SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure
to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks. A look at reviews of
"Without
Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" in the NYT and
the Independent Institute plus a look at the book.
"the commission was charged with explaining not only what
happened, but also why it happened.
In looking into the background of the hijackers, the staff found that
religious orthodoxy was not a common denominator since some of the
members "reportedly even consumed alcohol and abused drugs." Others
engaged in casual sex. Instead, hatred of American
foreign policy in the Middle East seemed to be the key factor.
Speaking to the F.B.I. agents who investigated the attacks, Hamilton
asked: "You’ve looked [at] and examined the lives of these people as
closely as anybody. . . . What have you found out about why these men did
what they did? What motivated them to do it?"
These questions fell to Supervisory Special Agent James Fitzgerald. "I
believe they feel a sense of outrage
against the United States," he said. "They identify with
the Palestinian problem,
they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe
they tend to focus their anger on the United States." As if to
reinforce the point, the commission discovered that the original plan
for 9/11 envisioned an even larger attack. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the
strategist of the 9/11 plot, "was going to fly the final plane, land it
and make 'a speech denouncing U.S.
policies in the Middle East,'"
Kean and Hamilton say, quoting a staff statement. And they continue:
"Lee felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a settlement of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America's long-term
relationship with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American
forces in the Middle East was a major motivating factor in Al Qaeda's
actions."
Given the Bush administration's current policies in the region, another
9/11-style attack is less a matter of if than when."
This
review in the NYT overlooks the fact that there was no recommendations
in the 9/11 commission's report addressing US support for Israel.
Bamford's review in the NYT does not reveal the fact that there was
"some disagreement over foreign policy issues. Much of it revolved
around the question of al Qaeda's motivation." and that "this was
sensitive ground." The review doesn't reveal the ugly fact that some
commissioners were able to pressure the group into not putting any recommendations in the
report addressing US support for Israel.It is a scandal that
commissioners bowed to pressure to suppress what was the main motive
for the 9/11 attacks.
Their compromise was to write in their report that "America's policy
choices have consequences. Right or wrong," They were too worried about
playing politics to admit that biased US government policy in the
Middle East in favor of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
motivates the terrorists. They coped out and wrote that "American
policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions
in Iraq are dominant staples of
popular commentary."
These "American actions" or more accurately, the actions dictated by
the policies of special interests, are resulting in much more than
"commentary!"
Ivan Eland's review, "9/11
Commission Chairmen Admit Whitewashing the Cause of the Attacks" is
the review that clued me in on the fact that the "book by the chairmen
of the 9/11 commission admits that the
commission whitewashed the root cause of the 9/11 attacks."
Eland makes these critical points in his review:
"The book usefully details the administration's willful
misrepresentation of its incompetent actions that day, but makes the shocking
admission that some commission members deliberately wanted to distort an even more important issue.
Apparently, unidentified commissioners wanted to cover up the fact that U.S. support
for Israel was one of the motivating factors behind al Qaeda's 9/11
attack.
Although Hamilton, to his credit, argued for saying that the reasons al
Qaeda committed the heinous strike were the U.S. military presence in
the Middle East and American support for Israel, the
panel watered down that frank conclusion
to state that U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S.
policy on Iraq are "dominant staples of popular commentary across the
Arab and Muslim world."
Some commissioners wanted to
cover up the link between the 9/11 attack and U.S. support for
Israelbecause this might
imply that the United States should alter policy and lessen its support
for Israeli actions. How right they were. The question is
simple: if
the vast bulk of Americans would be safer if U.S. politicians moderated
their slavish support of Israel, designed to win the support of
key pressure groups at home, wouldn't
it be a good idea to make this change in course?
Average U.S. citizens might attenuate their support for Israel if the
link between the 9/11 attacks and unquestioning U.S. favoritism for
Israeli excesses were more widely known."
The book, "Without
Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" does reveal
what those studying this issue have suspected, that some commissioners
on the 9/11 Commissionargued against and stopped the
Commission from making a recommendation aboutthe main motive for
the 9/11 attacks: US support of Israel.
"We did however, have some disagreement over foreign policy
issues. Much of it revolved around
the question of al Qaeda's motivation.
For instance, Lee felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a
settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America's
long-term relationship with
the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces in the
Middle East was a major motivating
factor in al Qaeda's actions.
Similarly, several commissioners pointed out that we had to acknowledge
that the American presence in Iraq had become the dominant issue in the
way the world's Muslims viewed the United States. --- This
was sensitive ground. Commissioners who argued that al Qaeda was
motivated primarily by a religious ideology - and not by opposition to
American policies - rejected mentioning
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report.In
their view, listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al
Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United
States should reassess that policy. To Lee, though, it was not a
question of altering support for Israel but merely stating a fact that
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was central to the relations between
the Islamic world and the United States - and to Bin Laden's ideology
and the support he gained throughout the Islamic world for his jihad
against America. ... We ended up agreeing on language that acknowledged
the importance of the two issues without passing judgment:
America's
policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact
that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and
American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary
across the Arab and Muslim world. That does not mean U.S. choices have
been wrong. It means those choices must be integrated with America's
message of opportunity to the Arab and Muslim world. Neither Israel nor
the new Iraq will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows
stronger.
This book
lets this flawed argument stand as the excuse for why they ended up
agreeing on what they put in the 9/11 Commission's Report.
Commissioners who argued that al Qaeda was motivated primarily by a
religious ideology and againstmentioning the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report ignored the findings of the Commission's
own staff!:
"The staff found that religious orthodoxy was not
a common denominator since some of the members "reportedly even
consumed alcohol and abused drugs." Others engaged in casual sex."
By 1992, Bin Ladin was focused on attacking the United States. He
argued that other extremists, aimed at local rulers or Israel,
had not gone far enough; they had not attacked what he called 'the head
of the snake,' the United States. He charged that the United States, in
addition to backing
Israel,
kept in power repressive Arab regimes not true to Islam. He also
excoriated the continued presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi
Arabia after the Gulf War as a defilement of holy Muslim land.
These Commissioners ignored testimony
from the Commission's own hearings!:
MR. SNELL:
Atta was chosen as the emir, or leader of the mission. He met with Bin
Ladin to discuss the targets, the World Trade Center, which represented
the United States economy, the Pentagon, a symbol of the U.S. military,
and the U.S. Capitol, the perceived source of U.S. policy in
support of Israel. ... MR. HAMILTON: But what
have you found out about why these men did what they did? What
motivated them to do it?
MR. FITZGERALD: I believe
they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with
the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose
repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the
United States
These Commissioners ignored what made
it into the 9/11 Comission's own report!:
The report showed that the two terrorist pilots shared the same
motivation. Both Mohammed Atta,
the leader of the mission and terrorist pilot who crashed into World
Trade Center 1, and Marwan al Shehhi, the terrorist pilot who
crashed into WTC 2, were angry about what Israel was doing to the
Palestinians:
"when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi
retorted, 'How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?'" p 162
The report showed that the architect of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, shared the
same motivation.
"By
his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United
States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather
from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy
favoring Israel." Chapter 5
My own research has turned up even
more evidence which the Commission had access to as well:
Abdulaziz Alomari,
one of the hijackers aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his
video will, "My work is a message those who heard me and to all those
who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you
should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of
help to the coward Jews in Palestine."
Ahmed Al Haznawi, a
hijacker aboard Flight 93, said in his video will, "Here is Palestine for more than a
half-century, its wound has continued to bleed."
In
March of 2002, MSNBC aired "The Making of the Death Pilots." In that
documentary, German friend Ralph Bodenstein who traveled, worked and
talked a lot with Mohammed Atta.
Ralph said, "He (Atta) was most imbued actually about Israeli politics
in the region and about US protection of
these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree
personally suffering from that."
"We swore that
America wouldn't live in security until
we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of
America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis
until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops
its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001
"...
the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding
the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and
supported by his people, denying reality and
proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were
jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them
because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World,
especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of
the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February
14 , 2003 These facts point to
a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that is
consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to
the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We
declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building.
This action was done in response
for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel
the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the
region." It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi
had for killing CIA
employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in
Langley,Virginia in 1993 . Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What
I did was a retaliation against the US government for American
policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel ."
Mir Aimal Kasi once professed a love for this country, his uncle
testified. "He always say that 'I like America, I love America and I
want to go there,'" Amanullah Kasi said at a sentencing hearing for his
nephew, Mir Aimal Kasi . Kasi's roommate, who had reported him missing
after the shootings, told police that Kasi would get incensed
watching CNN when he heard how Muslims were being treated.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Kasi said he did not
approve of the attack on the World Trade Center because innocent were
killed. He understood, however, the attack on the Pentagon, the symbol
of government might. - Motives
for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks posted by Tom at 9/02/2006
07:40:00 AM