Recent 9/11 Mentions in the Mainstream Media

The Villager - Taking free speech by the bullhorn, they face arrest
this article is about the legality of using bullhorn's at Union Square in NY.. it has some 9/11 related coverage as well.. here is another older related article with the same banner in the background..

here are some quotes:

.. Vendors ringed the edge of the plaza, hawking everything from anti-Bloomberg buttons to bootleg movie scripts. And, as usual, in the middle of it all with their inflammatory “The Bush Regime Engineered 9/11” banner — and being inflammatory, in general — was the No Police State Coalition.
“Annoyance at ideas can be cloaked in annoyance at sound,” he read from one court case in favor of the use of bullhorns.

Pointing to a plaque on the ground behind him that notes Union Sq. is a national historic landmark, Blank said, “This is an urban square. It’s cement — or whatever it is. It’s always been that way. This isn’t a monument to free speech — it’s living free speech.”

He said, at first, the two-year-old group tried to apply for a sound permit, but were denied.
“Go home! We don’t want to hear your conspiracy theories!” a young teen shouted at a Coalition member who was on the bullhorn. “The people are just sitting here on the steps — but they don’t want to listen to you!”

“Oh yes, you do need to hear it,” Blank retorted, then lamented about the political apathy of today’s youth.

“Freedom of speech isn’t to protect the speakers — we learn that in high school,” he said. “It’s to protect the listeners.”

she quotes great arguements against the current administration, and doesn't realize her sarcasm, or opinion, do little to disprove the 'conspiracy theories' she cites.. while this article isn't directly related to 9/11, I always find it interesting when it comes out of the mouth of news commentators like Ann Coulter.. maybe someone should send her this to explain the credibility gap of Condoleezza Rice.. be sure to read the whole thing so you can see how she spins the comments from her article below:

Bill Moyers, the lamented, demented former host of the PBS program "Now With Bill Moyers," referred to the American-led war in Iraq as doing "to the people of Baghdad what bin Laden did to us."
Moyers denounced Condoleezza Rice for her ineptness in not preventing the 9/11 attack, despite a clearly worded memo stating: "Bin Laden determined to attack the United States." In other breaking news: Waitress in L.A. Determined to Become Actress. As Condi said, "I don't think you, frankly, had to have that report to know that bin Laden would like to attack the United States."
In his lengthy diatribe against Rice, Moyers said she had cried wolf, intentionally misleading "America and the world about the case for invading Iraq." Apparently Rice had said Iraq was "a part of the war on terror" on the grounds that Saddam was: (1) supporting terrorists, (2) a weapons of mass destruction threat and (3) "a tremendous barrier to change in the Middle East."

But as regular viewers of PBS know, in fact, we invaded Iraq for oil.

America's Terrorist Ally
let me get this straight.. Uzbekistan is fine to work with, but the entire country of Afghanistan should be restructured because of Al-Queda.. oh, and don't bother just focusing on Al-Queda or Bin Laden, replace the whole country's government.. and if they don't mind removing the Bridas oil pipeline contract, or allowing us to place permanent bases along the newly secured pipeline that would be great.. yeah..

"After 9/11," explains Newsweek, "the Bush administration established a strategic partnership with Karimov, plunking down $500 million for a military base in southern Uzbekistan in preparation for operations in Afghanistan and paying $60 million or more a year in military aid and training."
How can the United States claim to be fighting a war on terrorism when its biggest allies are terrorists themselves?