well, rumsfeld had a slip of the tongue.. alot of people will just write it off.. obviously he just made a mistake.. i would argue his mistake was telling the truth..
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112

I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.

here is an article from congressman Ron Paul of texas.. its an interesting story that is exactly what you wouldn't expect from a congressman:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst122004.htm

much respect goes to someone like this congressman who can speak out against the majority of his colleagues.
-----

this link tries to allude to the coverup of 9/11 involving ashcroft and his legal actions to silence sibel edmonds.. its a good article, take a gander:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/121704Hogue.shtml
-----

here is a scathing article about how 9/11 has become the official seal of the government to get anything it wants accomplished:
http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/121404/14edkerik.html

But it remains doubtful that the White House will course correct on another tact, the practice of treating 9/11 like a brand name, a tool for selling ideas, selling a party, selling initiatives — even selling people. One blemished icon, or even two, is not is going to end what has proved a winning strategy, certainly good enough for first place with American voters in November.