Tuesday, May 31, 2005
The 9/11 Commission Report a 571-Page Lie
An Article by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Author of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions
Dr. Griffin stated, "Far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, the 9/11 Commission Report has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?" He said that the 9/11 Commission Report contains two types of lies, implicit (omissions) and explicit (distorted claims), and in this article he lists 100 such lies and parenthetically indicates the pages of his book on which the various issues are discussed.
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94).
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114).
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as “opportunities” (116-17).
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18). 54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” (133-34).
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane (166-67).
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD’s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD’s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175’s hijacking (183-84, 186).
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
74. The omission, in the Commission’s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI’s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190). 76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92).
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because “none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department”---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
82. The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference---although Clarke’s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
83. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke’s videoconference (213-17).
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke’s account of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19).
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from “Phantom Flight 11,” were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93’s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
106. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
107. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed “independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report “without dissent,” to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of “looking at information only partially,” had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
*************************************************************************
An Article by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Author of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions
Dr. Griffin stated, "Far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, the 9/11 Commission Report has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?" He said that the 9/11 Commission Report contains two types of lies, implicit (omissions) and explicit (distorted claims), and in this article he lists 100 such lies and parenthetically indicates the pages of his book on which the various issues are discussed.
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94).
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114).
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as “opportunities” (116-17).
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18). 54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” (133-34).
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane (166-67).
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD’s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD’s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175’s hijacking (183-84, 186).
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
74. The omission, in the Commission’s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI’s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190). 76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92).
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because “none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department”---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
82. The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference---although Clarke’s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
83. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke’s videoconference (213-17).
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke’s account of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19).
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from “Phantom Flight 11,” were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93’s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
106. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
107. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed “independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report “without dissent,” to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of “looking at information only partially,” had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
*************************************************************************
Saturday, May 28, 2005
U.S. WEAPONS AT WAR 2005:
PROMOTING FREEDOM OR FUELING CONFLICT?
A World Policy Institute Special Report
by Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung, with Leslie Heffel June 2005
Perhaps no single policy is more at odds with President Bush’s pledge to "end tyranny in our world" than the United States’ role as the world’s leading arms exporting nation. Although arms sales are often justified on the basis of their purported benefits, from securing access to overseas military facilities to rewarding coalition allies in conflicts such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these alleged benefits often come at a high price. All too often, U.S. arms transfers end up fueling conflict, arming human rights abusers, or falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries. As in the case of recent decisions to provide new F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan, while pledging comparable high-tech military hardware to its rival India, U.S. arms sometimes go to both sides in long brewing conflicts, ratcheting up tensions and giving both sides better firepower with which to threaten each other. Far from serving as a force for security and stability, U.S. weapons sales frequently serve to empower unstable, undemocratic regimes to the detriment of U.S. and global security.
Among the key findings of this report are the following:
In 2003, the last year for which full information is available, the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflicts. From Angola, Chad and Ethiopia, to Colombia, Pakistan and the Philippines, transfers through the two largest U.S. arms sales programs (Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales) to these conflict nations totaled nearly $1 billion in 2003, with the vast bulk of the dollar volume going to Israel ($845.6 million).
In 2003, more than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world (13 of 25) were defined as undemocratic by the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Report: in the sense that "citizens do not have the right to change their own government" or that right was seriously abridged. These 13 nations received over $2.7 billion in U.S. arms transfers under the Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales programs in 2003, with the top recipients including Saudi Arabia ($1.1 billion), Egypt ($1.0 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), the United Arab Emirates ($110 million) and Uzbekistan ($33 million).
When countries designated by the State Department’s Human Rights Report to have poor human rights records or serious patterns of abuse are factored in, 20 of the top 25 U.S. arms clients in the developing world in 2003-- a full 80%-- were either undemocratic regimes or governments with records of major human rights abuses.
The largest U.S. military aid program, Foreign Military Financing (FMF), increased by 68% between 2001 and 2003, from $3.5 billion to nearly $6 billion.
Nevertheless, the greatest danger emanating U.S. arms transfers and military aid programs is not in the numbers, but in the potential impacts on the image, credibility and security of the United States. Arming repressive regimes in all corners of the globe while simultaneously proclaiming a campaign for democracy and against tyranny undermines the credibility of the United States in international forums and makes it harder to hold other nations to high standards of conduct on human rights and other key issues. Arming undemocratic governments all too often helps to enhance their power, frequently fueling conflict or enabling human rights abuses in the process. These blows to the reputation of the United States are in turn impediments to winning the "war of ideas" in the Muslim world and beyond, a critical element in drying up financial and political support for terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda. Last but not least, in all too many cases, U.S. arms and military technology can end up in the hands of U.S. adversaries, as happened in the 1980s in Iraq and Panama, as well as with the right-wing fundamentalist "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, many of whom are now supporters of al-Qaeda.
*************************************************************************
A World Policy Institute Special Report
by Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung, with Leslie Heffel June 2005
Perhaps no single policy is more at odds with President Bush’s pledge to "end tyranny in our world" than the United States’ role as the world’s leading arms exporting nation. Although arms sales are often justified on the basis of their purported benefits, from securing access to overseas military facilities to rewarding coalition allies in conflicts such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these alleged benefits often come at a high price. All too often, U.S. arms transfers end up fueling conflict, arming human rights abusers, or falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries. As in the case of recent decisions to provide new F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan, while pledging comparable high-tech military hardware to its rival India, U.S. arms sometimes go to both sides in long brewing conflicts, ratcheting up tensions and giving both sides better firepower with which to threaten each other. Far from serving as a force for security and stability, U.S. weapons sales frequently serve to empower unstable, undemocratic regimes to the detriment of U.S. and global security.
Among the key findings of this report are the following:
In 2003, the last year for which full information is available, the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflicts. From Angola, Chad and Ethiopia, to Colombia, Pakistan and the Philippines, transfers through the two largest U.S. arms sales programs (Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales) to these conflict nations totaled nearly $1 billion in 2003, with the vast bulk of the dollar volume going to Israel ($845.6 million).
In 2003, more than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world (13 of 25) were defined as undemocratic by the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Report: in the sense that "citizens do not have the right to change their own government" or that right was seriously abridged. These 13 nations received over $2.7 billion in U.S. arms transfers under the Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales programs in 2003, with the top recipients including Saudi Arabia ($1.1 billion), Egypt ($1.0 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), the United Arab Emirates ($110 million) and Uzbekistan ($33 million).
When countries designated by the State Department’s Human Rights Report to have poor human rights records or serious patterns of abuse are factored in, 20 of the top 25 U.S. arms clients in the developing world in 2003-- a full 80%-- were either undemocratic regimes or governments with records of major human rights abuses.
The largest U.S. military aid program, Foreign Military Financing (FMF), increased by 68% between 2001 and 2003, from $3.5 billion to nearly $6 billion.
Nevertheless, the greatest danger emanating U.S. arms transfers and military aid programs is not in the numbers, but in the potential impacts on the image, credibility and security of the United States. Arming repressive regimes in all corners of the globe while simultaneously proclaiming a campaign for democracy and against tyranny undermines the credibility of the United States in international forums and makes it harder to hold other nations to high standards of conduct on human rights and other key issues. Arming undemocratic governments all too often helps to enhance their power, frequently fueling conflict or enabling human rights abuses in the process. These blows to the reputation of the United States are in turn impediments to winning the "war of ideas" in the Muslim world and beyond, a critical element in drying up financial and political support for terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda. Last but not least, in all too many cases, U.S. arms and military technology can end up in the hands of U.S. adversaries, as happened in the 1980s in Iraq and Panama, as well as with the right-wing fundamentalist "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, many of whom are now supporters of al-Qaeda.
*************************************************************************
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
National Coalition on Health Care Press Release May 23, 2005.....
New Projections From Nation's Largest Health Care Coalition Show Health Care Reform Would Produce Huge Savings.
System-wide health care reform would save much more money than it would cost, according to economic projections released today by the National Coalition on Health Care.
In four scenarios for reform analyzed by Professor Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University, the investment needed to achieve universal health coverage would be more than offset by savings. In each case, the cost of a reformed system would be much less than the cost of continuing with the current system.
Announcing these new findings, the Coalition's president, Dr. Henry E. Simmons, said, "What this economic modeling shows unambiguously is that done right, health care reform will save America a great deal of money - while at the same time assuring health coverage for all Americans and dramatically improving health care."
From Professor Thorpe's PowerPoint presentation.....
Comparing four scenarios of Total change in spending for the years 2006 through 2015 (in comparison with the status quo):
#1. $320 billion reduction - Employer mandate supplemented by individual mandate
#2. $320 billion reduction - Expand existing programs to expand coverage
#3. $370 billion reduction - Develop new program modeled after the FEHB (federal employees' program)
#4. $1136 billion ($1.136 trillion) reduction - Universal publicly financed program ("single payer")
The Honorary Co-Chairs of the National Coalition on Health Care are former presidents George Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. The member organizations of the Coalition represent about 150 million Americans and include business, labor, consumer, religious, provider, and health and pension fund interestsEvery effort has been made to remove any partisan agenda from the process. Our former presidents can attest to that.
A highly objective process was used to evaluate the models.
*************************************************************************
New Projections From Nation's Largest Health Care Coalition Show Health Care Reform Would Produce Huge Savings.
System-wide health care reform would save much more money than it would cost, according to economic projections released today by the National Coalition on Health Care.
In four scenarios for reform analyzed by Professor Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University, the investment needed to achieve universal health coverage would be more than offset by savings. In each case, the cost of a reformed system would be much less than the cost of continuing with the current system.
Announcing these new findings, the Coalition's president, Dr. Henry E. Simmons, said, "What this economic modeling shows unambiguously is that done right, health care reform will save America a great deal of money - while at the same time assuring health coverage for all Americans and dramatically improving health care."
From Professor Thorpe's PowerPoint presentation.....
Comparing four scenarios of Total change in spending for the years 2006 through 2015 (in comparison with the status quo):
#1. $320 billion reduction - Employer mandate supplemented by individual mandate
#2. $320 billion reduction - Expand existing programs to expand coverage
#3. $370 billion reduction - Develop new program modeled after the FEHB (federal employees' program)
#4. $1136 billion ($1.136 trillion) reduction - Universal publicly financed program ("single payer")
The Honorary Co-Chairs of the National Coalition on Health Care are former presidents George Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. The member organizations of the Coalition represent about 150 million Americans and include business, labor, consumer, religious, provider, and health and pension fund interestsEvery effort has been made to remove any partisan agenda from the process. Our former presidents can attest to that.
A highly objective process was used to evaluate the models.
*************************************************************************
Monday, May 23, 2005
Confronting New Realities on Pensions
by Bernard Wasow
Last week United Airlines dumped most of its pension obligations into the lap of the taxpayer. With court permission, United once more dodged the bankruptcy bullet by jettisoning some of the promises it made in the old days when airlines were a regulated oligopoly. This event is not the first time the public has picked up the bill for the airline industry. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation already is responsible for pension promises of Pan Am, TWA, and US Airways. Nor is it a trend confined to the airline industry or to pensions. With union-contracted health care benefits under siege at General Motors, and the unionized segment of the retail industry giving way to non-unionized employers from Whole Food to Wal-Mart, the entire array of fringe benefits that were a standard part of contracts of the post-World War II decades appears to be crumbling away.
This benefit erosion is part of larger changes in the economy. Radical reductions in communication and transportation costs have made competition fiercer, requiring firms to watch their costs much more closely. The days in which big companies could count on semi-captive markets, and labor unions could win a share of the monopoly surplus for workers, is ending. As the days of generous fringe benefits draw to a close, it is essential that we redefine the roles of the private and the public sector in meeting the needs once met by pension and health care fringe benefits.
It is no longer reasonable for employees to look to their employers for future or even some current benefits. Competition not only has led to bankruptcy of such once mighty firms as Bethlehem Steel, Pan Am, and Polaroid, it has reduced the health and pension components of total compensation. As health care costs have skyrocketed, heath benefits have failed to keep pace. Many workers today have minimal or no employer-provided health insurance.
This trend will continue because it is profitable. When some employers (United) unload their pension obligations onto the general public, they gain a competitive advantage over employers who continue to bear those costs (Delta, American). Similarly, employers who leave health insurance to the public sector through Medicaid or emergency room walk-ins, are able to charge lower prices than companies that provide their employees with insurance. Since firms that offer lower benefits seem to continue to attract acceptable employees, there is no competitive pressure from labor markets to retain benefits at historical levels. We can expect one firm after another either to shed its obligations or to lose ground to competitors who have lower costs.
Ironically, the dilemma the United States economy faces is not unlike what the countries of the former Soviet Union faced with the collapse of socialism. Health care and other benefits (from child care to vacations) were organized around the firm in the former Soviet Union, so when competition forced firms to shed those costs, the safety net fell apart.
Most advanced capitalist countries place the responsibility for health insurance and pensions largely with the public sector. These systems require higher taxes than in the United States (some a bit higher, some much higher), but private firms can offer fewer fringe benefits, and the system is uniform across firms. The United States could continue to rely more than other countries on supplemental pensions and insurance purchased by firms and households. But the public sector needs to pick up some of the responsibilities private firms are shedding under pressure of competition.
The solution to the problem of declining fringe benefits is not to make them mandatory through regulation or to let health care and pension guarantees fade away. Insurance against poverty in old age or against catastrophic health care costs must be part of out basic safety net, applicable to employees in small businesses as well as in big corporations. Nor is the solution to try to win back the benefits through renewed unionization. Even if some big firms buckled to pressure and offered more substantial benefits, new entries to the industry would eventually replace firms that commit to high costs. What is more, as the United Airlines default illustrates, hard-won promises to deliver benefits in the future can dissolve in a day.
The solution to the erosion of fringe benefits is a solid social insurance system that guarantees everyone a minimum acceptable standard of health care and retirement income. Incentives to firms and households to supplement this minimum standard with additional insurance and saving should be part of public policy as well.
The failure of United Airlines to keep its pension promises underlines once again our collective responsibility to provide all Americans with a secure safety net to protect them from poverty brought about by old age and illness.
Bernard Wasow is a senior fellow at The Century Foundation.
Editor's Note-When their jobs are offshored, American workers are told, too bad, it's just the way it is in the new global economy. However, the U.S. is the only advanced country in which the government does not provide universal health care and is now attempting to dismantle Social Security. Consequently, American businesses are left holding the bag with the responsibility of providing these necessary benefits to their employees which, in turn, hinders them against foreign competitors that aren't throttled with this burden. So, Bush and Congress must be told, too bad, government providing universal health care and Social Security is just the way it is in the new global economy.
*************************************************************************
by Bernard Wasow
Last week United Airlines dumped most of its pension obligations into the lap of the taxpayer. With court permission, United once more dodged the bankruptcy bullet by jettisoning some of the promises it made in the old days when airlines were a regulated oligopoly. This event is not the first time the public has picked up the bill for the airline industry. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation already is responsible for pension promises of Pan Am, TWA, and US Airways. Nor is it a trend confined to the airline industry or to pensions. With union-contracted health care benefits under siege at General Motors, and the unionized segment of the retail industry giving way to non-unionized employers from Whole Food to Wal-Mart, the entire array of fringe benefits that were a standard part of contracts of the post-World War II decades appears to be crumbling away.
This benefit erosion is part of larger changes in the economy. Radical reductions in communication and transportation costs have made competition fiercer, requiring firms to watch their costs much more closely. The days in which big companies could count on semi-captive markets, and labor unions could win a share of the monopoly surplus for workers, is ending. As the days of generous fringe benefits draw to a close, it is essential that we redefine the roles of the private and the public sector in meeting the needs once met by pension and health care fringe benefits.
It is no longer reasonable for employees to look to their employers for future or even some current benefits. Competition not only has led to bankruptcy of such once mighty firms as Bethlehem Steel, Pan Am, and Polaroid, it has reduced the health and pension components of total compensation. As health care costs have skyrocketed, heath benefits have failed to keep pace. Many workers today have minimal or no employer-provided health insurance.
This trend will continue because it is profitable. When some employers (United) unload their pension obligations onto the general public, they gain a competitive advantage over employers who continue to bear those costs (Delta, American). Similarly, employers who leave health insurance to the public sector through Medicaid or emergency room walk-ins, are able to charge lower prices than companies that provide their employees with insurance. Since firms that offer lower benefits seem to continue to attract acceptable employees, there is no competitive pressure from labor markets to retain benefits at historical levels. We can expect one firm after another either to shed its obligations or to lose ground to competitors who have lower costs.
Ironically, the dilemma the United States economy faces is not unlike what the countries of the former Soviet Union faced with the collapse of socialism. Health care and other benefits (from child care to vacations) were organized around the firm in the former Soviet Union, so when competition forced firms to shed those costs, the safety net fell apart.
Most advanced capitalist countries place the responsibility for health insurance and pensions largely with the public sector. These systems require higher taxes than in the United States (some a bit higher, some much higher), but private firms can offer fewer fringe benefits, and the system is uniform across firms. The United States could continue to rely more than other countries on supplemental pensions and insurance purchased by firms and households. But the public sector needs to pick up some of the responsibilities private firms are shedding under pressure of competition.
The solution to the problem of declining fringe benefits is not to make them mandatory through regulation or to let health care and pension guarantees fade away. Insurance against poverty in old age or against catastrophic health care costs must be part of out basic safety net, applicable to employees in small businesses as well as in big corporations. Nor is the solution to try to win back the benefits through renewed unionization. Even if some big firms buckled to pressure and offered more substantial benefits, new entries to the industry would eventually replace firms that commit to high costs. What is more, as the United Airlines default illustrates, hard-won promises to deliver benefits in the future can dissolve in a day.
The solution to the erosion of fringe benefits is a solid social insurance system that guarantees everyone a minimum acceptable standard of health care and retirement income. Incentives to firms and households to supplement this minimum standard with additional insurance and saving should be part of public policy as well.
The failure of United Airlines to keep its pension promises underlines once again our collective responsibility to provide all Americans with a secure safety net to protect them from poverty brought about by old age and illness.
Bernard Wasow is a senior fellow at The Century Foundation.
Editor's Note-When their jobs are offshored, American workers are told, too bad, it's just the way it is in the new global economy. However, the U.S. is the only advanced country in which the government does not provide universal health care and is now attempting to dismantle Social Security. Consequently, American businesses are left holding the bag with the responsibility of providing these necessary benefits to their employees which, in turn, hinders them against foreign competitors that aren't throttled with this burden. So, Bush and Congress must be told, too bad, government providing universal health care and Social Security is just the way it is in the new global economy.
*************************************************************************
Sunday, May 22, 2005
IMPEACHMENT: NOW MORE THAN EVER!
Removal of George W. Bush through the electoral process has failed. Despite exposure of systematic lying concerning Iraqi WMD and connection to al-Qaeda, George W. Bush has been returned to the US presidency by a majority of voters deceived of his moral and leadership qualities.
But the legal case for impeachment remains, and offers clarity and recourse.
In October 2002, following speeches by Vice President Cheney calling for a preventive war against Iraq, Professor Francis A. Boyle, a leading US expert in international law, set up a national campaign to impeach Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft. On March 11, 2003, Congressman John Conyers, ranking member of the House judiciary committee that has jurisdiction over any bill of impeachment, called for a meeting in Washington, DC to discuss introducing a draft bill of impeachment. Forty to fifty of his top legal advisors met with Dr. Boyle and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and weighed and reviewed the case for impeachment.
The case was argued on its merits: violations of the Constitution, the Bill of Rghts, Human Rights, the UN Charter, international law, etc. There is, today, a second, revised draft bill of impeachment sitting on Capitol Hill, ready to go.
With an expanded military campaign imminent and the prospect of World War III looming on the horizon, a powerful nationwide movement to impeach George W. Bush is only a matter of time.
The historical, legal and policy issues which are inexorably moving the US towards impeachment are discussed in a book by Dr. Boyle...... DESTROYING WORLD ORDER - US Imperialism in the Middle East Before and After September 11
Boyle's hard-hitting analysis covers:
1.a history of American intervention which has led to havoc in the region and destabilization of the international system as a whole.
2.U.S. assistance to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.
3.U.S. conduct of the 1990 Persian Gulf War and the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in relation to their violation of the of the laws of neutrality, humanitarian law, the laws of war-and the law of the U.S. Constitution.
4.U.S. policy under the presidency of George W. Bush, evolving into a public assertion of the right to preemptive strike, and its actual implementation.
5.in the concluding chapter, a guide to impeaching President George W. Bush for lying in leading the nation to war.
"The Bush Jr. administration should be viewed as an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, because its war policies are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime in pre-World War II Germany."
Francis A. Boyle holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D.in Political Science, both from Harvard University.
He is a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law.
He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.
He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992).
He represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court.
Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign.
He is author of, inter alia, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations 1898-1921.
************************************************************************
Removal of George W. Bush through the electoral process has failed. Despite exposure of systematic lying concerning Iraqi WMD and connection to al-Qaeda, George W. Bush has been returned to the US presidency by a majority of voters deceived of his moral and leadership qualities.
But the legal case for impeachment remains, and offers clarity and recourse.
In October 2002, following speeches by Vice President Cheney calling for a preventive war against Iraq, Professor Francis A. Boyle, a leading US expert in international law, set up a national campaign to impeach Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft. On March 11, 2003, Congressman John Conyers, ranking member of the House judiciary committee that has jurisdiction over any bill of impeachment, called for a meeting in Washington, DC to discuss introducing a draft bill of impeachment. Forty to fifty of his top legal advisors met with Dr. Boyle and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and weighed and reviewed the case for impeachment.
The case was argued on its merits: violations of the Constitution, the Bill of Rghts, Human Rights, the UN Charter, international law, etc. There is, today, a second, revised draft bill of impeachment sitting on Capitol Hill, ready to go.
With an expanded military campaign imminent and the prospect of World War III looming on the horizon, a powerful nationwide movement to impeach George W. Bush is only a matter of time.
The historical, legal and policy issues which are inexorably moving the US towards impeachment are discussed in a book by Dr. Boyle...... DESTROYING WORLD ORDER - US Imperialism in the Middle East Before and After September 11
Boyle's hard-hitting analysis covers:
1.a history of American intervention which has led to havoc in the region and destabilization of the international system as a whole.
2.U.S. assistance to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.
3.U.S. conduct of the 1990 Persian Gulf War and the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in relation to their violation of the of the laws of neutrality, humanitarian law, the laws of war-and the law of the U.S. Constitution.
4.U.S. policy under the presidency of George W. Bush, evolving into a public assertion of the right to preemptive strike, and its actual implementation.
5.in the concluding chapter, a guide to impeaching President George W. Bush for lying in leading the nation to war.
"The Bush Jr. administration should be viewed as an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, because its war policies are legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime in pre-World War II Germany."
Francis A. Boyle holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D.in Political Science, both from Harvard University.
He is a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law.
He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.
He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992).
He represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court.
Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign.
He is author of, inter alia, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations 1898-1921.
************************************************************************
Defend PBS from Karl Rove's Ideological Attack.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- the governing body that sets policy for public television and radio - was established to be a nonpartisan, independent group that is funded two years in advance specifically to avoid partisan, political pressures. It's crucial that public broadcasting is shielded from clearly partisan efforts.
However, recent expose by the New York Times has shed light onto a disturbing effort to tilt PBS and its programming to the far right. The New York Times reported that Kenneth Tomlinson, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and a close friend of Bush right hand man Karl Rove, "is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence."
Among the revelations, Tomlinson:
1.without notifying the rest of the board, hired a consultant to monitor the political views of guests on Bill Moyers' "NOW".
2.cut funding for the NOW program in order to hire analysts from the Wall Street Journal editorial board.
3.heavily promoted and helped get on the air "The Journal Editorial Report" by conservative pundit Paul Gigot.
4.hired a Bush White House staffer as a senior staff member.
5.is pushing for a former Republican National Committee chairwoman to take over as president and chief executive of CPB.
6.has initiated an investigation of the NPR radio network's award-winning Middle East coverage in search of "bias."
In addition, Mr. Tomlinson has told CPB and PBS officials that "they should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate."
The Times indicates that Tomlinson's tenure "has been the most polarizing in a generation," with one former member of CPB stating that partisanship was "essentially nonexistent" until Tomlinson joined the board and President Bush won election in 2000.
"There was an increasingly and disturbingly aggressive desire to be more involved and to push programming in a more conservative direction," said Christy Carpenter, a Democratic appointee to the board from 1998 to 2002, including a "very vehement dislike for Bill Moyers."
Tell Congress to Keep Partisan Pressure off PBS.
Contributed by Working Assets
*************************************************************************
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- the governing body that sets policy for public television and radio - was established to be a nonpartisan, independent group that is funded two years in advance specifically to avoid partisan, political pressures. It's crucial that public broadcasting is shielded from clearly partisan efforts.
However, recent expose by the New York Times has shed light onto a disturbing effort to tilt PBS and its programming to the far right. The New York Times reported that Kenneth Tomlinson, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and a close friend of Bush right hand man Karl Rove, "is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence."
Among the revelations, Tomlinson:
1.without notifying the rest of the board, hired a consultant to monitor the political views of guests on Bill Moyers' "NOW".
2.cut funding for the NOW program in order to hire analysts from the Wall Street Journal editorial board.
3.heavily promoted and helped get on the air "The Journal Editorial Report" by conservative pundit Paul Gigot.
4.hired a Bush White House staffer as a senior staff member.
5.is pushing for a former Republican National Committee chairwoman to take over as president and chief executive of CPB.
6.has initiated an investigation of the NPR radio network's award-winning Middle East coverage in search of "bias."
In addition, Mr. Tomlinson has told CPB and PBS officials that "they should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate."
The Times indicates that Tomlinson's tenure "has been the most polarizing in a generation," with one former member of CPB stating that partisanship was "essentially nonexistent" until Tomlinson joined the board and President Bush won election in 2000.
"There was an increasingly and disturbingly aggressive desire to be more involved and to push programming in a more conservative direction," said Christy Carpenter, a Democratic appointee to the board from 1998 to 2002, including a "very vehement dislike for Bill Moyers."
Tell Congress to Keep Partisan Pressure off PBS.
Contributed by Working Assets
*************************************************************************
