Monday, June 27, 2005

Bernstein and Woodward Were Lucky to not Have the Internet

Background
Last week, my local newspaper, The Contra Costa Times, carried some fun trivia in its Arts & Entertainment Section.

I didn’t read the article, but from what I scanned, it appears that the article was about the 100 most well-known movie quotes.

As I read quotes like “I love the smell of napalm in the morning” and “Here’s looking at you, kid”, I realized that, at age 55, I’ve never seen any of the classics from which the quotes were taken. Suddenly, that seemed sort of unacceptable to me. So I rented seven of these classics from my local video rental place. I paid $7.00 to have the privilege of keeping seven of these movies for seven days.

Movies
The movies I rented were “Apocalypse Now”, “Casablanca”, “All The President’s Men”, “The Graduate”, “On The Waterfront”, “Chinatown” and “Dr. Strangelove”.

I first watched what has been touted as the first anti Vietnam War feature film. “Apocalypse Now” was, indeed, a powerful commentary on the toll that war took on far too many people. “Platoon” and “Full Metal Jacket” eventually followed “Apocalypse Now” to corroborate the commentary.

I next watched “Casablanca”, arguably the most quoted film on the list.

In that movie Victor Laszlow works with an anti-Nazi underground group. Although he spends time in a concentration camp, he’s determined to defeat the Nazis who have overtaken his homeland of Czechoslovakia.

Laszlow, played by Paul Henreid, says something prophetic to his Nazi captors when they ask him to name names of other members of the Underground.

Laszlow responds, “And what if you track down these men and kill them? What if you murdered all of us? From every corner of your Republic, thousands would rise to take our places. Even Nazis can't kill that fast.”

That quote from “Casablanca” isn’t very well known and, of course, didn’t make the list.

However, after hearing it, it became obvious to me that, in 1942, we already knew what we had to learn again in Korea, then learn again in Vietnam and are learning again in Iraq. When a people have something precious to protect, like their homeland, they never run out of recruits. Resistance fighters will continue to be produced in lands which outsiders are trying, for one reason or another, to occupy, and those people, fighting with that passion and knowing the local landscape, will always triumph over the invaders. Maybe President Bush has never seen “Casablanca”.

Heck, wasn’t it proven by Americans in the last part of the eighteenth century? It was and we are, consequently, The United States of America.

A Similarity Between Watergate and The Downing Street Memos

At this point, I’ve only watched three of the old movies, “Apocalypse Now”, “Casablanca” and “All The President’s Men”.

Before we began watching “All The President’s Men”, I said to my wife, “This will give me hope that eventually another Woodward and/or Bernstein will emerge from today’s mainstream media.”

In fact, a writer for The Contra Costa Times wrote an editorial not long ago asking where the Woodwards and Bernsteins of 2005 are. Where are the investigative reporters who will create the stir that The Downing Street Memos deserve?

Ironically, Jack Warden, who plays Harry M. Rosenfeld, The Metro Editor of The Washington Post, tells Woodward and Bernstein at one point, and I paraphrase, “I bet that half the nation has never heard of Watergate.”

I couldn’t help feeling even more encouraged after hearing that quote. Because of today’s milquetoast mainstream media, which, sadly, includes The Washington Post, more than half of the American public has never heard of The Downing Street Memos.

The Epiphany
As I watched Woodward and Bernstein work on the Watergate story, phoning people, walking from house to house, rummaging through mounds of paper, staying up until all times of the day or night, it hit me like a two by four.

Asking, “Where are the Woodsteins (a nickname acquired by Woodward and Bernstein) of today?” is the wrong question. The problem isn’t that we don’t have enough Woodsteins today. The trouble is we have too many.

The internet has been a wonderful tool in keeping people aware of major news developments. I, personally, get most of my news from Antiwar.com and CommonDreams.org. I get my news from these sources because the mainstream media doesn’t cover the important news and I refuse to go to the web sites of Bush ideologues. I’ve visited Bush supporter blogs and web sites and, in my opinion, the arguments against the so called conspiracy theories are mostly character assassinations upon those who do support these theories.

Herein lies the problem and the difference between Watergate and Downing Street.

During Watergate, two newspapers were competing to break the story open, The Washington Post and The New York Times.

The investigative reporters worked their fingers to the bone and the soles of their shoes to the sock. They tried as hard as they could to get first tier sources and, although lots of these sources remained confidential, they talked nonetheless.

I happen to believe in today’s conspiracy theorists who claim that George W. Bush has needlessly caused death and destruction to advance his personal agendas.

I’ve read two very interesting books by David Ray Griffin, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy of Religion at the Claremont School of Theology in California. One is called “THE NEW PEARL HARBOR; Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11”. The other is entitled “THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT; Omissions and Distortions”.

Professor Griffin goes much further than The Downing Street Memos in alleging crimes by the Bush Administration.

Even my most progressive friends and acquaintances say, “I know Bush is evil and is the reason for death and destruction in Iraq, but even Bush wouldn’t do what Griffin suggests. Not even Bush would do that.”

It seems to me that’s exactly what the Bush Administration wants people to think. Also, if one reads either or both of these books, one can clearly see that the motive is there. In fact, as the president’s poll numbers drop, don’t be surprised if we witness yet another “Pearl Harbor”, produced especially to gain support for the new needless war with Iran for which the president is gearing up the nation.

However, even Griffin, as much as I tend to have an extremely open mind toward his theory, uses books and papers written by others who claim this same theory. In other words, it doesn’t seem as though authors or investigative reporters are going to first tier sources for their information as much as they’re using the ideas of others which support their allegations.

Woodward and Bernstein, as I mentioned, were competing with The New York Times to get the story out.

Whichever newspaper got it out first, people in 1972 would have found and, indeed, did find the Watergate break-in shocking. It was news exposed by investigative reporters for the top two newspapers in the nation. It wasn’t news regurgitated by “investigative reporter” after “investigative reporter” based upon, in the case of The Downing Street Memos, the real investigative reporting of Michael Smith of The Sunday Times of London.

I might also add that the denials in 1972 weren’t denial after denial regurgitated by Nixon apologists based upon what other Nixon apologists had written.

If this was 1972, Michael Smith would have obtained these memos and the mainstream news, after Smith had sufficiently built up a case, which I think he has, would have been all over The Downing Street Memos. The public would have heard of them by now and the public would have turned against the administration.

The administration, or administrations, we should take Blair’s government into account as well as Bush’s, would have had to continue to issue their own denials. Today, they have people running interference for them and spokespeople for the administrations don’t have to refer to the memos.

The mainstream media sees the debate going on on the web and stays away from the story because both sides have “good” arguments and it doesn’t want to tick anyone off. In fact, by doing what it does, the mainstream media ticks off everyone.

The left calls the mainstream media stenographers for the administration and the right says that the mainstream media has a liberal bias.

As long as the mainstream media keeps stories like Michael Jackson’s trial and runaway brides on the front pages, people can get their fill of “reality news reporting” and still be shielded from hearing about what’s really going on in Iraq or in the governments that they elected.

What Is The Question
If “where are today’s Bernstein and Woodward?” is not the question that we should be asking today, what is the question we should be asking?

In truth, I don’t know. I know that looking for another Bernstein and Woodward is not the answer – or is it?

I’ve said that there are “too many” Woodsteins. But are there?

Do the “investigative reporters” of today work anywhere near as hard as Bernstein and Woodward worked to get to first tier sources? Has the internet, with all of its potential to keep us informed, created a “lazier” investigative reporter, one who’s credibility is questioned because she or he uses the opinions of others, in many cases, as “sources”?

Do we have to wait for people like Republican Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina of “freedom fries” fame to have attacks of conscience? If that’s the case, with partisan ideology so strong, it may take a very long time, maybe too long, for people to hear the truth.

An Unlikely “Hero”?
I know that an “unlikely hero” would be of great help right now.

If Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Collin Powell or anyone who speaks to and has the trust of conservatives were to say, “I know that blindly following this administration is wrong and that Americans are being unnecessarily killed daily and I just can’t play this “conservative vs. liberal” game anymore just for profit or popularity”, the entire nation, no matter what a person’s political stripes, would hold that person in very high esteem and he or she would become a national hero. This person can become a hero the likes of which we haven’t seen since Walter Cronkite denounced the Vietnam War during one of his nightly news broadcasts.

Status Quo
Until such a hero emerges, we’ll all continue to get our news from the internet. That’s good because the mainstream media, is, indeed, a stenography service. They just write what they hear and see from Jackson’s lawyers, from witnesses of murders and kidnappings and from the mouths of international politicians.

The internet is not good because, as I’ve already chosen to believe the news published by left leaning sites, others have already chosen to believe the attacks of the right leaning sites.

There’s not a news outlet anywhere that will be as credible to everyone as the Post and the Times were in 1972 – unless an “unlikely hero” emerges.

This administration wants to keep this nation divided and the internet, along with the milquetoast mainstream media, is unwittingly doing that for them

We need an “unlikely hero”.

To friendship,
Michael

“The only defensible war is a war of defense.” – G. K. Chesterton

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Good-Bye First Amendment

One of my favorite movies of all time is “The American President”. In it, Michael Douglas plays President Andrew Shepard.

I know I’ve written about this movie before. I still recommend it for anyone who’s not seen it. I can only say that you’ll walk away from that film saying to yourself, “It’s been a while since we’ve seen a president, or even a representative or senator, like that.”

You may tell yourself that we’ve never seen a president speaking so eloquently and with so much passion. President Kennedy spoke eloquently and, at times, with passion. Robert Kennedy also had those traits. However, knowing what we know today about the Kennedys, you may harbor some ambivalence about their sincerity.

My favorite scene in that movie is at the end when Andrew Shepard interrupts his press secretary’s daily news briefing (we’ve already got Bush there – he avoids news conferences at all cost) to answer his opponent in the upcoming election.

He sort of rants about America and what it means to him. He encompasses so much in that speech that it’s difficult for me to decide which observation I find most inspiring.

Well, the House of Representatives passed a bill yesterday, June 22, 2005, that, at least for this morning, has helped me decide.

In his speech, President Shepard says, “You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of this country cannot be just a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.

Now, show me that! Defend that! Celebrate that in your classrooms! Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.”

Thanks to the actions of The House of Representatives, that part of that particular speech is going to mean even more to me next time I watch the movie – and I will watch it again.

Yesterday, a day that will “go down in infamy” (thanks FDR), the House passed a bill to amend The Constitution, yes, yours and my Constitution, to include a ban on flag burning.

True, the House has passed this legislation six times in the past 10 years and it’s never passed the Senate.

The United States Senate of 109th Congress of the United States of America is a different animal. It’s an animal the likes of which we’ve never seen before. A spokesperson for this animal says that the votes are there this time around and I believe it.

The spokesperson also says there are at least thirty-eight states, the number needed to ratify a constitutional amendment, that have already promised their support. I believe that, too.

I don’t want to get all gross on you, but there are American men and women dying every day in Iraq. Their limbs are blown off. I can’t help thinking about the scene in “Saving Private Ryan” where Tom Hanks is on the beach at Normandy. He starts to drag a wounded soldier along the sand to get the soldier to safety. When Hanks looks back, he finds he’s dragging the top of a human torso. It’s disgusting, but if it wasn’t shown that way, then war would continue to be sanitized. It’s disgusting, but war is the total state of disgust.

If you ask a Bush backer why someone might be dragging the top of an American soldier’s torso in Iraq, they’ll say that’s happening to protect our rights. While we “liberals” give aid and comfort to the enemy with our protests, kids are dying in Iraq to help us maintain the right to protest.

Then they’ll say, “Go to China. Go to Saudi Arabia. Go to Iran if you don’t like it here. See how much freedom you have there.”

Well, as long as this animal sits at the top of the government of the United States of America, that quote from Bush supporters will morph into meaning something different or nothing at all as time moves on. What the kids will be dying for, and they’re truly not dying for our freedom now as we all know, will not be our freedom. The animal in Washington is insuring that.

It’s a piece of cloth, folks! Not an arm or a leg or the top of a human torso. It’s a freakin’ piece of cloth!

Sure it’s inspiring. But that’s all it’s supposed to be – inspiring! It isn’t a living creature. As Douglas says, it’s merely a symbol.

What should be banned, and actually is by our Constitution, is for one person to be able to decide when people are put in the position to lose body parts or, worse, to die. What’s even worse than Congress abdicating its duty to make sure that one person can’t make that decision on his own is when we find that the one person made such a decision for reasons that don’t have anything at all to do with defending the US or the rights of American citizens.

The Downing Street memo, according to a search I did yesterday which brought me to the sites of some Bush backers, may or may not be proof that the decision to go to war not only had nothing to do with defending our country, but was based upon a lie which made it appear to be about defending our country.

Republicans and Bush backers say it’s hogwash. I say it’s damning for Bush.

I don’t understand it. There’s one way we can determine which of us is right and that’s to have an unhampered, unfettered independent investigation into those memos.

If Bush is innocent, so be it. If the investigation proves he lied to Congress and the American people, then it will be incumbent upon Congress to take the next step.

I don’t understand it. If the memos are so obviously benign, then Bush supporters should be all for an investigation to clear Bush’s name. After all, they weren’t shy about spending $60 million to disparage Clinton’s name.

I’m absolutely certain that one of my Senators, Barbara Boxer (Boxer for president) will vote against the bill to amend The Constitution to outlaw flag burning. I’m not sure about Diane Feinstein, the other Senator who works for me, although I don’t hold out much hope for her. I am happy to say that my House representative, Ellen Tauscher, voted against the bill.

Please get in touch with the offices of your senators and implore them to vote against this bill!

Republicans at one time were known as the party of “small government”. Unfortunately, this “animal” wants small government for laws that help people, Social Security, Bankruptcy Bill, etc. Let big business be in charge of those things.

However, when it comes to the rights and the private, personal lives of Americans, it wants full control.

This is just another right, another activity that doesn’t hurt anyone, unlike the illegal, ill conceived and unethical war in Iraq hurts people, that is being taken from us. Get in touch with your Senators today! Please!

Thanks.

To friendship,
Michael

“Where sense is wanting, everything is wanting.” – Benjamin Franklin

Monday, June 13, 2005

USA Today and the Downing Street Memo

I’ve just read an opinion piece entitled “USA Today and the Downing Street Memo” by Cynthia Bogard which is published on the COMMON DREAMS News Center.


The article gives an account of USA Today’s lame excuse for not taking The Downing Street Memo seriously.

Maybe we can help Ms Bogard help America.

First, we should find out how one goes about contacting USA Today. We need to try to get the telephone number that gets one as close to speaking to the editor as possible. I realize that we’ll never be put in touch with the editor himself, but we can insist on speaking to a staff member and not just a receptionist.

Secondly, we should determine what kind of coverage our local newspapers are giving the memo and, if it isn’t satisfactory, i.e., front page news, we should contact their editors. We should then write letters to the editor about the memo and/or about the coverage (or lack thereof).

As long as newspapers ignore or marginalize this issue, the average “Joe” or “Jane” out in mid America will give it the attention and opinion which an article marginalized by placement or context deserves.

I spent much of yesterday at a site called onlinenewspapers.com. This site has an extensive list of newspapers world wide, many which people in small town America subscribe to and look at on a daily basis. I only looked at forty papers and, out of the forty, only four for which I did a search had any information about The Downing Street Memo. In two of those papers, the reference came in the form of a letter to the editor.

We mustn’t give up on this just as we mustn’t give up on Professor David Ray Griffin’s very believable theory on what happened on 9/11. I think that the American people have to know about both of these issues so that they can have all the facts in front of them.

Notice that I didn’t write “most Americans deserve” to know about these issues. I think that if they were open minded enough to look at alternate news sources and not believe the junk that they hear on the TV news, then they’d deserve to know. We have to get these issues to them at any rate. I really don’t know how we do that when so many of them make up their minds based on a fraction of the facts.

I’m both disappointed and shocked that neither interview mentioned by Ms Bogard addressed what President Clinton had to go through, though nothing was documented or, if it was, it was documented or taped by “third” parties. The other point is, how does the media justify spending so many hours covering the “Clinton scandal”, which, basically, hurt absolutely no one, while not covering The Downing Street Memo? Wasn’t the point not that Clinton had affairs, but that he lied to the American people?

One of the people from USA Today which Ms Bogard mentions gives extremely lame reasons for this story being “old news”. He says that "we and other newspapers as well, and other media, had written a lot in early 2002 about how the Bush Administration was beginning the drumbeat, was moving toward the decision to go to war, to take military action in Iraq. It wouldn't happen until a year later. But there were lots of stories.”

The fact that some newspapers were predicting that we would go to war doesn’t make what Bush was saying to congress and the American people at the time any more true. He was assuring us that he was exhausting all diplomatic avenues when, in fact, the memo proves that he was not.

Is a lie about one’s personal problems worthy of more media coverage than a lie about taking the country to war? I think not!

To friendship,
Michael

“The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated.” – William Ellery Channing

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Nicholson Was Right (about 9/11), Wasn't He?

There’s a famous line in a film entitled “A Few Good Men”. In the film, Jack Nicholson plays a marine corps colonel who knows that the military is closing in on a ritual carried out by marines that leads to the death of one marine.

Speaking to the navy attorney, played by Tom Cruise, who is in charge of investigating the marine’s death, Nicholson speaks the famous words, “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!”

Although I’m certain that most Americans, lead by their milquetoast media, fall into the category of people who “can’t handle the truth”, I can’t just sit back and allow the truth to slip by anyone who will read or listen.

I belong to a group called the Mount Diablo Peace Center.

The Mount Diablo Peace Center mostly informs its members of upcoming events in which they think the members will be interested.

Some time ago, MtDPC informed its members that author David Ray Griffin, author of “The New Pearl Harbor; Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11” and “The 9/11 Commission Report; Omissions and Distortions”, would appear on CPAN on April 30, 2005.

He did, indeed, appear and I watched him. He lectured on a possible explanation for what should be, no matter what explanation is proven true, the greatest crime carried out against America and Americans in the history of The United States.

On September 11, 2001, a heinous crime was committed. That crime saw the deaths of over 2,000 people and it happened in the former United States of America. There is a ridiculous “conspiracy theory” that tries to explain how and why this crime happened.

The ridiculous theory is that 19 Middle Eastern men hijacked four American airliners, United Airlines Flight #93, American Airlines Flight #77, American Airlines Flight #11 and United Airlines Flight #175, and crashed two of them into the World Trade Center and one of them into The Pentagon (Flight #93 crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers gained control of it).

The reason given by the Bush administration for this catastrophe was that the hijackers hated Americans for their freedom.

Since a conspiracy is defined as, among other things, “an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action” and a theory is defined as, among other things, a “systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena” and “abstract reasoning; speculation”, we can’t dismiss the above theory, as implausible as it may seem. After all, taken the given definitions, police solve crimes based upon conspiracy theories or theories of conspiracy every day.

In his books, Professor Griffin puts forth his own theory. The explanation(s) of Griffin’s theory are much more plausible and testable than the explanations given by the Bush administration.

The other, more important thing about Griffin’s theory is that it implicates the US Government in the planning and implementation of this murderous act.

Some with whom I’ve shared some of this information have expressed extreme doubt about Professor Griffin’s theory and choose to believe the “conspiracy theory” given to the American public by the government of the former United States of America.

I have read “The New Pearl Harbor” and am reading “Omissions and Distortions”. I suggest that you all read these books. I also suggest that you go to his lecture and watch it. It’s frighteningly convincing.

The so called investigations of this crime have come up short, at the behest of the Bush Administration, of looking at every possible aspect of the crime. Consequently, another commission, not chosen by anyone in the administration and only answerable to the American people, should be formed to study the crime. We may find out that a horrible crime was carried out against the American people by its own government.

There is a movement to reopen the 9/11 inquiry. Many people who are part of this movement are people who lost loved ones on that fateful day. Don’t you think that they at least deserve an unhampered investigation, an investigation in which all pertinent documents are made available to the investigators, an investigation in which all people who were involved in any part of that day must testify under oath?

Remember this. There was an x-rated book published on the internet in the 1990’s which anyone of any age could read. This book was written by members of the “Christian Right”. The book is still on the internet and is called “Referral From Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr in Conformity With the Requirements of Title 28, United States Code, Section 595(c)”. This book is filled with graphic sexual references. Yet, the “Christian Right” not only thought that the “message” of the book trumped the contents so much that they would allow “the children” to read it, they thought that the contents and message were enough to spend $50 million of US taxpayer money and to impeach President William Jefferson Clinton.

The crime committed on September 11, 2001 was more harmful to America than what President Clinton did and, no matter who is proven guilty in committing the acts of 9/11, the American public needs more time and money spent on investigating that crime than on investigating what Clinton did. Yet not even half the amount spent on Clinton has been spent on investigating 9/11. That, also, is a crime.

The following is a list of 38 “coincidences” that Professor Griffin says had to have happened in order for the crime of September 11, 2001 to be carried out the way the administration says it was carried out.

“1. Several FAA flight controllers exhibited extreme incompetence on 9/11 and evidently on that day only.

2. The officials in charge at both NMCC (National Military Command Center) and NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) also acted incompetently on 9/11, and evidently on that day only.

3. In particular, when NMCC-NORAD officials did finally order jet fighters to be scrambled to protect New York and Washington, they ordered them in each case from more distant bases rather than from McGuire and Andrews, respectively.

4. After public statements saying that Andrews Air Force Base has no jet fighters on alert to protect Washington, its website, which had previously said that many jets were always on alert, was altered.

5. Several pilots who normally are airborne and going full speed in under three minutes all took much longer to get up on 9/11.

6. The same pilots, flying planes capable of going 1,500 to 1,850 miles per hour, on that day were all evidently able to get their planes to fly only 300 to 700 miles per hour.

7. The collapse of the buildings of The World Trade Center, besides occurring at almost free fall speed, exhibited other signs of being controlled demolitions: molten steel, seismic shocks, and fine dust were all produced.

8. The video and physical evidence suggesting that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers co-exists with testimony from people in these buildings that had heard, felt, and saw the effects of explosions.

9. The collapse of WTC-1 and WTC-2 had some of the same features as the collapse of WTC-7, even though the latter collapse could not be attributed to the impact and jet fuel of an airplane.

10. Both the North Tower and the South Tower collapsed just as their respective fires were dying down, even though this meant that the South Tower, which had been hit second, collapsed first.

11. Governmental agencies had the debris, including the steel, from the collapsed WTC buildings removed without investigation, which is what would be expected if the government wanted to prevent evidence of explosives from being discovered.

12. Physical evidence suggesting that what hit the Pentagon could not have been a Boeing 757 co-exists with testimony of several witnesses that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was far smaller than a 757.

13. This evidence about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon co-exists with reports that Flight 77 crashed in Kentucky or Ohio.

14. This evidence co-exists with the fact that the only evidence that Flight 77 did not crash was supplied by an attorney closely associated with the Bush administration.

15. Evidence that Flight 77 did not return to Washington to hit the Pentagon co-exists with the fact that when the flight control transcript was released, the final 20 minutes were missing.

16. The fact that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon did so only after executing a very difficult maneuver co-exists with the fact that it struck a section of the Pentagon that, besides containing none of its leaders, was the section in which the strike would cause the least death and destruction.

17. On the same day in which jet fighters were unable to protect the Pentagon from an attack by a single airplane, the missiles that normally protect the Pentagon also failed to do so.

18. Sounds from cell phones inside Flight 93 suggesting that the plane had been hit by a missile were matched by many reports to this effect from witnesses on the ground.

19. The evidence that Flight 93 was shot down co-exists with reports from both civilian and military leaders that there was intent to shoot this flight down.

20. The only plane that was evidently shot down, Flight 93, was the only one in which it appeared that passengers were going to gain control.

21. The evidence that Flight 93 was shot down after the passengers were about to gain control co-exists with the fact that the flight control transcript for this flight was not released.

22. That coincidence co-exists with the fact that when the cockpit recording of Flight 93 was released, the final three minutes were missing.

23. Evidence showing that the US government had far more specific evidence of what was to occur on 9/11 than it has admitted co-exists with evidence that it actively blocked investigations that might have prevented the attacks.

24. Reports of obstruction from FBI agents in Minneapolis co-exists with similar reports from Chicago and New York.

25. Reports of such obstructions prior to 9/11 co-exists with reports that investigations after 9/11 were also obstructed.

26. The reports of obstructionism co-exist with multiple reports suggesting that the US government did not really try to capture or kill Osama bin Laden either prior to or after 9/11, with the result that several people independently suggested that the US government must be working for bin Laden-or vice versa.

27. All these reports co-exists with the reports of hijackers being allowed in the country in spite of known terrorist connections or visa violations.

28. These reports about immigration violations co-exists with evidence that some of the same men were allowed to train at US flight schools, some on military bases.

29. The evidence of training at various American flight schools co-exists with reports that US officials tried to conceal this evidence.

30. The traumatic events of 9/11 occurred just a year after a document published by the Project for a New American Century, an organization whose founders included several men who became central figures in the Bush administration, referred to benefits that could come from “a new Pearl Harbor”.

31. The “unifying Pearl Harbor sort of purple American fury” produced by the 9/11 attacks did benefit the Bush Administration in many ways.

32. A credible report that spokesmen for the Bush administration had earlier announced that the US government was planning a war on Afghanistan, which would begin before the middle of October, co-exists with the fact that the attacks of 9/11, by occurring on that date, gave US military forces time to be ready to attack Afghanistan on October 7.

33. Ahmad Masood, whose continued existence would have posed problems for US plans in Afghanistan, was assassinated, reportedly by ISI (the Pakistani “CIA”) operatives, just after the head of ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmad, had been meeting in Washington for several days with the head of the CIA.

34. In the White House’s version of the recording of Condoleeza Rice’s press briefing on May 16, the only portion that was inaudible was the portion in which the person under discussion, mentioned as having been in Washington on 9/11, was identified as “the ISI chief”.

35. Evidence of official efforts to conceal General Ahmad’s presence in Washington co-exists with evidence that, after it became known that General Ahmad had ordered $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, US leaders exerted pressure on the ISI to dismiss him from his post quietly.

36. Evidence of these attempts to conceal General Ahmad’s involvement in 9/11 co-exists with evidence that the FBI and other federal agencies sought to obscure the fact that Saeed Sheikh, the man who wired the money to Atta, was an ISI agent.

37. The fact that agents in FBI headquarters who presided over the alleged intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen, widely called the biggest intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor, were promoted instead of fired or otherwise punished co-exists with the fact that other intelligence agencies also reported that there had been no punishment for incompetence related to 9/11.

38. This evidence of lack of punishment for poor performance co-exists with reports that intelligence officers who were diligently trying to pursue investigations related to 9/11 suffered negative treatment from superiors.”

This is quite the number of things that “coincidentally” happened on or around September 11, 2001.

Since there is a possibility that President George W. Bush was complicit in the horrors of 9/11, there should be no one who wouldn’t want that proven or disproved.

Obviously, since as each day passes, Bush is complicit in the murders of Americans in Iraq, those who would want to see him brought to justice would want to make sure he is brought to justice for what happened on 9/11 as well.

His supporters would want a full and unhampered investigation into these charges so that it can be proven that he was not complicit in the 9/11 crimes.

Finding out whether the leader of your country was involved in the mass murder of Americans that enabled him to commit more murder of Americans should be important enough for everyone, bar none, to demand another investigation by an impartial special prosecutor. I can’t see how Americans wouldn’t want to prioritize their time to include helping in this cause.

For those who wish to further investigate on their own, here are just two more web sites dedicated to getting the truth out. Center for an Informed America and David Ray Griffin: Almost Perfect About 9/11.

To friendship,
Michael

“The height of arrogance is the control of those who would create god in their own image.” – Ramtha