Comments on: Full Disclosure

By: macaquerman

macaquerman — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:19:34 +0000

Thanks, just because I can’t read him saying that the war was launched to protect Israel, and just because he denies saying it, doesn’t mean much to me. I know what I know.

By: Dalybean

Dalybean — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:07:15 +0000

Here is Philip Zelikow, on the one hand, and Mearsheimer and Walt, on the other hand, arguing about Philip Zelikow’s reported remarks at UVa that the Iraq war was launched to protect Israel and whether IPS is a legitimate news service:

http://spinwatch.org/-news-by-…..ip-zelikow

By: Dalybean

Dalybean — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:33:30 +0000

Here is Glenn Greenwald on Philip Zelikow cancelling his testimony to Congress on Iraq. Will Zelikow even show up to this hearing?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g.....index.html

By: macaquerman

macaquerman — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:16:54 +0000

I was hoping for a news site or something.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:16:27 +0000

Any possibility that Zelikow finally had a crisis of morality from being inside the looking-glass, seeing how corrupt it really was, and deciding that he didn’t want anything to do with it anymore? Maybe that’s why he went back to being a Professor? Could he be the John Dean of this generation?

I hope he’s got security if he’s going to roll over on these criminals.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:11:20 +0000

I wonder if he’s throwing Condi under the bus? He’s covered her rear for half a decade (or perhaps academically, more). Throughout the 9/11 Committee hearings he concealed factual material regarding Condi’s fore-knowledge that played away from her responsibility (e.g. the Tenet-Cofer Black briefing in June 2001). Also Zelikow was the Bush transition team guy on Counter-Terrorism. He shouldn’t have been the Executive Director of the Commission…he should have been giving testimony, under oath, THEN.

Given some of the overlap between topical areas I wonder if there are all sorts of land mines that Zelikow will be dodging.

How can he actually claim that his memoranda were destroyed without saying that Rice herself ordered him to do so? Notice that he said that the only copies of the memo might have been preserved in safes in the State Department…Condi’s, his own, and Bellingers’? Only someone who ordered the destruction would “keep a copy”?

Bellinger and Rice start opposing the “reauthorization by Bush” [i.e. torture had to be originally authorized by him if it was “reauthorized”] a year later. Bellinger “discovered” that it was stopped by the Israelis because of “inaccurate intelligence”, not the legal strictures proposed by Zelikow. Condi said “it’s time had passed”. Again, not that it defied the Geneva Conventions and US Constitution.

By: Dalybean

Dalybean — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:52:26 +0000

Zelikow’s remarks at UVA that the Iraq war was launched to protect Israel are reported here:

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083

By: Waccamaw

Waccamaw — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:49:21 +0000

Hmmmmm…..the 13th? Any portents there? *g*

By: macaquerman

macaquerman — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:41:50 +0000

Can you show me where to find these remarks?

By: SanderO

SanderO — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:40:56 +0000

He may be in CYA mode now that the sh*t is leaking out… like Rice saying she conveyed the info and had no part in the message creation, no opinion and no skin in that game. She’s a snake and he worked for her.