|[BACK TO MAIN] [SKEPTICS LINKS][OPEN QUESTIONS]
Cynthia McKinneyThe most courageous member of Congress.
Out of 535 members of Congress, Congresswoman CynthiaMcKinney was the first to break the consensus of silence and pointto the obvious - that the Bush administration had received advance warningsof an attack, and that this called for a full investigation, without limitson what line of questioning is acceptable. After saying so in March, shewas vilified without mercy in the press, until it became clear that manymore people were believing her and supporting her than the pundits andspin managers imagined.
The following archive is meant as a resource for thosewho wish to support McKinney's call for disclosure by contacting her orother members of the Congress, press and media. Let this record serve asan inspiration to action by many others!
1. McKinney statement and interviewof Mar. 24 on KPFA radio in Berkeley- how the ball got rolling.
2. Washington Post story of April 12.More than two weeks later, someone at the Post actually decides to reporton McKinney's radio interview, setting off a chain reaction. A Georgiasenator calls for her lunatic head. A Bush spokesman is shocked - shocked!- that anyone thinks the president came to power in an illegitimate election.A spokesman of the Carlyle Group associates McKinney with "Roswell, NewMexico," the location of a supposed crash by an alien UFO in the 1950s,and "the grassy knoll" on Dealey Plaza in Dallas, the spot from which manypeople say they witnessed President Kennedy being shot at by a second gunmanin Nov. 1963. Ari Fleischer later used the same spin. (Was it really sosmart to mention the grassy knoll? Last time I heard, 80 percent of theAmerican people still expressed a preference for the laws of physics overthe findings of the Warren Commission.)
3. McKinney Statement of April13. Yeah, she meant what she said. Got a problem?
4. Yes, some people got a problem. Reactionsin the press:
April 16: The Christian NewsService and the right-wing Southern Legal Foundation strike first anddirtiest, by playing the "terrorist card." They report that McKinney tookmoney from a Hamas supporter, Abdurahman Alamoudi, "the founder and formerexecutive director of the American Muslim Council." CNS fails to mentionthat this organization also endorsed Bush for president in 2000, and gavemoney to his campaign. In fact, Bush invited Alamoudi to the Sept. 14 serviceat the National Cathedral, where the latter was trotted out as a representativeof America's six million Muslims. 5. My own letter to Cynthia McKinney,Apr. 26. Dramatic, perhaps, but I stand by it. Plusa cover letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton, senatorfrom my home state and one of many members of Congress to whom I forwardedmy McKinney letter.
April 17: NEWSMAX reports that talk-radio yahoo Imuscalled McKinney insane, while her colleague, Rep. Harold Ford, putup a tepid defense.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (which slammed McKinneyin an editorial) puts up an online poll to see if anyonebelieves the administration had advance knowledge of the attacks. A fewhours later, of 23,000 votes, 46 percent say they believe the governmentknew about the Sept. 11 attacks in advance. This is despite a campaignon the popular right-wing "Free Republic" site, which urging its membersto "vote against McKinney."
The poll is taken down. Suddenly, the pundits rememberthat online polls are unscientific, at least when they yield undesirableresults.
Apr. 17: Columnist Kathleen Parkerof the Orlando Sentinel plays the race card about as subtly as she canmanage by mentioning Darwin, and strains her limited faculties in a lameattempt to insult McKinney and accuse her of helping the terrorists.
During this time, similarly vicious ad hominem attacks,which I shall not bother to reproduce here, are staged by the online magazineSlate and other vehicles.
Carol Schiffler in Online Journalwrites "in defense of Cynthia McKinney," as many others did in April andMay.
6. McKinney statement of May 16,after the White House made its first admission of foreknowledge. Suddenly,she's not a "conspiracy theorist" or a nut anymore.
.Round One to McKinney, but it's a long fight ahead!
7. What is she doing in the picture?
One need not agree with McKinney's every stand on theissues to understand the importance of supporting her on this one. Sheis certainly outspoken, more so than any other member of Congress exceptperhaps for Ron Paul, a truly maverick Republican from Texas. Who elsein either chamber has the guts to speak openly about Henry Kissinger'swar crimes, the CIA murders of Patrice Lumumba and Salvador Allende, domesticpolitical repression under the COINTELPRO program, the possible U.S. governmentrole in the assassination of Martin Luther King, or the clandestine U.S.role in sparking the Rwandan genocide of 1994? And few indeed are thosewho still refuse to stand down and stop recalling that the Bush administrationcame to power in an illegitimate coup.
But the main thing is: Write to your representatives andthe media and urge them to join in McKinney's call for a real 9/11 investigation.Better yet, fax or call their offices directly. This is a more effectiveway of getting their attention, or at least tying up their phone linesso that they notice.
For my part, I wrote a letter in praise of McKinney'scourage, in which I raised a number of issues relating to Sept. 11 andthe anthrax attacks on the Congress. I then wrote cover letters to varioussenators and representatives and faxed these to them, along with copiesof my letter to McKinney. I logically included:
and a random selection of others. I didn't bother with myown representative, who prides himself on being a cog in the "HomelandSecurity" machine. Nobody has answered to date, I fear - in yourletter, try to be less dramatic! - but I am certain that the piles of "Sept.11 Crank Letters" are growing higher and higher in many a congressionaloffice. Sooner or later, they will react.
- Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), senator from my home state,for all the good it is likely to do,
- Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the targetsof the anthrax attacks,
- Ron Paul (R-TX) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), two who are almostas outspoken as McKinney with regard to the war and the emerging policestate,
- Russ Feingold (D-WI), the only senator who voted againstthe USA PATRIOT Act,
- Maxine Waters (D-CA), who led the condemnations of the CIA'ssponsorship of Contra cocaine dealing,
- Barbara Lee (D-CA), the only representative who voted againstthe "New War" resolution (even McKinney gave that a yes),
- Henry Waxman (D-CA), who has been most persistent in goingafter the Enron-Bush connection and demanding that Cheney cough up hisenergy papers,
Write today! Of course, by no meansshould 9/11 Skeptics limit their actions to just writing. Let us keep publishingour views, spreading the word, and organizing and agitating every (legal)way we can.
All of the following articles are reproduced here underFair Use provisions.
.1. How the Ball Got Rolling
Transcript of Cynthia McKinney's statement and interviewof March 25, 2002. As published by Charles Utwater II in ONLINE JOURNAL,May 12, 2002:
Thoughts On Our War Against Terrorism
KPFA, March 25, 2002, Flashpoints Producer Dennis Bernstein's interview with Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Taped speech and interviewdrawn from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/665750/posts. Transcriptindependently verified and corrected 4/21/02.
Taped comments of Congresswoman Cynthia A. McKinney:
Authorities tell us that the world changed on September11. As a result, university professors must watch what they say in classor be turned in to the "speech" police. Elected officials must censorthemselves or be censured by the media. Citizens now report behavior ofsuspicious-looking people to the police. Laws now exist that erode ourcivil liberties.
Americans now accept these infringements as necessaryto win America's New War. America, the world's only superpower, is stifledin its ability to defend human rights and democracy abroad because it hasfailed the fundamental test at home. Our combination of money and militarymight, and our willingness to use them, did not make us a superpower. Weare the most powerful nation on the face of the planet because we havecombined raw power with American ideals such as dignity, freedom, justice,and peace. These ideas and ideals are admired around the globe and aremore important, in my view, to our position of global strength than ourability to shoot a missile down a chimney. We might be feared because ofour military, but we are loved because of our ideals. Sadly, we have putAmerican goodwill at risk around the world because of an imbalancein our foreign policy that is palpable even to the most disinterested observer.
In 1994, after an act of terrorism killed two sittingpresidents, the Clinton Administration purposely failed to prevent thegenocide of one million Rwandans in order to install favorable regimesin the Central Africa region. In 1999 Madeleine Albright OK'd a SierraLeone peace plan that positioned Foday Sankoh as Chairman of the Commissionfor the Management of Strategic Resources, a position that placedhim answerable only to the President despite the fact that his terroristorganization raped little girls and chopped off their hands as it financedits way to power with illegal diamond sales. Jonas Savimbi, recently killedon the battlefield, helped the United States protect the minority ruleof racists in South Africa and his organization continues to rampage acrosssouthern Africa in Angola, Namibia, parts of Congo-Kinshasha, andRwanda without restriction, financed again by illegal diamond sales. Thecontinued plunder of Africa's rich resources without penalty and sadly with the knowledge and support of powerful people in the US, serves asthe foundation of the particular terrorism that victimizes Africans. Andnow, as Africans grapple with the fundamental right to control theirown resources and despite United Nations reports making no such links,Bush Administration experts seem prepared to link African diamonds withanti-US terrorism, thus necessitating tightened US control over Africa'sresources.
And so, with no concern at all for the effects on othersof US-supported terrorism, the US, with its bombs and military, embarkson a worldwide crusade against terrorism that Bush says likely willlast as many as twenty years. The list of target countries is long withAfghanistan, Somalia, Tanzania, Kenya, Sudan, the Philippines, and Iraqoffering the starters. But what of the fact that Henry Kissingerand the current new US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, bothonce lobbied Washington, DC on behalf of a US oil company, Unocal, anda softer policy toward the Taliban? Whose war is this really?
In November 2000, Republicans stole from America ourmost precious right of all: the right to free and fair elections. In anorganized manner, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his Secretary of State Katherine Harris created a list of convicted felons--57,700 to beexact--to "scrub" from the state's voter rolls. The names were createdfrom Florida records and from lists provided by 11 other states, the largestlist coming from Texas. We now know that most of the people on that listwere innocent of crimes. The list was a phony. And worse, the majorityof these rightful voters were people of color and likely Democraticvoters. Of the thousands who ultimately lost their vote through this scrubof voters, 80% are African-American. Had they voted, the course of historywould have changed: Harris declared Bush the victor by only 537 votes.President Carter has said that the Carter Center would not certify theUS 2000 Presidential elections had they had been asked to do so. Consequently, an Administration of questionable legitimacy has been givenunprecedented power to fight America's new war against terrorism.
Before September 11, two million Americans found themselvesbehind bars: 80% of them people of color. Millions of Americans are sleepingon the streets of American cities. All over America, unarmed blackmen are targeted by rogue police officers, who shoot first and ask questionslater. While 52% of all black men feel they have been victims of racialprofiling, the Supreme Court declines to hear an important case onracial profiling. The Bush Administration totally "disses" the World ConferenceAgainst Racism and the people around the world who care about eliminatingracism.
In February 2001, The United States Commission on NationalSecurity, including Newt Gingrich, recommended that the National HomelandSecurity Agency be established along with a hefty price tag. Most peoplechuckled at the suggestion. After September 11, we have OK'd the targetingand profiling of certain groups of people in America while not arrestingin any way the racial profiling and discrimination that existed prior toSeptember 11. Mass arrests, detention without charge, military tribunals,and infringements on due process rights are now realities in America. Evenmore alarming are the calls in some circles to allow the use of tortureand other brutal methods in pursuit of so-called justice. Sadly, US administrationof justice will be conducted by an Administration incapable of it. Interestingly, prominent officials explain to us that September 11 happenedbecause we are free. And they hate us because we are free.
Moreover, persons close to this Administration are poisedto make huge profits off America's new war. Former President Bush sitson the board of the Carlyle Group. The Los Angeles Times reports that on a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling sharesin United Defense Industries, the Army's fifth-largest contractor. Thestock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decidedto take the company public only after the Sept. 11 attacks. The stock salecashed in on increased congressional support for hefty defense spending,including one of United Defense's cornerstone weapon programs.
Now is the time for our elected officials to be heldaccountable. Now is the time for the media to be held accountable. Whyaren't the hard questions being asked. We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. Vladimir Putin, Presidentof Russia, delivered one such warning. Those engaged in unusual stock tradesimmediately before September 11 knew enough to make millions of dollarsfrom United and American airlines, certain insurance and brokerage firms'stocks. What did this Administration know, and when did it know it aboutthe events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warnthe innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?
September 11 erased the line between "over there" and"over here." The American people can longer afford to be detached fromthe world, as our actions abroad will have a direct impact on ourlives at home. In Washington, DC, decisions affecting home and abroad aremade and too many of us leave the responsibility of protecting our freedomsto other people whose interests are not our own. From Durban to Kabul toAtlanta to Washington, what our government does in our name is important.It is now also clear that our future, our security, and our rights dependon our vigilance. It is also now clear that our future, our security,and our rights depend on our vigilance.
Interview host Dennis Bernstein's questions and herresponses:
BERNSTEIN: Well, Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney, it isgreat to have you with us on Flashpoints. I wanted to follow up on thatvery powerful commentary with just a few questions that come off speeches you have made from the House floor on related information. Firstof all, why do you oppose the Rumsfeld 48.1 billion dollar increase inthe military budget? What is most troubling about this for you?
MCKINNEY: It was incredible sitting in the room on theday that secretary Rumsfeld gave his presentation to members of the ArmedServices Committee. Of course I serve on the House Armed ServicesCommittee, and every year the Secretary of Defense comes before that Committeewith a statement on the budget. Now, the 48.1 billion $ increase that SecretaryRumsfeld requested was interesting because basically what he saidwas we can afford it. Notwithstanding the fact that the Pentagon has lost2.3 trillion dollars that we very well cannot afford to have lost.
BERNSTEIN: Lost it? Where did they lose it?
MCKINNEY: Well, that's a darn good question. You wouldthink that Arthur Anderson is their accountant over there. They have lost2.3 trillion dollars, and they don't know where to find that money.And of course the Secretary acknowledged the fact 2.3 trillion dollarsremain unaccounted for, but in his testimony to the House Armed ServicesCommittee, the Secretary said that the US can afford it. Now, healso said that we have a responsibility in this brave new post September11 world, to make sure that we can adequately defend ourselves. And whathe used as a justification for this unprecedented hike, the biggest hikein a generation, was the fact of the events around September 11.
But as you know, and I know, it wasn't the military thatfailed. It was a failure of people who had information to act. We knowthat there were several warnings that were given prior to the eventsof September 11. From people in Germany to people in the Cayman Islandsto people even, now we learn about the owners of the pilot school. Peoplewere calling in to the CIA and the FBI and they were giving informationthat was critical. Even prior to these warnings we had the trial itselffrom the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
And we had the trial from the American embassy bombing.So we knew that the World Trade Center bombing trial gives us a lead onthe fact that embassies were being targeted. And now the US governmentis being sued by survivors of the embassy bombings, because it is clearthat America had warnings and did nothing. Did nothing to protect the livesof the people who serve in our foreign service and who serve us inother ways in our embassies around the world. Now the US government isbeing sued, and we're gonna have to pay for that, as those families arenow paying every day with the loss of their loved ones. There wasadequate warning. There were people who failed to act on the warning. Andthat's what ought to be investigated.
But instead of requesting that Congress investigate whatwent wrong and why, we had president Bush (painful for me to say that,but) we had president Bush placing a call to Majority Leader SenatorTom Daschle asking him NOT to investigate the events of September 11, Andthen, hot on the heels of the president's phone call was another phonecall from the vice president asking that Tom Daschle also not investigatethe events that lead to September 11. My question is, What do they haveto hide? And why is it that the American people are being asked to maketremendous sacrifices now in our civil liberties?
And the fact that we got this request for an unprecedentedhike in -- the hike alone of 48.1 billion dollars is more than any oneof our allies spend total on their defense. And then the other issuethat saddens me is the fact that the former President, president Bush'sdaddy, sits on the board of the Carlyle Group. And so we get this presidency,of questionable legitimacy, requesting a nearly unprecedented amountof money to go into a defense budget for defense spending that will directlybenefit his father. Where is the … where are the brakes on transparencyand corruption that I see happening as a result of the fact that the president'sfather stands to make money off of the very requests that the presidenthas made, on what I would call a specious argument saying that we needto increase defense spending because of Sept 11, when we now knowthat there were enough warnings that we didn't have to even experienceSeptember 11 at all; at least that's the way it is now beginning to appear.
BERNSTEIN: How would Poppy Bush make money on this budget?How would the father make money on this budget?
MCKINNEY: The father sits on the board of an organizationcalled the Carlyle Group. Now when we had Frank Carlucci come to testifyat the House International Relations Committee shortly after GeorgeW was sworn in…
BERNSTEIN: former Defense Secretary
MCKINNEY: former Defense Secretary -- and we have a requirementthat organizations that come before our committee, the House InternationalRelations Committee, have to disclose Federal contracts. And so Irequested of our chairman, Chairman Hyde, whether or not the Carlyle Groupwould be subjected to that requirement, since everyone else has to do it.And of course the Carlyle Group was not required to make any disclosureas to the Federal contracts that it had. That in itself means that they
are skirting the rules of the House. Notwithstanding that, the fact thatthe father sits on the board of the Carlyle Group, which is one ofthe highest level defense contractors in the country. I think they're number11 or 12 in defense contracts. And they have at least one program, the Crusader, which hasn't… it doesn't work, it's a weapons system that doesn'twork, has experienced tremendous cost overruns, and yet it continues tobe funded, and we can only think that it's the heavy hand of verywell-placed lobbyists that make sure that weapons systems that are goingto… that have a connection with the Carlyle Group get funded.
And even building contracts: bases abroad, all of thebases that we are now looking at, new bases going into Uzbekistan. Thepositioning of troops in former Soviet Georgia -- those troops are going to have to be housed, fed, and the weapons systems are going to haveto be contained, and all of that is money. And sadly the Carlyle Groupwill benefit from this increase in funding that has been requestedby the president. Interestingly also, and probably the scariest of all,was the new mission, as identified by the Secretary, for our Armed Services.And that is that a major role now for the US military will be to occupyan opponent's capitol and displace its regime. Now, if that's the mission-- and we've been told that there are as many as 60 countries around theworld that host terror cells that we need to go in and flush out-- then basically what we're talking about is expanding US military presenceall over the planet. And that is a frightening experience and a frighteningthought for me because I know that if we provide weapons they getused. And if our troops are there, they are going to use those weaponsand those weapons that we provide might even be used against our own troops;we have to be very careful about that. But interestingly the Secretarysaid that they intend to "drain the swamp", and it's interesting to methat it appears to me that this new mission of our military to gointo a capitol and take it over was started in Washington DC.
BERNSTEIN: Final question, Congresswoman McKinney. Theseare mighty powerful thoughts you're expressing here. I'm wondering howmuch support you have in Congress, and perhaps you have heard frompeople who are quite unhappy with your voicing these kinds of very strong,controversial thoughts
MCKINNEY: It's always good to hear from people who thinklike you. I definitely hear from people who don't think like you. And that'shealthy. It's a part of the American process. But just as it's healthyfor me to hear from people who don't think like me, it's also very healthyfor people like me to have a voice and to be willing to speak. And it'stotally inappropriate, I believe, for my patriotism to be questioned,my feelings of attachment and loyalty for America to be questioned.
BERNSTEIN: Has it been questioned?
MCKINNEY: You would be surprised at the hate mail thatI get in the Congressional office.
BERNSTEIN: What do people say to you?
McKinney: I wish I had a piece right here and I'd readit to you. We got one piece that told me that I needed to go back to Africaand take Jesse with me. It seems that the people who write in findit impossible to omit the fact that I'm black. And so the racial aspectof the hatred also comes out. I can accept people who disagree. But I don'tknow that we need thought police in our universities, because ouruniversities are supposed to teach freedom of thought. And I don't knowthat we need thought police and speech police inside the US Congress, becausethe Congress is supposed to represent Americans of all stripes andall ideologies. And I know that there is a very powerful peace movementin this country. I hear from them, I know they're out there. I'd love tohear a little bit more from them.
BERNSTEIN: Well, we have very much appreciated hearingfrom you today. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, reading her essay "Thoughtson our war against terrorism", and then speaking with us on Flashpointshere on Pacifica radio. We thank you so much for your time and your goodinformation and commentary. MCKINNEY: Thank you verymuch and I look forward to talking with you again.
(Reproduced here for information purposesonly under Fair Use provisions.)
.2. First news report on McKinney'sviews
WASHINGTON POST — Friday, April 12, 2002; Page A16
Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot
By Juliet Eilperin — Washington Post Staff Writer
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigationinto whether President Bush and other government officials had advancenotice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them.She added that "persons close to this administration are poised to makehuge profits off America's new war."
In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radiostation, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the eventsto come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know andwhen did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew,and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlesslymurdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"
McKinney declined to be interviewed yesterday, but sheissued a statement saying: "I am not aware of any evidence showing thatPresident Bush or members of his administration have personally profitedfrom the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that tobe the case."
Bush spokesman Scott McLellan dismissed McKinney's comments.
"The American people know the facts, and they dismisssuch ludicrous, baseless views," he said. "The fact that she questionsthe president's legitimacy shows a partisan mind-set beyond all reason."
In the radio conversation, McKinney delivered a stingingattack on the administration. In 2000, she charged, Bush forces "stolefrom America our most precious right of all, the right to free and fairelections." With the September attacks on the World Trade Center and thePentagon and in Pennsylvania, McKinney said, "an administration of questionablelegitimacy has been given unprecedented power."
She suggested that the administration was serving the
interests of a Washington-based investment firm, the Carlyle Group, which
employs a number of high-ranking former government officials from both
parties. Former president George H.W. Bush -- the current president's father
-- is an adviser to the firm. McKinney said the war on terrorism has enriched
Carlyle Group investors by enhancing the value of a military contractor
partly owned by the firm.
Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman asked: "Did she
say these things while standing on a grassy knoll in Roswell, New Mexico?"
During her five terms in office, McKinney has often given
voice to radical critiques of U.S. policy, especially in the Middle East.
She defied the State Department to investigate assertions that international
sanctions are brutalizing innocent Iraqis.
With her comments concerning Sept. 11, McKinney, 47,
seems to have tapped into a web of conspiracy theories circulating during
the past six months among people who believe that the government is partially
-- or entirely -- to blame for last year's attacks, which killed more than
"What is undeniable is that corporations close to the
administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending
arising from the aftermath of September 11th," McKinney charged. "America's
credibility, both with the world and with her own people, rests upon securing
credible answers to these questions."
None of McKinney's colleagues has embraced her allegations,
but a few said they are familiar with the theories.
"I've heard a number of people say it," said Rep. Melvin
Watt (D-N.C.), who quickly added, "I can't say that it would be a widely
held view" among lawmakers.
Some lawmakers have a less charitable view of McKinney's
penchant for publicity. Rep. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said McKinney is simply
trying to impress her constituents.
"She's demonstrated at home an ability to win," he said,
"and she's demonstrated in Washington a total lack of responsibility in
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a friend of McKinney's, said
the Georgia Democrat is adept at seizing on "red-meat" issues that resonate
with her political base and have helped her fend off a series of GOP challengers.
"She's not as random as people think," Kingston said.
"People always want to hear a political conspiracy theory."
Staff writer David Von Drehle contributed to this report.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
(Reproduced here for information purposes
only under Fair Use provisions.)
3. Mc Kinney Statement of April
The need for an investigation of the events surrounding
September 11 is as obvious as is the need for an investigation of the Enron
debacle. Certainly, if the American people deserve answers about what went
wrong with Enron and why (and we do), then we deserve to know what went
wrong on September 11 and why.
Are we squandering our goodwill around the world with
what many believe to be incoherent, warmongering policies that alienate
our friends and antagonize our allies? How much of a role does our reliance
on imported oil play in the military policies being put forward by the
Bush Administration? And what role does the close relationship between
the Bush Administration and the oil and defense industries play, if any,
in the policies that are currently being pursued by this Administration?
We deserve to know what went wrong on September 11 and
why. After all, we hold thorough public inquiries into rail disasters,
plane crashes, and even natural disasters in order to understand what happened
and to prevent them from happening again or minimizing the tragic effects
when they do. Why then does the Administration remain steadfast in its
opposition to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack upon our
News reports from Der Spiegel to the London Observer,
from the Los Angeles Times to MSNBC to CNN, indicate that many different
warnings were received by the Administration. In addition, it has even
been reported that the United States government broke bin Laden's secure
communications before September 11. Sadly, the United States government
is being sued today by survivors of the Embassy bombings because, from
court reports, it appears clear that the US had received prior warnings,
but did little to secure and protect the staff at our embassies.
Did the same thing happen to us again?
I am not aware of any evidence showing that President
Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the
attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case.
For example, it is known that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle
Group had - at the time of the attacks - joint business interests with
the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings,
the stocks of which, have soared since September 11.
On the other hand, what is undeniable is that corporations
close to the Administration, have directly benefited from the increased
defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11. The Carlyle
Group, DynCorp, and Halliburton certainly stand out as companies close
to this Administration. Secretary Rumsfeld maintained in a hearing before
Congress that we can afford the new spending, even though the request for
more defense spending is the highest increase in twenty years and the Pentagon
has lost $2.3 trillion.
All the American people are being asked to make sacrifices.
Our young men and women in the military are being asked to risk their lives
in our War Against Terrorism while our President's first act was to sign
an executive order denying them high deployment overtime pay. The American
people are being asked to make sacrifices by bearing massive budget cuts
in the social welfare of our country, in the areas of health care, social
security, and civil liberties for our enhanced military and security needs
arising from the events of September 11; it is imperative that they know
fully why we make the sacrifices. If the Secretary of Defense tells us
that his new military objectives must be to occupy foreign capital cities
and overthrow regimes, then the American people must know why. It should
be easy for this Administration to explain fully to the American people
in a thorough and methodical way why we are being asked to make these sacrifices
and if, indeed, these sacrifices will make us more secure. If the Administration
cannot articulate these answers to the American people, then the Congress
This is not a time for closed-door meetings and this
is not a time for secrecy. America's credibility, both with the world and
with her own people, rests upon securing credible answers to these questions.
The world is teetering on the brink of conflicts while the Administration's
policies are vague, wavering and unclear. Major financial conflicts of
interest involving the President, the Attorney General, the Vice President
and others in the Administration have been and continue to be exposed.
This is a time for leadership and judgment that is not
compromised in any fashion. This is a time for transparency and a thorough
4. A Selection of Press Reactions
CNSNews.com - April 16, 2002
Some McKinney Contributors Support Terrorist Groups
By Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The congresswoman who accused
administration of allowing energy and defense industry
profits to guide its war policy has accepted campaign contributions from
employees of groups that support terrorist organizations, according to
Federal Election Commission records.
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) received $1000 from Abdurahman
Alamoudi, the founder and former executive director of the American Muslim
Alamoudi's contribution is one of 45 McKinney received
during the 1999-2000 election cycle that did not list the occupation of
the donor as required by the FEC. Those donations totaled $24,000.
"I have been labeled by the media in New York as being
a supporter of Hamas. Anybody supporters of Hamas here?" Alamoudi asked,
to cheers from the crowd at an October 2000 White House protest of U.S.
policies in the Middle East.
"Hear that, Bill Clinton? We are all supporters of Hamas
. . . I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah." Both
Hezbollah and Hamas are on the State Department's official list of terrorist
McKinney received another $1000 from Aly Abuzaakouk,
who listed his employer as the American Muslim Council, and $500 from Nihad
Hammad, who lists the Council on Arab Islamic Relations (CAIR) as his workplace.
The data was compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics
Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's communications director would
not condemn Osama bin Laden's involvement in the Sept. 11 terrorist assault
in an interview with Salon shortly following the attacks.
Other CAIR officials and board members have blamed Israeli
and Egyptian intelligence officials for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Federal prosecutor Mary Jo White said in a November 2001interview with
the New Republic that one former CAIR board member was a "possible conspirator"
in the 1993 bombing.
Phil Kent, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation
(SLF), says McKinney is "completely undermining" the U.S. war against terrorism.
"I think it's incumbent upon all of us to demand to know
her ties with people like Alamoudi," Kent said.
"If she had any shred of integrity, which I don't think
she has, she'd repudiate these people," he added.
On April 12, Kent wrote Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo), chairman
of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and Rep. Howard
Berman (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, requesting formal
sanctions against McKinney for her comments during an interview with a
Berkeley, Calif. radio station.
"We believe that her statements warrant an investigation
by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, specifically,
that her statements appear to violate Rule 43 of the Code of Official Conduct,
Rules of the House of Representatives, Adopted by 105th Congress, namely,
'a member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall conduct
himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the
House of Representatives,'" Kent wrote on behalf of SLF.
During the interview, McKinney called for an investigation
into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance
notice of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "We know there were numerous
warnings of the events to come on
September 11th," McKinney claimed. "What did this administration
know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else
knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were
needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?
"Persons close to this administration are poised to make
huge profits off America's new war," she charged.
After being confronted by the media, McKinney issued
a statement "clarifying" her remarks.
"I am not aware of any evidence showing that President
Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the
attacks of 9-11," she said. "A complete investigation might reveal that
to be the case."
SLF called McKinney's comments "shameful ... unethical
"For perceived political gain, McKinney has dishonored
the U.S. House and her constituents by alleging high treason, and has undermined
the sense of the U.S. House in its clearly stated efforts to support and
defend the actions of this government in its prosecution of the war on
terrorism," Kent wrote.
In addition to any action the House might take against
her, McKinney is currently under investigation for at least six counts
of alleged election law violations stemming from her purported activities
in a voting precinct in DeKalb County, Georgia on election day 2000.
An administrative law judge will hear charges that McKinney
"invaded" a polling place during polling hours, harassed and intimated
poll watchers, and directly solicited votes while there.
The Georgia State Board of Elections has voted unanimously
twice to recommend action by the state on all six counts.
Kent says he doubts McKinney will acknowledge any wrongdoing
in accepting donations from supporters of terrorist organizations.
"I'm wondering if she's going to give the money back,"
he asked rhetorically. "But I know she won't."
McKinney's office did not respond to multiple requests
for interviews about the allegations in this story.
(c) 2002 CNSNews
(Reproduced here for information purposes
only under Fair Use provisions.)
NEWSMAX - Tuesday, April 16, 2002 http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/4/16/91753
Rep. Ford to 'Inquire' About Charge Bush Had 9-11 Heads-up
During a Tuesday morning radio interview, Rep. Harold
Ford, D-Tenn., declined to dismiss allegations by his colleague, Georgia
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, that President Bush may have had advance
warning about the 9-11 attacks, saying he might inquire about details of
the charge when he meets with her later this week.
Ford praised McKinney as "another independent voice in
the Congress," but told nationally syndicated radio host Don Imus, "What
might have motivated her to make that comment, I don't know."
The Tennessee Democrat continued:
"I hope that [the 9-11 accusation] is not true.
I would imagine that's not true. I don't even want to get - to suggest
that this White House had advanced knowledge and might have allowed it
to occur. So I have no reason to believe that any of that is true."
But then Ford added, "I hope to see her this week and
maybe even inquire about it."
Imus said he thought McKinney's comments about 9-11,
coupled with her charge that former Vice President Al Gore discriminated
against blacks, "bordered on being insane."
Disagreeing, the Tennessee Democrat responded, "I don't
think that's true at all."
In a March 25 California radio interview, McKinney raised
questions about a possible Bush heads-up on the 9-11 attacks.
"What did this administration know, and when did it know
it about the events of September 11?" she wondered aloud. "Who else
knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were
needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?"
McKinney said the ensuing U.S. military response benefited
firms with ties to the Bush family.
(c) 2002 NEWSMAX
(Reproduced here for information purposes
only under Fair Use provisions.)
NEWSMAX Wednesday April 17, 2002; 3:38
Poll Shocker: Nearly Half Support McKinney's 9/11 Conspiracy
Pundits and politicians alike have slammed Rep. Cynthia
McKinney (D-Ga.) for requesting an investigation into whether President
George Bush was tipped off ahead of time that the 9/11 terrorist attacks
But an online poll taken Wednesday by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
showed an astonishingly high level of support for the Georgia Democrat's
conspiracy theory - with nearly half of those responding to the unscientific
survey saying the White House had a heads-up on the attacks.
"Are you satisfied the Bush administration had no advanced
warning of the Sept. 11 attacks?" asked www.ajc.com.
According to the most recent results available, a full
46 percent of those responding agreed with the statement, "No, I think
officials knew it was coming."
Another two percent were receptive to McKinney's call
for a probe, agreeing with the statement, "I'm not sure. Congress should
A slim majority - 52 percent - said they were fully satisfied
that Bush officials had no advanced warning.
Though over 23,000 Atlanta Journal-Consitution readers
had responded by midafternoon, the poll has been mysteriously withdrawn
from the paper's web site. But the web site FreeRepublic.com tracked results
throughout the morning, with posters there encouraging visitors to vote
(c) 2002 NEWSMAX
(Reproduced here for information purposes
only under Fair Use provisions.)
Orlando Sentinel, Apr 17, 2002
Idiotic, absurd comments about 9-11
By Kathleen Parker
Every time I hear of another Palestinian "suicide bomber,"
I think: Darwin Awards. You know, the evolutionary awards bestowed each
year on those who purify the gene pool by removing themselves from it.
Darwin winners are, in the words of awards manager Wendy Northcutt, "too
stupid to live."
Likewise, every time I hear Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga.,
speak, I think: There ought to be an award. We could call it The McKinney
Award -- for people "too stupid to serve in public office."
For McKinney is hands-down winner for stupidest thing
ever said while in public office for her recent assertion that President
George W. Bush knew about the 9-11 attacks in advance and did nothing to
prevent them. Why? So that all his cronies could get rich on the subsequent
military buildup. (Audience, all together now: Ah-haaaa!!!)
"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to
come on September 11th," said McKinney during a recent interview with a
Berkeley, Calif., radio station. "What did this administration know and
when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew,
and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly
murdered? What do they have to hide?"
Not only is McKinney's comment idiotic, absurd and --
under other circumstances, hilarious, if you like slapstick -- it's dangerous.
Would that we could ignore such ignoramuses, but we can't because "they"
won't. "They" being terrorists, Islamic extremists, or others on the growing
list of crazy people who can't get to those 72 virgins supposedly waiting
for them in heaven fast enough. (I'm still confused about what compels
young women to blow themselves up. Maybe they promise the ladies an eternity
free of Arafat's decaying visage. One could be tempted.)
You have to wonder, is McKinney really that, um, misguided?
Since making her radio comments, McKinney has backtracked
a few steps. "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush
or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks
of 9-11," she said. "A complete investigation might reveal that to be the
"Might" is a mighty big word when you're accusing the
president of the United States of being a mass murderer and of otherwise
helping kindle World War III. A complete investigation also might prove
that McKinney has been dropping acid and living with cross-dressing dental
hygienists under the Brooklyn Bridge (not that there's anything wrong with
that), but then again, it might not.
McKinney's conspiracy theory apparently evolved from
her sense that (follow closely) because former President George H.W. Bush,
father of the current president, is an adviser to a Washington-based investment
firm, the Carlyle Group -- and because Carlyle Group investors have been
enriched by the war on terrorism owing to their partial ownership of a
military contractor -- Bingo! Dubya obviously permitted suicidal Islamic
fanatics to bring down the World Trade Center towers and part of the Pentagon.
By McKinney's theory, Bush would have to have been disappointed
that hijacked Flight 93 went down in a Pennsylvania field instead of hitting
its presumed target, the White House. Hey, and Bush was in Florida that
In reporting McKinney's insatiable appetite for her own
boots, The Washington Post noted that McKinney has often "given voice to
radical critiques of U.S. policy, especially in the Middle East." Given
voice? Radical critiques? Let's call a farm implement a farm implement
and translate that for the nice folks back home: "McKinney has made yet
another over-the-top publicity grab, not yet grasping that most Americans
consider her an imbecile."
Of course, news reporters have to be objective and respectful,
even toward loonies like McKinney, which is why God created columnists.
Here's the real deal: McKinney is a dangerous fool whose voice needs to
be stifled. Not forcefully, of course. But couldn't we get this woman a
job at Wal-Mart, greeting the public she so desperately courts? Wishfully
thinking, couldn't we just impeach her?
I realize you can't impeach a public official for dragging
down the national I.Q., but you can impeach for treason. Once McKinney's
hysterical rant is translated into Arabic for a vulnerable, gullible and
homicidal public, she's on their team, not ours. As Sen. Zell Miller, another
Georgia Democrat, has noted, her statement is "very dangerous and irresponsible."
At the very least, oh, lovely, smart people of Georgia,
vote this bad actress out of business. Do it for your country. Do it soon.
Kathleen Parker can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2002, Orlando Sentinel
(Reproduced here for information purposes
only under Fair Use provisions.)
ONLINE JOURNAL - April 24, 2002
In defense of Cynthia McKinney
By Carol Schiffler, Online Journal
Dealing with Ann Coulter's post-September 11 blathering
was bad enough. But we could forgive Ann—just the teensiest bit—because
she had just lost her best friend, Barbara Olson, and besides, even
on a good day, Ann Coulter is clearly insane.
But now it appears that the Bush administration's Propaganda
Dominatrix has some competition in Kathleen Parker, a woman who has all
the feral charm of a wolverine in heat and, apparently, all the reasoning
ability of a clam. I am referring, of course, to her recent attacks on
one of the few responsible adults in Congress, Cynthia McKinney.
Fortunately for us, Ms. Parker's arguments are completely
devoid of substance, thereby offering us ample opportunity to just shoot
the living hell out of them.
The first half of her latest column, "McKinney's Minions
March to a Different Drummer Indeed," is entirely devoted to hurling personal
epithets and therefore can be dismissed in its entirety. The second
half, however, contains her great "Aha!" moment, her stunning revelation,
the payoff for grueling seconds of investigative journalism. For it is
here we discover that Cynthia McKinney—gasp!—received a campaign contribution
from Abdurahman Alamoudi, "founder and former executive director of the
American Muslim Council," and a staunch axis-of-evil kind of guy if there
ever was one.
It is a good thing for Ms. Parker that her fans are not
the sharpest knives in the drawer. If they were, perhaps they might discover
that this same group of swarthy characters endorsed—gasp!—George
W. Bush for president. Yes, it is true. The Hamas-and-Hezbollah-for-lunch-bunch
were some of Dubya's biggest fans. At least they were before September
11. (As an interesting, and sadly ironic, aside, the primary reason
the American Muslim Council supported Bush was because he "challenged the
use of 'secret' evidence at the second presidential debate.")
Ms. Parker, I am sure, would be quick to point out that
George the Lesser returned Alamoudi's campaign contribution, (and, yes,
he received one), and good for him because it would have looked really
bad if he kept his after Hillary returned hers, (first, by the way). But
. . . BUT . . . you have to wonder why, three days after September 11,
the Global Village Idiot trotted out none other than Abdurahman Alamoudi
at the National Cathedral prayer service for the victims of the attack.
Surely, of the estimated 6 million American Muslims, he could have found
one single Islamic leader that would have been, shall we say, in
And then there is the matter of long-time Bush supporter,
Grover Norquist. According to the October 4 issue of the Boston Phoenix,
"Norquist's lobbying firm, Janus-Merritt Strategies LLC, was officially
registered as a lobbyist for the Islamic Institute as well as for Abdurahman
Alamoudi . . . Public records show that Alamoudi has done more than $20,000
worth of business with Norquist's firm . . ." Which, by Parker's own twisted
logic, makes fellow conservative, Grover Norquist, about 20 times the terrorist-lover
that Ms. McKinney supposedly is. And I have yet to hear that John Ashcroft
has put Janus-Merritt Strategies LLC on the terrorist watch list.
Astute readers have already made the point that all Cynthia
McKinney did was call for a thorough investigation of September 11—something
the Bush administration has been loathe to do. The fact is, that
upon setting up a committee for the explicit purpose of investigating the
tragedy, the very first thing Bush and company did was to clip the wings
of the investigators. Their directive, in the end, was not to find
out what went wrong, but instead, to merely make recommendations for preventing
future incidents. Now I ask you—what earthly sense does that make? In essence,
Bush was telling the committee to make suggestions on how to fix something
when the cause of that broken "something" was not yet determined. This
is sensational public relations, but thank goodness George decided to become
a politician and not a brain surgeon. ("I don't know what's causing
your headache, Mrs. Dettweiler, but let's just operate on your prefrontal
lobe and see if that does the trick.")
George Bush, for all his posturing and Rambo-speak, has
spent about as much time impeding a thorough investigation as he has vacationing
and napping—which is to say, quite a bit—and rightfully, this has
led many, many people to wonder just what the heck he is up to. This is
a logical question, not a "delusional" one, and Ms. McKinney is to be commended
for having the courage to ask it.
As for Ms. Parker, gutlessly spewing the GOP party line,
I would like to point out that not liking the politics of someone who is
asking uncomfortable questions does not invalidate the argument.
Combining a facetious line of questioning with sledgehammer innuendo, Kathy
Dearest is trying to have it both ways. First she suggests that the question,
"Who profits?" is irrelevant. Then she attempts to assign it relevancy,
but only as it pertains to Ms. McKinney.
For argument's sake, let's allow that it fair for Ms.
Parker to question Cynthia McKinney about that campaign contribution. Would
she then perhaps admit that George Bush has a bit of explaining to
do too? Not likely. She has already consigned McKinney, the sorceress,
and her evil "minions" to the bottom of the looney bin for even thinking
such a thing. (Please note that neither Parker, nor her GOP brethren,
had any problem asking the "Who profits?" question when it came to Bill
Clinton. In pundit-world, hypocrisy trumps intellectual honesty every time.)
Ms. Parker did get one thing right, though. Those of
us demanding honest answers to direct questions have been dwelling in the
basement for a long, long time—but it has not been a voluntary confinement.
We have been imprisoned there by a mendacious and duplicitous government;
a government that seems to believe that all it needs to do to keep us happy
is to throw down a fresh load of cow manure from time to time.
Well the cellar doors are rattling now, Ms. Parker, and
when there are enough of us who refuse to sit in the dark and contentedly
much our cow chips like good boys and girls, there will be—how did Babs
put it?—"Hell to pay."
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do
not necessarily reflect those of Online Journal.
(c) 2002 Carol Schiffler
(Reproduced here for information purposes
only under Fair Use provisions.)
5. A Letter to McKinney
Hon. Cynthia McKinney
124 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
By fax: +1 202 226-0691
Thursday, April 23, 2002
Dear Congresswoman McKinney,
in a dark and dangerous time, you are the first politician
to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes. Courage!
I am not one of your constituents, but I am a native
of New York City. After September 11th, it was said that everyone became
a New Yorker. I believe that you, Rep. McKinney, have rightfully earned
that designation. With your demand for a real investigation of the attacks,
you speak for the people of my state more ably than our own elected representatives
have so far done.
I do not envy you. You and other lawmakers can recall
vividly the terror of being forced to vacate the Capitol on Sept. 11th.
And of course you remember a second flight, during the anthrax attacks.
The anthrax was one of the worst physical threats to our legislature in
more than a century. In October and November 2001, anthrax seemed to replace
the Sept. 11th attacks as the center of public attention.
During that time, a panicked Congress passed USA PATRIOT,
a misnamed, unconstitutional act, designed to confer dictatorial powers
on the executive. Congress failed to engage in the wide-ranging public
debate that a measure of such consequence warranted. Passage of the Act
was barely noted in the media, which was in alarm over its own share of
Most of the FBI resources devoted to investigating Sept.
11th were redirected to the many anthrax scares, and to tracking other
potential threats. Meanwhile, the top two FBI officers in charge of
the Sept. 11th team quietly resigned. Other FBI officers have since charged
that their Sept. 11th inquiries were hindered from above. Some of them
are suing the government, in the hope they will be allowed to release their
Later reports said the anthrax used in the attacks originated
with a contractor of the CIA. This suggests the weaponized pathogen was
developed by a U.S. government agency, in violation of the international
biowarfare convention. After that, the anthrax investigation was said to
In public, the Sept. 11th probe is now treated as though
it were closed long ago. Although many questions remain unanswered, the
crimes and tragedies of that day have been seized as a pretext to attack
democratic rights. Our country has declared a global war on any enemy that
our (unelected) President might designate. The executive activated a "shadow
government," in which the legislature does not participate.
All things are seen through the prism of Sept. 11th.
Yet never have we been told the full story of that day. If the attacks
succeeded because of intelligence and defense failures, then why are the
officials responsible for such colossal negligence still in charge of their
In the weeks before Sept. 11th, according to reputable
reports, the intelligence services of Germany, Russia, Israel, France and
Egypt warned the United States of an imminent attack. Some of these warnings
specified that suicide pilots were training to hijack civilian planes and
crash them into American landmarks, an idea that dates back at least to
1995 and the thwarted "Project Bojinka." A mountain of additional, serious
evidence suggests people in our government had prior knowledge of the attacks.
You need not apologize for pointing at the mountain.
The executive must address the evidence. The executive must stop hiding
behind excuses of national security, or be forced to disclose the whole
truth. Then we can judge if all of its members acted in good faith. Then
we will know who was ignorant, who was criminally negligent, and who, if
anyone, was complicit.
The anthrax attacks call for equal scrutiny. Were they
the work of a former government scientist turned rogue? Could they have
been a psychological operation timed to terrorize the Congress, the media,
and the Sept. 11th investigators into submission? Is that really so preposterous?
Let us recall COINTELPRO, MK/ULTRA, and the CIA's longstanding and outrageous
involvement in the illegal narcotics trade. Historians have documented
many other political crimes sponsored by unelected and unaccountable agents
of the executive.
Regardless of whether the perpetrator was one person
or a team, the anthrax attacks almost surely came from within. Why does
no one in Congress speak out in anger? You were the targets! More accurately,
the leaders of the opposition were targeted, but saying so apparently is
not considered polite.
Instead of fighting in their own defense, some of your
colleagues now join in the stampede to attack you. Your critics do not
respond to your statements, they engage in name-calling and global rejections.
They cry, "Impossible! Treasonous! Mad!" This signals that they lack a
credible answer to your argument. Some perhaps are hypocrites or liars;
many run with the herd, fearful and confused. Forgive them. One day, I
pray soon, the many will admit you are right, you are brave, you are true.
The corporate media shall howl. Please don't hold back
because of them. It won't matter what you say; they will howl anyway. Your
voters are smart enough to read between the lines. Many people know that
straight talk can be found on the Internet. Remind them. Encourage them
to print what's available and distribute it among those who are not online.
Put the links to credible 9/11 skeptic sources on your site.
If America is about freedom and justice, then you are
the patriot. Don't be blackmailed by those who lack your bravery, and don't
let the bastards wear you down. When they demand you fall silent, then
is the time to shout out, twice as loud.
I will be forwarding this letter to a number of senators
and representatives, in the hope that they will at least consider seriously
your call for an investigation. Otherwise, I ask how I can help you in
this cause, as an individual citizen and a patriot. Sadly, I am an expatriate.
Being so far away, I shall do my best to support you on the Internet. How
else can I help? Do let me know how to contribute my modest part to your
Here in Germany, where I live and work as an author and
translator, many people shared in the pain Americans felt after the attacks.
Did you know that 200,000 Germans gathered around the Brandenburg Gate
in Berlin on Sept. 14th to demonstrate their solidarity with the people
of the United States? I was there, and I was moved to tears. Did you know
that on Sept. 13th, millions of people across Germany observed a moment
of silence for the victims of New York, Washington and Pennsylvania? A
further tribute was observed on the 14th, for three minutes, across all
Contrary to cliché, Europeans are not anti-American.
Yet many people I speak with here agree with my sense that we have not
heard enough genuine information about the events of Sept. 11th to justify
the waging of an open-ended global war. Saying so is not "anti-American."
It is merely logical.
Many European states have enlisted in the "New War,"
which threatens to spread around half the planet. Now they look fearfully
on an administration that refuses to acknowledge limits on legitimate military
force, even on the use of nuclear weapons; that derives from Sept. 11th
a permanent causus belli to attack any nation without warning, from Iraq
to Colombia; that revives the U.S. foreign policy history of subverting
democratic governments with its backing of an attempted coup in Venezuela.
Congresswoman McKinney, I urge you to work in uniting
all people who are skeptical about the official story. As skeptics, we
must put aside our differences and demand full disclosure about the events
of September 11th. There is no need for us to speculate about "what really
happened." Democracy is impossible when the causes of key events are shrouded
in secrecy. The truth is out there. Time is overdue for us to learn it.
Cover Letter to Hillary Clinton
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton
476 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
By Fax: (202) 228-0282 / 4 pages
Thursday, April 23, 2002
Dear Senator Rodham Clinton,
no doubt you are aware that Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
of Georgia recently called for an open and independent investigation of
the events of September 11th, and of the possibility that U.S. government
officials may have had prior knowledge of the attacks.
As a native of New York City and as a rational human
being horrified by these barbaric crimes and their aftermath, I have written
to Rep. McKinney in support of her proposal.
As one of your voters and supporters in the last election,*
I forward that letter to you, and I ask that you give serious consideration
to defending Rep. McKinney, who has been attacked unfairly by a number
of your colleagues.
A senator from New York is privy to more information
than has been made available to the citizenry. Yet you can be assured you
that many citizens are aware of inconsistencies and omissions in the official
story — and duly alarmed, given the gravity of the attacks. You would do
well to address their concerns.
Secrecy leads many people to speculate in frustration.
Please help clear the air by adopting a more inquisitive policy with regard
to the Sept. 11th events, and the subsequent anthrax attacks on the Congress.
How can the people exercise their sovereignty when they
are kept in the dark about the context and causes of watershed events?
Secrecy is the poison of democracy. I urge you to stand up for democracy,
for openness, for the whole truth.
* See personal NOTE at bottom.
And then, a month after the circus
started, the White House made its first, tepid admission of prior knowledge...
6. Round One to McKinney: Statement
of May 16, 2002
Statement of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
Several weeks ago, I called for a congressional investigation
into what warnings the Bush Administration received before the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. I was derided by the White House, right
wing talk radio, and spokespersons for the military-industrial complex
as a conspiracy theorist. Even my patriotism was questioned because I dared
to suggest that Congress should conduct a full and complete investigation
into the most disastrous intelligence failure in American history. Georgia
Senator Zell Miller even went so far as to characterize my call for hearings
as "dangerous, loony and irresponsible."
Today's revelations that the administration, and President
Bush, were given months of notice that a terrorist attack was a distinct
possibility points out the critical need for a full and complete congressional
It now becomes clear why the Bush Administration has
been vigorously opposing congressional hearings. The Bush Administration
has been engaged in a conspiracy of silence. If committed and patriotic
people had not been pushing for disclosure today's revelations would have
been hidden by the White House.
Because I love my country, because I am a patriot, and
because the American people deserve the truth, I believe it would be dangerous,
loony and irresponsible not to hold full congressional hearings on any
warnings the Bush Administration had before the terrorist attacks of September
Ever since I came to Congress in 1992, there are those
who have been trying to silence my voice. I've been told to "sit down and
shut up" over and over again. Well, I won't sit down and I won't shut up
until the full and unvarnished truth is placed before the American people.
7. What Is She Doing in the Picture?
first weeks of the Afghanistan bombing were accompanied by heavily-advertised
food drops. After Sept. 11 the United States pressured Pakistan to cut
off the flow of food from aid agencies to Afghanistan, an action for which
the U.S. was criticized in some quarters abroad, especially in Europe.
The food drops were supposed to make up for that, but the rations represented
something like 1 percent of what had been previously supplied over land.
However, the nighttime pictures of transporters tossing food packets out
of open cargo bays were very good for TV, which at first broadcast more
of these than of the actual bombing. I was in Germany at the time, and
remember how the start of the war was presented by the German state and
private media as a "food and bomb offensive," in that order. An official
from an aid agency, who began to criticize the U.S. food drop as shameless
propaganda on live television during the first night of bombing, was cut
off within seconds. It was little surprise to learn that the food planes
were taking off from the Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. This confirmed
that the maneuver's primary function was to soothe the European conscience.
(At that point, with the 9/11 attacks still fresh in mind, starving Afghans
were not of much concern to the American majority.) In the following days,
it was revealed the food drops were conducted over territory held by the
Northern Alliance, not the Taliban, highlighting their irrelevance. On
top of that, the yellow ration packets looked very similar to yellow cluster
bomblets (banned by international treaty, but so what), of which many more
were being dropped from the air. Soon enough, the inevitable occurred and
several children were killed picking up unexploded bomblets that they thought
were unopened food. In the picture at the top of this page, McKinney is
exposing the hypocrisy of the food drops while speaking to a congressional
* Personal note: Yes, I admit I voted for Rodham
Clinton on the Working Families party line, because of what she ostensibly
stands for rather than who she actually seems to be. One need not like
her, her husband's administration or her actions to see that few public
figures have been subjected to more disproportionate attacks and sheer
hatred from the least tolerant groups within our society. Disproportionate,
because if Rodham Clinton's usually Republican accusers applied the same
standards to the first Bush administration, its officials would be brought
up not on bribery or corruption charges but for capital war crimes and
crimes against humanity. I will probably one day regret voting for her
- that's what politics is all about. Crushing hope. ;-).
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This page contains copyrighted material the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, environmental,
and social justice issues, etc., in the belief this constitutes a 'fair
use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of
the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
[BACK TO MAIN] [SKEPTICS LINKS]