• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Philip Zelikow, impartial?

Garb said:
...

So what if I wasn't involved? Does that mean I can't provide a relevant discussion in this thread?
Click to expand...

You are entitled to provide a relevant discussion. I am just yet to see any evidence of it.
 
Docker said:
Im just making an illustration. The government may have been negligent.
Click to expand...


Cute. Your claim relies on the commission being a disciplinary panel. It was not. Therefore your claim is false.

-Gumboot
 
T.A.M. said:
So do not blame the 9/11 commission for what they did. They did what they were asked to do, they fulfilled their mandate. Your real issue is not that the commission was tainted, but that now, 5 years later, you have enough suspicion that you want ANOTHER, different investigation, one aimed at looking for neglicence and/or complicity on the part of the USG. Correct?

TAM
Click to expand...

When did I say it was the commissions fault. Please show me the post. Thats eleven times I have been misrepresented now.
 
Wait a minute. The 9/11 Commissioners were appointed by Congress. Five Democrats and five Republicans were chosen. Yes?
 
From Preface of 9/11 Commission Report:
"Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate 'facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001', including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined to be relivant by the commission."
Click to expand...

TAM
 
My point is this, Docker. If you look at the mandate of the commission, it does not involve any areas where the appointment of the panel by the president would involve a conflict of interest, as you have suggested.

TAM

edit: yes they spelled it "relevant"...I copied verbatim from the PDF.
 
Gravy said:
Wait a minute. The 9/11 Commissioners were appointed by Congress. Five Democrats and five Republicans were chosen. Yes?
Click to expand...

It also appears, from the above, that the whole "BUSH" chose them is irrelevent, as they were chosen by congress.

lol


TAM
 
Docker said:
When did I say it was the commissions fault.
Click to expand...
We're all here because in your opening post you implied that the Commission was not impartial, and provided as evidence the Wikipedia article about Zelikow. Is that accurate?
 
Docker said:
You are entitled to provide a relevant discussion. I am just yet to see any evidence of it.
Click to expand...

Well don't tell me I hopped on the gravy train, because I put a post that described how saying he studies myths does not mean he is a myth-maker.
 
So, if you were writing an article about the possible effects of a large-scale surprise attack for an American audience, what example would you have used? "Pearl Harbour = Sneak Attack" is a staple of US culture, and will probably only be surplanted by 9/11 itself, once some more time has passed.

And for the record, I think someone who can say this:

In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”
Click to expand...

Years before 9/11 is a pretty smart guy who understands the possible negative consequences of our over-reaction to things like terrorism. I wish we had more guys like him in charge of things.

Except for the question of intensity, he's predicted pretty much everything the US and other governments have done in reaction to 9/11. Predicting something doesn't mean he's advocating it. From the tone of this quote, I'd say it was the exact opposite-he was warning against a knee-jerk over-reaction.
 
Garb said:
I think this thread has lost its original meaning.

Now that we proved once and for all that he wasn't good at CREATING myths, can this thread be put to rest?

*cough*
Click to expand...
[/derail]
That's not how it works around here, Garb. If every thread ended when it lost its original meaning, all the fora together would fit in your back pocket. In many (most?) cases, the fun really begins when we get far afield. Or, as in this case, when we beat a dead horse for pages and pages. :)
 
SezMe said:
[/derail]
That's not how it works around here, Garb. If every thread ended when it lost its original meaning, all the fora together would fit in your back pocket. In many (most?) cases, the fun really begins when we get far afield. Or, as in this case, when we beat a dead horse for pages and pages. :)
Click to expand...

Uhhhhhhh yay?
 
If I were an investigative journalist and I discovered Zelikow was an expert in 'public myths' I would regard this as a starting point, as of possible interest, and then begin investigating. I suggest you do the same. See if he has done anything with his knowledge. Look into his political life. Dig. All you have at this point is step one in a many step process.
 
Docker, just for the sake of argument, let's suppose Zelikow is a myth-maker. This is a James Randi forum. Randi is an illusionist - a world class one. Yet it is this very skill which makes him the world's preeminent investigator of illusions, paranormal, etc. So, as others have noted, even if your premise was true (which it was not) your conclusion does not follow.
 
Docker said:
I dont trust the administration. There is a difference. Thats the tenth time I have been misrepresented in this thread. Nice tactic
Click to expand...
sorry to drag up an old post, but this thread really ballooned in the last hour or so

anyway, here were your previous stipulations for an "independent" commission:

Independent for me would be:

1) not appointed by the government

2) A mixture of different political persuasions

3) No members having served in a recent Government or with major ties to them

4) A mixture of great legal minds and relevant experts, e.g. military, aviation, law enforcement

5) No business ties to relevant interests e.g. oil
Click to expand...
i would call the current congress a recent government, and someone just appointed to a position to have ties to them
 
Gravy said:
We're all here because in your opening post you implied that the Commission was not impartial, and provided as evidence the Wikipedia article about Zelikow. Is that accurate?
Click to expand...

yes but being partial is not a criticism of the commission, it's a criticism of those who chose them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom