April 7, 2008
GeorgeWashington.Blogspot.com

Its headline news that top Democrats are asking Attorney General Mukasey to explain his comments about a pre-9/11 phone call from a terrorist to the United States.

Why doesn't Congress ask Mukasey some real questions. For example:

* Mr. Attorney General, since the U.S. government knew the date and method of the 9/11 attacks, why weren't the attacks stopped?

* Mr. Mukasey, because the government heard the 9/11 plans from the hijackers' own mouths, why wasn't anything done to stop them?

* Sir, since U.S. and allied intelligence services had penetrated the very highest levels of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11, why wasn't 9/11 stopped?

* U.S. and allied intelligence services seem to have actually employed or at least protected many of the hijackers prior to 9/11. Uh . . . why did they do that?

read more

 

GeorgeWashington's Blogspot
April 7, 2008

Even if you (unlike the military leaders, intelligence professionals, scientists, engineers, and other highly-credible people who question 9/11) do not believe that elements within the U.S. government intentionally aided and abetted the September 11 attacks, or let them happen on purpose, you have to admit that the government failed to do its job of protecting the American people.

For example, 9/11 was completely foreseeable. U.S. and allied intelligence services had penetrated the very highest levels of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and heard the hijackers' plans from their own mouths.

by Tod Fletcher
March 15, 2008

9/11 CONTRADICTIONS by David Ray Griffin is the fifth of his books to examine the official account of the events of September 11, 2001. This brilliant and highly readable book takes a new yet simple approach to the truth about 9/11. It focuses entirely on contradictory statements made by members of the Bush administration, government departments and agencies, and official bodies such as the 9/11 Commission. All the statements that Griffin examines are official claims in direct conflict with other official claims. How could this be? Why would the government keep changing "the official story"? The public, of course, is expected to take all the statements as incontrovertibly true, yet they directly conflict with one another.

And why, if the government pronouncements are contradictory, haven't members of Congress and the mainstream media launched investigations to determine which are true and which are false, and to ask why are obvious falsehoods about the events of 9/11 being promulgated by the government? I say "obvious falsehoods" because, as Griffin explains in the Preface, "If [Transportation Secretary Norman] Mineta said "P," that is a fact. If the 9/11 Commission said "not P," that is a fact. And it is a fact that "P" and "not P" cannot both be true" (p. viii). The subtitle, "An Open Letter to Congress and the Press," indicates Griffin's hope that the juxtaposition of the contradictory claims the book provides will stimulate such investigations. But the book is really intended for the public at large, and its clear focus makes it the easiest to read of all Griffin's books on 9/11. Because of its relative simplicity it is a perfect introduction to the subject.

David Ray Griffin provides more food for thought with the release of his 5th single-author book on the events of September the 11th... 9/11 Contradictions.

Soon, we will be seven years away from an event scorched into our collective consciousness, (and collective unconscious), but for those of us who have taken the time to revisit that day in our memories and in various forms of media: audio, video, the written word... it hasn't put seven years of distance between us and 9/11, rather, 9/11 has become a historical event known in intimate detail by students in a global, open-university setting.

The faculty members in this university are at a certain disadvantage. Rather than working in a symbiotic manner with an academic establishment that is generally supportive of the goal of education, the faculty is not allowed access to key information which is necessary to form the curriculum, the faculty has no budget, no tenure, and if you have a general grasp of some 9/11 issues, you can hang a shingle on your door claiming that you are a professor in the university, and the genuine faculty members are stuck with you until your shaky hypothesis is thoroughly shredded by a colleague who just can't take it anymore.

However, some of the faculty members have done quite well in this environment, and if there is a Professor of 9/11 Studies, David Ray Griffin is it. In 9/11 Contradictions, Griffin writes to the Congress and the Press, exposing a fully naked emperor and empire, and leaves no doubt that in the nearly seven intervening years since 9/11, this Professor has been staying current, and at times embodies the avant-garde of 9/11 skepticism.

There is an increasing number of Americans who believe that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and several of their toadies should be in prison, this writer included. But to suggest that the Bush administration is somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks seems to be a jaw-dropping and frightening stretch, but not to the scores of interested folks who turned out to hear David Ray Griffin's talk March 28 at the Poinsettia Pavilion in Ventura. For those who get their information from Fox News, such a charge is blasphemy, treason and worthy of a perpetual Blackwater firing squad on YouTube. Griffin settled for frequents bursts of applause.

The 9/11 tragedy is certainly not the first event in American history surrounded by controversy and conspiracy theories, just merely the latest.

But as the pages blow off the calendar, witnesses die off, the trail grows cold and interest wanes, assisted by the fact the American people have the attention span of a butterfly sneeze.

But 9/11 is still fresh in everyone's memory, partly because Bush can't go three minutes without playing the fear card and invoking the images of airplanes flying into tall buildings. That memorable Tuesday morning happened less than seven years ago and not only is it an annual school assignment, but many of the participants and survivors are still alive with plenty of contradictory stories to tell.

A letter has been sent by leaders of the House Judiciary Committee to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, demanding that he explain a recent public statement that federal authorities failed to intercept a call from suspected terrorists in Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 attacks, when doing so could have prevented the attacks from taking place.

Mukasey blamed that failure on a lack of the sort of warrantless wiretapping authority that the administration has now called on Congress to provide. However, there has never been any previous mention of such a call, and the Judiciary Committee letter -- signed by Chairman John Conyers and two subcommittee chairs -- points out that the law that existed at the time would have allowed the call to be intercepted immediately, with permission granted retroactively by the FISA court.

That letter has been noted by blogs, such as Talking Points Memo, but does not appear to have gained any attention from the mainstream media.