Question about Zelikow ... and the 911 Commission

[Edx]

In another forum someone is claiming that Zelikow had a conflict of interest being so close with the Bush administration.

She is using this as one of the reasons to have a new investigation.

I explained that...

1. She has to prove that Zelikow's involvement adversely affected the Commissions findings.
2. That the only two options if what she is saying is true is that the other Commissioners were either too incompetent to notice this or were intentionally deceptive because they were aware of it but said nothing.

On this point she replies:

the 9/11 Commission itself did acknowledge that Zelikow had a conflict of interest pertaining to the Bush transition team. This was handled by having Zelikow recuse himself from all matters pertaining to the Bush transition team.

The question is whether that was sufficient, or whether Zelikow's conflicts of interest ran a lot deeper than just the Bush transition team. It seems to me that they ran a lot deeper.

It seems "to you"?

So the Commissioners can honestly not notice there is a problem, but YOU can?

As I say, either they had to be incompetent or they were being deliberately deceptive by not complaining about it. Explain how there can possibly be another option given the arguments you are making.

Politicians in general often fail to notice problems until confronted by relevant lobbyists.

The Commission apparently didn't just decide, on its own, to have Zelikow recuse himself from matters involving the transition team. What happened was that the "Jersey Girls" lobbied to have Zelikow resign due to a whole bunch of what they perceived as conflicts of interest on his part. Zelikow recusing himself just on matters involving the transition team appears to have been a compromise.

(Earlier, Henry Kissinger had been selected as executive director. He did resign in response to pressure from the "Jersey Girls.")

Since this has now got very truther-y (I remember this line of argument from "Press for Truth") and since truthers are usually wrong about everything I though I'd ask to see if there's anything major I have been missing.

 

[Oystein]

Have you followed up on your 1. "show that the commission's work was adversely affected by Zelikow's conflict of interest"?

I find it dubious on first principles that Kissinger or Zelikow would yield to pressure from the Jersey Girls - can Diane substantiate that claim? Or can you figure out who else exerted pressure on them?


"My" german Luftwaffe officer Jochen Scholz, foreign policy advisor to the formerly communist party Die Linke, in another speech pointed to Zelikow as the shadow man behind the Commission, pointing attention to the fact that he has done academic work on the use and misuse of history for political purposes. Wikipedia writes: "...as Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past." From this expertise, Scholz concludes that it was Zelikow's duty on the Commission to make sure the Commission shapes public perception of 9/11 according to the wishes of the powers that be.

 

[RedIbis]

Check out Philip Shenon's The Commission and you will get all the info you could need proving that Zelikow had no business being the executive director. They couldn't have found a more biased person, focused on supressing the facts had they appointed Kissinger. Oh wait, they tried that.

 

[BigAl]

Check out Philip Shenon's The Commission and you will get all the info you could need proving that Zelikow had no business being the executive director. They couldn't have found a more biased person, focused on supressing the facts had they appointed Kissinger. Oh wait, they tried that.

Have you read The Commission?

 

[RedIbis]

Have you read The Commission?

Yes quite thoroughly.

 

[BigAl]

Yes quite thoroughly.

So have I. I don't recall Shenon saying that the politics affected the basic conclusion of commission, that 19 Islamist Arabs lead by bin Laden hijacked and crashed 4 jets.

You are welcome to your opinion as vague and unsubstantiated as it is.

 

[The Big Dog]

In another forum someone is claiming that Zelikow had a conflict of interest being so close with the Bush administration.

She is using this as one of the reasons to have a new investigation.

I explained that...

1. She has to prove that Zelikow's involvement adversely affected the Commissions findings.
2. That the only two options if what she is saying is true is that the other Commissioners were either too incompetent to notice this or were intentionally deceptive because they were aware of it but said nothing.

On this point she replies:
Since this has now got very truther-y (I remember this line of argument from "Press for Truth") and since truthers are usually wrong about everything I though I'd ask to see if there's anything major I have been missing.

well, for what it is worth, the whole thing is an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[T.A.M.]

Check out Philip Shenon's The Commission and you will get all the info you could need proving that Zelikow had no business being the executive director. They couldn't have found a more biased person, focused on supressing the facts had they appointed Kissinger. Oh wait, they tried that.

There may have been other candidates for the position that would have been more neutral, and less sympathetic to the administration then Zelikow, for sure. I read the book about a year ago, and from what I recall, while he (Zelikow) did fight the inclusion of certain damaging (from a reputation pov) elements, the narrative with or without any and all things he resisted, would have been the same.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

There may have been other candidates for the position that would have been more neutral, and less sympathetic to the administration then Zelikow, for sure. I read the book about a year ago, and from what I recall, while he (Zelikow) did fight the inclusion of certain damaging (from a reputation pov) elements, the narrative with or without any and all things he resisted, would have been the same.

TAM

Zelikow was a White House mole to protect Bush and Rice, and he played that role well. We don't know how the narrative was affected since with his help, the investigation was never thorough and complete.

This is not the type of person you'd want as executive director if you were trying to get the fullest possible account of how the attacks went down.

 

[BigAl]

Zelikow was a White House mole to protect Bush and Rice, and he played that role well. We don't know how the narrative was affected since with his help, the investigation was never thorough and complete.

This is not the type of person you'd want as executive director if you were trying to get the fullest possible account of how the attacks went down.

To the extent the above may be true, it says that what is in the commission report is factual.

Much additional information has come out since the 9/11 Commission report came out. As far as I know, what there is adds detail to the 9/11 Commission report.

 

[RedIbis]

To the extent the above may be true, it says that what is in the commission report is factual.

Much additional information has come out since the 9/11 Commission report came out. As far as I know, what there is adds detail to the 9/11 Commission report.

What possible need could there be to obstruct the investigation?

 

[BigAl]

What possible need could there be to obstruct the investigation?

Is incompetence a crime? Yes, the Bush administration failed to make any effective attempt to prevent the hijackings but we already knew that.

There was a hijacking lead by bin Laden and the impact of the planes caused all the death and destruction on 9/11.

 

[funk de fino]

What possible need could there be to obstruct the investigation?

How cute. You have never heard of covering ones arse. Happens everyday in the real world.