Did Mueller Cover Up the Role of Saudi Prince "Bandar Bush" in 9/11?
Soon after then-president George W. Bush said on television in November of 2001, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th," administration officials were actively blocking investigations into evidence that the 19 alleged hijackers of 9/11 were not acting on their own, but with critical assistance from the government of Saudi Arabia. This is according to former US Senator Bob Graham, former FBI agents, and 9/11 families in lawsuits against the Saudi government.
Graham, a Democrat from Florida and also a former governor of that state, co-chaired a 2002 inquiry into intelligence failures prior to the attacks. Graham said in January of 2019 in an interview with Real News Network:
"I no longer use the words cover up to describe what’s going on. I find more accurate the words aggressive deception. The federal government has attempted to rewrite the narrative of 9/11 in order to exclude the role of the Saudis from that horrific story."
Graham also faults the Obama administration for the continuation of that deception, until he was forced by lawmakers and 9/11 families to declassify, albeit with heavy redactions, a previously classified portion of the 2002 report co-authored by Graham which is known as the "28 Pages." Obama suffered the only veto override of his presidency when Congress passed a bill that stripped immunity from the Saudi government for actions taken which aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks.
The 2018 bill was the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA.) The title of the 2002 report, which led to the 9/11 Commission led by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, is the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 ("Joint Inquiry.")
Graham originally opposed any formal inquiry into government failures before 9/11, saying he did not want to "play the blame game." He has since come out as a tireless crusader working alongside 9/11 families who have brought lawsuits aimed at exposing deceptions over a Saudi government role in 9/11, by both the Saudis and their allies in the Bush administration, and beyond.
In a 2016 interview with Real News Network, when asked if the Bush administration's efforts took place both before and after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, Senator Graham answered:
"Yeah, primarily before the event. After the event it shifts from being an action which supports the activities of the Saudis to an action that covers up the results of that permission given to the Saudis."
"virtually all of the agencies of the federal government were moving in the same direction, from a customs agent at an airport in Orlando who was chastised when he denied entry into the United States to a Saudi, to the president of the United States authorizing large numbers of Saudis to leave the country, possibly denying us–forever–important insights and information on what happened."
Former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke has said it was he who cleared the widely-reported private flights of well-connected Saudis for take-off in the days after 9/11, when all private aviation was still grounded, but others have argued that Clarke could not have made such a decision without explicit or implicit approval by the White House.
The 28 Pages
At the center of the furor over the revelations in the 28 Pages (actually 29) and other related documents is the role of one of the most influential and best known Saudi officials posted to America for decades, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Prince Bandar is a long-time Bush family friend and was the Saudi ambassador to the US from 1983 to 2005. He is the son of Sultan bin Abdulaziz, who was the Saudi defense minister in the years before and after 9/11.
Bandar is a grandson of the founder of Saudi Arabia, and a scion of the Sudairi clan, also known as the Sudairi Seven, seven full blooded brothers who constitute the ruling faction in Saudi Arabia since the Eighties.
On September 14, 2001, days after the attacks, President Bush famously stood on the rubble at Ground Zero with a bullhorn and proclaimed:
"the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon..."
Senator Graham, as a co-author of the 400-plus page report containing the 28 Pages, knows what is in the heavy redactions.
Two days after the 9/11 attacks, a photograph captured Bandar, Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and Dick Cheney on the Truman balcony of the White House, the men enjoying cigars. The balcony overlooked the South Lawn and, further south on that day, the still-smoking wreckage at the Pentagon.
In a new development, in September of 2019, near the 18th anniversary of the attacks, an article has been published in the New York Post putting into sharp focus former Robert Mueller's role in covering up the Saudi government's involvement in 9/11. Mueller was the Director of the FBI at the time, appointed by George W. Bush to that position in the summer of 2001. New York Post reporter Robert Sperry contacted former FBI agents and combed through affidavits filed by former agents on behalf of the 9/11 families pursuing lawsuits against the Saudi government.
Among the allegations made by former FBI agents who worked directly on the hijacker investigations after 9/11, as reported by Sperry in the Post, are that:
- “Diplomatic and intelligence personnel of Saudi Arabia knowingly provided material support to the two hijackers and facilitated the 9/11 plot,” yet the agent and his team were prevented by then Director of the FBI Robert Mueller from interviewing them, according to former Special Agent Stephen Moore. Moore headed a 9/11 task force in Los Angeles looking into local contacts made by two of the 15 Saudi hijackers.
- In 2002, Mueller prevented agents from arresting the Saudi-sponsored al Qaeda cleric who privately counseled the Saudi hijackers, according to Raymond Fournier, an agent with the Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Diego.
- Former agent Mark Rossini told the New York Post reporter “Any letting the Saudis off the hook came from the White House.” Rossini was one of two FBI liaisons to the CIA's Bin Laden Issue Station, an inter-agency team assigned to track Osama bin Laden. Rossini was subsequently interviewed by PBS Nova and told about being aware in January 2000 that two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, had valid US visas. However, he was stopped from passing the information on to his superiors at the FBI by a CIA employee, Michael Anne Casey. Rossini told the Post. “I can still see that photo of Bandar and Bush enjoying cigars on the balcony of the White House two days after 9/11.”
- Former FBI Agent John Guandolo, who worked terror cases out of the bureau’s DC office, said then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar “should have been treated as a terrorist suspect” for giving money to a woman who funded two of the 9/11 hijackers.
Senator Graham calls special attention to two phone numbers found in the possession of an Al Qaeda operative arrested in Pakistan in March 2002, Abu Zubaydah, one of which traced to the manager of Bandar's mansion property in Aspen, Colorado, and the other tracing to his bodyguard in the Saudi consulate in DC. The discovery was all the more shocking because the phone numbers were unlisted.
As reported by the UK Guardian in July 2016:
"The [Joint Inquiry] report also reveals that a phone log maintained by Abu Zubaydah, a senior al-Qaida operative captured in 2002 in Pakistan, included the unlisted phone number for a Colorado company that managed affairs at Prince Bandar’s home in the mountain resort city of Aspen, as well as the phone number for a bodyguard who worked under Bandar at the Saudi embassy in Washington."
The full excerpt on the Aspen number in the 28 Pages is:
"On March 28, 2002 U.S. and coalition forces retrieved the telephone book of Abu Zubaida, whom the US. Government has identified as senior al-Qa'ida operational coordinator. According to an FBI document, ‘a review of the telephone toll records has linked several of the numbers found in Zubaida's phonebook with U.S. phone numbers.
"One of the numbers is unlisted and subscribed to by the ASPCOL Corporation in Aspen, Colorado. According to the FBI's Denver Office, ASPCOL is the umbrella corporation that manages the affairs of the Colorado residence of Prince Bandar. the Saudi ambassador to the United States.
"The facility is protected by Scimitar Security. Agents of Denver Field Office noted that neither ASPCOL nor Scimitar Security is listed in the phone book or is easily locatable."
Graham has called the 28 Pages, which were declassified in 2016 over the strenuous objections of the Obama administration, a "smoking gun."
The Daily Mail reported in 2016:
"Former US Sen Bob Graham says redacted pages in a congressional report on 9/11 are the 'smoking gun' needed to link the terrorist attacks with top levels of the Saudi Government."
In an interview with Yahoo News, Graham said:
"Could those 19 people [September 11 terrorists] have carried out a plot as complex as 9/11 while maintaining anonymity in some cases for more than a year and a half while they were in the United States without having some support?"
"....I think [they’re] a smoking gun. I think the linkages are so multiple and strong and reinforcing that it’s hard to come away from reading all this material and not feel that there was a support network and that support network came from Saudi Arabia.”
The Bush administration's ties to the Saudi royal family and Saudis close to it go back decades, Two major investors in the 43rd president's early business ventures, Arbusto Energy and Harken Energy, were Salem bin Laden, Osama's older brother, and Khalid bin Mahfouz, a 20% stakeholder in BCCI, a criminal bank. The late Khalid bin Mahfouz was known as the personal banker of the Saudi royal family.
In 1992 then-Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Hank Brown, Republican of Colorado, found in a Senate Foreign Policy Committee investigation of BCCI, that BCCI's “criminality” included:
“support of terrorism, arms trafficking, and the sale of nuclear technologies; its management of prostitution; its commission and facilitation of income tax evasion, smuggling, and illegal immigration; its illicit purchases of banks and real estate; and a panoply of financial crimes limited only by the imagination of its officers and customers.”
Bush Family Ties to Bandar and Saudi Royals
However, the Bush family's ties to Prince Bandar were not just social and financial, but also involved serious working relationships in the art of law-breaking. Bandar helped then-Vice President George HW Bush, the elder, with the gun-running operation known as Iran-Contra in the Eighties. The illegal operation to assist Nicaraguan rebels to harass the new Sandinista government was run out of the vice president's office, and although Bush himself escaped culpability, the ensuing scandal resulted in nearly a dozen indictments of White House staff, including of Lt. Col. Oliver North and Eliot Abrams. Most were pardoned by Bush Senior at the end of his term.
The other state player in the Iran-Contra scheme, in which a deal was cut by the Reagan campaign with the new revolutionary government of Iran to hold onto the US hostages throughout the election in order to hurt Jimmy Carter's chances for re-election, was Israel. The plan was for Israel to sell weapons to Iran, for the US to resupply Israel, then for Israel to pay the US. The Reagan administration officials would then use the proceeds to illegally finance a terrorist force in Central America to attack the Sandanista government in Nicaragua.
Any American aid to the Contras had been specifically prohibited by the US Congress, with the Boland Amendment, after the CIA was found to have supported them without congressional approval.
Prince Bandar seems to have been the main orchestrator of the flights of Saudi nationals who were flown out of the country on charter jets when all other private aviation was still grounded in the days after 9/11. Craig Unger wrote in "Saving the Saudis" for Vanity Fair:
"At times, the Saudis who had assembled for departure tried to get the planes to leave before the F.B.I. had even identified who was on them. “I recall getting into a big flap with Bandar’s office about whether they would leave without us knowing who was on the plane,” says one F.B.I. agent. “Bandar wanted the plane to take off, and we were stressing that that plane was not leaving until we knew exactly who was on it.”"
Unger said in another article, The Kingdom and the Towers:
"In the end, the F.B.I. decided it was simply not practical to conduct full-blown investigations [of the passengers.] “They were identified,” says F.B.I.’s assistant director for counterterrorism, Dale Watson, “but they were not subject to serious interviews or interrogations.”"
9/11 Saudi Lawsuit Families Are Not the Only Ones Questioning the Official Story
This September Anchorage news station KTVA covered a new study issued by engineers at the University of Alaska which concluded that internal explosives were used on 9/11 to cause the collapse of at least of of the buildings. As the families and lawmakers who are suing Saudi Arabia over "outrageous conspiracy theories" which depart from the official story that the 19 alleged hijackers acted on their own, other 9/11 families and people impacted by the event are bringing their own actions, and saying the conspiracies do not stop with the Saudi government or the Bush administration running interference for that government.
Such as the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District, a New York City fire department outside of Queens, which lost one if its firefighters at the World Trade Center. There has long been a body of literature challenging the 9/11 Commission's official conclusions, such as the well-reviewed 9/11 Unmasked by Dr. David Ray Griffin.
KTVA News Report, September 2019
What Was Mueller's Role?
The commissioners of the department, by a unanimous vote taken on July 24, 2019, are calling for a new investigation into the crimes of 9/11, going much farther than allegations in the Saudi lawsuits.
The commissioners said in their call for a new investigation:
"Whereas, the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries — not just airplanes and the ensuing fires — caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day;"
The Fire Commission's resolution echoes another petition by 9/11 families which has met with some success. Also representing family members, the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry (Lawyer's Committee") has obtained agreement from US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, to convene a grand jury to hear evidence "regarding certain federal crimes which have been committed within your district." The Lawyers' Committee contends in its petition for grand jury:
"the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries — not just airplanes and the ensuing fires — caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day;"
A key part of the evidence to be presented to the grand jury consists of the witness testimony of hundreds of first responders, tenants, visitors, contractors, and other survivors of that day who witnessed explosions before and during the collapses of the Twin Towers, and WTC Building 7, a third skyscraper which imploded although it was not hit by a plane.
The Lawyers' Committee criticizes the 9/11 Commission, officially The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, for not containing a single witness report of an explosion or sequences of explosions, although many were reported by the media on that day.
In a 2001 New York Times interview of one NYC firefighter, the firefighter said:
"At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down."
The witness testimony in the Lawyers' Committee Petition is contained in the attached exhibit Persons with Material Information.
One of the main arguments made by the "architects, engineers, physicists, and chemists" who would testify to a grand jury on behalf of the Lawyers' Committee, in order to demonstrate "conclusively" that demolition explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7, involve the laws of physics.
The group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which is one of the parties backing the petition, say that the acceleration of a mass toward the ground at the acceleration rate known as "free fall" acceleration is impossible to attain through any medium but thin air. On 9/11 this acceleration was attained, for all intents and purposes, by three different skyscrapers, one of them not hit by an airplane.
The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, has grown, according to its official membership lists, from a few hundred in 2006 to over 3,000 members presently. AE911, as it is known, distributes its literature and engages fellow professionals at architecture, construction contractor, and other conventions, and travels to Washington DC to lobby congressional staffers for a new investigation.
Despite the release of the "28 Pages," the majority of the documents used in constructing the 9/11 Commission Report are still classified. The National Archives webpage of 9/11 Commission Records states:
"There is approximately 570 cubic feet of textual records. A large percentage of the Commission's records are national security
In addition, it is clear that many pieces of testimony taken during the 9/11 Commission hearings have not been adequately addressed, such as former US Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's indications that Dick Cheney was tracking Flight 77 as it was coming at the Pentagon from the Presidential Emergency Operations Center and refused to give the order to shoot it down, when repeatedly asked.
Confluence of Interests in the Success of 9/11
The primary change in the political climate which was engendered by 9/11 was the enabling of the full scale invasion and occupation of Iraq. Although the Bush administration itself admitted that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, the case was made that the Iraqi possessed "weapons of mass destruction," which it did at one point since the US helped Saddam obtain them in his 1980s war against Iran.
However, before the US invasion, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, testified on March 7, 2003 before the UN:
"at this juncture, we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance."
Only a nation traumatized by the horrific "shock and awe" of 9/11 would have consented to the largest offensive, long-term US troop presence in a foreign country since Vietnam, on the basis of what the Bush administration was giving it as a rationale.
"Shock and awe" is the military doctrine, once referred to by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, which is defined as "spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight."
Although Bush's case for the invasion of Iraq was riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods, Americans were ready to defer to the executive branch as a result of Bush's frequent invocations of "9/11," at one point even threatening that Saddam could devise a nuclear weapon, a claim which has been thoroughly discredited.
Bush said in a speech in October 2002, six months before the invasion:
"We have experienced the horror of September 11...America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
In March of 2003, just weeks before the invasion, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded:
“After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon
program in Iraq.”
Bush finally admitted that Saddam did not have WMD, saying in a press conference in 2006:
"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t..."
Bush further admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, when asked "What did Iraq have to do with [the attack on the World Trade Center?]," Bush said: "Nothing."
James Mattis, a retired Marine general and President Trump's first Secretary of Defense, said in his book published this year Call Sign Chaos:
“Invading Iraq stunned me. Why were we fighting them again?”
Other high ranking military officers who opposed invading Iraq from the start included but were not limited to Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, Gen. Hugh Shelton, Gen. Anthony Zinni, Admirl William J. Crowe, and Admiral Stansfield Turner.
At the same time that Bush was striking fear into the hearts of Americans by the mention of 9/11, the administration was working to ensure the Saudi government's role in the attacks never saw the light of day, according to Senator Graham, both "before" and "after" the event. Were this to be thoroughly investigated and found true, what would it mean for the viability of the rest of the official narrative?
Former FBI translator and famed whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, like Graham, has placed the actions of senior level FBI officials, beginning with Mueller, outside the bounds of bungling and incompetence before the 9/11 attacks into "intentional" suppression of vital information. Called "the most gagged woman in US history" by her supporters, referring to numerous gag orders imposed on her at the demand of the executive branch, Edmonds says:
“The public has still not been told of the intentional obstruction of intelligence. The public has not been told that certain information, despite its relevance to terrorist activities, is not shared with counterterrorism units. This was true prior to 9/11, and it remains true today."
But although the invasion of Iraq seemed like insanity to some, it was manna from heaven to others. In his 2007 New Yorker report The Redirection, Seymour Hersch writes of a shift toward radical Islamic proxies of the Sunni persuasion to counter growing Iranian influence in the region, caused by the overthrow of Saddam who was Iran's historical check.
"In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said."
Hersch then points to a veritable Who's Who of Iran-Contra and Other Dirty Tricksters:
"The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While [Secretary of State Condoleeza] Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney."
Finally, in a riveting section Hersch interviews al-Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah in Lebanon who voices a strong opinion of the ultimate plan of the US policy which is apparently creating one failed state after another. Nasrallah opines that this is not accident or incompetence, but precisely the point, leading to radical partition of the region and redrawing the map of the Middle East:
"Partition would leave Israel surrounded by “small tranquil states,” he said. “I can assure you that the Saudi kingdom will also be divided, and the issue will reach to North African states. There will be small ethnic and confessional states,” he said. “In other words, Israel will be the most important and the strongest state in a region that has been partitioned into ethnic and confessional states that are in agreement with each other. This is the new Middle East.”"
For his part, Prince Bandar is the talented diplomat who can execute Saudi Arabia's interest, which is in a Sunni resurgence throughout the region to offset Iran's Shia influence.
"If Bandar was seen as bringing about a shift in U.S. policy in favor of the Sunnis, he added, it would greatly enhance his standing within the royal family."
Presciently and in a startling coincidence, a group of foreign policy hawks calling themselves "Neoconservatives" have articulated a vision for years before 9/11 which centered, for its first order of business, on the overthrow of Saddam. The vision, according to General Wes Clark, then called for the overthrow of other Arab governments throughout the region, saying in a San Francisco talk that he spoke to a former colleague and defense department staffer at the Pentagon who told him, before the invasion of Iraq:
"And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.""
The name of the group of Neoconservatives was Project for a New American Century (PNAC.) Within it, and suddenly finding themselves in charge of the nation's foreign policy and national defenses, were Eliot Abram's, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Dov Zakhim, Richard Perle (called "The Prince of Darkness in Washington,) and Paul Wolfowitz.
The think tank's members and document signatories reads like an Iran-Contra reunion combined with relatively newer pledges into the fraternity.
Cryptically, one of those documents, Rebuilding America's Defenses, recites the group's oft-repeated panoply of tough talk for a new MIddle East and a new assertion of American military power in general. The intriguing passage is:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
To be sure, PNACer John Bolton once openly changed course from the bringing of "democracy" to the region to balkanization, just as Hezhollah head Nasrallah lamented. Bolton wrote for the New York Times:
"The best alternative to the Islamic State in northeastern Syria and western Iraq is a new, independent Sunni state....
This “Sunni-stan” has economic potential as an oil producer..."
In the influential Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Col. Ralph Peters of the U.S. National War Academy published a map of what the "New Middle East" might look like. It is a dystopian vision of fractured and dysfunctional ethnic and religious tribes, none large enough or organized enough to challenge Israeli hegemony in the region.
Similarly, Douglas Feith, George W. Bush's under secretary of Defense for Policy, and David Wurmser, Middle East Adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, once wrote in a paper intended to influence then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu which advocated, in 1996, five years before 9/11, "removing" Saddam from power. In the paper known as A Clean Break, the soon-to-be Bush administration officials write:
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."
Nowhere in the document does it say who will remove Saddam from power, although there was only one country in the world with the land army capable of the job, the US. So great has the outrage been among observers of US Middle East policy that American officials would be fomenting war on behalf of a foreign power, Israel, that Feith, often cited as a co-author of A Clean Break, has issued a denial that he had anything to do with it.
A former minister in the German Ministry of Defense, Andreas Von Bulow, said to a German newspaper in 2002:
"Planning the attacks was a master deed, in technical and organizational terms. To hijack four big airliners within a few minutes and fly them into targets within a single hour and doing so on complicated flight routes! That is unthinkable, without backing from the secret apparatuses of state and industry."
Eighteen years after 9/11, with the release of the 28 Pages and legal actions against the Saudis moving forward, the tenability of the official story as told by the 9/11 Commission hangs in the balance. In yet another bitter irony, in 1998 the Council on Foreign Relations journal Foreign Affairs published an ominous article outlining a new threat of "catastrophic terrorism," the title of the article, in which a new and until then unimaginable level of terrorist violence would rule national decision making. Catastrophic Terrorism described:
"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.""
A co-author of the foreboding piece was none other than the future chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, a Harvard professor. One of Zelikow's areas of expertise was in the role of public "myth" in shaping the policies of a nation, saying in one his more interesting mad professor ramblings at a UVA conference two years before 9/11:
"This idea of “public presumption”is akin to William McNeill’s notion of “public myth”but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word “myth.”"
The predicament of the 9/11 Commission and its report's conclusions is somewhat reminiscent of the husband who has been caught going to a strip club rather than working late at the office. Worse than the strip club, which is bad enough, the wife must now wonder if he is lying about one thing, what else is he lying about?