I wish I had known that Shenon was to be interviewed by Krasney on KQED- one of the most listened to programs in the Bay Area. I listened to the show and it seemed an exercise in "damage control" and selling the "incompetence theory." There is another Shenon Interview posted at

http://www.counterpunch.org/wajahat02232008.html

An Interview with Phillip Shenon on the Uncensored History of the
9/11 Investigation

The Omissions of the Commission

By WAJAHAT ALI

What screams from the pages of both interviews and the book is "the cover-up of the cover-up".. a place to denounce "conspiracy theorists" and sell the "they were covering this up so as not to reveal how incompetent they were" excuse.

Carol Brouillet
http://www.communitycurrency.org

No, actually it is more like the obvious controlled demolitions/NORAD stand-down/Larry Siverstein "pull it" admission & insurance fraud windfall/put options windfall/"hijackers" still alive/no evidence of flights 77 & 93 at crash sites,NO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION,etc,etc,etc..."kind", Mr. Ross. Actually everything but black helicopters, and by signaling out the Mossad factor, you are of course implying that all 9/11 Truthers are really just nothing but a bunch of crazy, dumb Jew-haters, right?

Maybe we should let Mr. Ross know how we feel:

asross@sfchronicle.com

Both the SF Chronicle and Michael Krasney (KQEDForum) have had an avalanche of 9/11 research thrown at them and have chosen their path.

The Chronicle also does everything it can to demean those who protest the war -- it had embedded reporters in the war during the bombing. Sick stuff.

Krasney has on hardcore rightwingers often, particularly the Bush defenders that come from Stanford and the rightwing Institutes. He, personally, may be hopeless.

Nonetheless, the various individuals who work at these venerable institutions who see the emails, hear the phone calls, etc., are not hopeless and once on Krasney's show when a guest started chastising the "conspiracy theorists" they suddenly went to a break and the fundraising person quickly tried to play down his comments, showing that they KNEW they were going to get utterly slammed for that one comment because so many people know the truth.

This is grassroots. Make sure to cc the paper's editor and ombudsman when you write in so there is a record of your concerns.

letters@sfchronicle.com
readerrep@sfchronicle.com

I happened to be in a bookstore today and saw the book. I thumbed through the index, looking for names like "David Ray Griffin," "Steven Jones," and "Willie Rodriguez." Not one mention of them, though the oh-so-key-to-everything (not) "Oakland Raiders" was listed.

I don't know how good or useful the text of this book is, but it's obviously tiptoeing around the false flag thesis. That the writer is a reporter in good stead for the Establishment/Zionist/Project Mockingbird New York Times casts a very dark shadow indeed over this book.

My suspicion -- admittedly I haven't read this book: The book, whatever its intrinsic merits, was purposely planned to misdirect attention and critics away from the central 9/11 Commission false flag coverup and toward politically "respectable" sniping at the politicization and bureaucratic deficiencies of the Commission. It probably aims at fooling the public that, sure, the Commission operated badly and sought to paint the Administration in a favorable light, even as the public is supposed to forget that the fundamental conclusions of the Commission about 9/11 events don't bear even minimal scrutiny.

Shenon writes a lot about the partisan disputes, mostly notably Rice vs. Clarke (which was basically Bush vs. Clinton by proxy). He makes a big deal of Kean's steadfast commitment to bipartisanship. It should be noted that some people seem to buy into partisan arguments. For example, the idea that the Clinton crowd warned the Bush crowd but the Bush crowd failed to take their warnings seriously. This argument presumes that the Clinton team was completely honest about al Qaeda. Ali Mohamed's involvement in the '98 embassy bombings and the fact that Clinton was in office during the 01/00 Malaysia summit (attended by al-Mihdhar, al-Hamzi and possibly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) are two examples that dispute this notion. Another popular partisan argument is the idea that the Bush crowd hurt the WoT effort by invading Iraq. In fact, Richard Clarke is a leading advocate of this concept (along with Michael Scheuer). This talking point is based on the idea that the government has been honest about al Qaeda, Bin Laden and 9/11. We aren't supposed to question the validity of the WoT, just Bush's Iraq diversion.

It's weird the way Zelikow blamed Clarke and Tenet (suggesting they both perjured themselves) but protected Rice. Sure it worked in a D vs. R partisan sense but it doesn't work in a 'long run, standing the test of time' sort of way. That Zelikow and the Commissioners believed Tenet lied says it all. Tenet is key. Much of the 9/11 account rests on the idea that CIA told the truth. IMO, one of the most telling aspects of the official account is a reported urgent meeting on 7/10/01 between Rice, Tenet, Rich B. (head of Alec Station), Black (head of the CTC), Clarke and Hadley (deputy NSA). Isn't it interesting that both Clarke and Rice were at this meeting? Where was the FBI? Why weren't Pickard (acting FBI Director), Frasca (RFU), Middleton (UBLU) or Watson (head of the Counterterrorism Division) at this meeting? At the very least, why didn't anyone at this meeting call these FBI officials and give them a full briefing?

Especially when one considers this exchange:

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke is told in private by Dale Watson, the head of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, “We got the passenger manifests from the airlines. We recognize some names, Dick. They’re al-Qaeda.” Clarke replies, “How the f_ck did they get on board then?” He is told, “Hey, don’t shoot the messenger, friend. CIA forgot to tell us about them.” link

We are supposed to believe that none of the officials at the July 10 meeting thought it might be helpful to share these names at the time. Even more absurd is that (according to the official account) we are told the names were finally shared in late August yet nobody at the CIA or FBI thought of calling the FAA and putting the names on the FAA watchlist.

What is missing from Shenon's book is a discussion of a deep state apparatus which transcends political party. IMO, that is the proper context in which to discuss 9/11. That said, Shenon's book is successful in demonstrating the extent of the 9/11 Commission's failure to produce an above board report.