911 commission seems to be avoiding Pentagon 9/10 activity and pipelines

[papau]

Is the 911 Commission all about cover-up? Bob Kerry is selling changes for the future/do not look back to assign blame as the gist or thrust to be expected in the Kean/Hamilton 911 commission report.

We seem to be hearing that the 911 commission fight is about did Bush really really think Osama was not that big a deal, or did Bush keep the Clinton intensive terrorist control objective going. At least this is a change from Rove's 2003 "Clinton did too little" mantra - but I suspect Gov. Kean will get a bit of the Clinton did too little into the final report.

Is a perhaps mistaken priority change to "urgent" from "intense" the real fight? - 'cause if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. But I suspect that is all we will hear as the 911 report refuses to mention the very real and well documented motivator for Bush inaction - Bush's friends needed time so as to chase a gas pipeline from the fields around the Caspian sea across Afghanistan to Pakistan and into India.

Seems the GOP members of the 911 commission (and possibly the Dem members) do not want to even mention how campaign donors like Unocal, Halliburton, and Enron were interested in saving Enron's $3 billion investment in the Dabhol power plant, near Bombay on India's west coast, which desperately needed a source of cheap natural gas to succeed. Perhaps someone should have Ron Callari send the commission a copy of his article "The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection" that was in the Albion Monitor? Perhaps Robert Sheer's "Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban" published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times was on target in viewing the money as being real nice to the Taliban...(and for what reason?).

Why else would the 911 commission be so controlled - when they are blocked by Bush they do not turn to the public or the Courts - and the media of course makes like being blocked on investigating 911 is just standard politics needed to prevent unfair Dem tactics.

And how else do you explain the intelligence community's 120 day lead in picking up "non-specific" 911 Intel - followed by no increase in airline security, beyond Ashcroft not flying commercial jets in July, and the Pentagon brass, apparently having the attack date down to the exact date, avoiding flying on 9/11 - Newsweek Sept. 24 2001 issue says "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." Should we send a copy of Newsweek to the 911 commission?

Long ago, when I was looking at CIA/NSA employment, I was impressed with how fast intercepts got translated. Now many decades later I am to believe that NSA's monitoring Atta's phone calls with Al-Qaeda leaders overseas were not translated in time?

Is the 911 commission allowed to ask why the East Coast air defense we were told we had in place did not happen - or why the President - the only person that can order a shoot down of a domestic flight - was interested - was allowed to be interested - in reading to the kids for another 10 to 20 minutes while the planes that needed to be shot down continued to fly?

We know Iraq was not about fighting terrorism, so will the 911 report tell us what Iraq was all about? The only new pipeline we have being built in Iraq is the one taking Iraq oil into Iran (that axis of evil country) so as to ship through Iranian ports.

Is the mainstream media going to insist the only question to be decided by the 911 commission is whether or not Bush was incompetent, and then the commission makes suggestions to lessen that incompetence? We know the report and the media will try to sell us on Bush not being incompetent, and that it was Clinton's fault ("enough errors were made to blacken both Clinton and Bush" - now that seems fair doesn't it?). At what point do we allow the word treasonous to be a choice we discuss, rather than limiting us to incompetent?

Could the whitewash 911 report at least state both that Bush was not incompetent, and that Bush was not treasonous? That would make me feel a lot better.

[OneBlueSky]

1. the Commission's mission is to look at policy . . .

they're not supposed to go into what actually happened on 9/11 . . . this was BushCo's condition for going along with it . . . they want us to accept that WHAT happened that day is a settled issue, and the Commission is going to support them . . . even Clarke's testimony did nothing to address what actually happened and the many verifiable FACTS that directly contradict the "official" story . . .

[papau]

2. I wish the US had a media that was able to be a "free press"

With the 911 commission limited to future policy suggestions, the 911 victims families will never get their investigation.

Then again, it may be time for a "run away commission that goes beyond its mandate because The public demands it".

:-)