[BACK TO MAIN] [SKEPTICS LINKS][OPEN QUESTIONS]

Cynthia McKinney
Cynthia McKinney
The 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. 

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.

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. 

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: 

  • 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, 
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. 

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 3,000 people.  
"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 her statements."  
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 13, 2002 
www.house.gov/mckinney/ 

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 nation?  
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 must.  
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 investigation.  

.
.
 
4. A Selection of Press Reactions to McKinney  

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 the Bush 
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 Council. 
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 organizations. 
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 on its 
website www.opensecrets.org. 
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 and dangerous." 
"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 p.m. EDT  

Poll Shocker: Nearly Half Support McKinney's 9/11 Conspiracy Theory 

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 were coming. 
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 investigate." 
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 against McKinney... 
(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 case." 
"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 day. Hmmmmm. 
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 kparker@orlandosentinel.com 
Copyright © 2002, Orlando Sentinel 

(Reproduced here for information purposes only under Fair Use provisions.) 
.
.
ONLINE JOURNAL - April 24, 2002 
www.onlinejournal.com/ 

In defense of Cynthia McKinney 

By Carol Schiffler, Online Journal Contributing Writer  

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 better taste. 
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 anthrax mailings.  
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 information.  
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 have stalled.  
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 agencies?  
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 campaign fund.  
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 Europe.  
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.  

Godspeed,  
[Jack Riddler]  

.
.
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. 

Sincerely,  
[Jack Riddler] 

* 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   
Terrorist Warnings   

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 investigation.  
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 11, 2001.  
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? 
 Bomb Or Food?The 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 panel. 


* 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 copyright owner. 

.
[BACK TO MAIN] [SKEPTICS LINKS] [OPEN QUESTIONS]
.