The flooding and flattening of New Orleans and its exposure of this government”s abject failure in preparedness are a shock to the collective psyche of Americans. The human cost of this breakdown in response reveals the stark reality of life for millions in the richest country in the world. News coverage on the BBC truly showed how appalling the human conditions are in New Orleans, presenting us as an embarrassment to the world. Who would have ever thought that conditions normally seen in Sudan or Calcutta would surface here? Even the conservative news networks are exclaiming how inexplicable it is that so much that so much
misery could have been avoided through proper attention and planning. Although
the Army Corp of Engineers had begged for the funding to complete the levees
that would protect New Orleans in the event of a serious hurricane, it was
denied. Now we learn that even FEMA was subjected to budget cut backs under the
new Homeland Security regime. So where is the $40 billion that was appropriated
to secure our country in the event of a terrorist attack? How does that juicy
tax cut during time of war that Dick Cheney thought his wealthy friends were
entitled to look now?
Here we are fighting wars for oil in the mideast, proposing legislation that
would allow oil drilling in the delicate eco-system of Anwar, however,
protecting the infrastructure of the Gulf states where a high percentage of our
gasoline gets refined and processed somehow wasn’t… Continue reading
Millions of people are at various levels of discovery that the official explanation of 9/11 is a lie. They are at some point in the process of realizing that some clandestine element at the highest levels of our government and military orchestrated a self-inflicted terrorist act to enflame U.S citizens into supporting an aggressive imperial agenda abroad, and a homeland security/police state regime at home as we relinquish our cherished civil liberties.
After the immediate question of Why? comes up in our minds, the next logical question is ? what can I do about it? Part of the big lie we?re in, to which so many have succumbed, is that we can?t do much of anything. There?s just no hope for us, the corruption is too vast and the powers that be are too powerful. If you fall into this description, has it ever occurred to you that this is what our new world order orchestrators want us to believe? While they are so small in number and have us believing we are powerless and without hope for reclaiming our republic, they?ve won because we?ve allowed them to control this debilitating illusion to which we?ve acquiesced.
Are you ready to dispel this illusion of powerlessness? Think about this. There are just four things you must do. Inform yourself, inform others, participate in the democratic process by informing your elected officials what you want, and participate in the group process of enabling progress through organizational actions. Now let?s add some detail.… Continue reading
By Greg Guma
Burlington– For more than four years, the public has repeatedly been urged to ignore “outrageous” conspiracies theories about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that set in motion the so-called “war on terrorism.” However, the official explanation that has been provided — and widely embraced — also requires the acceptance of a theory, one involving a massive intelligence failure, 19 Muslim hijackers under the sway of Osama bin Laden, and the inability of the world’s most advanced Air Force to intercept four commercial airplanes.
“A good theory explains most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted,” notes David Ray Griffin, who has been examining the available evidence for the past three years and has so far published two books on the subject. This month, Griffin summarized his findings for more than 1,000 people in four well-attended Vermont talks. The bottom line, he informed a packed house in Burlington on Oct. 12, is that “every aspect of the official story is problematic,” contradicting the available evidence and defying even the laws of physics.
You may well ask, how can this be true? And, if so, why haven’t we heard more about it? The answer to the second question is easy: Mainstream media outlets have consistently declined to examine the highly technical and exhaustively documented case Griffin has developed. That may also sound like a conspiracy theory, but the almost total news blackout of Griffin’s Vermont talks suggests that it’s an unfortunate fact.
Explaining why the… Continue reading
Adapted from: georgewashington.blogspot.
Dear 9/11 Truth Activists,
The New York Times is under fire for letting Judith Miller work as a member of the White House Iraq Group to spread disinformation, and then covering up Miller’s role and refusing to fire her. It has become obvious to fair-minded observers that the Times has been part of the Iraq disinformation campaign.
NOW is the time to contact the Times, to urge i’s management to “step up to the plate” on 9/11 as part of its need to “repair its reputation” after the Miller scandal.
Please copy the letter below or write your own (please remain respectful) and fax it to the Times, so that the Libby Indictment does not bury Dr. Griffin’s challenge in people’s minds. Please also email the letter to firstname.lastname@example.org.
* * *
Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., Publisher
Janet L. Robinson, CEO
Leonard P. Forman, CFO
Scott Heekin-Canedy, President
Bill Keller, Executive Editor
Jill Abramson, Managing Editor
John M. Geddes, Managing Editor
RW Apple, Chief Correspondent
Bernard Gwertzman, Editor (Times on Web)
Carl Lavin, News Editor
Gustave Niebuhr, Religion Reporter
Ray Bonner, Investigative Correspondent
Byron Calame, Public Editor
Laura Chang, Science Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959
FACSIMILE: (212) 556-7614
RE: Judith Miller and 9/11
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Times,
As the nation?s leading paper, the New York Times has the resources and talent to investigate stories of significance. On 10/21/05, Executive Editor Bill Keller stated that the Jayson… Continue reading
by Les Jamieson
Given the indictments handed down this week and continuing investigation on so many fronts, Les asks the question we must each answer for ourselves: “What is it going to take …?”
“We all must be aware that to fail to demand answers to the glaring questions and discrepancies is to accept and endorse the official explanation.”
What will YOU do this week?
After two years of the investigation into Plamegate, the latest political upheaval has hit the proverbial fan. The ruthless nature of the Bush Administration’s dealings with Joe Wilson for revealing one of numerous monumental lies it’s told since the coup d’etat in 2000 can now be clearly seen by all. The retaliation was to expose Wilson’s wife’s status as a CIA agent, which is to commit treason. This comes from an Administration that promised to restore civility to Washington, DC.
However, the larger context must be considered: This Administration fabricated its rationale for invading Iraq. Every reason was a lie. To create the specter of a “mushroom cloud” threatening our very existence, the president’s men ignored the CIA’s discrediting of the forgery, based on a lie that Saddam Hussein was seeking ‘yellow cake’ uranium from Niger. Yet it still wound up in the State of the Union speech as the now infamous ‘sixteen words.’
After Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed revealing that lie, the Administration conducted a hit operation on his wife, Valerie Plame, by revealing her identity as a CIA agent. This crime is… Continue reading
10/31/05 The US National Security Agency has kept secret a 2001 finding by its own historian that its officers deliberately distorted critical intelligence during the Tonkin Gulf episode that helped precipitate the Vietnam War.
The historian’s conclusion was the first serious accusation that the agency’s intercepts were falsified to support the belief North Vietnamese ships attacked US destroyers on August 4, 1964, two days after a previous clash.
Most historians have concluded in recent years there was no second attack, but they have assumed the agency’s intercepts were unintentionally misread, not purposely altered. The research by Robert Hanyok, the agency’s historian, was detailed four years ago in an in-house article that remains secret, in part because agency officials feared its release might prompt uncomfortable comparisons with the flawed intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, according to an intelligence official.
Matthew Aid, an independent historian who has discussed Mr Hanyok’s Tonkin Gulf research with agency and CIA officials, said he had decided to speak publicly about the findings because he believed they should have been released long ago.
“This material is relevant to debates we as Americans are having about the war in Iraq and intelligence reform,” he said.
Mr. Hanyok believed the initial misinterpretation of North Vietnamese intercepts was probably an honest mistake. But after months of detective work in the agency’s archives, Mr. Hanyok concluded mid-level agency officials discovered the error almost immediately, but covered it up and doctored documents so that they appeared to provide evidence… Continue reading
Possible Motives Of The Bush Administration – By Dr. David Ray Griffin
The 9/11 Commission understood that its mandate, as we have seen, was to provide “the fullest possible account” of the “facts and circumstances” surrounding 9/11. Included in those facts and circumstances are ones that, according to some critics of the official account of 9/11, provide evidence that the Bush administration intentionally allowed the attacks of 9/11. Some critics have even suggested that the Bush administration actively helped the attacks succeed. In light of the fact that several books have been written propounding such views, including some in English, the Commission’s staff, given its “exacting investigative work,” would surely have discovered such books. Or if not, the staff would at least have known about a front-page story on this topic in the Wall Street Journal. Readers of this story learned not only that a poll showed that 20 percent of the German population believed the “U.S. government ordered the attacks itself” but also that similar views were held in some other European countries. 1 Also, as we saw in the Introduction, polls show that significant percentages of Americans and Canadians believe that the US Government deliberately allowed the attacks to happen, with some of those believing the Bush administration actually planned the attacks. Knowing that such information is available and such views are held, the Commission, we would assume, would have felt called upon to respond to these suspicions.
An adequate response would contain at least the following elements:… Continue reading
GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
Congress must impeach Bush and Cheney, say Greens, citing White House lawlessness, growing threat to U.S. democracy, and war crimes.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Citing a litany of alleged high crimes and misdemeanors, abuses of power, and violations of the U.S. Constitution, Green Party leaders urged Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney as soon as possible.
“The evidence that President Bush has abused his office and betrayed the trust of the American people is now so overwhelming that failure to undertake impeachment would make Congress even more complicit in this administration’s lawlessness,” said Nan Garrett, Georgia Green Party co-chair and spokesperson for the National Women’s Caucus. “Three more years of Bush and Cheney will do lasting damage to the rule of law and result in even more death and destruction under Bush’s reckless policies.”
“The Bush Administration blocked an independent probe into 9/11 while making fraudulent statements about the reasons for invading Iraq, and now admits that it spies on American citizens in disregard of legal limits. What more does Congress need before it says enough is enough?” Ms. Garrett added.
The Green Party of the United States called for Congress to commence impeachment of President Bush in July, 2003, after he ordered the invasion of Iraq. The resolution accused the President of numerous deceptions to justify the invasion, as… Continue reading
A hundred years ago it was called “dollar diplomacy.” After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into “dollar hegemony.” But after all these many years of great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end.
It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value.
First it was simply barter of goods. Then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction, and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions. Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day.
Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn’t long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin– always hoping their subjects wouldn’t discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.
This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and… Continue reading
A Half-Dozen Questions About 9/11 They Don’t Want You to Ask
The events of September 11, 2001 evoke painful memories, tinged with a powerful nostalgia for the way of life before it happened. The immediate tragedy caused a disorientation sufficient to distort the critical faculties in the direction of retrospectively predictable responses: bureaucratic adaptation, opportunism, profiteering, kitsch sentiment, and mindless sloganeering.
As 9/11, and the report of the commission charged to investigate it, fade into history like the Warren Commission that preceded it, the questions, gaps, and anomalies raised by the report have created an entire cottage industry of amateur speculation–as did the omissions and distortions of the Warren Report four decades ago. How could it not?
While initially received as definitive by a rapturous official press, the 9/11 Report has been overtaken by reality, not only because of unsatisfying content–like all “independent” government reports, it is fundamentally an apology and a coverup masquerading as an exposé–but because we now know more: more about the feckless invasion of Iraq, more about the occupation of Afghanistan and the purported hunt for Osama bin Laden, more about the post-9/11 stampede to repeal elements of the Bill of Rights, more about the rush to create the Department of Homeland Security, an agency to “prevent another 9/11,” which, in retrospect, is plainly about cronyism, contracts, and Congressional boodle.
Many of the amateur sleuths of the 9/11 mystery have based their investigations on microscopic forensics regarding the publicly released video footage, or speculations into the physics of impacting aircraft or collapsing buildings.…
By Jon Gold
Do you remember when Cindy Sheehan was dragged out of the State of The Union Address? Supposedly, it was because of a t-shirt that listed the amount of dead soldiers in Bush’s “War On Terror”. The real reason probably had to do with the fact that Cindy Sheehan isn’t one of President Bush’s favorite people. Of course, to make it not seem as bad as it was, they also asked Rep. Bill Young’s wife to leave for having a Pro-Bush shirt on that said, “Support The Troops Defending Our Freedom.”
Sad, don’t you think? In a country that promotes “Freedom Of Speech”, to see a woman who lost her son in the Iraq War, being dragged out of the Capitol of all places. Because of a t-shirt no less. It’s enough to make you cry.
The press was more than happy to cover Sheehan’s experience. What they neglected to tell you, however, was that a man the 9/11 families tried to sue for involvement in the 9/11 attacks, also attended the State Of The Union Address. Al-Faisal.
Al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi Intelligence (who stepped down 10 days before the attacks), was named in a $1 Trillion lawsuit brought forth by 600 family members. They accused him of funding bin Laden’s network. The lawsuit was dismissed because a judge decided the U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
I would have rather seen him dragged out the capitol instead of Cindy Sheehan, wouldn’t you?
That… Continue reading
In America of the 1980s and ’90s, it was extremists on the far-right fringes who believed the country was moving toward “black helicopter” authoritarian rule in Washington, and often blamed big-government liberal Democrats. Now, as a result of just four-plus years of the Bush administration (supposedly anti-big government, conservative Republicans), huge segments of American society, including many in the mainstream middle, wonder what has happened to our democratic republic, our civil liberties, our time-honored system of government.
The Enabling Mantra of 9/11
The Busheviks defend the administration’s harsh, sweeping actions as necessary in a “time of war.” The U.S. was attacked by forces representing fanatical Islam, this reasoning goes, and the old rules and systems simply don’t apply anymore — they are old-fashioned, “quaint.” Instead, we are expected to inculcate the “everything-changed-on-9/11″ mantra, the effect of which is to excuse and justify all. Defense of the fatherland comes first and foremost, trumping all other considerations, including the Constitution, checks-and-balances in the three branches of government, separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, international law, etc. etc. (The Busheviks refuse to believe that one can be muscular in going after terrorists and do so within the law and with proper respect for the Bill of Rights and Constitutional protections of due process.)
Not only do the Busheviks pay no attention to modern history, but they seem to have forgotten how our very nation came into existence and why: Our Founding Fathers rebelled against a despotic British monarch, a George who ran roughshod… Continue reading
By Paul Craig Roberts
03/15/06 “ICH’ — – If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?
Yes, you would.
Bush’s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.
First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.
Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.
Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shia majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.
Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.
Fifth, Bush’s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?
That’s what Bush is… Continue reading
W. David Kubiak thought the 9/11 attacks would be a “wake up call.”
“Once you could accept 9/11, you could say, ‘I’ve really got to look at the world again with new eyes,’” he said during a recent phone interview with The Wire .
Kubiak is a member of the steering committee of 911truth.org , a group formed “to investigate, unearth, and widely publicize the full truth surrounding September 11th, 2001.”
It’s been three years since the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq, and while supporters and detractors of the war continue to debate the causes of and solutions to that conflict, one fact is almost indisputable: the long, bloody journey in Iraq began on Sept. 11, 2001.
I say almost indisputable because, in the world of the 9/11 truth movement, everything from photographic evidence to offhand statements and individual words are up for debate. The term “conspiracy theory” calls to mind images of a spider’s web. That’s an accurate description for the complex and intricately constructed narratives found in any number of conspiracy theories, but the actual building of conspiracy theories, the steady accumulation of new evidence, new proof, new witnesses, is more like sedimentary rock. A pebble here, a pebble there and, after a number of years, a looming monument to suspicion and paranoia.
But, as they say, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. We’ve got plenty of reason to be suspicious. Most recently, President George W. Bush has been stumping… Continue reading
by David Ray Griffin
This essay was originally delivered as a lecture at Trinity Episcopal Church of Santa Barbara, Saturday, March 25, 2006.
In this essay, I offer a Christian critique of the American empire in light of 9/11, and of 9/11 in light of the American empire. Such a critique, of course, presupposes a discussion of 9/11 itself, especially the question of who was responsible for the attacks. The official theory is that the attacks were planned and carried out entirely by Arab Muslims. The main alternative theory is that 9/11 was a “false flag” operation, orchestrated by forces within the US government who made it appear to be the work of Arab Muslims. …
I will argue that the attacks of 9/11 were false flag attacks, orchestrated to marshal support for a so-called war on terror against Muslim and Arab states as the next stage in creating a global Pax Americana, an all-inclusive empire. I will conclude this essay with its main question: How should Christians in America respond to the realization that we are living in an empire similar to the Roman empire at the time of Jesus, which put him to death for resistance against it.
by David Ray Griffin
April 28, 2006
Note: This essay was originally delivered as a lecture at Trinity Episcopal Church of Santa Barbara,… Continue reading
For Immediate Release
May 22, 2006
Mike Berger, email@example.com
NEW ZOGBY POLL REVEALS OVER 70 MILLION VOTING AGE AMERICANS DISTRUST OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY AND SUPPORT NEW INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE US GOVERNMENT ROLE IN THE ATTACKS.*
- 911Truth.org urges 2006 reform candidates to recognize a powerful new constituency.
(Utica, NY) – Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.
The poll is the first scientific survey of Americans’ belief in a 9/11 cover up or the need to investigate possible US government complicity, and was commissioned to inform deliberations at the June 2-4 “9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future” conference in Chicago. Poll results indicate 42% believe there has indeed been a cover up (with 10% unsure) and 45% think “Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success” (with 8% unsure). The poll of American residents was conducted from Friday, May 12 through Tuesday, May 16, 2006. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/- 2.9. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International.
According to Janice Matthews, executive director of 911truth.org, “To those who have followed the mounting evidence for US government involvement in 9/11, these… Continue reading
By Bob Herbert
New York Times
May 15, 2006
In the dark days of the Depression, Franklin Roosevelt counseled Americans to avoid fear. George W. Bush is his polar opposite. The public’s fear is this president’s most potent political asset. Perhaps his only asset.
Mr. Bush wants ordinary Americans to remain in a perpetual state of fear — so terrified, in fact, that they will not object to the steady erosion of their rights and liberties, and will not notice the many ways in which their fear is being manipulated to feed an unconscionable expansion of presidential power.
If voters can be kept frightened enough of terrorism, they might even overlook the monumental incompetence of one of the worst administrations the nation has ever known.
Four marines drowned Thursday when their 60-ton tank rolled off a bridge and sank in a canal about 50 miles west of Baghdad. Three American soldiers in Iraq were killed by roadside bombs the same day. But those tragic and wholly unnecessary deaths were not the big news. The big news was the latest leak of yet another presidential power grab: the administration’s collection of the telephone records of tens of millions of American citizens.
The Bush crowd, which gets together each morning to participate in a highly secret ritual of formalized ineptitude, is trying to get its creepy hands on all the telephone records of everybody in the entire country. It supposedly wants these records, which contain crucial documentation of calls for Chinese takeout in Terre Haute, Ind., and birthday greetings to Grandma in Talladega, Ala., to help in the search for Osama bin Laden.…Continue reading
By Mike Ferner
Over 500 people in the packed hall applauded eagerly when Dr. Bob Bowman stated he was an advocate of doctor-controlled, single-payer health care for all.
They cheered louder still when the congressional candidate from Florida’s 15th District pledged that his first piece of legislation submitted in the U.S. House of Representatives would be articles of impeachment.
But they simultaneously jumped to their feet and roared approval when he leaned over the podium and said he was running with a group of Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Independents and non politicians “.who are all united by one thing. We want to bring our troops home from George Bush’s quagmire in Iraq and expose the lies that allowed him to send them there, including 9/11.”
Experienced in stumping on the campaign trail, Bowman was more dynamic than many of the speakers at the Chicago conference dubbed, “9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future,” but they all adamantly referred to the events of September 11, 2001 as the excuse George Bush needed to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
At a news conference Friday that kicked off the weekend discussions, Mike Berger, media coordinator for 911truth.org, one of the sponsoring organizations, referred to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying, “The main justification for these wars are the lies put into the 911 report.” Citing bellicose statements made towards Iran by Bush administration officials, Berger added that “the course of history may hinge on getting these facts out.”
Barrie Zwicker, Canadian TV journalist and filmmaker, added that the U.S.…