William Safire hinted White House “mole” may have aided 9-11 terrorists

Today's conspiracies were yesterday's facts on the ground
Part III
William Safire hinted White House “mole” may have aided 9-11 terrorists

By Peter Duveen

PETER'S NEW YORK, Jan. 5, 2009—The discovery in my personal archives of issues of The New York Times and the New York Post from the days immediately following September 11, 2001 has become the basis for a several-part series on early reportage of the events of that day. The use of the original issues as opposed to electronic media has the advantage of easy reference, and absolute reliability regarding the source. This third essay will explore the remarkable drama surrounding the activities of President George W. Bush on that fateful day. We find that once New York Times columnist William Safire came into possession of the facts related to Bush’s 10-hour absence from Washington, he concluded that a “mole” in the White House may have cooperated with the 9-11 terrorists. He is thus joined at the hip with Robert Novak, who came to a similar conclusion in his column of the same day.

We start with an article that outlines in broad brushstrokes Bush's convoluted path back to the White House from a Florida classroom.

Due to formatting problems, please read the rest of the article at: www.petersnewyork.com

It is interesting to look back on early media coverage.

Novak said "inside job". I didn't remember that. I forgot about the story explaining Bush's failure to return to Washington. Rove was right there with Bush to spin the yarns about Bush's eagerness to get back to Washington for the people. Thanks for the post Peter. I appreciate the refresher.

Rob, I wrote this up and posted it

before chekcing the web. I did find a lot of material about it, interestingly some of it only weeks after nine eleven. It caused a stir in some circles, and apparently Bush's press secy was questioned about it, but managed to bury it with a clever diversion. The story has been resurrected several times, it seems, but I had never heard about it. But then there's a lot of other material in these articles that might not have been read in the context of our current understanding. I found it interesting that the New York Times changed their time for the Pentagon attack from nine thirty to nine forty five. For many people this is old hat, but hopefully my audience is broader, and those who have associated certain ideas with the nine eleven truth movement will come to realize that the movement did not make this stuff up. Somehow, when one mentions the New York Times, a lot of debunkers get stopped dead in their tracks.

I know who the "mole" was

Dick Cheney, of course - in the PEOC as observed by Norm Mineta...

Norman Mineta's testimony