcome to journalism in America in the 21st century.
Mr. Moderate,
Good job packing in as many GOP talking points into one message. I think I count six, and that was olny with 8 sentences. Good call. What part of Kerry's Senate record do you refer to? His voting against weapons systems that the Department of Defense and White House (including Dick Cheney) said they didn't want anymore? Good job.
Sorry, but 'timing is everything'. Kerry voted against these things in the middle of the Cold War. After the Cold War was over, Cheney wanted to modernize the military, and that's why he voted against aging military programs...in favor of more modern programs.
You really don't fit your name. How about Mr. LLL or Mr. Bush-hater.
Kerry voted against them in the same years that Bush I & Cheney requested they be cut. What the hell are you talking about?
And just because I'm a political moderate doesn't mean I can't have complete animosity for Bush. He is completely playing the neocon/religious right song and that's about as comfortable as someone putting spikes into my eardrums.
I'd like to add to the discussion as an Army Reserve Personnel Officer in the G-1 of a major USAR command.
What's the bottom line? EVEN IF original documents exist that prove 1LT Bush did not take a flight physical and/or did not appear at drills, what's the overall impact? Let me give the Reserve Component perspective:
1. First, lets look at drills that 1LT Bush did not attend. I am the final signatory for thousands of Army Reserve orders each year, which are regulated by the same DOD and US Code laws that govern all services. Many of these are discharges due to "UNSAT PARTICIPATION" meaning the soldier did not attend drills AND was also not excused for these drills. We have many of these, I estimate up to 15% of the entire USAR/ARNG at any given time may be considered “Unsats.” It takes at least 3 months of unexcused non-attendance within the past 12 months to become an “Unsat.” However, it is highly unusual for any unit to be so efficient that they can process their “Unsats” out of the unit after only 3 months. Average time would be about 6 months. We have personnel who haven't drilled for more than 4 years currently in the reserves today and are confirmed "Unsats" but the unit has not been able to move them out of the unit. Its a problem that the USAR and ARNG leaders have focused intensely on as the rotations to the middle east continue.
What happens to an “Unsat?” Standard procedure until very recently (2004) was to transfer the person to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). They would then serve out their remaining obligation, but would not have to attend drills or annual training. They would be available for call-up, however, if needed. They would receive an honorable discharge.
Note: If you are EXCUSED from drill, then you are not an “Unsat.” We often have reservists excused for many months at a time, even up to a year, for various reasons. However, if it goes on too long, we try to transfer them to the inactive reserve, which does not require monthly drills. Unresolvable employment conflict, personal hardship, no unit within 50 mile radius, and pregnancy are all valid reasons to transfer to the inactive reserve.
However, its clear from 1LT Bush’s records that he sought and obtained permission to be excused from drills. He was not an “Unsat.” Even if he never showed up for a single drill in Alabama, but was excused, he would still be in good standing. In order for the Air Force to discharge him with less than an honorable discharge, he would have had to do more than miss drills or miss a physical. If the unit never bothered to process him out as an “Unsat” then who are we to question his service?
2. What about the missed flight physical? Is this a big deal? Absolutely not! Bottom line for reservists and guard personnel is “Can they mobilize and deploy and do their mission?” If the military needed to use 1LT Bush as a pilot (if his unit were called up), a missed flight physical and a few missed drills certainly would not stop him from mobilizing. He would simply receive a mobilization order and be told to report to a mobilization station for processing. What happens during processing? Well, medical evaluations, for one. Large numbers of reservists and guardsmen currently mobilizing for the middle east don’t have current physicals or dental examinations. This merely slows down the mobilization process by a couple days, but is accepted and planned for. It takes about 3-5 days of processing on average, and then standard procedure these days is 3 months train-up before deployment to theater.
Reservists and guardsmen exist to mobilize, and train with this goal in mind. We have tens of thousands of personnel in the inactive reserve who NEVER attend drills, but are still subject to call-up even though they don't necessarily maintain their skills. Bottom line for 1LT Bush is that if his unit had been called up, nothing in his records would have prevented him from mobilizing and deploying with his unit- not missed drills, not a flight physical, not a civilian career in Alabama or classes at Harvard.
Bottom Line: 1LT Bush was a “mobilization asset” who was available for employment until the day he was discharged. He served his time, was not selected to mobilize, and was discharged honorably, just like millions of other reservists and guardsmen over the past 50 years.
Joe
Whoa, Joe, hang on a minute! You can't be using logic here. You know the way the Guard and Reserve work, so do I--I was active duty for 9 years and was heavily recruited to stay in the Reserves. "Don't worry", they said--"if you can't make the drills, just get it excused, and you can miss up to a year. Just stay in shape and ready to take a PT test immediately upon your arrival."
Don't confuse these people with facts, please. Here's what we all know: GWB was AWOL! That's right!! AWOL!! They've already had too many balloons popped in the past two weeks to start telling them about "excused absences".
Burkett’s condition seems to mirror something of my own grandfather's condition when my grandmother died in I believe what was a car accident (I was born after both of them passed). He had such a severe nervous breakdown, he was institutionalized for years and had hullications. That lead to my grat aunt adopting my mother and raising her.
But what Burkett is doing--the paranoia, resentment, and sheer tenacity--seems like it could be connected to his nervous breakdown. Then again, I don't know the man, so everything is conjecture.
Kevin,
You may be right about confusing them with facts since its not what they want to hear.
The FACT that "AWOL" doesn't even apply to reservists but only to personnel on active duty should REALLY get some Bush-haters into a confused frenzy. Before anyone makes such a negative judgement, it would be a great idea to read the regulations, DoD Directives, US Code or talk to an expert.
It's still irritating to see commercials and internet ads that claim 1LT Bush was AWOL because it influences people who don't know about the differences between Active Component and Reserve Component. "AWOL" just happens to be one military word most civilians recognize as a negative, even though they don't know when it applies or who it applies to.
A false accusation of "AWOL" to a servicemember is essentially defamation of character and slander, and I think anyone running for public office who is depending on public image for success has a right to take these false accusers to court.
Joe
Kevin,
You may be right about confusing them with facts since its not what they want to hear.
The FACT that "AWOL" doesn't even apply to reservists but only to personnel on active duty should REALLY get some Bush-haters into a confused frenzy. Before anyone makes such a negative judgement, it would be a great idea to read the regulations, DoD Directives, US Code or talk to an expert.
It's still irritating to see commercials and internet ads that claim 1LT Bush was AWOL because it influences people who don't know about the differences between Active Component and Reserve Component. "AWOL" just happens to be one military word most civilians recognize as a negative, even though they don't know when it applies or who it applies to.
A false accusation of "AWOL" to a servicemember is essentially defamation of character and slander, and I think anyone running for public office who is depending on public image for success has a right to take these false accusers to court.
Joe
For those who may not know:
"AWOL" is "Absent without leave" for personnel on active duty.
Reservists don't earn leave unless they are on orders for 30 days or longer, i.e., mobilization, long term military schools, Active Duty for Training, etc.
Reservists doing monthly drills and the 2 weeks Annual Training each year (like 1LT Bush) could never earn leave, and therefore could never be "Absent without leave."
I remember doing CQ duty in Germany (Charge of Quarters) and I was supposed to make a list of everyone who came off of leave after 12:00 midnight, because they were, technically, AWOL. Of course, very few of us did--we would hold up the paperwork until the day crew would come in, if necessary, because being AWOL was such a serious matter, requiring immediate and automatic action, that you didn't want to do it for a poor schmo whose flight got delayed. (The Golden Rule applied here BIG TIME--who wanted to get the reputation of being a hard ass, when it isn't completely necessary?) Even if they would call in and explain their problem, we would quietly modify their leave paperwork (if possible) to make sure their name didn't appear on that list--even if the soldier was a complete stranger.
AWOL is NOT a word to be bandied about lightly. Still, I wonder how many civilians even know what it stands for . . .
Back to the original question: who gave CBS the documents?
It has to be, ultimately, the Kerry campaign. That's why the secrecy, that's why CBS is twisting itself in knots to say the documents are "fake, but accurate". Because ordinarily they should be exposing the producers of the documents as frauds to save the integrity of their news division.
No, it has to be something worse than some loser from Amarillo or wherever zipping them documents from Kinko's. It must be that CBS themselves is complicit in getting duped by this story. Bernard Goldberg has to be loving this.
First, an apology for the despondent nature of the opening comment. It was very late and I was very tired. Rereading it puts me in mind of Rodney King's plaintive cry.
I am concerned about the nature of any fraud being perpetrated here, so let me clarify that the issues that I think are trivial are the actual histories of these two men. It's the level of interest and attention being shown to what these two guys did thirty-some odd years ago that provides the motivation for destructive circuses like the one we're talking about now. Without the interest, and the amount of ink (literal and virtual) being lavished on this matter, the consequent use of documents would have been pointless and questions about their authenticity would be moot.
Reading through just this list of comments and noting the level of energy and attention to detail expended on this series of events is tragic to me. Imagine all of this intention and intelligence focused on the genuine challenges facing us as a nation. What would happen if we parsed budgetary matters with the same precision that we have press releases?
That's what I'm grieving over, really -- the constant distraction (it seems to be one triviality after another) that diverts our human resources, our native talent and energies, away from what matters most in favor of a Sherlock Holmes style investigation into questions that will not be resolved to anyone's satisfaction and won't benefit us even if they are. We have limited time, energy, money, and attention span both as individuals and as a nation. To reiterate my concern, it isn't our sensitivity to fraud that bothers me (I'm grateful for that, certainly); it's the level of our interest in questions that divert us from the things that will really matter to my daughter's future.
J. Michael,
Let me sum it up for you: one of the world's largest news organizations used fraudulent documents, forgeries of signatures from an Air Force officer, in an attempt to remove a popular President from office, in wartime.
We are NOT devoting inordinate national resources in exposing this story. Criminal charges have not been filed, though they should be and probably will. Now, if you don't consider that a serious matter, that's your problem--we all have our battles to fight.
But so far, the only "costs" to the country have been a few thousand man hours from guys sitting in front of a computer screen in their homes. It's not like we could have cured cancer or something had we directed our efforts elsewhere.
Kevin,
If you'll please reread my comment you'll find I was very explicit in saying that what I'm responding to is not the investigation of the problems with the CBS report. If there was fraud, I'm all for exposing it. Reporters have to realize that, to the degree that they expect the public's trust, they have to endure the public scrutiny. I do consider that a serious matter, and I would appreciate a more careful reading of my plain intent. From my comment, note the following;
"I am concerned about the nature of any fraud being perpetrated here..."
"...it isn't our sensitivity to fraud that bothers me (I'm grateful for that, certainly)..."
What I am disturbed by, as I was at pains to make clear, is the original subject matter, i.e. the constant probing into the Vietnam era service of both candidates. I do believe that this matter is trivial compared to the more recent service both men have rendered, and far less pertinent to the matters at hand than their more recent activities.
From that perspective I'm sure you'll agree with me that far more has been spent in terms of time, energy and attention than a 'few thousand man hours' (which, by itself, is not an inconsiderable cost). Thousands of hours for reporters hunting down these stories, thousands of hours of media time and column inches eaten up, an unforgivable amount of the public's limited attention span monopolized. Add to that the more general 'horserace analysis' where we handicap this race ad nauseum by weighing polls, assessing electoral college strategies -- as if election day wasn't soon enough to know who has won.
And all of this is produced in lieu of discussing the things that are really going to matter once the election is over; the future state of our foreign policy, rebuilding of our infrastructure (highways and schools are a priority), some kind of solution to health care, addressing the looming Social Security shortfall, eliminating the budget deficit and paying down the national debt, restructuring the economy to either secure a domestic manufacturing base or provide jobs for people who will lose out in the shift from manufacturing to tech and service industries, the fundamental changes needed in our energy consumption in terms of what we use for energy, where we get it and how we sustain that supply, environmental degradation not only here in the States but globally and the potential for significant climate shift. I'm sure we could all list many more.
All of these are issues that will primarily impact my daughter, inasmuch as they are mostly long-term challenges, so they are certainly less attention-grabbing than what has consumed our attention. But the decisions about where we want to be twenty or thirty years from now on these questions need to be made today. And if I seem to be more harsh in my judgement of those of us who are Christian (you didn't mention this but I'll address it on the off chance that someone cares), it's because with all our talk of defending family we seem either unable or unwilling to address matters which will have huge impact on our children. We seem more interested in destroying the opposing candidates chances of winning than anything else.
I don't expect any of us to cure cancer (though that would be nice), but it still matters how we spend our limited time and energy. Everyone may have their battle to fight, but some battles are more crucial than others and some aren't worth fighting at all. What will happen thirty years from now is more important than what two guys did thirty years ago. That's all that I'm saying.
VIETNAM RECORDS SCHMIETNAM RECORDS ........The Big Diversion ...check this story and PASS IT ON PATRIOTS ..........
MULTIPLE AIR WAR GAMES INCLUDING HIJACK SCENARIOS WERE RUNNING ON SEPTEMBER 11TH 2001 AND THE 911 COMMISSION (OMISSION) DID NOT
The Final Fraud (condensed version) FULL VERSION http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071204_final_fraud.shtml
9/11 Commission closes its doors to the public;
Cover-Up Complete
By
Michael Kane
In this eyewitness account, Mike Kane looks at the Commission's performance on the day of the really big show - NORAD / FAA day.
"First of all, there's no scheme here or plot to spin this story to try to cover or take a bullet for anyone."
General Eberhart - testimony to 9/11 Commission on June 17, 2004
July 9, 2004 1430 PDT (FTW) - When asked who was responsible for coordinating the multiple war games running on the morning of September 11, 2001, General Ralph E Eberhart, the man in charge of NORAD on the morning in question replied,
"No Comment."
It is extremely suspect that Eberhart was unable to comment when we look at his sworn testimony just moments before .
Tim Roemer was the only Commissioner to pose a question about military exercises running on the morning of 9/11.
That was only one of the multiple war games running that morning, titled NORTHERN VIGILANCE, which was simulating an air attack coming out of Russia. To insinuate, as Commissioner Roemer did, that this was the only exercise that morning lends credence to the three Generals' false claim that NORAD's only mission was to protect against external threats.
The multiple war games running on 9/11 also included (but were not limited to) VIGILANT GUARDIAN, which involved hijacking scenarios over the continental United States. None of the war games was ever referenced by name at any time during the hearings. The details of these exercises are the Achilles' heel of the "external threat" mantra parroted by all three generals, and these details seem to be classified.
Why would General Eberhart be reluctant to go on record regarding the issue of just who was the central person coordinating that focus? Was the General himself, the man who headed NORAD that very morning, in charge of coordinating the multiple war games on 9/11? Or was VP Cheney?
No Comment.
From Russia with Love
From the moment Generals Myers, Eberhart, and Arnold were sworn in to testify, they continually stated that NORAD's "military posture on 9/11, by law, by policy and in practice was focused on responding to external threats, threats originating outside of our borders" (a quotation from General Myers sworn testimony).IF NORAD CLAIMS TO ONLY BE "LOOKING OUTWARD TO EXTERNAL THREATS" WE WANT OUR TAX MONEY BACK!
But NORAD was not simply running "an exercise against the former Soviet Union" on 9/11, as Commissioner Roemer's question insinuated.
There was one other mention of the war games from Commissioner Lehman, in which he referred to the military exercises as one of the "happy circumstances" on the morning of 9/11.
While Commissioners BenVeniste and Gorelick appeared to be asking "hard-hitting" questions, they always stopped short of anything that would get to the heart of the matter. They made no mention of the war games running on the morning of 9/11, neither in this round of hearings nor during the previous round, in which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke under oath.
Furthermore, not one of the Commissioners brought up the 67 Air Force interceptions successfully executed during the year prior to 9/11 (AP, 8/13/02).
"Waste of Time"
The Commissioners were asked about the war games - after the hearings.
When Commissioner BenVeniste was asked why he chose not to ask questions about the war games running on 9/11 he claimed the time allotted was short . To this same crucial question Commissioner Gorelick replied "the staff (KEY STAFF MEMBER IS ZELIKOW CHECK HIS CONNECTION AND BOOK HE WROTE WITH CONGI RICE) concluded [that the war games] were not an inhibition to the military doing its job and therefore I wasn't going to waste my time with that."
Apparently some members of the audience did not agree.
Immediately before Commissioner Gorelick began her allotted time for questioning the generals, a member of the audience yelled out, "Ask about the war games that were planned for 9/11." Another audience member followed his lead:
"Tell us about the war games."
These audience member comments were published in the Associated Press transcript of the hearings.
http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/040617commission911_1.html
At this point, tension filled the room. Shortly into the questioning, one of the audience members who had just bellowed at the commission stood up and shouted; "This is an outrage! My questions are not being answered, and I'm walking out!"
He was carrying an American flag as he was escorted out.
It seems that this outburst may have been what prompted Commissioner Tim Roemer to throw the one & only softball question about the exercises at General Eberhart later in the hearings.
When asked if the commission had ever addressed the multiple war games running on 9/11, and who was in charge of coordinating them, Chairman Kean responded, "Yes, we did, it wasn't a coordination, there were a number of them going on as there are periodically but they were not, and they helped in one way because there were people available who wouldn't have been available otherwise." OH REALLY !!!
When following up for clarification on whether there was an individual in charge of coordinating these drills, Chairman Kean replied, "No, I don't think so. You might want to check with staff on that."STAFF EH? ZELIKOW .....CONGI'S BOY.....AND CO WRITER OR GHOST AUTHOR ?
VIETNAM --SCHMIETNAM---A DIVERSION FROM THE 911 OMISSION I MEAN COMMISSION ? Conflict or Cover UP ? Ask ABOUT the Multiple Military Highjacking SCENARIOS being RUN on 911 ...the commission didn't put it in their 'COMPREHENSIVE REPORT'
GOOGLE VIGILANT GUARDIAN
THOMAS KEAN
Before taking his current
position, Thomas Kean
was a director and part
owner of Amerada Hess, a
company that maintained a
partnership with Delta Oil
of Saudi Arabia.
LEE HAMILTON
Kean's vice-chair, Lee
Hamilton, was the chairman
in the 1980s of the
House Select Committee
on Iran/Contra.
Afterwards, he told PBS
Frontline that he didn't
wish to indict Reagan or
Bush, because he didn't
think it would be “good for the country,”
although a wealth of evidence showed that
Reagan and Bush authorized illegal arms
shipments to Iran in 1985.
JAMIE GORELICK
In May 2003, shortly after
joining the Kean
Commission, Gorelick
also joined the
Washington firm of
Wilmer, Cutler &
Pickering. A month earlier,
this firm announced it
would defend Saudi
Prince Mohammed al Faisal, third in command
in the Saudi government–and a plaintiff
RICHARD BEN VENISTE
Richard Ben-Veniste, former
partner in one of
the biggest bankruptcy
firms in the world, Weil,
Gotshal, and Manges. As
the N.Y. Post disclosed, the
firm received a famously
inflated $3 million retainer from Enron, when
the latter filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
SLADE GORTON
Former Republican Sen.
Slade Gorton is a lawyer
in the Seattle firm of
Preston, Gates and Ellis,
which counts among its
clients both Delta Air
Lines and the Boeing
Employees’ Credit Union.
JIM THOMPSON
As for former Illinois
Governor James R.
Thompson, it really takes
no rocket science to figure
out his conflict of interest.
He is chairman of the
Winston & Strawn law
firm in Chicago. From
Jan. 1997 through June
2002, Thompson’s law firm received $1.66
million for federal lobbying efforts on behalf
of American Airlines—one of the two carriers
potentially liable for negligence on 9/11.
THE STAFF MR ZELIKOW
Condoleeza Rice
is a household
name. But most
Americans still
have never heard
of the man who
wrote a book with
her, Philip
Zelikow.
As the executive director of the Kean
Commission, Zelikow is responsible for
framing the agenda. He leads the research
staff. He decides what evidence the commission
sees.