. And as long as there is someone like Cynthia McKinney on Capitol Hill there will be moments - wonderful moments like the one captured on the attached video - which prove that we have not gone away or forgotten and that we still have the will to speak.

For those of us who spent years investigating 9/11, the research and evidence we have compiled will always be within arm's reach, awaiting these golden moments. As new threats and challenges overtake us and demand our focus in "the now" we stand ready to jump on any miracle that presents us with an opportunity to remind the world that murderers still walk free, still in power. Like blades of grass growing steadfastly up through the sidewalk we will never surrender our ability to speak truth to power.

God bless Cynthia McKinney. - MCR]

March 1, 2005, PST 1200 (FTW): On February 16, 2005, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B. Myers the same question this reporter asked General Ralph "Ed" Eberhart at the final 9/11 commission hearing:

What about the war games?

The Full House Armed Services Committee met to receive testimony on the Fiscal Year 2006 National Defense Authorization budget request from the Department of Defense. As the meeting wound down to its expected end, Secretary Rumsfeld prepared to leave. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who chaired the hearing, asked the Secretary to commit to a breakfast with Representatives who had not yet asked their questions. Secretary Rumsfeld happily agreed to do so.

At that moment Cynthia McKinney made sure to get the following vital question into the Congressional Record.

Transcript, February 16, Rumsfeld and Myers questioned by Cynthia McKinney:

Cynthia McKinney: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

Duncan Hunter: The Gentle-lady is recognized.

McKinney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would that breakfast with the Secretary be open to the public?

Hunter: Well, if you want to bring all the omelets it might be, but ah -

McKinney: Well Mr. Chairman, the problem is - and I appreciate your adherence to the five-minute rule - however there are many of us who have important questions and my question in particular is about the four war games that were taking place on September 11th and how they may have impaired our ability to respond to those attacks.

Mr. Hunter: Well let me say the gentle lady...

[cross talk]

McKinney: I would like that question to be answered in public Mr. Chairman.

Hunter: Let me say to the gentle lady we're going to have other opportunities to have the Secretary in front of us and what we will do beyond having questions, if you want a question for the record, be able to put that to the record and have the answer on the record, but additionally at the next event where the Secretary testifies - we'll try to make sure that happens - we will start with the folks who did not get their question answered so you will have an opportunity.

McKinney: Thank you so much Mr. Chairman, and I hope the record is still open so that even that portion of my comment will be on this record.

Hunter: It will be so ordered.

McKinney: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

-- end of transcript

At this point Representative Skelton (D-MO) asked a visibly flustered Donald Rumsfeld if in the future a classified briefing could occur on the recommendations given by General Luck and his team to the Secretary.

This helped to bury McKinney's question (and by necessity, the process continues: DoD has posted a peculiar "transcript" of the meeting's final moments, from which Representative McKinney's question has been thoroughly deleted), giving Rumsfeld a way to divert attention from the issue she had skillfully placed on the record. Rumsfeld responded to Skelton's question without addressing McKinney's at all. The only response to her question came in the form of both Rumsfeld and Myers' rapid hand movements and off-microphone murmurs. The issue seemed to knock Rumsfeld off-balance, affecting him as it had affected Ralph "Ed" Eberhart at the final 9/11 Commission hearing.

It's unlikely that "No comment" will be an acceptable reply to Representative McKinney's question. Eberhart got away with that when responding to this reporter, and has since retired from his post heading both NORTHERN COMMAND and NORAD. His retirement came immediately after the 2004 presidential election. It appears "no comment" will be his final word on the matter, but that will not be the case for Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers.

Who was in charge of coordinating the multiple war games running on 9/11? Crossing the Rubicon has already answered this question in spades. But maybe, just maybe, with her return to Capitol Hill Cynthia McKinney has kept alive a flicker of hope that the crimes of 9/11 may yet shake up the US government.

The courage and directness of this fearless woman never cease to amaze us. She has let it be known that she will be a perpetual thorn in the side of the administration for at least the next two years.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Open Letter to Richard A. Clarke regarding War Games, 9/11 Timeline and Myers/Rumsfeld Testimony

From: Kyle Hence
February 23, 2005
Open Letter to Richard A. Clarke, former counter-terrorism 'czar' for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Author, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=484

Subject:
Pertaining to accounts in Clarke's book Against All Enemies, neither retracted or refuted, regarding 9/11 war games and the participation of General Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld in a video conference managed from the White House Situation Room by Richard Clarke with the assistance of his Deputy, Roger Cressey.

Note of Explanation:
This letter/email was presented (via email or in person) to Mr. Clarke on four occasions without a response of any kind to the specific questions raised regarding the actions (or lack of) from our military and top officials in positions of responsibility on 9/11. Given no response, and Rep. Cynthia McKinney's attempt to raise the issue at February 16th Armed Services Committee hearing, CitizensWatch is taking the step of making this letter public.

This letter (see below) with questions pertaining to 9/11 (wargames, sworn testimony by Rumsfeld & Myers) was first sent as an email in June of 2004 to Mr. Clarke via his consulting company, Good Harbor. This note and these questions were presented personally to Mr. Clarke a second time on October 6, 2004 - and via email (3rd attempt) directly to his personal email box on October 15. When presented with a second opportunity in person (4th attempt) to respond to these queries backstage at a December 7th function at the Institute for Ethical Culture in New York City, Mr. Clarke refused to acknowledge the author and instead quickly left the room.

Receiving no response despite repeated attempts I am now releasing this to the public as an 'open letter' in the hopes responsible members of the press, family members and/or dedicated investigators will follow up publicly and personally with Mr. Clarke and the Commissioners who failed to examine the glaring discrepancies between Clarke's accounts and those offered in public statements and in sworn testimony by Chairman Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld.

It should be noted that Richard Clarke is the only member of the Bush Administration to publicly apologize to the 9/11 families. While generating controversy at the time, his testimony before the 9/11 Commission regarding the warnings and plan for dealing with Al-Qaeda that he presented to Condi Rice and the Bush Administration in January of 2001 has been recently bolstered by the release of an unclassified version of his January memo to then National Security Advisor Rice.

This controversy could pale in comparison, however, to what could be revealed in sworn testimonies before the appropriate Committee regarding Sept. 11th war games (including "Vigilant Warrior" mentioned by Gen. Myers on the morning of Sept. 11th), changing NORAD timelines and the testimony already offered by Chairman Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld regarding their whereabouts and actions taken in the first and most critical minutes immediately following the attack on the World Trade Center. {see pages 1-7; Against All Enemies)

This is being made public now in an effort to force this issue into the public's eye and ultimately to see full accountability and disclosure. Another 9/11 commemoration must not pass without these issues being addressed forthrightly and honestly before the American people; either in Manhattan before an AG Spitzer or DA Morganthau-convened Grand Jury or public hearings, in Albany before the appropriate Committee or on Capitol Hill. We offer this in hope that those with integrity in a position of responsibility will rise to this challenge. In this case above all others we must not allow the truth to continue to be veiled or obfuscated.

Kyle F. Hence
Co-founder, 9/11 CitizensWatch
February 23, 2005

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Sent originally in June '04 via email to Good Harbor Consulting; Presented directly to Mr. Clarke on October 6th at a speaking engagement in New Jersey. A follow-up email was sent directly to his personal email box following the October meeting and his signing of my copy of his book, Against All Enemies. Another attempt to get answers to these questions was rejected on December 7th at the Institute for Ethical Culture in New York City.

Dear Mr. Clarke,

Yesterday I had the pleasure of a brief discussion regarding the events in the White House Situation Room on the morning of September 11th with your then Deputy and now partner, Roger Cressey. He was helpful in answering a few questions. Seeing as I didn't expect him to answer when I rang a number I wasn't sure about, I was not entirely prepared with my questions. Thankfully he offered to make himself available in the future and encouraged me to email you via your Assistant, Ms. Roundtree, for questions I wanted to address to you specifically.

Before I get to my specific queries I should say that I have been running a Citizens watchdog group since March of last year monitoring the course of the investigation of the September 11th attacks. I've attended all the hearings and been successful in putting key questions and areas of inquiry on the radar for the Commission though they have not been sufficiently addressed them in their report.

Currently we are preparing to publish a response to the 9/11 Commission Report and are in the midst of attempting to review their 'findings of fact and circumstances' and their timeline; and where appropriate challenge them with substantiated and credible conflicting accounts or evidence. I appreciate whatever details and corroboration you can offer us to help us in this effort.

Roger said that both you and he were questioned for many hours by the 9/11 Commission Report. I guess I'd like to start there if I may:

In your book, from my reading of your account, the Video Conference with links to the CCC at the OSD, the FAA, etc began sometime between 9:08AM approximately when you arrived at the White House but well before 9:27AM, the time you recounted in the book immediately following detailed exchanges you had with General Myers and prior to that with Jane Garvey at the FAA.

Is this accurate?

Since your book and the Report has been released have you had opportunity to confirm your version of the timeline of events with others who were present?

Given your account, is it accurate to say that both Gen. Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld were involved in discussions about how to respond to the attack? And again, before 9:27AM?

Roger [Cressey] said he remembered clearly seeing Rumsfeld sitting at the CCC on screen at the Video Center when he arrived before 9:30AM. In your account, while you mention the presence on Rumsfeld on the Conference from the outset when Lisa Gordon-Hagerty started taking the roll, was he involved in any substantive discussions regarding the need for issuing orders for military response, the scrambling of planes for intercept of any of the most threatening of the 11 targets that Jane Garvey had identified, or putting a CAP over D.C.?

Or was this issue handled entirely by Gen. Myers and his uniformed staff as recounted in your book?

In either your testimony before the Commission or in the private interview, did you convey the above timeline and details?

I imagine you are well aware of the Commission's account of the videoconference and that it conflicts with the account in your book.

Obviously the bottom line here to put it to you bluntly, did they [the 9/11 Commission] get it right?

And are you standing by your account including the timeline and the participation in the conference by both Myers and Rumsfeld from Defense?

The report maintains that the videoconference did not begin until 9:40AM. (see page 36 of the Report). Roger says it was underway when he arrived in the Situation Room before 9:30AM and your account has it starting around a half hour earlier. What's the truth here? Can you help me resolve this discrepancy; it's seems a serious one?

Given this discrepancy are you concerned about the implications of such a possible distortion of the public record as it is reflected in the report?

Thank you for taking the time to consider these questions. I know your time is valuable. I have just a few more questions if I may.

1) From what location did Gen Myers join the videoconference? Was he too, along with Rumsfeld, at the CCC in the Office of the Secretary of Defense?

2) At any point during the first half hour of the conference did the conference include or communicate directly with the NMCC?

3) Is there a direct secure line between the CCC and the NMCC?

4) Are you aware of any communication regarding a CAP [Combat Air Patrol] or scramble and intercept orders being conveyed by either General Myers or Sec. Rumsfeld to the NMCC?

5) Defending D.C.:
While I understand that military jets from two squadrons at the highest state of readiness at Andrews were not formally part of NORAD on the morning of September 11th, can you tell me if there were any jets there that morning in standard readiness at D.C. area bases to protect P-56 or the Pentagon airspace?

If yes, were these planes scrambled and if so, when and from where? In other words, was the non-NORAD defense option--involving normal P-56 defense--for the Capitol identified and employed that morning?

And if not, why not from your position in the circle of those responding that morning?

When did you first hear of a possible threat to D.C. either from the so-called phantom flight 11 or from flight 77?

Did the Andrews AFB based jets on practice bombing runs over North Carolina (confirmed by John Farmer of the Commission and reported in the press) factor into defense options? For example, speculating for a moment from my position of ignorance, did these exercises involving three planes from Andrews leave D.C. without strip alert fighters armed and ready that morning?

Finally, did the NORAD war games (Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Vigilance) being run on 9/11 impact in any way, positively or negatively, the response by the military that morning?

Was there any involvement from the White House in the war games?

Who was ultimately responsible for monitoring and running these exercises? And for being sure there was a 'firewall' between the games and 'real life'?

Were any of the 11 potential hijacks on the FAA system radar 'injects' part of the war gaming?

Re. the Vice-President. When did he reach the PEOC? My reading of your account has him headed down there some minutes after your arrival at the WH but well before 9:27AM. Was the PEOC linked to either the Video Center, the NMCC or the CCC during the critical minutes before the Pentagon strike? When did you first have the VP on an open line at the PEOC?

On any of these questions if you cannot answer for whatever reason perhaps you could direct me to someone who could. The pieces are starting to fall into place and your support could be critical to our own, we believe ultimately, more accurate report.

If you would prefer to meet in person for an interview I would be happy to arrange to come to Washington. A half an hour is all I would need should you be interested in further helping us clarify the record here.

Alternatively, may I follow up with you by phone at some point before we conclude our report?

Your willingness to take the time to help us sort this out is much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Kyle F. Hence
9/11 CitizensWatch
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

The following questions had been prepared in advance of Mr. Clarke's appearance at the Institute for Ethical Culture in New York City on December 7th, 2004:

Discrepancies in accounts regarding Rumsfeld and Myers

In addition to answers to the above questions can you explain why in your second edition of your book coming out AFTER the 9/11 Report (the first edition have come out before the final report) when you clearly had the opportunity you did not address the very serious discrepancies between your accounts of the whereabouts and involvement of General Richard Myers, then Acting Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in the response to the terrorist attacks in the critical thirty minutes prior to the attack on the Pentagon?

Your account which I confirmed personally with your former deputy and now business partner Roger Cressey, places Myers at a location where he is seen by way of the video conference you were running from the White House situation room? Whereas, Myers' own account repeated in the 9/11 Report has him in a breakfast meeting and presumably incommunicado until he leaves the office of Max Cleland to head to the Pentagon where en route, he says, he saw smoke rising from the Pentagon. Similarly, Rumsfeld claims he is out of the loop (echoed again by the Commission) but your account places him on your videoconference not long after the second tower was struck around 9:10AM EST. Furthermore, Mr. Cressey informed me personally by phone from his home that when he arrived at the Situation Room at approximately 9:35 he recalled clearly seeing Rumsfeld on screen in direct contradiction to Rumsfeld's public statements and the 9/11 Commission Report.

9/11 War games/Terror exercises - Vice-presidents role…

At a recent speaking engagement in Northern Californian I understand that you were asked by a member of the audience if on the morning of 9/11 Cheney was coordinating war games including ones involving false radar injects and live mock hijacked aircraft. According to the conversation as it was related to me, you corrected her saying that Cheney was NOT responsible for coordinating the war games that just happened to coincide with the actual attacks but that we was in charge of overseeing these war games.

Would you please for the benefit of all Americans and in the interest of full disclosure confirm for us what VP Cheney's role was in these war games, particularly Vigilant Warrior?

Were you involved in any way of the field-training exercise you mentioned in your book, Vigilant Warrior? Can you confirm that it involved live-fly hijackings? That it involved multiple radar 'injects' on FAA radar?

This article comes from 9/11 CitizensWatch
http://www.911citizenswatch.org

The URL for this story is:
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=484

Here is the cover up

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld  Wednesday, February 16, 2005 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secretary Rumsfeld Media Availability at Conclusion of House Armed Services Committee Hearing

            Duncan HUNTER: Hi folks, Duncan Hunter here, and we had a good Armed Services hearing with the Secretary and with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. We covered, once again, the gamut of military issues, from pay issues to equipment issues to obviously the war in the Afghanistan and Iraq theaters. I can tell you after these several years in watching the Secretary and his team right down the to last rifle man in the last infantry squad working on difficult areas of operation in Iraq and Afghanistan. After watching them perform and watching the elections a couple weeks ago, my opinion is that the Secretary and his team have done yeomen’s work for our country and the Secretary in particular has had a very challenging time in office. And he’s had to preside over not only an ongoing war against terror, including these shooting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but at the same time he’s been reforming the military, changing the army from 33 to 43 fighting brigades with very small increase in end strength, transforming the way we do business, transforming the 650,000 plus member civil service personnel system and all the time preparing the way, the roadmap for this election that just took place. There’s a lot of work yet to do, but I think part of my message this morning was that we are often very critical in Congress and yet I think it’s time for us to say that we also do a lot of things right. The Secretary has done a lot of things right and that turnout in that election that a lot of folks said would never take place was a manifestation of that success. Second, I just want to say that General Myers has been a real Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And he’s followed his obligation, his statutory obligation, to tell it like it is and he just did that with respect to the intel bill even though my colleagues on the Senate side were irritated and upset that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, upon request, gave his position which is his obligation under our constitution, but he’s been a wonderful advisor and military leader from my perspective as a Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We had a good robust discussion today a lot of issues and at this point let me offer the Secretary of Defense an opportunity to say a word or two and take your questions.

            RUMSFELD: We’re heading over to the Senate to meet with the appropriations committee on the supplemental and we have about 5 minutes to answer some questions.

            HUNTER: Let’s go from left to right and we’ll try and get everybody.

            QUESTION: Inaudible

            RUMSFELD: I don’t think I’ve scheduled a trip to China yet but I hope to be able to get to the People’s Republic of China and I’m sure we’ll be discussing a full length of issues.

            QUESTION: Inaudible

            RUMSFELD: I think the people who follow the intelligence closely have seen a series, since September 11th, seen a series of very real intelligence that reflected Al-Qaeda planning for further attacks on the United States. I think that just because we’ve had a very successful election in Iraq and just because Afghanistan was able to get through their elections and just because we’ve been fortunate in this country and not seen another attack since September 11th that does not mean it’s over. It isn’t over. It’s going to take a while. There’s a lot, we’ve been fortunate in the worldwide 90-nation coalition in squeezing down the money in the terrorist networks. We’ve been successful in the law enforcement area, in the intelligence area, in the military in capturing or killing something like 2/3rds of the senior Al-Qaeda leadership at one moment but I think just because all those things have occurred there ought not to be a relaxation. It is a very serious business we’re in and they still have money and they still are determined to do the kinds of things we’ve seen done in 4 or 5 or 6 countries around the world in the last 2 and half years and we still have a big job to do.

            QUESTION: You mentioned in there that you don’t have much faith in the numbers from CIA and DIA (Inaudible)

            RUMSFELD: Let’s do one at a time. I have not seen the paper that you’re referring to with respect to the memorandum. It hasn’t come to me yet. It’s at the staff level and until I’ve had a chance to read it and think about it and discuss it with him. You haven’t seen it either, have you?

            General MYERS: No, sir.

            RUMSFELD: So it’s very much an open question. The intelligence, I don’t mean to be dismissive of it. People are doing the best that can be done. The fact is that people disagree. You heard the discussion in the committee. Iraqis they quoted had a number. Others have numbers. And we’ve seen the DIA and the CIA and other people in our intelligence community analyze it. It’s not fair to me that the number is the overriding important thing. For one thing it changes from time to time, the size of these various groups former regime elements may change from time to time to the extent, certainly the Zarqawi forces, the jihadists change from time to time and frankly to the extent we can put pressure on their money they’re less able to hire criminals to participate with them in these various activities. So the problem, the size of the problem is one thing, the lethality of it is quite a different thing, the nature of it, the quality of it. The Zarqawi group within that problem group of the insurgency, clearly is the smallest and it’s clearly the most lethal. So going on numbers. . . I don’t think the issue is being cast quite right.

            QUESTION: (Inaudible)

            HUNTER: Actually, let me just say we’ve got a series of shadowy networks that don’t take roll call and have no permanent cohesive records. It’s not usual at all if you’ve got different estimates of the size of those forces.

            RUMSFELD: And that’s been true of probably most insurgencies in history where the numbers have moved around and people have had different opinions on them and they’ve grown and shrunk depending on circumstances.

            QUESTION: General Myers, I’d like to follow up on a question (inaudible)

            MYERS: The only thing I would say is and the question was US military has other responsibilities in the world and there’s a whole defense strategy we have to fulfill. My comment was we can do that.

            QUESTION: (inaudible)

            MYERS: Absolutely. Absolutely. There’s no question on our ability to fulfill the defense strategy as articulated in last year’s (inaudible)

            RUMSFELD: Okay, thanks folks.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050216-secdef2125.html