Daniel Ellsburg Sees Need for New 9/11 Investigation

July 14, 2006 inteview with Jack Blood on "Deadline Live", Ellsberg is passionate about the need for a new 9/11 investigation. Ellsberg's views are a challenge to Veterans For Peace, an organization for which he advocates support. Judging from the signs at the December 16 war protest in DC, VFP members remain mysteriously timid about using the need for a new 9/11 investigation as a powerful challenge to the pretext of the war that led to the war itself.

'The most dangerous man in America'

Kissinger gave Ellsberg this above title for speaking truth to power with a moral compass guiding him in taking such a risk. Ellsberg is supporting WikiLeaks not to compete, but to add his voice for transparency in government and in support of whistleblowers who are revealing crimes of what the authorities are hiding from us. By fearlessly calling for what is most obvious.. the need for a new 9/11 investigation, Daniel Ellsberg is showing great leadership again for the progressive community to wake up.. and unite with truth wherever it leads us.. for that is the nature of freedom.. rather than to be owned as slaves and perpetuating a volatile harmful system. FN is linking to this at top under critical breaking news. Thanks for posting!

Vets for Peace 9/11 investigation resolution

scroll down to N:
9/11 Attacks Inside The United States, Support A Valid Investigation Into The National Security Failures Of The

(Submitted By Harold Saive, Chapter 32)

Whereas the pretext for two illegal wars of occupation, torture and war crimes was justified by the catastrophic events of 9/11/2001, and

Whereas Congress was blocked by the White House from their intended investigation in connection with the massive national security failures of 9/11/2001- (1), and

Whereas not one person has since been held accountable for the national security failures that allowed the 9/11/2001 attacks to succeed, and

Whereas Lee Hamilton, Co-chair of the 9/11 Commission confessed that his Commission was, in his words, “Set up to fail” - (2), and

Whereas significant un-answered questions remain that challenge the official story of the events of 9/11/2001 - (3a,b-4), and

Therefore Be It Resolved that Veterans For Peace supports a legitimate and non-partisan investigation into the catastrophic national security failures of 9/11/2001.

Approved at the 2009 VFP national convention

The website no longer has an extensive links section- in 2005 or 6 there was a big banner for 911Truth.org - scroll down to "Other Related Links"

I spent...

3 hours in the car with Mike Ferner, the President of VFP, and he is on our side.

That's good to hear.

Now all we need is for more people in Congress to OFFICIALLY jump the bandwagon.

Ellsberg and Wikileaks

I have so much respect for Ellsberg that I can't understand his support for Wikileaks Assange, who was interviewed here:

When the Belfast Telegraph interviewed him on July 19, he stated,

"Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two...." What about 9/11?: "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg Conference?: "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."

i have the same concerns, but. . .

. . . has the assange anti-9/11 truth quote ever been verified? this issue has been discussed here before but apparently never resolved; see the question raised by naomi toward the end http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-22/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-annoyed-911-truth

also, is ellsberg the hero he seems to be? some have cast him in a different light, see http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine03082003.html

Actual quote

You can see for yourself here - Assange said it and doesn't deny it.


thanks marzi, but. . .

. . . this is the same article at issue in the previous thread i mentioned. the issue is: was assange quoted accurately in the article? i'm not saying he was or he wasn't. i'm just saying it's not confirmed. it's not like we have a video of him make the idiotic anti-9/11 truth remarks attributed to him. and... just for the record: i am no fan of assange. he reportedly gave the ny times authority to review his leaks to determine what should be made public. a dealbreaker for me. he might as well have asked the cia to do his editing for him.