by Scott Creighton
"So, what do we do about it?"
This question has been repeatedly asked of me as a direct result of any number of articles I have written or threads I have "hijacked" in the name of calling attention to this growing bi-partisan tide of imminent globalization, a.k.a. the Fascist State of World Government; the New World Order.
What do we do about it, indeed.
When you think about the scope and the breadth of this globalization campaign and all it's well-funded, interwoven, interlocking ivy-league staffed Think-Tanks, it's easy to succumb to your baser "flight" instinct. After all, how could any man succeed, even in the most peripheral of engagements, against such a conglomeration as this imperial movement that stands before us, when presidents (Kennedy), congressmen (Kucinich, Paul, McKinney, Sanders), scholars (Chomsky, Zinn), and heroes (King, Nader) have all fallen short of the mark?
'Just who the hell do you think you are compared to them?"
Media Matters Catalogues Gibson-Bush Interview Spin, Omits PNAC!
Bush gave an interview to ABC's Charlie Gibson, in which Bush referred to the "intelligence failure" about WMD as his "biggest regret". MediaMatters.org, supposedly a right-wing spin watchdog, ignores PNAC and pre-Bush Administration Iraq War plans, but notes the corporate media's failure to point out that there are many instances in the public record that make it clear that the Bush Administration was planning to go to war with Iraq after 9/11. The ones Media Matters notes include as the "Downing Street Memo”, Richard Clarke's statement in his book that Bush asked him the day after 9/11 to find a link to Hussein, his report to Condi Rice a week later that there was none, the Senate Intelligence WMD Inquiry, and other media reports.
July 31, 2008 | Pundits and diplomats nearly got whiplash from the double take they did when George W. Bush sent the No. 3 man in the State Department to sit at a table on July 19 across from an Iranian negotiator, without any preconditions. When Bush had addressed the Israeli Knesset in May, he made headlines by denouncing any negotiation with "terrorists and radicals" as "the false comfort of appeasement." What drove W. to undermine John McCain by suddenly adopting Barack Obama's foreign policy prescription on Iran?
Many people in the 9/11 Truth Movement have understandably been energized by the Ron Paul campaign for President. It was indeed heartening to see a contender for the Republican Party nomination who was supportive of the call for a new, genuine, thorough and comprehensive investigation of 9/11.
However, now that that the Republican race is all but over, and Mr. Paul has indicated that he will not seek to run as an independent, I ask those of you in the Movement (who have not already done so) to please consider lending your financial and volunteer support to former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who is seeking the Green Party nomination for President of the United States.
(EDIT: See also Prison Planet coverage: "We Are Change To Release Assault Videos" - Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Luke Rudkowski is reporting that WeAreChange activists are being verbally and physically assaulted when they go down to Ground Zero to engage in peaceful activism;
"After the Time Square Bombing that took place at the very place that WeAreCHANGE does their street actions each Saturday night, Nico [Haupt] came out to our Ground Zero Vigil with a huge sign saying “We Did The Time Square Bombing.” Nico tried to associate us with the terrorists who committed a horrendous and cowardly act on this city of New York. He continued for weeks with the police department ignoring him, and decided to raise his efforts in trying to destroy our message of peace and truth..."
Apparently, we don't need to worry as much about Geraldo Rivera, who said on FOX and Friends, on March 7, 2008, "I think that this bomber isn't Al Qaeda, isn't anything like that... He's more like those '9/11 was an inside job' kind of guys...". Rather, we have to be concerned about people generating videos that attempt to tie 9/11 Truth to violent acts, and then proceed to commit acts of violence against 9/11 Truth activists like WeAreCHANGE.
(Tutschka also started a related blog.)
March 31st, 2008
Dear President Brown,
My name is Christian Tutschka and I am a M.A. candidate in the International Relations and Environmental Policy (IREP) Program here at Boston University.
I believe Boston University is an illegitimate “university” or “institution of higher learning.” Beginning today I will suspend my participation in the IREP program at BU until I once again believe BU is a legitimate institution. The following will explain this decision:
The Role and Purpose of the “University”:
BU Website: “Forging our future… More than any other institution in our society, the modern university exists to serve the future. Boston University does this by educating individuals for fulfilling, productive lives and by creating solutions to pressing or anticipated problems through research.”(1)
I don't have a gun. I'm an European and I even live in a state which wouldn't allow to freely keep and bear arms or to form a militia, so I have only my word - that's my only defense against that what seems to be happening.
I took the hour and a half (because I find the case be really very important for the Americans and the future of freedom) and I was listening thoroughly the whole disputation in the Supreme Court in the case DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER.
I guess I have an important note:
They disputed all the words in the 2nd Amendment and many aspects and possible meanings of the words from elsewhere - machine guns, handguns, armor piercing bullets (and various laws and regulations, sometimes apparently irrelevant in the sense when one have to decide the case according to the US Constitution - as the superior law - the US Supreme Court IMHO have no right to contradict in its judgments, nor duty to follow any precedents or laws - except the US Constitution they've the judges taken the oath to defend - as a whole), but they have "forgotten" the main one word - as it would be a big taboo - they absolutely avoided the word free - its meaning in the 2nd Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")
To explain what I mean, I'll try to describe how I understand the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in the context of the US Constitutional law by my own words (I'll borrow some):
Because there is a constant danger a state, its government, could develop into a tyranny - rendering the state and its constituents unfree - the people's right to keep and bear the arms generally (not just to form the militia) should not be infringed - because the people can defend the freedom only if they are constantly armed and continuously form a real threat of a real power against possible tyrants (foreign or domestic) - to take them down - if needed even by using the armed force - in case the tyrants would infringe, abridge or dissolve their unalienable rights and freedoms, pursuing invariably the same Object evincing a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.(I'm borrowing this from the 6th sentence of the Declaration of Independence)
As time ticks on, it appears to me that this truth movement has lost its momentum/direction. Yes, I agree that people discussing these issues and events are indeed, a great thing but what end has all of this actually reached? I am very much in support of the truth movement, as a preface, but after all the talk and debate, what's next, what do we hope to accomplish? A few questions:
a) With all the video's, websites, public /private discussions; Beside the obvious spreading of awareness/information what has been gained? So 90% of the population believes 911 was an inside job and doesn't support the war in Iraq (and probably soon to be Iran. Take the current Strait of Hormuz incident as being very similar to the Gulf of Tonkin lie, this of course comes after the Iranian WMD claims/threats. We are lied to over and over, but people don't seem to care enough to take action.
An excellent opinion piece appeared yesterday in the Arizona Daily Sun. Tom Gorman asks thought-provoking questions, places the 9/11-truth movement in perspective -- and reminds us to keep sending Letters to local newspapers!
On 9/11 attacks: Is the struggle for truth worth it?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
A recent poll cited on the MSNBC Tucker Carlson show indicated the one third of Americans believe the government was somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Truth activists are becoming more visible (HBO Bill Maher show) and stepping up their campaign in confronting candidates such as "9/11" Rudy Giuliani.
As the election year soon descends upon us, I was wondering why some citizens bother to seek truth and justice. In social movements of the past to eliminate slavery or apartheid, or for voting rights or civil rights, the activist vanguard are at first detested and scorned by the ruling minority and the public majority. Also, mass denial of the issues may make progress toward resolving inequalities or corruption a long and winding road with many detours and setbacks.
[GW's Comment: The Weekly Standard is one of the main Neocon publications.]
Tue Sep 18, 10:57 AM ET
Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 013, Issue 02 - 9/24/2007 - New York City
Certain events can be expected each time the 9/11 anniversary rolls around. Opinion writers will opine about how the attacks did or didn't change America. Moments of silence will take place in any number of locales. Think tanks will host panels discussing everything from the war on terror to the impact on immigration reform. And the loosely affiliated conspiracy theorists that comprise the 9/11 Truth Movement will hold rallies and conferences around the country to bring themselves attention.
Post 2008, the wheels of justice won't be grinding about impeachment, but imprisonment and execution of 9/11 traitors
by W. Christopher Epler
August 3, 2007 OpEd News.com
How easy to forget in this Bush/Republican phantasmagoria that traitors aren't just not re-elected or impeached, they are locked up and put to death. The neocon lobby (which has never lobbied for the national security of United States of America) would do well to remember this. To borrow a phrase from the orient, their "bad karma" is catching up to them as we speak.
It's time to 100% take off the gloves and see things like they are. In this last 6 to 7 years, study after study demonstrates that in 9/11 the Bush/Republicans weren't just asleep at the wheel, they were actively facilitating this national atrocity. God in heaven, there was a virtual BLIZZARD of warnings before 9/11, specifying the probable time, place, and methodology of the attack, but Bush was too busy playing cowboy at his ranch to be bothered, and Cheney (alias, Cheney/Halliburton) was too busy engineering the corporate take over of our government. Mussolini did basically the same during WW2 and indeed defined his Dictatorship as corporate fascism. Sound familiar? ...
... So, isn't it time for a universal solvent. Let's dissolve this fascist crap and SEE THINGS LIKE THEY ARE.
And that means BEGINNING with 9/11, since that is the ultimate scene of the crime of these political/religious denizens from hell.
EVERYTHING, 100% of what the Bush/Republicans have told us about 9/11 is self protective propaganda and until and if we get this horror show event in American history straight once and for all and all the way through, America will have no soul.
by Donna J. Thorne
Fear, the Nemesis of Rationality
One cannot analyze the dynamics of a post 9/11 society without examining one of its principal characteristics: fear, anxiety, dread, apprehension… in a word, Terror. To those who benefit from its proliferation, fear is a currency, a commodity, and a powerful marketing tool. If one is aware of the devices by which leaders have garnered power and support for any given war or agenda historically, one can easily discern the same machinations at work today. A key ingredient to any successful war rally or acquisition of power is the exploitation of fear through the manipulation of perception.
On September 11, 2001, corporate media and the government elite launched an aggressive political and media campaign upon and against the American people. With Madison-Avenue expertise, purveyors of fear heightened our perception of imminent threat by inundating the airwaves with continual, repetitive, easily-learned sound-bytes, words brimming with emotionally-charged meaning, "…Bin Laden, Taliban, Axis of Evil, Saddam Hussein, Terror-Threat, Terrorist…" with just enough intensity to successfully persuade the American people to procure security at any cost.
Comprehensive and firmly-entrenched fear is the means by which the current administration manages to sell the "War of Terror" and, allowed to flourish, has solidified mechanized cooperation from the masses as our leaders appeal to the most basic of all human needs-- security.
The groundwork has been laid. Today, newly identified "threats" are announced with almost predictable regularity. Now firmly embedded in the collective unconscious of America, fear is employed to rationalize unprecedented dictatorial powers in the White House, to justify the erosion of privacy and the stripping of human rights once sacredly guarded by the Constitution. Yet, what should one expect from an administration whose platform is built upon a substratum of fear, except for fear itself?
Fear attempts to silence dissenters. As the Truth Movement gains momentum and amasses credibility, the fear profiteers have begun heralding yet another "threat" to National Security - inquiring minds. This is both good news and bad news. We are no longer ignorable. Fearing exposure, the Czars of Propaganda know that "Truthers" must be branded and discredited if government corruption and corporate fraud is to flourish unabated. This said, prepare for an intensified Smear-and-Fear Campaign. Any group or individual who vocally questions the official story of 9/11 or who exercises the right to demand Government accountability will be labeled "Anti-American and Anti-Patriotic"...
This is a fictional account of what can happen in the future. This assumes the year is 2007 forward.
1. 9-11 truth is spreading too far for the conspiracists to contain. 9-11 was convenient when it was first executed, citizen rights were curtailed, media was controlled, occupation troops were deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. At present however, 9-11 is becoming a liability. A big concern is that 9-11 truth, if pursued to its true benefactors would expose the plutocrats that really hold US wealth and power, exposure of the plutocrats is considered unacceptable at any cost.
2. The plutocrats determine that the Republican party cannot win the 2008 elections due to the Iraq war debacle. This is sad for the plutocrats. The Republicans were real go getters. 9-11 after all was executed under their watch.
9-11 truth exposes the US Govt as corrupt at the highest levels, knowledge of it is frightening in it's implications. If you believe in 9-11 truth, can you trust the executive branch, congress, the judiciary? Do you tell the cops, or the army? 9-11 truth forces you in a position where you lose all familiar references. You end up on your own wits and no clear leader to follow or guide you. Some people are OK with that, they figure the truth out for themselves or the best of it that they can get and run with it. Other people however could be shutting 9-11 knowledge out of their system as a consequence. Is a leader for 9-11 truth the missing ingredient to achieve that elusive critical mass?
By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to Rense.com
911 debunkers---those deaf, dumb and blind (to logic, physics and evidence) accessories to a crime---spend far more time attacking those of us in the 911 Truth Movement than seeking either truth or justice. Far easier for these sad and misguided citizens to accept the Big Lie of 911 than stare into the harsh light and accept the fact that when they defend the "official story" they defend liars, incompetents, embezzlers, war criminals, poisoners and torturers.
Because, by defending the official version of 911 events, they accept the veracity and trustworthiness of government officials who have lied, embezzled, poisoned, imprisoned, tortured, murdered and plundered.
As a group, 911 "debunkers," could be classified as accessories to a very serious crime--if that crime were ever seriously investigated. As guilty of destroying this nation as those silent and complicit German citizens were who served the Nazi regime and wrecked Germany in the process.
Debunkers claim massive incompetence caused 911. They claim a former disgruntled CIA employee and his 19 underlings flew under the radar and hijacked four Boeings and blew up eight buildings (Seven WTC buildings and the Pentagon).
However, these debunkers spend far more time lambasting critics of the 911 Big Lie than they do goading the incompetent and criminally negligent administration to pursue and capture Osama Bin Laden. If OBL really masterminded 911, why haven't these so-called "debunkers" petitioned their incompetent government to get Osama, whatever the cost? Why aren't these debunkers at the gates of the White House with their signs and megaphones?
(This piece by Steve Bhaerman is posted at www.afterdowningstreet.org alongside articles by Gore Vidal and a flood of news items on impeachment. It's good to see that David Swanson is opening the door for this discussion. Thanks Joe, for sending it in. -r.)
The Final "Leg" of the Journey
By Steve Bhaerman
...It's a bit of a mixed feeling to realize that millions and millions of people who didn't get this distinction two, four or six years ago now understand that the "political' issues we now face aren't about right and left, they're about right and wrong. On one hand, what took you so long? On the other, thank God and welcome aboard.
Updated the video info, should play now...
Craig+Hill lambastes the inert Congress, skewers the neoconservatives, exposes PNAC, the breadth and depth of NSA spying, and kicks some general ass.
From the Vermont panel, The Truth of 9/11 - What Now? - February 21, 2007.
I just found out we lost the AOL Poll, did we overlook it?
Someone has stated here that the Bill O'Reilly poll is over, but it seems to still be running, so if you haven't voted on whether Charlie Sheen will hurt his career by narrating Loose Change Final Cut, here's the poll. Remember to take a deep breath, and get quickly in and out, before you vomit:
Oh, well , if you can't beat them, don't join them, beat them some more!
So I'm looking out for other polls related to 9/11 truth and I just found this one. 34 people have voted and the poll stops at a thousand votes, so what do you say, should we stop this poll right now? I think it's fair to flood it, afterall it's a popularitycontest. Here it is:
Entertainment: Will rosie O'Donnell still have her job after her contract is up? (I'll admit the question is not really saying anything, unless you think they are implying she will be fired or not renewed)
The corporate media have launched desperate attempt to eliminate all discussions about the official body of evidence related to the events of 9/11. Just watch how they are trying frantically to get Rosie O’Donnell fired from ABC’s The View. Also think back to when the media launched a broad based attack against the character of Charlie Sheen for daring to publicly question the official story of 9/11. Rosie, however, is a much greater problem for the criminals in the media. She is on a daily network TV program with a large audience that doesn’t even know that questions and disturbing facts about 9/11 exist.
Let’s understand one thing: the 9/11 truth movement is doing nothing but growing. People who have been exposed to the actual evidence and understand the ramifications of what it reveals are not waking up one morning and suddenly deciding that they believe the official story. The dynamic works like this: those who are not aware of the evidence believe the official story. Once they start poking around they realize that the official story about the attacks could not possibly be true, and they discover the plethora of evidence hidden and misrepresented by the Bush administration, the 9/11 Commission and the corporate media. 9/11 truthers are not suddenly coming across new information that caused them to suddenly believe the official story. It’s a one way flow. The evidence speaks for itself.
Could that last statement possibly explain why the media are trying so desperately to quash any discussion about 9/11 or destroy the credibility of anyone who dares to try to raise the topic? You can bet that it is! But there is another angle here as well. The media are no longer trying to protect the insiders of the Bush administration whose involvement in the events and cover up of the evidence is implicated by so much that has been uncovered. This time around they are protecting themselves. Let’s be real here. With every day a liar continues to lie it becomes more difficult to undo, explain, correct or justify that lie. This is the position in which the corporate media find themselves right now.
The events of 9/11 pose a unique problem for the criminal corporate media. For generations, the media have kept Americans in the dark about topics like war, taxation, the monetary system, America’s involvement in atrocities in the world, domestic assassinations, science, health, and our environment. Yet, 9/11 is a topic that hits home like no other. Understand that this is not theory, this is provable...
(TVNewsLies.org is a great site, check it out: http://www.tvnewslies.org/ -r.)
by Rob Kall
April 5, 2007
Across the spectrum of the right wing echo chamber, they are taking a new approach to dealing with the people who are the most effective at getting out the truth. They call them crazy, inappropriate, unethical, out of control...
Joe Scarborough takes pot shots at Barbara Walters for allowing Rosie to have a voice. He asks, "How sad has Barbara Walters become. Why has she allowed Rosie O'Donnell to destroy her once great reputation?" ...
Although labeling O'Donnell's comments as "unhinged ravings", Scarborough and his right hand men do not debate or counter what she is actually saying but instead choose to attack and attempt to end the career of an elderly woman who was reporting meaningful and insightful news items while they were still in college...
These hacks go after Rosie and Barbara Walters, really saying horrible things about Walters, clearly trying to do all they can to get Rosie fired. Make that silenced.
The fact is, Rosie has brought 600,000 new viewers to the VIEW...
Joe Scarborough went after Rosie O'Donnell just as viciously because she spoke the widely repeated questions of the 9/11 Truth movement, asking how anyone could explain the collapse of the third WTC tower, the one that was not hit by a hijacked jet...
Everything's coming up 'Rosie'
Democracy gets an unexpected Sheen, too.
By Adri Mehra
I never thought I'd say this, but Rosie O'Donnell is a great American.
The 45-year-old stand-up comedian and actress, who has been the outspoken co-host and moderator of ABC's popular daytime chat show "The View" for the past six months, has gone from stupidly off-color to vividly shining moral Technicolor in that same span.
Eschewing the tabloid-chattering controversy of her embarrassingly racist "ching chong" representation of Chinese people last December, O'Donnell has, in my mind, culturally redeemed herself with her clear-eyed commentary on the U.S. escalation to war with Iran and her sudden and comprehensive endorsement of the 9-11 truth movement.
"What do you think of Rosie's remarks about 9/11? Click here to send us your comments on video. You may be featured on a future broadcast of INSIDE EDITION."
As a preface, I must say I am absolutely itching to receive my copy of David Ray Griffin's new book in the mail. Popular Mechanics' role as an arm of propaganda is rearing its ugly head again. Now that Rosie has come forward, along comes Popular Mechanics to "rebut" her. Most of the media is buying in to the PM rebuttal. For example, in response to Rosie's "Bring on a structural engineer!", one news article says: "But what Rosie and the conspiracy theorists overlook is that Popular Mechanics Magazine contacted many experts and have done a thorough investigation that answers the theorists' questions."
On the Randi Rhodes (Air America) 9/11 forum, a poster by the name of "Ohio Girl" made the following comment:
"Oh gosh. This again!!! I think in the end, people will believe what they CHOOSE to believe. I read a very interesting article in popular mechanics that debunked several of the theories. I would expect Popular Mechanics to be pretty unbiased."
March 25, 2007
There was yet another great segment for liberals on Hannity & Colmes Friday night, March 23, 2007. Alan Colmes and News Hounds top dog and radio talk show host Leslie Marshall provided the perfect response to attacks from Sean Hannity and Michael Reagan against Charlie Sheen over his narration in a “9/11 conspiracy” film. Marshall and Colmes confronted Hannity and Reagan for attacking Sheen with personal insults rather than debating the issues at hand. Neither Hannity nor Reagan had a counterargument, other than to level more attacks at Sheen and the left. The result, in my view, was that Hannity and Reagan were exposed as thuggish oafs while Marshall and Colmes sounded the voices of reason. With video.
Hannity, during a teaser at the beginning of the program said, “The hopelessly confused actor is going to narrate a film full of his wild-eyed conspiracy theories.” Can you imagine Alan Colmes saying before a segment about, say, Ann Coulter, “The hopelessly malicious columnist will offer more of her crackpot theories in an upcoming book?” I can’t. On FOX News, the conservatives do the attacking, often while complaining about the rhetoric of the left.
At the beginning of the actual discussion, Hannity played a clip of Sheen calmly talking about why he doesn’t believe the official explanation of 9/11. Hannity said, “That was Charlie Sheen, ranting like a lunatic.”
Reagan didn’t waste a moment getting in a slur of his own. “The apple does not fall far from the very tree at all, with Martin Sheen being his father.”
In synch with the conservatives, the screen chyron read, “CHARLIE SHEEN’S 9/11 CONSPIRACY RANT HEADED TO THE BIG SCREEN.”
There was a time, not long ago, when daring to question the official account of 9/11 was risky business. One was almost guaranteed to be attacked as a "crazy person" or a "traitor" or a "terrorist sympathizer." Times have changed. At this point, less than 20% of the population believes they were given the full truth regarding 9/11. Logically one might ask: "Why is that?"
It wasn't for lack of trying that the government failed in its propaganda campaign. It wasn't for lack of "helping hands" in the mainstream media. (Though even that support has begun to fall apart.) No, it was one thing and one thing only that caused hundreds of millions of American citizens to openly question the official account of 9/11; the evidence.
Friday 23. Mar 2007
No way World Trade Center Towers were brought down simply from planes, jet fuel and fire
by Graeme MacQueen
Sometime in late 2005 I had a conversation -- quite a heated one, actually -- with an American dissident who said that 9/11 was obviously carried out by the U.S. government. I expressed some scepticism about this and he said that I obviously hadn’t done my homework and didn’t know the first thing about the issue. I realized after that conversation that he was actually right. I’d tinkered with the issue by reading long pieces on the internet late at night but I hadn’t really done my homework. Being, I guess, a scholarly sort of guy, and having by this time taken early retirement so that I could work for peace and justice in whatever way I wished, I ordered some the leading books, downloaded key articles, and set to work.
March 19, 2007
by Amy Zalman, Ph.D
One of the first of many powerful passages in Rajiv Chandrasekaran's book about the protected area that has housed the Coalition soldiers during the Iraq War, Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone, is that of the U.S. soldiers' mess hall.
The food—Fruit Loops and crisply fried bacon—was American; the décor—stackable chairs and glass covered buffet tables—was American. And the story that made the U.S. presence there make sense, that was American too:
A mural of the World Trade Center adorned one of the entrances. The Twin Towers were framed within the outstretched wings of a bald eagle. Each branch of the U.S. military—the army, air force, marines and navy—had its seal on a different corner of the mural. In the middle were the logos of the New York City Police and Fire departments, and atop the towers were the words THANK GOD FOR THE COALITION FORCES & FREEDOM FIGHTERS AT HOME AND ABROAD.
by Chaim Kupferberg
“Former” CIA agent Robert Baer has recently weighed in with his own assessment of how we should view Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's recent testimony (see "Why KSM's Confession Rings False" ).
In Baer's view, we should take it with a grain of salt. He further hints that, in the light of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's current lack of gravitas and obvious reliability as a witness, we should perhaps look to the contributions of other agents and state actors in our evolving understanding of the dynamics of al Qaeda. And though he now seeks to minimize the role of KSM in the Pearl killing - Baer considers him, as he has now learned through the proverbial grapevine, as more of a standby eyewitness than as an actual hands-on participant - Baer neglects to inform his readers of his own personal role in Daniel Pearl's investigation, a role that could arguably be said to have set Pearl directly on the course toward his tragic fate.
Nevertheless, since Baer did insinuate himself personally into the Pearl legend, as of his September 30, 2002 revelation to UPI, one would expect that he would - at least someday - have to give a more detailed description of the nature of his "joint investigation" of the 9/11 mastermind with Daniel Pearl - that is, unless it can be shown that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not "all that" in the end. As Baer seems to be suggesting in his recent Time magazine piece, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is damaged goods, a thoroughly brain-addled and water-boarded "clown" from whom little of any reliable intelligence value may be wrung.
When Baer had first offered up the account of his personal role in Daniel Pearl's investigation, many of the discrepancies surrounding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had yet to fully disseminate among some of the more discerning members of the public. Yet with the 9/11 mastermind officially in custody, Baer now strongly hints that perhaps we should direct our lingering questions elsewhere, to the roles of other actors, and different horizons.
And thus does Baer continue to postpone his own accounting with the historical record, which is provided below...
Editor's note: Antiwar League is posting this article because it makes important points for the whole antiwar movement. Regardless of what particular theory about the events of September 11 you subscribe to, it is important to put aside our differences and work for a common goal we can all agree on. There must be a new investigation, a full and truthful investigation, unimpeded by secrecy and conflict of interest.
Why the Left Should Not Be Hostile to 9/11 Truth Efforts
by David Slesinger
(March 1, 2007)
The war on terror is being used to open the door to serious threats to our civil liberties. Exposition of any lies supporting such threats could be helpful to the protection of our Constitution.
If the current regime lies about so much, why shy away from asking the hardest questions about 9/11?
(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.