Lee Hamilton has always flinched at implicating important Americans and “allies” in crimes of state – citing the need for near perfect evidence – but that has let complicit parties go unpunished, says 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser.
By Kristen Breitweiser
May 3, 2016
Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton wrote an opinion piece last week in USAToday, trying to “temper” feelings surrounding the release of “the 28 pages.”
Kean and Hamilton wrote, “The 28 pages have generated a lot of public speculation over the years and have been described as a ‘smoking gun’ implicating the Saudi government in the deadliest terrorist attack carried out on U.S. soil.”
Hijacked plane about to strike the second of New York City’s Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001.
They go on to write, “What often gets lost in those theories is that the 28 pages were based almost entirely on raw, unvetted material that came to the FBI. That material was written up as possible leads for further investigation, and the 28 pages were a summary of some of those reports and leads as of the end of 2002 — all of them uninvestigated.”
What Kean and Hamilton fail to acknowledge is the reason the “raw, unvetted material” was left “uninvestigated” was strictly because of the 9/11 Commission’s Staff Director, Philip Zelikow.
Zelikow has too many conflicts of interest to list in this article. Suffice it to say that a critical portion of the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report can be seen as merely a fairy-tale rendition (or intelligence “story”) of Zelicow’s design. (Scroll down to the lunch break, read Zelikow’s next Staff Statement where he talks about an “intelligence story.”)
Indeed, chapter 5, “Al Qaeda Aims at the Homeland,” and chapter 7, “The Attack Looms,” provide most of the vital pieces of information surrounding the 9/11 plot by citing Khalid Sheikh Mohammad’s interviews as their primary source. Why would any laudable historian (who Zelikow professes to be) base an official accounting of the worst terrorist attack since Pearl Harbor on the bogus ramblings of a detained, tortured terrorist? That’s why anything and everything that comes out of Zelikow’s mouth should be questioned for its veracity — and motive.
After all, if the person in charge of torturing KSM wanted to obscure the Saudi role, is it a surprise that KSM would say what his torturer wanted to hear? Moreover, is it a surprise that the person or persons in charge of KSM’s torture, who wanted to obscure the U.S. government’s awareness of the threat and indeed specific knowledge of many of the terrorist activities before the attack, would elicit a story consistent with that goal?