9/11 Panel Unlikely to Get Later Deadline

[RBHam]

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 19, 2004; Page A09

President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, virtually guaranteeing that the panel will have to complete its work by the end of May, officials said last week.

A growing number of commission members had concluded that the panel needs more time to prepare a thorough and credible accounting of missteps leading to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But the White House and leading Republicans have informed the panel that they oppose any delay, which raises the possibility that Sept. 11-related controversies could emerge during the heat of the presidential campaign, sources said.

With time running short, the 10-member bipartisan panel has already decided to scale back the number and scope of hearings that it will hold for the public, commission members and staffers said. The commission is rushing to finish interviews with as many as 200 remaining witnesses and to finish examining about 2 million pages of documents related to the attacks.

more on the obvious attempted cover up...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28025-2004Jan18.html

[RBHam]

1. 9/11 director gave evidence to own inquiry (Whitewash)

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040115-024012-7011r

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- The panel set up to investigate why the United States failed to prevent the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, faced angry questions Thursday after revelations that two of its own senior officials were so closely involved in the events under investigation that they have been interviewed as part of the inquiry.

Philip Zelikow, the commission's executive director, worked on the Bush-Cheney transition team as the new administration took power, advising his longtime associate and former boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, on the incoming National Security Council.

"He came forward (to answer questions) in case he might have useful information," said Al Felzenberg, the commission spokesman.

The news was greeted with dismay by many of the relatives of the victims who campaigned for the commission to be set up.

"This is beginning to look like a whitewash," Kristen Breitweizer, who lost her husband Ron in tower two of the World Trade Center, told United Press International.

more

[gandalf]

2. Why is this a non-issue in the primaries?

Isn't it possible to suggest that if Bush does not want this commission (plenty of evidence for that, really), he has something to hide?

Or is it unpatriotic? Probably.

The meaning of "patriotic" should be reconsidered.

[RBHam]

3. Why?

In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO312A.html

[Q]

4. This is much worse than anything Nixon did...

...and yet it gets a yawn from most Americans. Some will tell you this is a 'sign' that people want to 'move on' and 'get over it'. But that's a lie...because MOST Americans have never been told anywhere near the whole truth about 9-11.

- They don't make the connection between Bush's* relationship with the Saudi/bin Laden families and his hiding the 28 pages of the 9-11 report relating to Saudi funding of terrorism because the MEDIA has kept this information from them.

- It should be obvious by now that the American media and 'certain' Democrats are part of the coverup. The Bushies will be allowed to put an end to the commission for the sake of 'national security' and the upcoming campaign.

[dusty64]

5. I agree, but only

cause it is competely ignored by our Pravda. If the truth were known I think many would care. Have any of the Presidential candidates had anything to say about this lately?

[gandalf]

6. Didn't Dean suggest lately

that Bush might have known more than he admitted before 9/11? I read so in a German newspaper. His advisers were reported to have been horrified by his remark.

[RedSock]

7. No.

Dean mentioned that Bush has been very reluctant to assist the Commission and that has led to any number of alternative theories. And he said that one of the more interesting ones he had heard -- but did not believe -- was that the administration had warnings and ignored them. (You cannot deny that the Regime having warnings of 9/11 is "interesting".)

That was it (I believe).

Of course, now Bush et al. HAVE admitted they had warnings (they are a matter of public record) (and clearly they did nothing), but Dean was still ripped for his comment.

If there was another incident, please let me know.

[Minstrel Boy]

9. Bush was asked at a December press conference

to respond to Dean's suggestion that he had foreknowledge of 9/11. This may be the origin of the report, but Dean hasn't leveled such a direct allegation. It was a mistake of the reporter, who thought he was lobbing Bush a softball.

You can see Bush's revealing reaction - the first time he's been confronted with the charge - here.

Click right and save:

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/video/6/9_11laugh.mpg

[bobthedrummer]

8. We have some dedicated talent here at DU that could help.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911timeline2pg

The body of facts grows-Bush doesn't want US to know this stuff.

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/25-things-we-know.htm

http://www.populist.com/02.17.burns.html