911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news, posts in the blogs section are the responsibility of the poster, readers are encouraged to check the facts and form their own conclusions.
1022 Cortelyou Rd.
Brooklyn, NY 11218
Telephone: 718 940 2084
At Sander Hicks' VOX Pop bookstore/cafe this Saturday, impeccable BCCI researcher Lucy Komisar will be promoting the new book, "A Game as Old As Empire" in which she has a chapter;
Saturday 3/31 @ Vox Pop, 5-9 PM, FREE:
Dinner special for only $9! Your choice of Turkey/Bison/Veggie Burger with Beer or Wine, voxpopnet.net/food.html, voxpopnet.net/beerwine.html
5-7 PM: James Henry and Lucy Komisar present A Game As Old As Empire
John Perkins's controversial exposé, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, came out of nowhere in late 2004 to become an international word-of-mouth sensation. Now Perkins is joined by a dozen contributors-journalists, investigators, activists, and even other economic hit men in A Game As Old As Empire: The Secret World of Economic Hit Men and the Web of Global Corruption.
Matt Taibbi is at it again, and although he has apparently had his mouth washed out with soap, he's still madly trying to reconcile poll after poll after poll reflecting widespread distrust in the official story of 9/11 with his blind faith in the "Zelikow-Approved" 9/11 Commission Report.
His new piece is: THE LOW POST: Murrah Redux 9/11 Truth is a bald regurgitation of a silly tale we heard ten years ago.
Like Taibbi's earlier egregious, indefensible hit piece, he struggles with concepts that he cannot understand, and winds up with an amorphous stroll through a bunch of lazily stitched together anecdotes which suggest that he doesn't even really care about the issue, not even enough to make a half-hearted attempt at researching OKC.
An oldie but a goodie. Giuliani plays every tune he knows in this one.
The above clip is from the second of two large files of footage captured on VHS, on 9/11. The files have been digitized into .avi's, but retain their PAL video information.
The first file is 3 hours long, consisting of about 1.5 hours of BBC News 24 footage (with time stamp) then the person recording switched the channel to Britain's Channel 4 for about an hour, then back to just under an hour of BBC News 24 at 20.00 BST.
The second file is three solid hours of BBC News 24 from 20.27 BST to 23.26. (Those interested in 911veritas' research will want to FFWD to the 1:12:00 mark or 21.39 time stamp for corroboration of the intial early announcement of the demise of WTC7.)
Dave Emory: ...the current seated President, George W. Bush, is not at all separate from the BCCI milieu ... this isn't something that's "long ago and far away".
Lucy Komisar: No... BCCI has been very good to the current Bush's business interests... in 1979 and 80 it helped finance his oil company which was called Arbusto Energy. The money came through a man named Bath who was in business, and one might think he was moving the money of Mr. Bin Mahfouz. That money turned out to be very useful for George Bush, when Harken Energy, (which absorbed Arbusto), got in money trouble in 1987, it got $25 million in financing from the Union Bank of Switzerland, and as part of that deal, a seat on the board was given to a Harken shareholder Sheikh Abdullah Taha Baksh, whose chief banker was BCCI shareholder Bin Mahfouz ...
The money comes from CIA, it goes through BCCI, in accounts that nobody knows about, that nobody can follow, and then money from the big shareholders of BCCI comes back to George Bush.
Isn't that an interesting circle?
(JackRiddler posted a list of interesting questions over at DemocraticUnderground. Lurkers, answer them over at DU, okay? -r.)
Tue Mar-13-07 03:12 PM
(NOTE: No name calling. I want to open a serious discussion with those who are willing. I ask people who support inside job theories to comment on the OP if they wish but to avoid snark in this thread and wait on adding their own new questions for 48 hours.)
Isn't Cheney's continued linking of the Saddam regime to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 events the most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all? Did it not have more real-world impact than any other conspiracy theory? Note that he did it again yesterday:
Should 9/11 have been responded to as a crime against humanity, or as an act of war?
Is it untrue that 9/11 was employed as the justification for military actions and domestic policies that would have otherwise been politically difficult or infeasible? Is it untrue that each of these actions and policies was explicitly desired and planned in advance by the main players of the Bush administration?
Do you justify the appointment of Philip Zelikow as the executive director of the 9/11 Commission? Does not this appointment on its face indicate a cover-up?
(Nice piece over at www.dissidentvoice.org. -r.)
by Kim Petersen
March 13, 2007
On 11 September 2001, I sat with a Palestinian family in the living room of their home in Aqaba, Jordan and watched subdued as planes struck US landmarks. It wasn’t long before the Saudi rebel Osama bin Laden was fingered as the culprit. That the corporate media had so quickly named a responsible party was suspicious. My suspicion was further aroused when, days later, I spoke with a friend who trained pilots for Royal Jordanian Airlines. The captain claimed that flight 93 had not crashed; it had been shot down. To adduce his point he pointed out how there were no large chunks of fuselage among the wreckage and that the wreckage was scattered over too wide an area. Assuming his facts were true, then the media portrayal of the 9-11 Gestalt was immediately questionable.
Reports quickly surfaced about Israelis celebrating during the attack, that no Arabs were on the planes, that onboard cell phones could not function under those circumstances, that US air force interceptor planes had taken inordinately long to scramble, that the WTC buildings’ owner had massively insured the buildings for a terrorist attack, that only a demolition could collapse the buildings in such a manner, that jet fuel did not burn hot enough to melt steel, that the president sat with school children apparently unfazed by the news of the attack, and so on. True or not, it was no wonder that people became engaged in a movement to determine what happened on 9-11.
How does one arrive at the “truth”?
Certainly not through close-mindedness. Would one be likely to arrive at the “truth” if he is unwilling to consider all the evidence? Open-minded skepticism -- the willingness to consider many views skeptically -- seems a logical formula by which to arrive at the truth. Open-minded skepticism includes critical appraisal of facts, pertinent literature, and hypotheses in reaching one’s own conclusions. Of course, hashing one’s conclusions over with others helps to winnow out wrong conclusions and refine incongruencies. Consequently, I have maintained an open-mindedness to information emerging from 9-11 but with requisite skepticism. There was no way that I could, with limited resources and at great distance, check on the mass of information and evidence that had to be sifted through to conclude anything definite. I could only conjecture about isolated pieces of information.
February was an action packed month. Significantly, and ominously, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations heavy Zbigniew Brzezinski set the tone with his warning to the Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations;
"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq, or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan." - Brzezinski's warning, Feb. 1, 2007
(Brzezinski was preceded in January by Congressman+Ron+Paul's warning of a "contrived Gulf of Tonkin type incident" as a pretext for war with Iran.)
The significance of Brzezinski's warning can't be overstated. Webster Griffin Tarpley was so moved by Zbig's oratorio that he issued this press release, calling for protests to bring awareness to the issue of a staged pretext. The protests continue, every Saturday at 1pm, at Lafayette Park in front of the White House.
Brzezinski's warning is as close as we likely to get to an actual admission from the supposedly non-existent oligarchy in this country that they do occasionally stage events to herd the sheeple in the direction that they deem best. LIHOP, MIHOP, IHOP... when Zbig is nervous enough to go before the Senate with that kind of message, parsing 9/11 into degrees of HOP is rather moot.
The very next day, The Maginot Line of the Left was broken with a significant penetration by Sander Hicks at AlterNet.org, "9/11: The Case Isn't Closed". A tsunami of support for the article is seen in the comments section below the main posting. That's what you get for marginalizing 9/11 skepticism for 5 years, AlterNet. Hicks used the momentum generated with his piece to urge the Brooklyn DA to investigate 9/11.
In the meantime, check out this kick-ass talk by Scott from last November's COPA conference if you haven't seen it yet;
"JFK & 9/11: Insights Gained From Studying Both"
It turns out there are several parallels in these "meta-events".
Gwynne Dyer is one of the best minds out there when it comes to military history, and the history of war. He is also remarkably prescient at times when it comes to short-term projection of tactical scenarios. However, it's pretty clear that he knows next to nothing about 9/11 skepticism, but he still felt a need to write this crappy hit piece about Loose Change. My comments in red. -r.)
Growing obsession with 9/11 doc’s theories only detracts from Bush’s real crimes (Because Gwynne Dyer says so! If indeed 9/11 was a complex psychological operation designed to trigger a knee-jerk fascist military response to initiate the “Global War on Terror” – then the “real crimes” that Dyer alludes to are a bunch of bat-squeeze by comparison. It’s not “obsession” it’s a mass awakening via the new medium of the internet. Deal with it.)
By GWYNNE DYER
I don't think that Sheikh is a Red Herring or disinfo. I think he is a protected asset, probably MI6.
This essay was transmitted verbally for the record at Rep. Cynthia McKinney's July 22nd, 2005 Congressional Briefing: "The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens’ Response – Did They Get It Right?" by John Newman. Newman has a background in Military Intelligence and is the author of "JFK and Vietnam" and "Oswald and the CIA". As time goes on, Newman has been proven correct with speculation in his first two books, notably by Joan Mellen's further analysis of Oswald's role as a government agent in "Farewell to Justice". Newman was first to parse the JFK document data dump and come out with nuggets that have stood the test of time.
The likelihood of India's intel shop having access to communications signals that Echelon or one of Echelon's ears or eyes didn't have, is preposterous. Especially when it comes to a "made man" like Sheikh, because the Eye of Sauron would definitely be upon him. The hapless FBI agents who went to verify the wire transfer story were probably pretty disappointed when they reported back from India to their superiors and were met with, "Yeah, we know. Now shut up."
This story likely exists as a bona fide limited hangout so that the finger can be pinned on Pakistan, should Musharraf not play along as required. In my opinion, Musharraf is trying to spoil that play by exposing Sheikh's+alleged+MI6+connections. It's likely that he knows exactly what Sheikh's true role was, a fixer.
Newman bends over backwards like Peter Lance with the "Triple Agent" meme. After wading through decades of JFK disinfo, he's got to know that Sheikh is as much of an Oswald as Atta.
I think that Daniel Pearl got too close to the source. He started asking the wrong questions -- questions about where the money actually came from and that was it for him. Bernard Henri Levy's "Who Killed Daniel Pearl?" is an interesting read in that regard.
Anyhow, Newman's story below;
Not new, but certainly interesting.
EDIT: Back again at 1748 Central.
911veritas has created an updated version of his BBC video.
You can download it from 911podcasts here;
500 MB version 25m, 43s - right click and save:
Once you have it downloaded, please mirror if you can, and post a link below, once we have a mirror or two, we'll bump to the front page.
If you can seed a .torrent, please do.
The provenance for the original unedited video begins at the First Amendment Center in Washington DC.* According to this+post, this video has been "archived" but not continuously available, since October, 2001;
March 01, 2007 10:18:32am
I apologize, I have started to understand more of the history of this collection (it started way before my time). There is an important correction to a previous post: the Television Archive is a separate not-for-profit from the Internet Archive.
For posterity, please put feelers out for a copy of Jane Standley's live report on the BBC World News service on 9/11, that matches this one:
A raw, unedited VHS recording in PAL format is preferred, so that we can all independently verify that the source file discovered on the Internet Archive was not altered in any way before it was upped to the Archive.
If the person who ripped and upped the footage to the Archive can send us a copy, that would be great, too.
Mr. Hickman posted this today;
March 01, 2007 10:18:32am
I apologize, I have started to understand more of the history of this collection (it started way before my time). There is an important correction to a previous post: the Television Archive is a separate not-for-profit from the Internet Archive.
I now understand that these materials were available, in streaming form, from October 11, 2001 (when it was launched at the First Amendment Center in Washington DC) for a couple of years. Unfortunately a datacenter move brought these down. The Internet Archive has been working, pro-bono (meaning free), to bring these back up in an appropriate way. When we can do a reasonable job of this, we will let everyone know. Until then, please be patient with us.
In the mean time, we hope the BBC is ok with our allowing some form of distribution of this key program. In which case we will do this immediately. Fingers crossed on that front.
This post was modified by PaulForrest on 2007-03-01 18:18:32
Tuesday February 20th 2007, 8:07 pm
It stinks of desperation. George Monbiot, inveterate leftist of the foundation financed environmentalist persuasion, has once again taken a swing at the “conspiracy idiots” who believe government is capable of mass murder, including the reflexive murder of its own subjects.
Not unlike his brethren, most notably Noam Chomsky and Alex Cockburn, Monbiot buys the Ward Churchill version of events in regard to the attacks of September 11, 2001—that is to say Osama and a small number of cave-dwelling Wahhabi fanatics magically made NORAD stand down and defied the immutable laws of physics, thus delivering one to the conclusion a piece of paper cannot be slipped between Monbiot and the moonstruck followers of the neocons, as they all buy the same Brothers Grimm fairy tale...
(Thanks, Kevin for sending this in.)
February, 2007 marks the point in time where the Left media in the United States pulled its head out of its collective ass and finally addressed some of the anomalies of 9/11. It's easy to point fingers and say they haven't done enough, and it's true. Frankly, C-SPAN, a not-for-profit entity funded, (ironically enough), by loose change that the cable industry has laying around, has done far more in terms of transmitting the points of view emanating from the 9/11 skeptics.
Nevertheless, Sander Hicks got the ball rolling this month at AlterNet.org with his article, 9/11: The Case Isn't Closed. Hicks does not focus on physical anomalies like the WTC collapses, but spends his time pointing out the crumb trails of U.S. intelligence agencies all over the place on 9/11, and how some of these agencies thwarted investigations that could have stopped the attacks from occurring at all, had they proceeded in good faith.
I have three small quibbles with Hicks' article, but none with his intent. The first is accepting Peter Lance at face value. Although I respect Lance for investigating Patrick Fitzgerald's possible malfeasance in regard to Ali Mohamed, I don't think the Ali Mohamed story is as complicated as the notion of a "Triple Agent" would imply. In my opinion, it's more likely that Mohamed was a controlled asset on the pullstrings of Western intelligence, in the same way that Omar Saeed Sheikh is alleged to have been. Further, the Discovery Channel has produced an investigative report about TWA 800 that bolsters the theory that it was brought+down+with+some+sort+of+projectile, not a bomb. This is consistent with eyewitness testimony concerning TWA 800.
Secondly, Hicks leans on Daniel Hopsicker, and Hopsicker leans on what seems to me to be a very unreliable lynch-pin, a woman by the name of Amanda Keller. Mohamed Atta's girlfriend. "But+the+former+Venice+stripper+now+says+her+boyfriend+was+another+flight+student+not+connected+to+9/11." Alrighty, then. Can you imagine going to trial with her as a witness? I'm no Law expert, but it seems to me that a competent defense attorney would wet himself in anticipation knowing that he could summon her to the stand.
February 9, 2007
by Jay Esbe
Theories abound. And really, why shouldn't they. What else could possibly be expected when this government, this President, blocked the creation of the commission to investigate the biggest mass murder in American history. And what else could possibly be expected when this President then hand-picked the commission members after losing his battle for "silence"? And then there was the "mission statement" of the commission itself, or rather, the NON-mission statement: "Our purpose is not to assign RESPONSIBILITY for the attacks". This, by the DIRECTIVE of the President AS A CONDITION FOR THE CREATION OF THE COMMISSION.
I want to leave aside all the thermite, the too small holes in the pentagon, even the incredible "failures" or NORAD and the "mysterious" change of command structure by the Vice President. I want to leave aside for now, everything we suspect. It's a mountain, and whether you think the mountain smells like bullshit or not, it's far too big to just go away. No, what I want to talk about is not what we suspect, but WHAT WE KNOW. What we already have learned is a fact, and facts, beyond any reasonable doubt or further arguments, lest those who doubt expose their own patent dishonesty immediately.
I want to talk about Bush, Cheney, and what they've done SINCE 9/11. Because if I knew nothing else about 9/11, I'd know this: Their "conduct" has demonstrated a number of things which are now beyond debate in this country by anyone serious...
Associate member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Aidan Monaghan's new video.
Referring to the Counterpunch article, "What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks?" in the VOL. 14, NO. 3/4 issue, Cockburn and St. Clair allude to an article from 2005 that inspired Ketcham to update his story on the mysterious Israelis.
I blogged on it last year at GNN, but I'm going to re-post the entire article by Keith Phucas (of Able Danger fame) here for posterity. Below that, I'll post some bullet points from Gerald Shea's memo that remains to date the best memo detailing the various reports about the "art students". Also, I will post a link to a PDF copy of Shea's report that you can D/L from the Antiwar.com server, courtesy of Justin Raimondo.
By: KEITH PHUCAS, Times Herald Staff
NORRISTOWN - Accusations that the 9/11 Commission ignored information about a defense intelligence operation "Able Danger" that targeted al-Qaida in 2000 has renewed criticism that the panel may have passed up other intriguing leads gathered in the months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
A memorandum sent to the 9/11 Commission, and Senate and House intelligence committees in September 2004, suggests that young Israelis who canvassed dozens of U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) offices in 2000 and 2001 trying to sell paintings to federal workers, may have been spying not only on the DEA, but also on Arab extremists in the United States - including the Sept. 11 hijackers who were living in Florida and New Jersey.
(I asked the guys at TulsaTruth why they faded to a shot of the Unabomber at the end of the video. They did it because the dude in the hoodie at the end of the video looked kinda like the Unabomber, that's all. They do not advocate violence in any way, or the Unabomber. Neither does 911blogger.com)
These are posted in the comments bin below Monbot's (sic) article at the Guardian;
February 6, 2007 02:33 AM
"...but it drowns the truth in an ocean of nonsense..."
and lies...and half truths and hidden truths. Could be talking about the Bush and Blair years and legacy.
WMD had no basis in fact either and hundreds of thousands have died due to an illegal war,so what's a little conspiracy theory sweeping the world among friends?
Aren't we just reaping the whirlwind of our governments' deception and manipulation?
Blair and Bush should be put on trial for war crimes,
lest some other jumped up nutters try a re-run in the future...maybe invading Iran.
There are plenty more in the comments bin, check it out;
February 6, 2007 02:35 AM
Certainly a lot of Loose Change is, well, less than true. But for a couple of kids working on a laptop with zero budget, its fairly good. But there is more to 9/11 than simply the "Bush used it" theory.
The NIST and Commission reports are garbage. NIST 'proves' its collapse theory with a circular argument (50% of columns had to be cut for the building to fall. The building fell, therefore 50% of columns were cut) The 9/11 Commission Report spends 20 pages blaming the problems of the middle east on socialism. Pure propaganda.
The money train is discussed at length in the more grounded film 9/11 Press for Truth, made by the victim relatives. The money trail points clearly back to the Pakistani ISI. The head of the ISI had wired $100k to the hijackers in the weeks before 9/11. On the day itself, this man happened to be in Washington DC, meeting his counterparts in the CIA. When the FBI discovered this in 2002 they wanted to question the ISI. Bush killed the investigation on national security grounds.
Now, maybe there were no bombs in the twin towers and maybe a plane did hit the pentagon. But the money trail is plain as day and indisputable. And it smells of a cover up.
There is more to 9/11 than the fanciful "hijackers out of the blue" theory or the "Bush incompetence" theory. There needs to be a proper investigation.
It's hard to imagine how much intestinal fortitude Monbiot had to work up to dare take on the mighty internet documentary, loose change.
Ok, it's not. Actually, it's pretty easy. The truth be told, picking a fight with Loose Change is passé. Monbiot should have saved his load for the theatrical release. But he just couldn't help himself. On February 6, The Guardian published his commentary, "A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world, but it has no basis in fact".
However, Monbiot, like other Left personalities with a soapbox and a bias against "conspiracy theories" in general, fails the public when he reaches for easy insults like "gibbering idiots", reducing the discourse to kindergarten-level. Monbiot is (was?) an intelligent man. He knows the effect that an ad hominem abusive would generate in someone who was inspired by Loose Change, so it would seem that he is trying to affect the viewer's emotional state, particularly a viewer who, inspired by the film, began to seek out corroborating evidence after watching Loose Change.
So, in the same way that conservative D'Souza fails his audience, Monbiot offers a hot cup of tea and some biscuits to his audience, but how much of what Monbiot is saying in The Guardian a bunch of bollocks?
Some noise out there right now about what a poor job the Bush admiinstration is doing with the 9/11 Commission's DNI recommendation;
Did it ever cross their obfuscating little brains that the recommendation itself was a joke?
According to testimony by ex-* and retired- CIA folks that walked away from the Agency with their credibility intact, this was the worst recommendation that the Commission put forward, and of course, the only one embraced by this administration. Here is some criticism of the Commission and their DNI recommendation;
"The 9/11 Commission had the broadest mandate of any commission in the history of the United States. With the exception of the Pearl Harbor Commission there has probably been no more important national security commission, but in terms of broad mandate, the 9/11 Commission could have looked at any aspect of this tragedy, and it’s regrettable that they didn’t do that...
Ptech owner's assets confiscated in Albania
...A similar pattern is apparent in Albania, where Yasin al-Qadi, according to federal law enforcement officials, assisted the CIA with efforts to provide underground support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).
As author Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed documents in his book, The War on Truth, “Extensive military training and assistance was provided to the KLA during the Kosovo conflict in the late 1990s by both American and British forces.”...
...As former DEA undercover agent Michael Levine explained to The New American in 1999, the U.S. armed and funded “the worst elements of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan — drug traffickers, arms smugglers, anti-American terrorists. We later paid the price when the World Trade Center was bombed [in 1993], and we learned that some of those responsible had been trained by us. Now we’re doing the same thing with the KLA.”
“These guys,” Levine said, referring to the KLA, “have a network that’s active on the streets of this country. ... They’re the worst elements of society that you can imagine, and now, according to my sources in drug enforcement, they’re politically protected.”
According to Yossef Bodansky, Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association, “The role of the Albanian Mafia, which is tightly connected to the KLA, is laundering money, providing technology, safe houses, and other support to terrorists within this country.”
“In any case,” Bodansky told The New American, “a serious investigation of the Albanian mob isn’t going to happen, because they’re ‘our boys’ — they’re protected."
In two parts;
"This unprecedented depiction of instantly initiated and perfectly executed total uniform collapse of unbelievably massive steel skyscrapers from proportionally isolated impacts and similarly localized fires is precisely what the U.S. government and mainstream media have attached to the rapid obliteration of three of the world's strongest buildings on the same day of Sept. 11, 2001 - World Trade Center towers 1, 2 and 7, the last structure never even touched by a plane - despite a mountain of suspicious forensic structural evidence indicating controlled demolitions and thousands of questions being repeatedly raised by hundreds of academics and scientists the world over.
Knocking out a few Lincoln Logs in the side of the middle of the stack doesn't turn the whole damn cabin into exploding sawdust, does it?"
"In September 2000 - one year before the attacks - PNAC released a 90-page report called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century."
In Chapter V of this document, titled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force," PNAC calls for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts."
But it states "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
Fast forward one year.
According to The Washington Post, before President Bush went to bed on Sept. 11, 2001, he wrote in his diary:
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today … We think it's Osama bin Laden."
"Anti-Americanism from abroad would not be such a problem if Americans were united in standing up for their own country. But in this country itself, there are those who blame America for most of the evils in the world."
- Dinesh D'Souza, 2003.
"In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11."
- Dinesh D'Souza, 2007.
Conservative author Dinesh D'Souza has a new book out, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11". D'Souza's thesis may come as some surprise to you. Perhaps you thought that "Islamofascists" were responsible for 9/11, or maybe you hold the somewhat contrarian view that 9/11 was a case of "blowback", and America's foreign policy is to blame. Could be that you view 9/11 as an obvious PsyOp, directed at the American people to catalyze public opinion into supporting the WAR ON TERROR!™
Well, turns out we're all wrong. In this new polemic, D'Souza pins the crime of 9/11 ultimately on the "cultural left" of the United States, one of the most starkly anti-American positions to be publicly taken by a pundit of the Left or Right in this country.
The fact that D'Souza's overall thesis is wrong on its face should not dissuade clever critics on the Left from showering his book with scorn, and so far that has indeed been the case. The first volley was lobbed from blogger Michael Bérubé, then James Wolcott of Vanity Fair, followed by a short burst from Mark Warren posted at Powell's. These were mere drops, and now an online search reveals a host of criticism directed at D'Souza's latest. To date, the best face-to-face mocking of D'Souza was delivered on The Colbert Report.
And, of course, the world would not be perfect without a sycophantic/hagiographic lavishing of praise for D'Souza from the typically worthless NewsMax.com. (Ok, I admit it, the NewsMax review isn't TOTALLY sycophantic.)
Although the inevitable exchanges of rhetoric being generated due to the publishing of this volume are sure to make entertaining reading, (and watching), the audience taking in this futile fusillade is merely watching a dumb show without a program, and will be left none the wiser for the next act.
Tonight I read the comic book on 9/11. Pathos and pathetic pride poured from every page. Children mourned the loss of Parents and Heroes. Lessons were learned. Contrary to the artists' intent, however, the book awoke my sleeping anger. I want vengeance on the traitors--not on Al Qaeda--but on the poisoners in corporate boardrooms, White House bunkers and Pentagon propaganda rooms.
America is poisoned by its own arrogance and greed. The villains of 9/11 are AMERICAN. These goons deserve gruesome "endings" drawn from the Tower of London and the Dungeons of the Inquisition. The punishments get more gruesome depending on the difficulty of prosecuting the parties involved...
...No plot by al Qaeda has undermined "the rule of law" like Congress, the President and Courts have undermined our Constitution by adopting militarism in place of the law. If our nation's defense is not militaristic, but legal--if we are willing to spare no effort in the person-by-person prosecution of those who break our laws from without or WITHIN--then we are engaged in justice. If there is no active pursuit of justice, our country is a sham. This is Bush's legacy: the dismantling of America. The dismantling of the World Trade Center Complex was the dumbshow preceding the play...
...There is no militaristic smokescreen that can hide the offenses of the actual traitors in our midst, the men and women responsible for 9/11 and those who have steered our state away from justice ever since. Thinking persons know that this crime requires diligent prosecution and the mass distraction of Iraq, Iran and Israel--the hysteric rhetoric of Christian Armageddonists--cannot suppress our knowledge. The negligence of do-gooder Democrats or the calming techniques of Quislings like Joe Lieberman cannot diminish the importance of our task.
Give us THE FACTS about THE CRIME! This investigation is not synonymous with impeachment of Bush and Cheney unless impeachment proceedings subpoena and provide evidence of negligence or complicity. 9/11 Inquiry is not "for show" as my vivid fantasies of public impaling imply. 9/11 is not a vehicle for personal gain, but for public awareness. Our leaders lit a fuse on 9/11 that leads straight to the Constitution. The fuse is still burning. Though several buildings fell so far, the real target has not yet been destroyed. When will IT go up in flames?
If you are near NYC (the store is in Brooklyn) on Saturday, check out singer/songwriter David Rovics and guests at Sander Hicks' VOX POP. "The show is Saturday, lucky 13th of Jan. 8 PM. $10 if you have a job, less if no. with Randy Nerve and a promising new voice in live music: Laura Seiverling"
Hicks has this to say of Rovics' music;
His songs have made me weep, have filled me with rage, with validation, with inspiration.
David Rovics sings for us all: the activists, the oppressed, the truth seekers, the secrecy smashers, the murdered, the martyred, the resistance fated to suffer and triumph. He's a revolutionary, he's a historical figure of the future, right now he's just a punk folk troubador travelling the entire globe playing every protest every demo every teach in he can for the people, for the movement.
Here's his most applicable song for this website;
by David Rovics
The planes hit New York City
And thousands now are dead
"It was Arab terrorists"
This is what you said
Well if that is the truth
Then what have you got to hide
And what were you doing
On the day all those people died
(This was sent in to 911blogger from 911truth.ie.)
“Ford himself was reputedly one of the most exalted Freemasons ever to occupy the presidency. Preponderant power during the last years of Nixon and during the Ford years was in any case exercised by Henry Kissinger, the de facto president, about whose pedigree and strategy something has been said above. The preserving of constitutional form and ritual as a hollow facade behind which to realize practices more and more dictatorial in their substance was a typical pragmatic adaptation made possible by the ability of the financiers to engineer the slow and gradual decline of the economy, avoiding upheavals of popular protest.” (1991)
“By the beginning of the 1990's, it has become something of a commonplace to refer to the complex of events surrounding the fall of Nixon as a coup d'etat. It was to be sure a coup d'etat, but one whose organizers and beneficiaries most commentators and historians are reluctant to name, much less to confront. Broadly speaking, Watergate was a coup d'etat which was instrumental in laying the basis for the specific new type of authoritarian-totalitarian regime which now rules the United States. The purpose of the coup was to rearrange the dominant institutions of the US government so as to enhance their ability to carry out policies agreeable to the increasingly urgent dictates of the British-dominated Morgan- Rockefeller-Mellon-Harriman financier faction. It is obvious that George Bush himself is one of the most prominent of such beneficiaries. As the Roman playwright Seneca warns us, "Cui prodest scelus, is fecit" - the one who derives advantage from the crime is the one most likely to have committed it. The policies of the Wall Street investment banking interests named are those of usury and Malthusianism, stressing the decline of a productive industrial economy in favor of savage Third World looting and anti-population measures. The changes subsumed by Watergate included the abolition of government's function as a means to distribute the rewards and benefits of economic progress among the principal constituency groups upon whose support the shifting political coalitions depended for their success. Henceforth, government would appear as the means by which the sacrifices and penalties of austerity and declining standards of living would be imposed on a passive and stupefied population.” (1991)