It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Philip Zelikow Appointed to Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board!

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Zelikow Appointed to Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board

September 7, 2011 — President Obama appointed Philip Zelikow, associate dean for graduate academic programs in the University of Virginia's Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, to serve on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, the White House announced Tuesday.

Zelikow, White Burkett Miller Professor of History, will remain with the University while serving on the board, which serves as an independent source of advice to the president on the intelligence community's effectiveness in meeting the nation's intelligence needs, and on the vigor and insight with which the community plans for the future.

"Philip is a valued colleague, exceptional scholar and highly skilled administrator with a distinguished record of service in government and academia," said Meredith Jung-En Woo, dean of the College and Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. "This appointment reflects his and the University's longstanding commitment to education and public service. We're pleased that he will be able to serve the president and our country in this important role while continuing to oversee the College's graduate academic programs as well as our international initiatives and partnerships. His experience on the president's advisory board will only deepen and enrich his work on behalf of the College."

Zelikow will serve with 13 others, including former U.S. Senators David Boren and Chuck Hagel, who co-chair the board.

"I'm glad to do what I can to help," he said.

Zelikow began his career as a trial and appellate lawyer in Texas, and is a former career diplomat whose posts overseas and in Washington include service on the National Security Council staff of President George H.W. Bush.

His books include "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed" (written with former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice), "The Kennedy Tapes" (with Ernest May), and "Essence of Decision" (with Graham Allison).

In recent years, Zelikow has taken two public service leaves from academia to return full time to government service: in 2003-04 to direct the 9/11 Commission, and in 2005-07 as counselor of the Department of State, a deputy to Rice. He also advises the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's program in global development and is a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Good ole government infiltrated Freemasons. I wonder what are they up to now. Maybe appointing him to the intel advisory board to create another 9/11



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Who is Philip Zelikow?


November 1997-August 1998: Future 9/11 Commission Staff Attend Terrorism Study Group; Predict Consequences of ‘Catastrophic Terrorism’
Over a period of nine months, faculty from Harvard University, Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Virginia meet in a collaborative effort called the Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group. Its members include experts on terrorism, national security, intelligence, and law enforcement. The project director is Philip Zelikow, future executive director of the 9/11 Commission. Future 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick is also a member, along with Ernest May, who will be a senior advisor to the 9/11 Commission. The culmination of the group’s efforts is a report written by Zelikow and its two co-chairs: former Assistant Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and former CIA Director John Deutch. A condensed version of the report is published in the journal Foreign Affairs in late 1998. They write: “Long part of the Hollywood and Tom Clancy repertory of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously… it is not yet prepared for the new threat of catastrophic terrorism.” They predict the consequences of such an event: “An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great ‘success’ or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a ‘before’ and ‘after.’” [Carter, Deutch, and Zelikow, 10/1998; Foreign Affairs, 11/1998; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. xi-xiv]

January 3, 2001: Clarke Demoted by Rice and Future 9/11 Commission Executive Director
National Security Adviser Rice decides this day to retain Richard Clarke, counterterrorism “tsar” for the Clinton administration, and his staff. However, she downgrades his official position as National Coordinator for Counterterrorism. While he is still known as the counterterrorism “tsar,” he has less power and now reports to deputy secretaries instead of attending Cabinet-level meetings. He no longer is able to send memos directly to the president, or easily interact with Cabinet-level officials. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 227-30; Guardian, 3/25/2004] Clarke will not be able to meet with President Bush even a single time before 9/11 to discuss al-Qaeda (see January 25, 2001-September 10, 2001). In 2004, Rice will reveal that the person she tasks with considering changes to Clarke and his staff is Philip Zelikow, the future Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Zelikow recuses himself from those parts of the 9/11 Commission’s investigation directly relating to his role in this and other matters. However, 9/11 victims’ relatives are not satisfied. For instance, one relative says, “Zelikow has conflicts. I’m not sure that his recusal is sufficient. His fingerprints are all over that decision [to demote Clarke].” [United Press International, 4/10/2004]

June 1, 2002: Bush Launches Doctrine of Preemptive Attack
In a speech, President Bush announces a “new” US policy of preemptive attacks: “If we wait for threats to fully materialize we will have waited too long. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge.” [New York Times, 6/2/2002] This preemptive strategy is included in a defensive strategic paper the next month (see July 13, 2002), and formally announced in September 2002. Despite the obvious parallels, the mainstream media generally fails to report that this “new” antiterrorism strategy was first proposed by Bush’s key administration officials in 1992 (see March 8, 1992) and has been continually advocated by the same people ever since. [New York Times, 9/20/2002; Washington Post, 9/21/2002; Guardian, 9/21/2002] Furthermore, State Department Director of Policy Planning Richard Haass originally drafted this new national security strategy. However, Condoleezza Rice had ordered that it be completely rewritten, reportedly wanting “something bolder.” The man responsible for this task was Philip Zelikow, who in 2003 will be appointed executive director of the 9/11 Commission. [Mann, 2004, pp. 316-317]

Mid-December 2002-March 2003: 9/11 Commission Gets Off to Slow Start
After experiencing some problems at its inception due to the resignation of its chair and vice-chair (see December 11, 2002 and December 13, 2002), the 9/11 Commission spends much of the next four months hiring staff, getting security clearances (see March 27, 2003), finding office space, and asking for a budget increase (see March 26, 2003). One of the first employees hired is executive director Philip Zelikow, but disputes within the Commission over who will be general council last until March, when Dan Marcus is hired. The Commission is unable to even have a telephone until February, when it finds an official security facility for its offices. However, then most of the Commission’s staff cannot enter their offices, because they do not have the relevant security clearances yet, even though there are no secret documents actually in the offices at this point. [Kean and Hamilton, 2006, pp. 34-45]

January 27, 2003: 9/11 Commission Starts Off with Little Funding
The 9/11 Commission, officially titled the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, holds its first meeting in Washington. The commission has $3 million and only a year and a half to explore the causes of the attacks. By comparison, a 1996 federal commission to study legalized gambling was given two years and $5 million. [Associated Press, 1/27/2003] Two months later the Bush administration grudgingly increases the funding to $12 million total (see March 26, 2003). Philip Zelikow, the director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia and formerly in the National Security Council during George H. W. Bush’s administration, is also appointed executive director of the commission. [Associated Press, 1/27/2003] Zelikow cowrote a book with National Security Adviser Rice and was also, in 2002, responsible for completely rewriting President Bush’s national security strategy. [9/11 Commission, 3/2003; Mann, 2004, pp. 316-317] A few days later, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton says, “The focus of the commission will be on the future. We want to make recommendations that will make the American people more secure.… We’re not interested in trying to assess blame, we do not consider that part of the commission’s responsibility.” [United Press International, 2/6/2003]

October 2003: Members of 9/11 Commission Meet with ISI
9/11 Commission staff director Philip Zelikow and several members of his staff embark on a fact-finding mission to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other countries. While in Pakistan, they interview at least two senior members of the ISI. Whether they are investigating a possible ISI role in the 9/11 plot remains unclear. [United Press International, 11/5/2003]

October 21, 2003: 9/11 Commission Staff Meet Member of Able Danger Unit
Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, along with two members of the commission’s staff and an unnamed “representative of the executive branch,” meets at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan with three individuals doing intelligence work for the US Defense Department. [CNN, 8/17/2005; Sacramento Bee, 11/24/2005] Among these is Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, an Army intelligence officer who worked closely with a military intelligence unit called Able Danger, which between fall 1999 and spring 2001 was tasked with assembling information about al-Qaeda networks around the world (see Fall 1999 and January-March 2001). According to Shaffer’s own later account, he gives the commission staff a detailed account of what Able Danger was, and tells them, “We found two of the three cells which conducted 9/11, to include [Mohamed] Atta.” At the end of the meeting, Philip Zelikow approaches him and says, “This is important. We need to continue this dialogue when we get back to the states.” [Government Security News, 9/2005] Following the meeting, Zelikow calls back to the 9/11 Commission’s headquarters in Washington to request that staff draft a document request, seeking information on Able Danger from the Department of Defense. [Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, 8/12/2005 pdf file] According to Anthony Shaffer, “My understanding from talking to another member of the press is that [Zelikow’s] call came into America at four o clock in the morning. He got people out of bed over this.” [Government Security News, 9/2005] Shaffer subsequently tries contacting Philip Zelikow in January 2004 (see Early January 2004). After it is revealed in the press that the commission, which includes no mention of Able Danger in its final report, had been briefed on the unit, spokesmen for commission members will insist that while they were informed of Able Danger at this time, they were not informed that it had identified Mohamed Atta or any other hijackers as threats. [New York Times, 8/10/2005] Head commissioners Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton will later say in an official statement that a memorandum prepared by the commission staff after the meeting “does not record any mention of Mohamed Atta or any of the other future hijackers, or any suggestion that their identities were known to anyone at DOD before 9/11. Nor do any of the three Commission staffers who participated in the interview, or the executive branch lawyer, recall hearing any such allegation.” [Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, 8/12/2005 pdf file]

Early January 2004: Able Danger Intelligence Officer Tries Contacting 9/11 Commission
Following an October 2003 meeting with three members of the 9/11 Commission’s staff (see October 21, 2003), Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer tries contacting Philip Zelikow, the commission’s executive director, as requested by Zelikow himself. Shaffer is an Army intelligence officer who worked closely with a military intelligence unit called Able Danger, which identified Mohamed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers in early 2000 (see January-February 2000). He phones Zelikow’s number the first week of January 2004. The person who replies tells him, “I will talk to Dr. Zelikow and find out when he wants you to come in.” However, Shaffer receives no call back, so a week later he phones again. This time, the person who answers him says, “Dr. Zelikow tells me that he does not see the need for you to come in. We have all the information on Able Danger.” [Government Security News, 9/2005] Yet the commission doesn’t even receive the Able Danger documentation they had previously requested from the Defense Department until the following month (see February 2004). [Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, 8/12/2005 pdf file]

January 28, 2004: CIA Director Privately Tells 9/11 Commission about Urgent Pre-9/11 Warning, but His Testimony Is Kept Secret
Former CIA Director George Tenet privately testifies before the 9/11 Commission. He provides a detailed account of an urgent al-Qaeda warning he gave to the White House on July 10, 2001 (see July 10, 2001). According to three former senior intelligence officials, Tenet displays the slides from the PowerPoint presentation he gave the White House and even offers to testify about it in public. According to the three former officials, the hearing is attended by commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, the commission’s executive director Philip Zelikow, and some staff members. When Tenet testifies before the 9/11 Commission in public later in the year, he will not mention this meeting. The 9/11 Commission will neglect to include Tenet’s warning to the White House in its July 2004 final report. [McClatchy Newspapers, 10/2/2006] Portions of a transcript of Tenet’s private testimony will be leaked to reporters in 2006. According to the transcript, Tenet’s testimony included a detailed summary of the briefing he had with CIA counterterrorism chief Cofer Black on July 10 (see July 10, 2001). The transcript also reveals that he told the commission that Black’s briefing had prompted him to request an urgent meeting with Rice about it. This closely matches the account in Woodward’s 2006 book that first widely publicized the July meeting (see September 29, 2006). [Washington Post, 10/3/2006] Shortly after Woodward’s book is published, the 9/11 Commission staff will deny knowing that the July meeting took place. Zelikow and Ben-Veniste, who attended Tenet’s testimony, will say they are unable to find any reference to it in their files. But after the transcript is leaked, Ben-Veniste will suddenly remember details of the testimony (see September 30-October 3, 2006) and will say that Tenet did not indicate that he left his meeting with Rice with the impression he had been ignored, as Tenet has alleged. [New York Times, 10/2/2006] Woodward’s book will describe why Black, who also privately testified before the 9/11 Commission, felt the commission did not mention the July meeting in their final report: “Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork about the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about. It was what happened in investigations. There were questions they wanted to ask, and questions they didn’t want to ask.” [Woodward, 2006, pp. 78]

March 21, 2004: Victims’ Relatives Demand That 9/11 Commission Executive Director Resign
Philip Zelikow.Philip Zelikow. [Source: Miller Center]The 9-11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch demand the resignation of Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission. The demand comes shortly after former counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke told the New York Times that Zelikow was present when he gave briefings on the threat posed by al-Qaeda to National Security Adviser Rice from December 2000 to January 2001. The Family Steering Committee, a group of 9/11 victims’ relatives, writes, “It is clear that [Zelikow] should never have been permitted to be a member of the commission, since it is the mandate of the commission to identify the source of failures. It is now apparent why there has been so little effort to assign individual culpability. We now can see that trail would lead directly to the staff director himself.” Zelikow has been interviewed by his own commission because of his role during the transition period. But a spokesman for the commission claims that having Zelikow recluse himself from certain topics is enough to avoid any conflicts of interest. [New York Times, 3/20/2004; United Press International, 3/23/2004] 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean defends Zelikow, calling him “one of the best experts on terrorism in the whole area of intelligence in the entire country” and “the best possible person we could have found for the job.” [NBC, 4/4/2004] However, Salon points out that the “long list” of Zelikow’s writings “includes only one article focused on terrorism,” and he appears to have written nothing about al-Qaeda. [Salon, 4/6/2004]

February 28, 2005: 9/11 Commission’s Executive Director Gets Job With Bush Administration
It is announced that Philip Zelikow, Executive Director for the 9/11 Commission, has been chosen to serve as a senior adviser for Condoleezza Rice in her new position as Secretary of State. [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 2/28/2005] 9/11 victims’ relatives groups had demanded Zelikow’s resignation from the 9/11 Commission, claiming conflict of interest, including being too close to Rice (see March 21, 2004).

September 30-October 3, 2006: 9/11 Commissioners Claim to Be Furious They Were Not Told of July 2001 Warning, When In Fact They Were
In late September 2006, a new book by Bob Woodward reveals that CIA Director Tenet and CIA counterterrorism chief Cofer Black gave National Security Adviser Rice their most urgent warning about a likely upcoming al-Qaeda attack (see July 10, 2001 and September 29, 2006). Tenet detailed this meeting to the 9/11 Commission in early 2004 (see January 28, 2004), but it was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission’s final report later that year. According to the Washington Post, “Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork on the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.” [Washington Post, 10/1/2006] The 9/11 Commissioners initially vigorously deny that they were not told about the meeting. For instance, 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick says she checked with commission staff who told her they were never told about a meeting on that date. She says, “We didn’t know about the meeting itself. I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it.” [Washington Post, 9/30/2006] Commissioner Tim Roemer says, “None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath, nor do we have any paper on this. I’m deeply disturbed by this. I’m furious.” Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste says the meeting “was never mentioned to us.” Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, says the commissioners and their staff had heard nothing in their private interviews with Tenet and Black to suggest that they made such a dire presentation to Rice. “If we had heard something that drew our attention to this meeting, it would have been a huge thing.” [New York Times, 10/2/2006] However, on October 3, 2006, a transcript of Tenet’s private testimony to the 9/11 Commission is leaked to reporters and clearly shows that Tenet did warn Rice of an imminent al-Qaeda threat on July 10, 2001. Ben-Veniste, who attended the meeting along with Zelikow and other staff members, now confirms the meeting did take place and claims to recall details of it, even though he, Zelikow, and other 9/11 Commissioners had denied the existence of the meeting as recently as the day before. In the transcript, Tenet says “the system was blinking red” at the time. This statement becomes a chapter title in the 9/11 Commission’s final report but the report, which normally has detailed footnotes, does not make it clear when Tenet said it. [Washington Post, 10/3/2006] Zelikow had close ties to Rice before joining the 9/11 Commission, having co-written a book with her (see March 21, 2004), and became one of her key aides after the commission disbanded (see February 28, 2005). Zelikow does not respond to requests for comments after Tenet’s transcript surfaces. [McClatchy Newspapers, 10/2/2006; Washington Post, 10/3/2006]

www.cooperativeresearch.org


edit on 16-9-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
If he advises the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, he's up to no good.
That's all I needed to read right there.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I hope this thread gets the attention it deserves..



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


And your opinion on this is.......?
After all it is in the conspiracy section.
So what's your point?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


The chief mythmaker of 9/11 is given a position advising Obama. It raises a LOT of concerns.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Yep - and he's also a "BUSH BOY" which just proves even more that Obama is Bush II.
911 commission was messed up - you don't even have to be a truther to claim that. A lot of people were not allowed to testify and stuff.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Get ready for a new catastrophe. This guy is dangerous.


The whole political system and the complete poltical class with the exception of a few should be thrown out of Washington and trialed for treason.
edit on 16-9-2011 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by newcovenant
 


The chief mythmaker of 9/11 is given a position advising Obama. It raises a LOT of concerns.



When you say mythmaker - are you a truther or anti-truther.
This website give equal representation to both sides but is decidedly in favor of the governments explanation of the events leading up to and surrounding 9/11. Terrorists did it. I think it was interesting Bush said something with a lot of pride in his voice like "This is the first war of the millennium" or the first World War of the Century and it was as if he was announcing a new grandson. "They" wanted this war for a lot of reasons. I think 9/11 like the Kennedy's, MLK, even John Lennon is part of a vast Military Industrial Complex engineered right wing conspiracy. Is that so hard to believe? Come on they are getting $25 for a screw and those that make the screws and the them that get them are fighting for their lives. And these are warriors. We (civilians that pay for the screws) are getting screwed either way, both ways and all ways. No pun intended.

This I can believe.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Philip Zelikow was intimately involved in a cover-up of the Crime of the Century. It is therefore INFURIATING, that he is being recruited by Obama for the IAB.

Yes, it smells very much like a brainstorming mastermind "think tank" to "concieve" of a future event.

It's an outrage either way, and not matter what you believe about what actually occured on 9/11.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
He'll probably create Myth part 2 of the 9/11 saga, going after white al qaeda.

He is going to give bad intelligence advice to the Intelligence Advisory Board.

Double think lives on.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Zelikow is either a prophetic psychic with extraordinary prescience, or, a very wicked man who's creative imagination has proven to be rather unhealthy for the American public, and for the state itself (when we look at the total cost of the "war on terror" policies he himself helped forge).



The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to [the] notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.'

Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."


So Zelikow, the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report, was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.

If 9/11 was nothing but a huge HOAX, you would naturally expect that the event itself would have to be perfectly scripted.

In 1998, Zelikow actually wrote Catastrophic Terrorism about imagining "the transformative event" three years before 9/11.

Here are Zelikow's 1998 words. Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination.

An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.

It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.

Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.

Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after."

Philip D. Zelikow


www.ksg.harvard.edu...

September, 2000



edit on 16-9-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FewWorldOrder
And who else was a member of that "Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group"?

From the OP's link:
www.hks.harvard.edu...



Graham T. Allison, Jr.

Zoe Baird

Vic DeMarines

Robert Gates

Jamie Gorelick

Robert Hermann

Philip Heyman

Fred Ikle

Elaine Kamarck

Ernest May

Matthew Meselson

Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

William J. Perry

Larry Potts

Fred Schauer

J. Terry Scott

Jack Sheehan

Malcom Sparrow

Herbert Winokur

Robert Zoellick


Emphasis Mine.

Oh no, nothing to see here, move along quietly...






posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   



"Zelikow's focus was on what he calls 'searing' or 'moulding' events [that] take on 'transcendental' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experience generation passes from the scene."
~ Wikipedia



"... if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it.

Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security..Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with.."
~ Philip Zelokow, pre-9/11


edit on 16-9-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
If I was an American Citizen, because of this alone, I would not vote for Obama this election. Like Cheney and Bush, Zelikow should, at best, be thrown unto the dustheap of false history (ie: into the abyss) not given further recognition with this appointment, and who knows what else, what new monster might spring forth from his "evil genius" this time. Why not bring back Richard Pearl while you're at it, Mr. Obama..?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
His books include "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed" (written with former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice), "The Kennedy Tapes" (with Ernest May), and "Essence of Decision" (with Graham Allison).


Haven't read the others but Essence of Decision was an awesome book . . . just sayin.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Zelkiow will be on hand for the 11th anniversary proclaiming the Kean and Zelikow to be the only true account of that day and chastising anyone who says otherwise.There is no difference between the parties as this appointment shows.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join