Tag Archives: 911

Chuck Todd v. Dick Cheney

Immunity for Dick Cheney?  Now there is an odd idea.  He is one of the most despised men on the planet, and therefore beloved by probably close to one half of Americans, but why precisely is he entitled to immunity?  You haven’t heard about his being granted immunity?  Okay, so he hasn’t been granted immunity in the traditional sense, as a testifying or cooperating witness.  He has been granted immunity from being questioned about the subject that he apparently thinks absolves him of any responsibility to act as decency and humanity ordinarily dictate—–9/11.

 

I do not begrudge him in the slightest for being the guy that says the oft-thought but unsayable, that he isn’t concerned about the rights or comforts of suspected terrorists, or even the ones who turn out to be innocent.  His support of the use of torture is not a particularly enlightened position now that its uselessness has been established.  And even if no one is entitled to their own facts, there will always be partisans impervious to reason.  Chuck Todd is as good as anyone, I suppose, at demonstrating those people are wrong.  But Cheney’s answer to the question, “what is torture?” was a recounting of the horrors of 9/11.  Twice.  And of all of the human beings in the world, the most painfully prominent who should not be allowed that refuge is Dick Cheney.  Why?  Because whether it knows it or not, the world has the goods on him.  He was complicit in the attacks in a more demonstrable way, based on far more powerful evidence, than any other soul alive,… or dead; Osama bin Laden comes to mind.  The U.S. never even tried to prove Bin Laden’s guilt to the Taliban, which was all they were asking for as a prerequisite to turning him over, thereby alleviating the necessity of a 10-year war in Afghanistan.

 

How bad is it exactly? Does Chuck Todd know the truth but hasn’t the stones to inquire?  Is he uncertain, possibly, or has he found Cheney innocent after exhaustive investigation?  Does he know that Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified to the 9/11 Commission that he was in the PEOC with Cheney before the Pentagon was hit on the morning of 9/11?  Does he know that Mineta gave a detailed account of Cheney confirming orders which either allowed the attack to succeed–we call that treason–or were not followed, leaving the building undefended?  If it were the latter, military history and military law and military standard operating procedure dictate that there would have been a Board of Inquiry, courts-martial, demotions, reprimands, or prosecutions for failure to obey orders.  Instead, there were, in the wake of this nation’s worst single event, promotions across the board.  Whatever Todd’s state of mind, aren’t Meet The Press’s viewers entitled to their own conclusions?

Is this Mr. Todd’s ignorance at work, his failure to raise the obvious questions?  Or is this just the grandest display of intimidation by a truly evil man in the history of journalism, surpassing Rather’s quailing at the scour of Bush in the dark episode known as Iran-Contra?.

David Brooks and the Iraq War

David Brooks has responded non-confrontationally, without using Krugman’s name, to Krugman’s op-ed of May 18 where Krugman asserts that the Bush Administration lied us into the Iraq War.  Brooks refers to that notion as a fable and says it doesn’t gibe with the facts, and he cites the Robb-Silverman report which found a major intelligence failure, Brooks apparently taking great comfort in the bi-partisan nature of the commission that rendered the report.

 

Some of us who have been paying some attention over the past several decades don’t feel comfort because there are an equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans on some commission or other.  The amount of money given to the Defense Establishment by Democrats is more than enough to require some other criteria for comfort than bi-partisanship.  And Brooks should probably spend some time considering the statements of Michael Morell, CIA briefer to Bush, that make it quite clear that there was a whole lot more than failure on the part of the Bush Administration as this country lurched towards its greatest foreign policy disaster, maybe ever.  But can there be some sort of debate here?

 

I would ask Mr. Brooks if he agrees that Donald Rumsfeld wrote a note to an aide on the morning of 9/11 with the words:  “good enough, hit SH,(Saddam Hussein)…sweep it all up things related and not.”  I think it is a question, but knowing the character of the character doing the writing, and considering the use of the word “good” under the circumstances, almost all of human conceptions must be allowed for.  What exactly does Mr. Brooks make of this moment in history?  Does he concede that one not implausible reading of the facts is that the thought had crossed DR’s mind before 9/11 that if there were sufficient excuse, military action might be taken against SH?

 

Does he acknowledge that at least one of his beloved Generals, Wesley Clark in this instance, has reported that military action all across the region was being contemplated before 9/11?  Does he acknowledge that this sort of planning would require a certain preparation of the populace since most people look askance at military action without provocation?  It seems there may be a way of conducting business that is being exposed here.  If there were sufficient lack of scruple, the concocting of the right kind of intelligence might well be part of some playbook somewhere.  And in fact, we know now that the facts were not what the Administration claimed at the time.  So there was either misinterpretation or fraud.

Does Mr. Brooks even acknowledge that fraud is a theoretical possibility?  Or has it been stricken from consideration because its possible existence might require Mr. Brooks to reevaluate a whole range of historical events which, haven’t, in his mind, been considered blemishes upon the Administration record to date?  He might be compelled to think: if they, Cheney and Rumsfeld, were capable of considering the benefits of the 9/11 catastrophe so quickly and so blithely, and had been planning for war in the region for some time, is it plausible to consider that they may have had a hand in the catastrophe’s final form? Or, perish the thought, played a role in its facilitation, possibly? And that might lead this fine upstanding man, moral to his core, we presume, to do some research and find the continent of evidence denied admittance by all authority into any court of law, which happens to give wretched substance to suspicion.  In fact, proves complicity in the 9/11 nightmare beyond the slightest question..

Krugman, So Near and yet…

New York Times, Monday, May 18, 2015, Op-Ed page. Paul Krugman rails against the manufacturers of our reasonably recent history, 2001 and onward,, decrying the actions of the Bush Administration in “lying the United States into war.”  Calling it a crime, he appears confused by what might have driven the perpetrators to do such a thing; a mistaken belief that “shock and awe in Iraq would enhance American power and influence around the world,” the instituting of a “a pilot project, preparation for a series of regime changes,” or dog-wagging to “strengthen the Republican brand at home?”

 

And all of these musings come after reference to Rumsfeld’s 9/11-the day-of memo to staff about whether the event would be “good enough,” –imagine, for Jesus’s mother’s sake, the use of the words– “hit SH,(Saddam Hussein)…sweep it all up things related and not.”  And I think Krugman has to think even more deeply about the use of the words, “good enough.”  I don’t mean to suggest that their use ends any inquiry or is irrefutable proof of Rumsfeld’s conspiratorial intent with regard to the “inside job” aspect of the attacks.  And, I am not suggesting that there aren’t quite close to a thousand other evidentiary reasons for Krugman to rethink his understanding of 9/11 in toto, to the extent he has allowed himself to think about it at all.  What I want to call attention to is the vanishingly short distance one needs to trod between the frame of mind that is part and parcel of Krugman’s current understanding of the causes of the Iraq War, and the right-next-door mindset which conspires to create from, in all likelihood but not indisputably, someone else’s plan of a terrorist attack, that devastation which we now refer to as 9/11.

 

9/11 was probably the piggy-backing of a Cheney-Rumsfeld plan on top of a Khalid Sheik Mohammed plan, creating a false flag event of such scope and breadth that wholly decent American citizens would be defanged of their democratic teeth of thought, not to mention power of speech.  It is a fact, now repeated so many times in so many of those citizens, often with honest acknowledgement of the horror sought to be avoided, that it is cliche to suggest that this nation “can’t handle the truth.”  It is certainly no grave accusation to suggest that Krugman is in this class.  Virtually everyone is in this class.  The exceptions are simply mutant outliers whose relevant synapses were cut or frayed or rubbed raw idiosyncratically at some point in the last 14 years or before, through no fault or design of their own, but are now left to try to manage in the world with a corrupted epistemology as I think Sunstein called it.

 

Such corruption will not, however, let one be.  It cries for attention and constantly seeks for a loose brick in the wall.  Mr. Krugman, could you please take a careful look at the criminal intent, the mind behind that most heinous of war crimes, aggression.  I say that its impulses ranged from the political to the base financial, the passage of the Patriot Act, the projection of American power across the globe with the inestimable economic benefits to war contractors, suppliers, and operators, and of course the benefits to the political party in control of a nation at war, …and yes, oil and other resources in the affected regions and others where the power of example will prove helpful in later negotiations that some shorthanders refer to as, “the lead or the gold” conversations.  World domination is not all that hard to figure out once its theoretical possibility is allowed into the room.

 

So I am asking Mr. Krugman to consider that mind.  It is capable of the clear focus it takes to achieve a grand but deplorable accomplishment.  It is bereft of conscience that would ordinarily consider the even smallish body counts our finest wishes for their humanity would have to have envisioned, serious impediments to concerted action.  It is capable of manipulations of vast resources on the largest of stages, able to “see the whole board,” albeit with some genuinely perverted eyesight.  It is able to lie, again in the biggest way, understanding the essential need to mislead virtually an entire population.  And it is capable of the rankest desire for the achievement of financial gain.  Whatever I have left out, I will argue, can be found within the folds of what I have listed, even if there must be some fumbling around at first to find it there.

Denny Chin, then US District Court judge, now judge of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, whose panel agreed with him in every particular, said “it is simply not plausible that the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and other high-ranking officials conspired to facilitate terrorist attacks that would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.  If anything, the allegations are the product of cynical delusion and fantasy.”  Probably most Americans could have had the thought, if they couldn’t have written the words.  Krugman as well.  But take a look at the mind we have sought to peer into, the one that lied us into war.  Look at the benefits of doubt with which it is bestowed in the face of the worst things you can say about a human being, or group of them.  Yes, they are capable of war criminality, depravity, conscienceless, intricate, merciless imaginings for their own sick ends, and necessarily the ignoring of the probability of substantial if not enormous loss of American troops’ lives–one doesn’t mention Iraqi casualties in a serious conversation.  What in all that blushes at the idea of false flag.  What in all of that stops at the killing of someone with an American passport?   In what fanciful dimension are such parsings meaningful?  And the robe bleats about “fantasy.”.

Common Disaster Motif

What do the following pieces of history have in common other than many dead bodies?  The Breivik  island retreat shooting in Norway 2011, the sinking of the Estonia in the Baltic Sea in 1994, the 7/7 bombings in the Tube in London in 2005, the explosive downing of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001?  Continue reading

Conclusion of Gallop v. Cheney + Affidavit of Evidence

This is probably a little here-and-there theft from the book which has made its way to the publisher.  If it ever escapes from there, this can act as advertising.  The book details my charge into the valley of death in pursuit of 9/11 Truth.  I survived, but Mother Truth has not done so well.  A kind of natural period having been placed at the end of the sentence with the Supreme Court’s denial of our Petition for Certiorari, it seems an apt moment to sum up, for anyone who cares. Continue reading

Review of Kurt Eichenwald’s 500 Days

Kurt Eichenwald has written a book and made all the talk shows, Cooper to Stewart. It is fine and mildly helpful in terms of understanding what those disastrous years of the last decade in part comprised. But he begins with 9/11, so he has walked into my kitchen. I have a number of thoughts, but am still unable to say if what he and many others have done, was done honorably. Continue reading

12/28/07, 9/11/01, Where the Hell are we?

The ends of years have always been the cause for some backward looking. The past twelve months have provided some insights into the nature of the rock that comprises the sheer cliff that those of us who believe that the government was complicit in the attacks of 9/11 are trying to scale. Very hard to get a handhold. But then Eisenhower had no idea how the guys he put at the bottom of the cliffs of Normandy were going to get to the top. He just knew that if he put brave men there, they would get the job done. One bridles at the comparison, but on the other hand” Continue reading

The History Channel takes on 9/11…and fails

On Saturday, August 26th at 5PM, Pacific Time, the History Channel aired “Conspiracy Theories about 9/11, Fact or Fiction?” Many facts were ignored:
As to the attacks in Manhattan:
1. Residue of thermate, a compound used to cut steel in controlled demolitions, was found in the rubble.
2. There are eyewitness statements describing molten metal in the rubble just after the attacks, as well as orange to light-yellow hot pieces of metal, weeks afterward. Continue reading

Book Review of “Debunking Myths of 9/11″

Book Review of Debunking 9/11 Myths

Maybe the life of the nation is at stake, and maybe it isn’t. Maybe this is a time of unprecedented tyranny, and maybe it is simply what was just out of view on the same road we have been traveling for the last seventy years. Maybe this was a sea change and a quantum leap, or maybe it was neither. Regardless of the proper description of the event and this time in history, 9/11 has become an opportunity. Scattered in the rubble of the destroyed buildings and what’s left of the bill of rights is a particle of hope. Continue reading

A Quick Study of 9/11 Facts

Essential Facts for Anyone Who Is Interested

1. There are many eye and ear witnesses to explosions at the towers, but I will cite just a few here. Lt. William Walsh, FDNY, was on a gas leak call on Canal Street. He heard a loud explosion, thought it was Con ED, looked up and saw the first airliner fly into the North Tower. He went there, found burned, dying bodies in the lobby, saw the huge marble panels blown off the walls, and found the doors to the elevator shaft that goes from the 6th subbasement to the 30th floor, and no higher, blown off their hinges. This is clear evidence that there was an explosion involving the elevator shaft at some point lower than the 30th floor. Continue reading