~The Un-Congress Group~

Promoting Unofficial Congressional Action to Confront

Bush Administration Policies and Scandals

*What’s Wrong With The “New” 9/11 Commission?*

EVERYTHING!

By Breadandwine

Republican Domination for Starters—

When the “new!” 9/11 commission was first proposed, we were assured that it would BOLDLY go where no previous 9/11 commission had gone before. But, to paraphrase Martin Luther King, we are rapidly seeing that this “new!” historic commission is somehow well on the way to not making history. The central question the commission will not answer correctly is, “What did the C.I.A. know and when did they know it? And why should they? The commission will be under the de facto control of the Republicans.

Stunted Subpoena Power

The “new!” 9/11 commission will have ten members, five Democratic and five Republican. It will require six votes to authorize a subpoena. Sounds bipartisan, sort of. In fact, it means that at least one Republican on the commission will have to sign off on every single subpoena Democrats want. The Democrats will have to play “Mother, may I” for every line of inquiry they want to pursue with subpoenas. Even if one of the Republicans on the commission is a “maverick” sometimes willing to go out on a limb, there is very little likelihood that he will have the mindset to pursue such contentious allegations as the charge that C.I.A. inaction ahead of 9/11 was willful and deliberate. The C.I.A. has a long and well-documented history of supporting terrorist groups. Do you really think even one Republican on the commission will be willing to explore this “controversial” fact? Most of the Western intelligence agencies have allies in the terrorist world. It is a dirty little secret that breaking those ties could expose those agencies to the simple retaliation of those terrorists going public with those ties to discredit the intelligence agency that broke them. These messy entanglements need to be explored instead of being swept under the rug. In addition, the Bush family itself has had extensive, even labyrinthine ties to the C.I.A. (and Nazis) going back more than half a century. How can the full truth be pursued when Republican allies of President Bush on the commission will seek to protect this special interest?

Neither should a majority of the commission be required to agree with the charge of willful C.I.A. inaction on 9/11 before even examining it. Setting the bar at six votes for a subpoena promotes a “collegial” atmosphere that will, in fact, encourage going along, in order to get along. “Going along” is not a recipe for placing the truth uppermost. The families of those murdered on 9/11 deserve better than a luvvy-duvvy inside-the-Beltway attitude of “Let’s not go there.” Those who have not lived through the suffering of those families have no right to suppress or paper over persistent questions and unaddressed allegations and evidence in the interest of a one-way comity with those supporting an administration that stands at great risk should its own failure or culpability on 9/11 be explored. The commission should have been allowed at least a certain number of subpoenas to be issued on the initiative of a minority of the commission. Invariably requiring six votes for a subpoena is tantamount to saying that “the truth is only what the majority thinks it is.” Our society respects the right of minorities to have their own opinion, and the commission should have been designed to explore minority queries with greater open-mindedness in its quest for the truth.

The Commission Will Be Headed By A Bush Appointee

Intelligence lapses on 9/11 occurred on President Bush’s watch and the buck stops with him. It is unconscionable that an investigation that must go wherever the facts lead and may tarnish his administration, should be headed by a chairman he himself will appoint. We have seen a long parade of hard right wing Bush appointments. For instance, we saw just recently that the Pentagon had begun a project to keep tabs on millions of Americans called “Total Information Awareness,” a huge digital dragnet intended to unjustifiably monitor the lives of millions of law-abiding citizens, including their personal credit card and bank transactions. The New York Times and The Washington Post both denounced the project. Vice President Al Gore also denounced it and called it a “Big Brother-type approach.” Now, who has been appointed to head up this project? Retired Real Admiral John Poindexter—convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal of five felony counts of lying to Congress, destroying official documents and obstructing a congressional investigation into the matter. And GUESS WHAT—the whole project—“Total Information Awareness”—was Poindexter’s idea. THIS IS WHY WE CAN NOT ALLOW AN “INDEPENDENT” INVESTIGATION OF 9/11 TO BE HEADED BY A BUSH APPOINTEE.

The Bush Appointee Will Be Henry Kissinger

Moreover, we have now learned that, in fact, the man appointed by President Bush to head up the 9/11 commission will be none other than Henry Kissinger. Kissinger has a long list of credentials relating to the intelligence establishment and its affiliates that pose the specter of a conflict of interest. He served in the U. S. Army Counter-Intelligence Corps and was once a captain in the Military Intelligence Reserve. He was a consultant to the Rand Corporation, a member of President Bush (Senior)’s President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and his role as Secretary of State placed him in the center of intelligence activity, as America’s diplomatic service is used, in part, by the C.I.A. as a front for espionage, as its personnel have diplomatic immunity. (Same with other countries—they all use their diplomatic services for espionage.)

Kissinger’s role in the C.I.A.-backed coup that toppled the leftist Chilean leader Salvadore Allende has long been well-documented. Winston Churchill spoke well when he said, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal distribution of blessings. The inherent ‘virtue’ of socialism is the equal distribution of miseries.” However, Allende was democratically elected. He was murdered and the coup replaced him with General Augusto Pinochet, implicated in a reign of “night and fog” terror that “disappeared” countless Chilean citizens for years after the coup. The fact remains that the C.I.A. and the U. S. could have pressured Pinochet to end the bloodbath and this was not done. “Nacht und nebel” or the “night and fog” disappearance of people by the state, was perfected under Nazi Germany—the country Kissinger fled in 1938—but one wonders what he learned from that nightmare. Of the coup in Chile, Kissinger once famously uttered, “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.” Kissinger’s anti-democratic statements place him in good company: The man who appointed him to head the 9/11 commission is president because his brother kept blacks away from the polls with police roadblocks.

Meanwhile, documents recently released by the C.I.A. strengthen previously-held suspicions that Kissinger was actively involved in the establishment of Operation Condor, a C.I.A.-facilitated covert intelligence plan involving six Latin American countries including Chile, to assassinate thousands of political opponents. And Baltazar Garzon, the Spanish judge who pursued the extradition to Spain of General Pinochet while the former Chilean dictator was in London, is now seeking to question Kissinger about the deaths of Spanish nationals tortured and murdered as part of Operation Condor. Kissinger is also wanted by a French judge in connection with Operation Condor’s murder of French citizens.

Moreover, Kissinger is known for an obsession with secrecy and when he left office in 1977 he deposited most of his personal papers in the U. S. Library of Congress, where they will remain sealed until five years after his death. With Kissinger’s appointment to head the commission why should we now expect him to pursue the openness and truth he does not practice? And with his open support for coups and juntas, why should we now expect him to defend against terrorism the very democratic ideals he could not even preach?

And then there is the little matter of Cambodia. In the Nixon Administration Kissinger, as national security adviser, was “the architect of secret bombing,” a critical, staunch supporter of the ineffective, indiscriminate, brutal and largely secret carpet bombing of Cambodia that involved deceiving Congress and falsifying records, and much of this activity, in coordinating with ground forces in Cambodia, violated the Cooper-Church Amendment limiting U. S. involvement in Cambodia. In other words, Kissinger was directly supporting the deceiving of Congress on a crucial foreign policy matter.

And this man is now supposed to give us up the truth about 9/11. The Bush Administration must be absolutely desperate to hide something about 9/11 if they are hiring as their gatekeeper someone who is as much of an insider as the murderous, Machiavellian and lying Henry Kissinger.

Sabotage

Investigating the C.I.A. is not a task for naïve, pro-intelligence eager beavers who foolishly think a love for the C.I.A. is a prerequisite for patriotism. C.I.A. director William Colby himself once testified before Congress of the vast array of dirty tricks and sabotage, of assassinations and hiring of the Mafia, in which the C.I.A. was regularly engaged. If evidence is damaging to the C.I.A., the C.I.A. knows how to fight back—their way. Even during the tenure of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the ‘70s, a C.I.A. agent was fired after being accused of breaking into the committee’s safe. The C.I.A. will tell you that they don’t do this anymore, they don’t do that anymore, when in fact, it is often that merely the location of a C.I.A. project or even just its name or the plaque on the door that has been changed. It is standard procedure that agents on particularly “sensitive” assignments “resign” from the agency before undertaking the task, and are then paid on the side.

The C.I.A. gets away with such things because Democrats on Capitol Hill are busy with more important matters—like raising the minimum wage a dollar. Of course, “It’s the economy, stupid.” In the 2002 congressional elections, the Democratic Party officially denounced vast election rigging by the Republicans. Apparently, the economy made the Republicans do it. Meanwhile, the committee system on Capitol Hill necessitates that each legislator has his own chores and thus, “The C.I.A. is not my department.” The buck is thus passed to the intelligence committees.

However, each intelligence committee member must take an extra oath—an oath of secrecy—which effectively keeps him silent. What genuine critic of the C.I.A. would want that? The original intent of the intelligence committees as watchdogs is thus turned on its head. It’s a Catch-22. For all intents and purposes, Congress is allowed to criticize the C.I.A.—but only if they shut up. Thus, instead of the entire Congress watching the C.I.A., only a tiny handful of legislators do—ones who have stars in their eyes for the C.I.A. The C.I.A. is thus almost completely insulated from effective oversight. Meanwhile, the C.I.A. sends over to the intelligence committees briefing officers who regularly snow and swamp the committees with “show and tell.” They tell them, “Guess what’s happening in Borneo! Guess what’s happening in Swaziland! Guess what’s happening in Kamchatka!” The one thing they don’t tell them is: Guess what’s really happening in C.I.A. headquarters? Guess what’s happening in the C.I.A.? But the committee members are all terribly flattered to be included in these one-sided briefings and fancy themselves to be almost a part of the C.I.A. They are swamped with years of false assumptions, intelligence party line and hype—and have no conception of the extent to which they are missing the other side to the story.

Even civilian-appointed directors of the C.I.A. have been snowed by this “briefing-itis.” The C.I.A. had its own director, John Deutsch, appointed by President Clinton, constantly running around like a chicken without a head worrying about reports concerning the rest of the world. The analysts and the covert operators are two separate sides to the C.I.A., two very different cultures. Despite his making some important firings, the C.I.A. had its own director, Deutsch, largely believing himself to be “analyst-in-chief.” The need to get administrative control over a huge, anti- democratic and dangerous organization with staggering access to official and unofficial sources of funds was never allowed to get enough attention.

Now, the 9/11 commission is to hold meetings with a quorum of only six of its members. Just six. This may be okay for some other commissions. For a commission investigating the intelligence community it is an instant invitation to sabotage. If a Democratic commission member’s mother falls ill, or his car breaks down or gets towed over some minor violation—or—his plane is grounded because of engine trouble, the commission will be under the effective control of the Republicans. Do you really believe that on days when matters critical to the C.I.A. are discussed by the commission, that there will always be five Democrats present? What country do you really think you’re living in?

The Giant Wild Goose Chase

In the legislation establishing the 9/11 commission, the stated mandate of the commission includes investigating “relevant facts” relating to a long list of issues many of which would send the commission on lengthy diversions and distractions. Among the issues so specified are: Diplomacy, immigration, border patrol, nonimmigrant visas, commercial aviation, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations and a review of the activities of state and local governments. In short, the commission’s work has been larded up with tasks that have nothing to do with the intelligence failures of 9/11. We are reminded of the assertion of President Eisenhower that, “To kill an issue, broaden it.” The real issue then gets buried.

Moreover, in announcing his selection of Henry Kissinger to head the commission, President Bush made clear the priorities he expected Kissinger to pursue, which he specified were understanding terrorism, not uncovering intelligence mistakes. Said Bush, carefully underscoring his words with emphatic stress, “This commission will help me and future presidents understand the methods of America’s enemies and the nature of the threat we face.” Thus, absurdly, Bush directed the commission and its chairman—ten people—to do a job the multi-billion dollar C.I.A. was supposed to do, instead of finding out why they didn’t. Don’t find out what’s happening in the C.I.A., mind you. Go find out what’s happening in Borneo.

This does not mean that the commission will pay no attention to intelligence matters. The legislation establishing the commission specifically states that “When investigating facts and circumstances relating to the intelligence community, the Commission shall first review the information compiled by, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of, the Joint Inquiry.” Sounds very “thorough.” And it probably would be, if the Joint Inquiry into 9/11 by the intelligence committees had actually focused on the right issues and witnesses. In fact, many witnesses never got to testify, and any witness daring to suggest or show evidence that the 9/11 intelligence failure was in any way deliberate was shoved aside. Practically the only line of thought tolerated to any great extent was that the intelligence failures of 9/11 were, sort of, the result of a failure of the C.I.A. and F.B.I. to communicate. That’s all.

In fact, the C.I.A. has vast communication capabilities. Technologically, it has the best communication system in the world. It also has a whole department just for writing books. The C.I.A. and Pentagon also have elaborate involvement with Hollywood and a whole program for assisting film makers in making films favorable to them. (Military equipment, for instance, from tanks to planes, is loaned out to friendly film makers for a tiny fraction of the real cost.) The C.I.A. also has a vast infrastructure for spreading disinformation and for influencing the reporting of news organizations all over the world and in the United States. It has had plants on the editorial boards of major news organizations and has had many “pet journalists” in its pocket. It is well-known that The Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Moon (the “Moonies”). Less well-known is the fact that the Unification Church, with its many newspapers worldwide, is largely a front for the South Korean intelligence agency and Japanese fascists, acting as proxies for the C.I.A. (This according to the massively documented The Secret War Against The Jews by John Loftus, pp. 303, 577-578.) Additionally, the C.I.A. has the ear of the President every day in morning briefings. But no. In advance of the 9/11 attacks there was an innocent bureaucratic failure to communicate. Who can believe this? We have already mentioned above the great inadequacy of Congress’s intelligence committees. Now making their inquiry the starting point for the new inquiry, while seeming “prudent,” will nevertheless foster the same faulted “stars in their eyes” mindset. The new commission will be snowed under by all the original false assumptions.

The legislation creating the commission also states that “The Commission is authorized to secure directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of” the commission and “departments and agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support as they may determine advisable.” Again, this is a recipe for swamping the commission with useless information, trivia and diverting data to detour the commission from the real questions—almost the investigatory equivalent of a filibuster. In short, this is a mandate for snowing the commission under a mountain of endless distractions—what we called above, “briefing-itis.”

If there is one interesting footnote to this wild goose chase it is the mandate of the commission to investigate the flow of assets to terrorist organizations. Now, not that the commission would ever have the wisdom, courage, awareness and historical background (uh—what is that?) to pursue this, but the C.I.A. has had vast, intricate, labyrinthine connecti0ns to terrorist groups for decades—including the very people from Afghanistan who attacked the U. S. The C.I.A. has funneled billions of dollars into these groups to fight the Soviets—and for many other much less noble and more self-serving purposes. How is it that with such vast, intimate contact and connections with terrorists, the C.I.A. still—um, just had no idea, really—what was coming on 9/11?

Just one of the leading authors who has established the most incestuous, self-serving, even fascistic connections between the C.I.A., Nazis and terrorist groups is the highly respected John Loftus, author of The Secret War Against The Jews, mentioned above (co-authored by Mark Aarons). Loftus is a frequent consultant to 60 Minutes. A former prosecutor in the Justice Department’s Nazi-hunting division, Loftus’ book is also a who’s who of famous Republicans who secretly sold out America for the C.I.A.—and for the most reactionary foreign interests. No—Democrat—should be without this book. The book, 600 pages, is meticulously indexed and massively documented with over 100 pages of footnotes and is based on hundreds of interviews with intelligence personnel and thousands of declassified and F.O.I.A.-released documents. Loftus’ charges of the most blood-curdling links between the C.I.A. and terrorist groups—a total cesspool—can NOT simply be dismissed in the interest of “collegiality.” Just a few of his vast and many charges:

1. George Bush (Senior) as C.I.A. director and later as Vice President, worked closely with British intelligence in backing P.L.O. and Syrian terrorist and drug king Monzer Al-Kassar, despite his being behind many terrorist acts, including the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, on which the disabled wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was thrown overboard to his death.

2. During the ‘80s the C.I.A. established close ties with terrorist thug Abu Iyad despite his continuing terrorist acts against Israel.

3. U. S. intelligence actually sent arms to the terror-sponsoring Libyan dictator Mu’ammar Gadhafi in direct violation of American law and policy.

4. The C.I.A. brought over to its Virginia headquarters for intensive training many leading P.L.O. figures, including Saeb Erakat, Sari Nusseibeh, Hanna Seniora, and Hanan Ashrawi, as well as lower ranking P.L.O. figures.

5. The C.I.A. is RIGHT NOW concealing from the American public vital information about a near-universal, safe and non-toxic antidote to biological weapons that could and should be in every American medicine cabinet at a cost of only pennies per bottle. It even works on “designer” bacteria. The existence of this antidote was obtained by Loftus via F.O.I.A. The completely safe drug was developed by the Czechs, suppressed by the Russians and then kept secret from the American people by—the C.I.A.

Because there is too much evidence and there are too many witnesses that will still be ignored by the “new” 9/11 commission, a group has been formed to push for an alternative forum. We are the Un-Congress Group . We believe it is absurd to think that Democrats are powerless when we still control nearly half the seats on Capitol Hill. That has to count for something. It is entirely legal and, we believe, entirely feasible politically for Democratic lawmakers to get together in informal, unofficial hearings and invite witnesses and whistle blowers who have been ignored to testify. This does not even require subpoena power because many witnesses who were never allowed to testify want to come forward and don’t need to be forced. And despite its drawbacks, F.O.I.A. can also be used to obtain many documents even without subpoena powers. We are calling on Democratic lawmakers to hold such informal hearings extensively over the next two years on a whole range of issues the GOP does not want discussed, including Enron, Hearken Energy, election “irregularities,” Echelon and increased government surveillance powers and—9/11. Even where some hearings already exist, we want an alternative process to serve as a constant gadfly and to hold official commissions’ feet to the fire. Let the Republicans accuse and complain. It’s all they do and it’s what they will do anyway, so we might as well get our money’s worth. We are also convinced that money for such hearings could be raised by Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill, simply by their speaking with their wealthy contacts. A key figure in the DNC legal department has also assured us that such fund raising would be “trivially easy,” raising even a hundred thousand dollars “in an afternoon” (or much more over several days). He assured us that the publicity such unofficial hearings would generate for Democratic concerns, issues and office holders, and the fund-raising to support those hearings, would not violate the new restrictions on soft money. Even big contributors who will be restricted from giving as much under the new campaign rules will have no legal problem donating to the “Un-Hearings.”

We call these hearings the “un-hearings” because they will be unofficial and because they seek to challenge the GOP Congress. And since they will be unofficial, any Democratic lawmaker can participate regardless of which committees he currently sits on. So if you are currently sitting on some boring, dreary “sewer maintenance” committee—the GOP’s equivalent of sending you to Siberia—here is your chance to make a difference. The Un-Hearings are a bottom-up version of the top-down actions of “give-‘em-hell” Harry Truman who kept sending legislation to a right-wing GOP Congress that he knew they would reject—just to showcase how bad they were. The Republicans think they are king of the hill and can now tell Democrats to “be good little boys and run along now.” On issue after issue the GOP thinks it can tell us to shut up simply because it has razor thin majorities on Capitol Hill. But no one can silence a hearing process that is merely a public forum because it is protected by free speech.

For further information—

Contact: Breadandwine