Still Missing the Point

The Official Story Unravelled:

Will someone please tell Tim Russert that we don't care whether the Mayor of New Orleans called Ground Zero a "hole in the ground" or referred to it with more reverence. We care that we know the truth about what really caused three buildings to collapse when two aircraft and the fires that they generated could not have done it. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html,http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.htmlWe care that Main stream media continues to suppress the real story about how the Towers collapsed. The rest of the country is catching on but the talking heads are picking their noses harping on irrelevant questions that entirely miss the point.

Bin Laden's father, we learned from Christiane Amanpour's CNN documentary on Bin Laden had close ties with Saudi Royalty. Like Father like son. The Documentary tells us that Bin Laden grew up in a wealthy home where his father was connected with the Saudi Royalty as a prominent business icon and the largest construction developer in Saudi. Bin Laden grew up working for the family business doing hands on construction. We saw footage of him riding a bulldozer and/or digger. All his brothers did this. He certainly knows how construction companies implode buildings in controlled demolitions. It was part of the job.

The evidence and serious scholarship now points to the conclusion that the WTC was a controlled demolition. Apparently eye witness accounts insist. But how did he rig the WTC? Did you know or does Tim Russert know that the security company in charge of all WTC security is owned by George Bush's brother Marvin and a cousin? Did you know that there was some sort of emergency security shut down days before the 11th?


Here is a blurb on a book by a guy who believes that the Official Story is the Lie:

In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.)
In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.
Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.
It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning.
But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11."
They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.
Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.
One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.
For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed. Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims ofThe 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers — including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC — are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta — such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances — that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed — an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft" — a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel — that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel — made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner — even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras — including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike — could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the U.S. military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family — all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period — were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for U.S. airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds — testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other U.S. officials (103-04).
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the U.S. military (117-18).
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the U.S. Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks — Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart — were also three of the strongest advocates for the U.S. Space Command (122).
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, U.S. representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a U.S. proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the U.S. public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command — even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the U.S. military's radar to track that plane (166-67).
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
69. The claim that the U.S. military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three (3) years (192-93).
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department" — although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference — although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36 — in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon — one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the U.S. military until 10:31 (237-41).
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
111. The claim — made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them — that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call "the Kean-Zelikow Report" by writing that it, "far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. WHY would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception IF they were NOT trying to cover up very high crimes?" (291)
Griffin Seals Case for 9/11 WTC Demolitiom

PLAYING DUMB-

TOO STUPID OR TOO EVIL- You Pick

This Mayberry Mafia, aka President Huckelberry Awe Shucks does a really good Act at playing "we didn't know" dumb. If you believe this Act I have a bridge in Brooklyn and a palace in Bagdad I want to sell you.
As we approach the Fifth Anniversary of 9-11 and the first Anniversary of Katrina we should really reflect more deeply on those events than media shine has portrayed-because the media of course has a brilliant habit of being propaganda tools of the Administration.
Here are questions you should be asking yourself to determine whether we have a President/Vice President and Posse that is either too stupid to be in office or too evil. You pick.

Katrina - UNACCEPTABLE INCOMPETENCE OR MALICIOUS PLANNED NEGLIGENCE
1. These are Federal Levies, managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. If the Army Corps of Engineers didn't see a Hurricane coming when weather.com, military satelites and all news stations had it tracked from the time it was floating around off shore for a week, how good is the Army at protecting other installations? Are they all scratching their posteriors wondering "how big will the waves be billybob?" How many years did they have to measure the levies? Too stupid or too evil?

2. Why did they take funding away from the levy maintenance in years preceeding Katrina? Too stupid or too evil?

3. Noah built an Ark before the flood hit. Bush scrubbed for brush on the ranch, went golfing (fishing?). Then while thousands of people and half a city were floating away he helicoptered around for a wave-about. Too stupid or too evil?

4. They turned away first responders, supplies and got in a funding and org chart battle while thousands of people and half a city floated away. Too stupid or too evil?

5. The National Guard wasn't called in immediately during or after the storm to evacuate people in every amphibious military vehicle made, and public buses were not ordered from surrounding states down to retrieve refugee residents of the Dome where people actually died waiting for aid. Too stupid or too evil.

They could write volumes of "incompetency" on Katrina- and they have, notably in a book called DISASTER by a couple of Wall Street Journal journalists including Robert Block. It tracks the disassembling, denials, lies and classic "we didn't know" horse dung.

SEPTEMBER 11

You are going to see a lot of replay of the footage of the Towers collapsing while they trot out Gulianni. Look closely. There were three buildings. Tell me whether you see and hear explosions. Look at the internal pancake implosion of the towers. You can actually hear an explosion after the plane hit the first Tower and was there for minutes. Then ask yourself the following questions and tell me-too stupid or too evil.

1. The 9-11 widows testified at the hearings that they did their own research and one of them turned up a governmental memo in which it was explicitly noted that the scenario of a plane hitting a building had to be anticipated as a terrorist threat. The CIA and NSA knew that by 2000 Al Queda had taken over the Afghanistan national airline Ariana Airlines. (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1996ariana) In June 1985, Shiite Muslim gunmen seized a TWA passenger jet, forcing it to Beirut. They demanded the release of 700 Arabs held by Israel.A plane did hit one of the Towers in 1992 or 1993 (remember!) and did not bring down any Tower much less all three of them. This time three towers buildings (the Twin Towers and building 7 of the WTC) went down with
two aircraft. Condolezza Rice however states that an airplane hitting the Tower was something no one could foresee. Too stupid or too evil?

2. The FAA, Federal Aviation Authority learned of hijacking and waited (operating under some apparent stand down orders) before alerting the Air Force to scramble jets over Langley and elsewhere. Too stupid or too evil?

3. Once the FAA did alert the Air Force to scramble fighter jets over Langley, they went the wrong direction over the Atlantic instead of toward the Pentagon. Too stupid or too evil?

4. They have never shown actual footage of aircraft penetrating the Pentagon. They have showed a smoking smoltering hole more consistent with a missile attack. Too stupid or too evil?

5. Our intelligence is apparently so crack it detected non-existent WMD in Iraq half a planet away, but we couldn't detect planes off radar heading for the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in time to do anything about it until they actually landed inside them. Whooops! Too stupid or too evil?

What is the pinnacle of Evil? What is the word for that -
Vile? Reprobate? Heinous? Criminal? There isn't a word strong enough to express the magnitude of it-Satanic itself doesn't come close.

One explanation for the fact that we have done next to nothing on the real security of the Homeland on container checks, liquid explosive detection, port and rail security, etc. is because they don't need to do anything to ensure we won't be hit on the homeland because Bush isn't going to plan another 9-11 with Saudi Prince Bandar. He only needed one Pearl Harbor to
invade and attack Iraq-a country that never attacked us. All he needed was to torch about 3,000 people in New York to get the country pissed off enough to send their kids to the sandgraves of God forsaken Iraq.

Too stupid, or too Evil?
In either case- the losing suckers have been the American people.
That is going to change. Count my words. You heard it here first.


ONE GOP CONTENDER GETS IT- see, http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082506B.shtml


..........................and direct from the Church that Condi calls home:...............................................

Presbyterian Church publishes 9/11 "conspiracy" theory

Malaysia SunTuesday 8th August, 2006

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s publishing arm has released a book that says President Bush organized New York's Sept. 11 attacks. The decision by the 160-year-old Westminster John Knox Press, the trade and academic publishing imprint of the Presbyterian Publishing Corp., to attribute the attacks on the World Trade Center brings into the U.S. religious mainstream a conspiracy theory long held by the world's jihadists. In 'Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action,' author David Ray Griffin calls the United States the world's 'chief embodiment of demonic power, says he initially scoffed at 9/11 conspiracy theories. But after investigating he concluded that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, military personnel were given stand-down orders not to intercept hijacked flights and the 9/11 Commission, ostensibly created to uncover the truth behind the events of 9/11, 'simply ignored evidence' that the administration was involved in the attacks. Griffin further asserts that such events such as that of 9/11 are part of a long history of 'false-flag attacks,' attacks orchestrated by governments against their own people to garner popular support for military action. Griffin is a professor at California's Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, and a codirector of the Center for Process Studies.

"All it takes for Evil to Prevail is for Good Men to do Nothing"

Not Your Grandfather's Republican Party

To say that the Republican party is experiencing a split is a bit like saying the San Francisco earthquake of 1989 caused a bit of a stir. There are voices of imminent reason, at least philosophically consistent and cogent, like George Will, Chuch Hagel, McLaughlin and sometimes even Pat Buchanan who think that the neo-con pre-emptive lie us into War mentality has undermined Middle East stability and will cause huge backlash domestically. The jury is not out on that one; it has returned and the country thinks it was a disasterous policy. The verdict will be entered in the record in November. Everyone knows it. The repercussion for letting the neo-con
coup hijack the moderate reasoned elements of the party will be that the Democrats likely take back the House and probably the Senate.
Then there are the diehard party loyalists who are banking on GOP fundraising for future elections and so have lost all intellectually honest perspective and speak with forked tongue. They miscalculate.
John McCain has appeal because he can see error, calls it for what it is but is too easy to excuse it and too ready to tote the party line. Its the line that is the problem. He admitted on Meet the Press today that Rumsfeld has presided over a department bumbling through horrendous strategic and basic military errors in misunderstanding the Iraqi insurgency that have cost us billions and thousands of lives. Unlike Hillary, however, he refused to call for his resignation. He expressly affirms every President's right to appoint whomever he likes for as long as he likes. Here, McCain puts party ahead of country, something that he commended Lieberman for allegedly not doing.
Presidents do not, however, have the right to appoint whomever they like for as long as they like regardless of their record of incompetency because Presidents and their cabinet ultimately must serve the country not just party, and when their actions have substantially damaged the country, it is the People's job in the form of their Congressional representatives to call them to account and demand they be removed. Because the Republicans have lost all responsible self-regulation in this calling to account, the People are insisting loudly that someone does and they will clean House in November.
This is not a new concept. McCain is to be applauded for his bill condemning Torture, and criticism of the prosecution of the war. But he comes short in not demanding accountability from where the buck has to stop.
Hillary is to be applauded loudly for her position, regardless of how late she came to it, that Rumsfeld should resign. "Oh My" indeed. These types of jobs are not your ordinary middle muddle management positions where people for sheer croonyism should be allowed for buddy buddy comraderie sake to keep them for eight years when they screw up that badly and devastatingly hurt that many people in the deceitful process (destroying villages, lives, towns, etc.). They are ultimately employees of the people, not just of the President who needs to be reminded that he himself is but a public servant. How long did they really think people would stand for being bold face lied to their faces?
"We have no Kings in America" as the Michigan judge chided Bush on the warrantless wiretapping. We similarly have no permenant secretaries, cabinet members of heads of departments by fiat, declaration or stubborn intention to excuse the inexcusable. Competency reviews by Congess should be mandatory and regular, and if one fails the review the President owes it to the Nation to flunk him out or allow him to graciously resign.
When someone as devastatingly pathetic, either by intentional malfeasance, deceit, negligence, misjudgment or a combination of all the above, as Rumsfeld's record persistently demonstrates, it is simply long overdue time for him to go.

Now a word on wireless wiretapping. Of course it is wildly blatantly completely flatly unconstitutional. The fact that someone connected with Al Quada may be calling into the country provides NO-ZERO- justification for the fact that my phones or any true American living in America's phones click off the hook on the mere suspicion that I know someone overseas. The President does not have the authority to listen to my private personal or professional conversations unless there is a threshhold basis or reason for suspecting something criminally evidentiary will result. This country has since its foundation established the right to be secure in your person without governmental intrusion. The colonialists and revolutionary soldiers fought hard and gave their lives to throw off the British practice of quartering squatting british soldiers and spies in anyone's home. Bush cannot do it in the name of "national security."
I have a friend who won't talk at all on anything but a landline for fear of all his cell phones being monitored merely because he is a democratic activist attorney who has taken on legal matters against the Administration. This has interrupted needlessly my personal life. I have had emails disappear into the diverted remote server ether compromising potentially my ability to represent clients when I travel overseas. Of course this Bush practice is a horrendous abuse of my right to run my personal and professional life without governmental intrusion. I not only resent it- I think it is a criminal invasion- as if someone E-burglarized me with full governmental duplicity. It is disgusting. E-burglary should be as
criminal as walking into your home and stealing a pile of mail off your desk or walking off with your draft pleadings. The government in legal matters against it should not in the name of national security be allowed to read attorney's emails or listen in on their phone conversations as that fundamentally perverts Justice. If FISA isn't working, then there has to be a legislative solution crafted to meet legitimate national security concerns (as Arlen Specter has insisted), while at the same time safeguaring the basic civil/constitutional rights that make us proudly Americans. Think about it.

BOYCOTT COULTER EVERYTHING

Editorial Rant- Bile Barbie reappears -like a bad case of Herpes.


Here is the deal. I don't get to pick the Google Ads up top. They just appear from the twisted mind of some Google marketing madman. Apparently one of them has a hard on for Bile Barbie. She just keeps popping up in the Google Ad section above like a bad case of Herpes. She won't go away-like Aids. She has merchandised herself into a poster, a blog, a doll, books that Random House was stupid enough to pay an advance for which it must now recoup by infecting all google ads like a virus. My favorite one is from the On Line Human whatever rag that still shamelessly runs her column like diarreah "Get Ann Coulter-Free." What a bargain- does she usually charge $200 a trick?
Maybe Google Ads just pick up on words with some software program so that if Coulter's name appears with some statistical regularity it assumes that means people want to hear and see more of her instead of the opposite. Kind of like make War to find Peace logic. In that case they should tell us so we are sure to write "Impeach Bush Impeach Bush Impeach Bush Impeach Bush Impeach Bush" ten times for every one time we mention that unmentionable, aka -the G.O.Twiggie.

I think any and everything Ann is morally, aesthetically and literarily repugnant and I question the cranial matter of anyone who reads her tripe. I am shocked that anyone lets her speak to impressionable young women. I usually am charitable to DG sorority types at Cornell as one of my best friends at Cornell was one. I even hung out at their House.
But Coulter is just a shameless Murdock Media Harlot who is shaming my Alma Mater, profession, religion,and gender. There isn't a kind thought swimming in the polluted air in her head. I imagine her getting weeds instead of flowers on her birthday, because she thinks they smell better. I think she should figure out now what use she can make with the coal she will get in her stocking for that absurdist vitriol called "Godless" which title she got from her x-rays. For those who missed it, by the way, she announced at that Claire Booth Luce gig to all the stary eyed women that she would NOT over turn Roe v. Wade if she was on the Bench (in your dreams Adams Apple)- I dare you to repeat that to Flynn.
I am the same age as Coulter and we both went to Cornell more or less the same time. We grew up with that Farrah Fawset beach poster everywhere-something that obviously made a great impression on her. She has apparently fantasized herself into being the Farrah Fawset of Young Republicans scantily clad in spagetti straps on the impressionable Young American Republicans (or whatever) webpage. Those poor kids.
She says things that should cause normal people to be encouraged to therapize for their sheer deceitfulness and vitriolic bile that makes me wonder who is perscribing her Zoloft. She needs it readjusted especially after that sad harpie comment.
I have more respect for Angelina Jolie, and my El Salvadoran maid than I do for Miss Ann. At least they can Act and have real children.
Apparently she and her column have been kicked out of USA Today in favor of Jonah Goldberg, an Arizona Newspaper, some Jewish Weekly online journal and others. Only Fox will have her on. And who pays any attention to the Fox Hole?
All traces of her Ads would be kicked out of this site if Google read their customer complaint email and took it seriously. If they ignore me for another week, expect that this Pilgrims, Patriots and Prophets will come to you from another web location and URL where Google Ads and Ann Coulter (Impeach Bush Impeach Bush Impeach Bush) are not invited.

My advice; Boycott any and everything Coulter. Spend the money instead on something more worthwhile like gas for your car or a Guiness.
Better yet, spend it supporting the
Senatorial Campaigns of

Ned Lamont- a true Connecticut Patriot
and all Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Contenders.

And paaaaalease.....don't you dare accuse me of Coulter-envy- I can buy a bottle of Lauriel blonde for under $25. (check the eyebrows people -it isn't real)
Anyone so insecure that they have to merchandise themself into a Republican poster girl for japanese hair straightener and Gap spaghetti straps clearly had a troubled youth.

Paul Craig Roberts speaks-Listen Here!

Key Reagan advisor Hon. Paul Roberts:
“Gullible Americans have been duped by the 9/11 Hoax... Wise up -- the world is
laughing at you."

Who is Paul Craig Roberts?


Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Ronald Reagan (awarded the Treasury Department’s Meritorious Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy.")
Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.
Former editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service
Held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (1982 –1993)
Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996
Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy
Nationally syndicated columnist for Investor’s Business Daily
Winner of the 1992 Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism
Ranked “One of the top seven journalists” by the Forbes Media Guide (1993)
Author of, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, and Marx’s Theory of Exchange, Alienation and Crisis

Dr. Roberts was educated at the Georgia Institute of Technology (B.S.), the University of Virginia (Ph.D.), the University of California at Berkeley and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College.

He is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in the World, The Dictionary of International Biography, Outstanding People of the Twentieth Century, and 1000 Leaders of World Influence.

Could anyone in their right mind consider this man a crackpot “conspiracy theorist”?

___________________________________________________________________________




Gullible Americans

By Paul Craig Roberts
Information Clearing House
08/14/06


I was in China when a July Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when Bush invaded that country, and that 64 percent of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda.

The Chinese leaders and intellectuals with whom I was meeting were incredulous. How could a majority of the population in an allegedly free country with an allegedly free press be so totally misinformed?

The only answer I could give the Chinese is that Americans would have been the perfect population for Mao and the Gang of Four, because Americans believe anything their government tells them.

Americans never check any facts. Who do you know, for example, who has even read the Report of the 9/11 Commission, much less checked the alleged facts reported in that document. I can answer for you. You don’t know anyone who has read the report or checked the facts.

The two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission Report, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have just released a new book, “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.” Kean and Hamilton reveal that the commission suppressed the fact that Muslim ire toward the US is due to US support for Israel’s persecution and dispossession of the Palestinians, not to our “freedom and democracy” as Bush propagandistically claims. Kean and Hamilton also reveal that the US military committed perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners. The commission even debated referring the military’s lies to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. Why should we assume that these admissions are the only coverups and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report?

How do you know that 9/11 was a Muslim terrorist plot? How do you know that THREE World Trade Center buildings collapsed because TWO were hit by airliners? You only “know” because the government gave you the explanation of what you saw on TV. (Did you even know that three WTC buildings collapsed?)

I still remember the enlightenment I experienced as a student in Russian Studies when I learned that the Czarist secret police would set off bombs and then blame those whom they wanted to arrest.

When Hitler seized dictatorial power in 1933, he told the Germans that his new powers were made necessary by a communist terrorist attack on the Reichstag. When Hitler started World War II by invading Poland, he told the Germans that Poland had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany.

Governments lie all the time--especially governments staffed by neoconservatives whose intellectual godfather, Leo Strauss, taught them that it is permissible to deceive the public in order to achieve their agenda.

Some readers will write to me to say that they saw a TV documentary or read a magazine article verifying the government’s explanation of 9/11. But, of course, these Americans did not check the facts either--and neither did the people who made the documentary and wrote the magazine article.

Scientists and engineers, such as Clemson University Professor of Engineering Dr. Judy Woods and BYU Professor of Physics Dr. Steven Jones, have raised compelling questions about the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The basic problem for the government's account is that the buildings are known to have fallen at freefall speed, a fact that is inconsistent with the government's "pancaking" theory in which debris from above collapsed the floors below. If the buildings actually "pancaked," then each floor below would have offered resistance to the floors above, and the elapsed time would have been much longer. These experts have also calculated that the buildings did not have sufficient gravitational energy to accommodate the government's theory of the collapse. It is certainly a known and non-controversial fact among physicists and engineers that the only way buildings can collapse at freefall speed into their own footprints is by engineered demolition. Explosives are used to remove the support of floors below before the debris from above arrives. Otherwise, resistance is encountered and the time required for fall increases. Engineered demolition also explains the symmetrical collapse of the buildings into their own foot prints. As it is otherwise improbable for every point in floors below to weaken uniformly, "pancaking" would result in asymmetrical collapse as some elements of the floor would give sooner than others.

Scientific evidence is a tough thing for the American public to handle, and the government knows it. The government can rely on people dismissing things that they cannot understand as "conspiracy theory." But if you are inclined to try to make up your own mind, you can find Dr. Jones' and Dr. Woods’ papers, which have been formally presented to their peers at scientific meetings, on line at http://www.st911.org/

Experts have also pointed out that the buildings' massive steel skeletons comprised a massive heat sink that wicked away the heat from the limited, short-lived fires, thus preventing a heat buildup. Experts also point out that the short-lived, scattered, low-intensity fires could barely reach half the melting point of steel even if they burned all day instead of merely an hour.

Don't ask me to tell you what happened on 9/11. All I know is that the official account of the buildings' collapse is improbable.

Now we are being told another improbable tale. Muslim terrorists in London and Pakistan were caught plotting to commit mass murder by smuggling bottles of explosive liquids on board airliners in hand luggage. Baby formula, shampoo and water bottles allegedly contained the tools of suicide bombers.

How do we know about this plot? Well, the police learned it from an “Islamic militant arrested near the Afghan-Pakistan border several weeks ago.” And how did someone so far away know what British-born people in London were plotting?

Do you really believe that Western and Israeli intelligence services, which were too incompetent to prevent the 9/11 attack, can uncover a London plot by capturing a person on the Afghan border in Pakistan? Why would “an Islamic militant” rat on such a plot even if he knew of it?

More probable explanations of the “plot” are readily available. According to the August 11 Wayne Madsen Report, informed sources in the UK report that “the Tony Blair government, under siege by a Labor Party revolt, cleverly cooked up a new ‘terror’ scare to avert the public’s eyes away from Blair’s increasing political woes. British law enforcement, neocon and intelligence operatives in the US, Israel, and Britain, and Rupert Murdoch’s global media empire cooked up the terrorist plot, liberally borrowing from the failed 1995 ‘Oplan Bjinka’ plot by Pakistan- and Philippines-based terrorist Ramzi Ahmad Yousef to crash 11 trans-Pacific airliners bound from Asia to the US.”

There are other plausible explanations. For example, our puppet in Pakistan decided to arrest some people who were a threat to him. With Bush’s commitment to “building democracy in the Middle East,” our puppet can’t arrest his political enemies without cause, so he lays the blame on a plot.

Any testimony against Muslim plotters by “an Islamic militant” is certain to have been bought and paid for.

Or consider this explanation. Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush and Blair are war criminals. Bush is so worried that he will be held accountable that he has sent his attorney general to consult with the Republican Congress to work out legislation to protect Bush retroactively from his violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Tony Blair is in more danger of finding himself in the dock. Britain is signatory to a treaty that, if justice is done, will place Blair before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

What better justification for the two war criminals’ illegal actions than the need to foil dastardly plots by Muslims recruited in sting operations by Western intelligence services? The more Bush and Blair can convince their publics that terrorist danger abounds, the less likely Bush and Blair are ever to be held accountable for their crimes.

But surely, some readers might object, our great moral leaders wouldn’t do something political like that!

They most certainly would. As Joshua Micah Marshall wrote in the July 7 issue of Time magazine, the suspicion is “quite reasonable” that “the Bush Administration orchestrates its terror alerts and arrests to goose the GOP’s poll numbers.”

Joshua Micah Marshall proves his conclusion by examining the barrage of color-coded terror alerts, none of which were real, and, yes, it all fits with political needs.

And don’t forget the plot unearthed in Miami to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago. Described by Vice President Cheney as a “very real threat,” the plot turned out to be nothing more than a few harmless whackos recruited by an FBI agent sent out to organize a sting.

There was also the “foiled plot” to blow up the Holland Tunnel and flood downtown New York City with sea water. Thinking New Orleans, the FBI invented this plot without realizing that New York City is above sea level. Of course, most Americans didn’t realize it either.

For six years the Bush regime has been able to count on the ignorant and naive American public to believe whatever tale that is told them. American gullibility has yet to fail the Bush regime.

The government has an endless number of conspiracy theories, but only people who question the government’s conspiracies are derided for “having a conspiracy theory.”

The implication is even worse if we assume that the explosive bottle plot is genuine. It means that America and Britain by their own aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by enabling Israel’s war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon, have created such hatred that Muslims, who identify with Bush’s, Blair’s, and Israel’s victims, are plotting retaliation.

But Bush is prepared. He has taught his untutored public that “they hate us for our freedom and democracy.”

Gentle reader, wise up. The entire world is laughing at you.

I M P E A C H or R E S I G N

The problem with a Bush resignation is that this leaves us with Cheney.
The Impeachment option should cover both of them.
Last night on Scarborough country Joe ran clips of the Bush litany of malapropisms and hosted commentary regarding his ongoing wrestling match with the English language. Joe Scarborough, who is actually a former Congressperson, wondered wistfully, if not painfully whether we have to suffer two more years of this with the precipitous decline in Gravitas the Presidential office has fallen into with our folksy hoksey Pres.
Ken Mehlman couldn't look more facile in trying to recast "stay the course" with announcing a new moniker Sunday that didn't quite rhyme and wasn't quite catchy that sounded something like "adapt and modify" or something equally wishy washy.
The Republicans should be talking about resignation and it looks like they are.
Cheney as a Ford protege understands the need to get a real serious problem out of the way then pardon it into silence. This is a real serious problem. If Bush is in office in November, for sure the Democrats will take the House and John Conyers has already all but promised to those who know robust impeachment hearings.
Then the republicans will whine about how the vote was stolen from them and forget that their biggest donors own the electronic voting companies.
Some muse that the country shouldn't suffer another impeachment debacle.
We shouldn't have to wait for it. If an international commission establishes the probability greater that the Towers fell from human device and artifice extraneous to the alleged hijackers or if there was any governmental duplicity, they both have to go, Cheney and Bush like. Then someone should start taking about disgorgment of
war profits.

We do not endorse the above ads

Our favorite webpages are www.clintonfoundation.org
www.americanprogress.org
www.georgesoros.org

We are Democrats (in the event it was not obvious) but Google advertising obviously has a sense of humor.


No one will tell if you actually get a poster or book of the unmentionable above
person whose first name rhymes with Flan so long as you keep it hidden under the bathroom sink.
Flan, by the way is a popular french pastry. The other one is more Tart like.

Call for an International 9-11 Commission

The Veil Is Lifting and the Stones Cry

Citizens of 87 countries died that fateful September 11, 2001. The World has a serious interest in getting to the truth of it. The UN should appoint an International Investigative Commission to present all the facts on the downing of the World Trade Center.
There are too many disturbing unanswered questions---and they all point to some duplicity or cooperation between the US government and the Saudis.
I just saw the movie about the World Trade Center. If you live in DC it is playing at the Uptown in Cleveland Park. I didn't want to see it at first because I didn't want to relive the events and I didn't feel like being spoon fed republican propaganda. But I am glad I did and I urge everyone to see it. It will make you sick. It will make you cry.
It is based on the eye witness accounts of the two New York Port Authority police protagonists who are rescued from deep inside the rubble who miraculously lived through the events. When you see it you will see why I was left with the following two impressions: 1. Jesus saves some people and 2. The Towers went down in a planned internal demolition by a series of internal explosions.
The movie nicely supplements the very credible academic literature and physics examinations now regarding how impossible it is for mere jet fuel to reach the heat necessary to do the damage required to all the buildings that came down in a pile of rubble in the fashion that they did to the extent that they did in the relative locations in which they did.
The facts that establish that the Towers collapsed in an internal demolition have been well researched and appear corroborated by the eye witness testimony that the movie seeks to tell for those with ears to hear and eyes to see it. These eyewitness accounts were suppressed by inter alia, Guiliani who forbade the NY Fire Department from speaking about it.
There does appear to be a massive governmental cover up larger than missing 18 minutes of Nixonian tape regarding why the security company that President Bush's brother Neil has an interest in which serviced the Towers called a security emergency within days before September 11, 2001.
In 1993 a plane hit a Tower and didn't cause the building to tumble. Planes have hit other buildings and not caused them to disintegrate. These men trapped in the rubble heard successive explosions and saw explosive fireballs. It is more rationally explainable by the thesis of internal demolition than jet fuel igniting fax cartridges.
Every single act of war and aggression waged by the Republicans for the past five years has been justified by the same refrain concerning how the World changed after 9-11.
If the Bush/Cheney neo-con cabal had anything to do with the internal demolitions that have self servingly justified every act of murder in war, then we don't have any choice. We have to impeach them.
There is a growing ground swell of citizens who believe that their government lied to them, not just in fabricating a pretext to assault Iraq, but in the very premise of their aggression against terror.
There is a bible verse that says something like if you deny Me (Christ) the very stones will cry out. The stones, the rocks, the rubble of the World Trade Center are crying out.
The World needs to listen.
There needs to be an International Investigative Commission appointed to get to the bottom of Ground Zero.

Please see one of many letters I receive on the subject below:

To whom it may concern,
I am submitting an opinion piece for Rocky Mountain News, written byBill Douglas, an author who has also been a contributing guest columnistfor The Business Journal, The Kansas City Star, etc. This opinion piece entitled, "Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts" isa timely piece. I hope you enjoy it and publish it. You can reach Bill Douglas at, to confirm his permission to reprint:findtruth40@hotmail.com Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts by Bill Douglas, author of "The Amateur Parent - A Book on Life, Death,War & Peace, and Everything Else in the Universe." Bill has been acontributing guest columnist for The Business Journal, The Kansas CityStar, etc. I began researching the mainstream media coverage of the controversyregarding the attacks of 9/11/2001, when reading an article in theMilwaukee Journal Sentinel Newspaper, dated June 29th, 2006. It wastitled, "Sept. 11 claim stirs UW probe -- Instructor says U.S. plannedthe attacks to provoke war." This led to my discovery of some wildconspiracy theorists that endanger our government and mediaestablishments, with quite frankly insane assertions. I'll address thisin full in the final paragraph. Then by using a "google video 9/11" search, I recently viewed a FOX Newsinterview on Hannity and Colmes with an Arab Studies teacher from theUniversity of Wisconsin named Kevin Barrett. I had earlier seen aninterview with another, a professor named James Fetzer, University ofMinnesota Duluth. A few weeks earlier I had seen an interview on MSNBCScarborough country interviewing a Mike Berger representing911Truth.org. Some of these guests referred to an organization called "Scholars for9/11 Truth" with a website www.st911.org, which offered a physicsresearch paper questioning the official explanation of the events of9/11/2001. While visiting this site, I read that they pointed to thetemperatures of the fires in the WTC buildings, and construction of thebuildings, and the speed they fell, as evidence they claimed proved thatwhat we saw on 9/11/2001 when the towers fell had to have been theresult of a controlled demolition. Like the ones we've seen with Las Vegas hotels being broughtdown. Their claim was that the WTC buildings could not have been causedsolely by the aircraft hitting the WTC buildings that day. Then, I contacted the office of a Wisconsin State Legislator, Rep.Stephen Nass (R-Whitewater), and asked to speak to someone in the officewho could speak on this issue. I asked if he was familiar with theScholars for 9/11 Truth website, and he replied they had learned of itthis week. I asked him if he and the Representative could comment on thecharge that the fires on 9/11/2001 in the WTC buildings did not burn hotenough to bring down the buildings, and if he'd read the scholarsorganization's charge that thermate traces had been found on debris fromthe fallen towers (thermate indicating demolition type explosives wereinvolved). The gentleman responded that no, they had not looked at thisinformation, and this would not be something they would look at, furtherindicating that anyone who made such charges was blinded by their hatredof President Bush. Which leads back to the interviews of guests on the three televisionnews programs. The main theme of all three of the guests on theseprograms appeared to be concern of the physical evidence of 9/11/2001,mentioned above and particularly regarding the collapse of three of theWorld Trade Center buildings on that day. The main themes of the interviewers on these programs appeared to betwo-fold: 1) The guests were representing a fringe movement, and most Americans donot dispute the official 9/11 explanation of the 19 hijackers defeatingUS military and intelligence forces on 9/11/2001. 2) The guests and those they speak for, who question the official9/11/2001 account, are of questionable sanity This motivated me to do some research. First I looked at the fringemovement issue that the majority of Americans disagreed with theprograms guests and accept the official explanation, and secondly, thesanity and expertise of people like their guests who question theofficial story of 9/11/2001. First, regarding the fringe issue, asserting that the guests questioningthe events of 9/11 reflected a small minority of American opinion. Ilooked at the only polls I could find on these questions, and theresults were surprising. A CNN viewers poll, which is not scientific,held Wednesday, November 10th, 2005, asked, "Do you believe there is aU.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?" 89% replied "Yes," they didbelieve there was a cover-up by the U.S. Government (9,441 votes), whileonly 12% felt there was no cover-up. In a national Zogby poll, of May2006, found that 45%, of the American public felt a new 9/11investigation should be launched because "so many unanswered questionsabout 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal shouldre-investigate the attacks, including whether any US governmentofficials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success." Anearlier Zogby poll of New York City residents, from August of 2004,found that Half (49.3%) of New Yorkers felt that U.S. governmentofficials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or aroundSeptember 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." While 66%of New Yorkers called for a new probe of Unanswered Questions byCongress or New York's Attorney General. Now to the second issue the television media interviewers were mostconcerned with, which was the expertise and sanity of the peopledemanding a new 9/11 investigation, and some even suggesting possibleU.S. government complicity in the attacks of 9/11/2001. Again, a simplegoogle "video 9/11" search, provided a wealth of information. This tooyielded some surprising results. One of the loudest advocates of the most damning charge that "members ofthe U.S. government actually orchestrated the events of 9/11 to fool thenation into unpopular wars", was not a tree-hugging Green Partyactivist, but rather a prominent Republican, in fact a Former ChiefEconomist under George Bush, and professor at Texas A&M, MorganReynolds. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html Google research of the growing list of other 9/11 skeptics of theofficial story, some "convinced of U.S. government involvement," whileothers not going that far, but pointing out that"the official story ishighly questionable and demands further investigation," yieldedsurprising results. Including a host of high level Republican administrationofficials, defense experts, intelligence experts, and respectedscholars, as well as well known celebrities who are now adding thespotlight of their names to the issue of 9/11. Among them were: Former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. AirForce, under President Reagan, and combat fighter pilot Col. RobertBowman (Caltech Phd in aeronautics and nuclear engineering).http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674 Former CIA Intelligence Advisor to Reagan and George HW Bush and founderof the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Ray McGovernhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11 Kevin Ryan, former department head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories) thecompany which certified the steel which went into the WTCs upon theirconstruction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001.http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451 Former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury Senior Research Fellowat the Hoover Institution, Research Fellow at Stanford's IndependentInstitute, and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul CraigRoberts http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#roberts Canadian National Defense Minister, the Honourable Paul Hellyerhttp://www.septembereleventh.o! rg/kc/multimedia/movies/Hellyer.mov Minister for the Environment, and Member of Parliament (United Kingdom)Michael Meacher http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825 National Minister of Defense (Germany). Also, served as Minister ofTechnology Andreas Von Bulow http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825 Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of thedepartment for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry ofDefense, General Leonid Ivashov http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&! ;code=NIM20060123&articleId=1788 Former MI6 British Counter Intelligence Officer, David Shaylerhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974 Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at theUniversity of Minnesota, former Marine Corps officer, author or editorof more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, JamesFetzer http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=122 Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, and co-chair of ScholarsFor 9/11 Truth, Steven Jones http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586 Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, ClaremontGraduate University, and author or editor ! of some 30 books, including"The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions andDistortions" David Ray Griffin http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154 Professor of mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and founder ofthe Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), A.K Dewdneyhttp://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Dewdney Aircraft crash investigation authority, USAF Col. (Ret) George Nelsonhttp://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm Former chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East, USAF Col.(Ret) Don de Grand-Pre http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html Actor Charlie Sheen (Platoon, Wall Street, etc.)http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/280606juggernautoftruth.htm Actor, Ed Asner http://www.911blimp.net/videos/EdAsner-UnityIsTheKey.mov Actor, Ed Begley, Jr http://video.google.com/videopla! y?docid=-7140359934129245752 So, now that we've examined the two main issues of concern for thetelevision news interviewers, which was the "fringe" aspect of thequestioners, and the "sanity/expertise" issue, it appears thosearguments are very weak arguments, really with no merit at all.Obviously tens of millions of Americans, according to polls, want a newinvestigation into 9/11/2001 and have a strong suspicion of U.S.government involvement at some level. Obviously not all of the nationaldefense, intelligence, aeronautics, physics and engineering expertsquestioning the official story of 9/11 are insane or unqualified tocomment. This begs the question, in the face of such obvious facts, why do ourmedia personalities continue to attempt to throw out accusations thatare patently untrue regarding those who question the official story?When a television news interviewer continues to ask questions and makeassertions that he or she knows to be untrue, this would challenge theexpertise and sanity, not of their guests, but of the television newsinterviewer. The 9/11 truth movement appears to be growing rapidly, and involvingpeople of substantial credentials and expertise. As television and someradio personalities continue to behave in what obviously is an insanebehavior, what do we do? Can we get our national media any psychologicalhelp? If not, it would be wise to relieve them of their positions atleast. I feel increasingly uneasy about millions of young minds beingexposed night after night to comments and opinions by people whoincreasingly appear to be insane, yet in positions of authority. Of course the concern here is larger. If there is any possibility ordoubt about whether the events of 9/11/2001 were participated in bymembers of our own government, then our entire democracy and world peacewould be strengthened by getting to the bottom of the true facts of thispinnacle event of our time. It would be unhealthy to leave a cloud ofdoubt hanging over such assertions. There should be a full fledgednational debate, experts from all sides should be interviewed onnational media to get to the bottom of this once and for all. OurCongress should launch investigations into the physics questions thatare causing so many to doubt the official story. No matter where anyonestands on this issue, this is obviously the only path to nationalhealing and trust. However, this debate on national media cannot occur if the interviewershired by national media continue to behave in an insane irrationalbehavior, like "conspiracy theory wing-nuts." You see, too many of ourmedia spokespersons on television and radio adhere to a wild conspiracytheory. Their theory is that anyone who looks into the facts of theevents of one of the most important issues in history is alone, andinsane, but yet somehow organized in some united conspiratorial effort.Of course, the facts fly in the face of this conspiracy theory, butthese media personalities appear unable to grasp reality even when it ispointed out to them. For media reading this article, time will tell whether you are an insaneconspiracy theorist or not. If you too, are among the insane in ourmedia, the public will likely eventually demand your resignation. As onewho writes sometimes on parental issues, I believe it is unhealthy tohave insane people in charge of the national information highways ourchildren are taught to watch. We need sane media people who look atfacts regarding issues, not ones who launch into insane screeds ofparanoia to avoid reality. Also, you may recall that when I contacted State Representative, StephenNass' office, his aid stated that they were aware of but not interestedin and would not look at the physics facts provided by the websiteScholars for 9/11 Truth, www.st911.org. However, they did want to fire auniversity teacher for presenting facts, many of which were available onthat site. To fire someone for presenting facts, facts that you dispute,yet have no idea what those facts are, and are unwilling to look at themto find out what they are . . . is also insane. Again, as someone whowrites on parenting issues, as a concerned parent as well, Americashould also consider retiring our insane government officials who firepeople for facts they aren't aware of and are unwilling to look at.These politicians apparently assert some wild conspiracy theory thatmillions of Americans are questioning the events of 9/11 because theyare "Bush haters" according to the aid at Nass' office. This kind of delusional paranoia by our elected officials isof particular concern. Such wild eyed conspiratorialists should not beallowed in government. Bill Douglas, author of "The Amateur Parent - A Book on Life, Death, War& Peace, and Everything Else in the Universe" findtruth40@hotmail.comAugust 9, 2006
PS from Jimmy:
I urge everyone to personally examine the mountain of lies told by our government to our citizens about the 9/11 attacks and then form their own opinion. This issue may be the biggest our generation will ever face in our lifetime!

<<~::~>><<~::~>><<~::~>><<~::~>><<~::~>><<~::~>><<~::~>><<~::~>>

Fool Me Once.......Fool me Twice, Not Gunna Fool Me Agin [sic, really sick]

In the Sunday talking head round up--
Russ Feingold said to Stephanopolous yesterday that Lieberman doesn't "get it." He endorses Lamont in Connecticut. He all but endorsed McCain for 2008 and said McCain could beat him in 2008. That's an odd comment from someone on the Iowa-New Hampshire bisquit circuit. Clearly he doesn't want the job now.
McCain agrees we are playing "whack a mole" in Iraq but does not grasp the depth of the deception and manipulation of the American people and is likely to be duplicitously tarred with all of those neo-cranks whose failed policy has cost billions and tens of thousands of lives. McCain has no plan to bring home the troops anytime soon and can see them there for an eternity.

If Feingold has already admitted he would lose to McCain, all eyes are back on Kerry, Hillary, Dodd and possibly Edwards. The republicans don't get that this is such a collossal disaster of a foreign policy nightmare that the country will turn Democratic for generations. Of all the above Kerry is the only one with real military background. Being married to a Commander in Chief on that score doesn't outrank combat duty in Nam.

Ramsey Clark, the Attorney General under Johnson sees through the fog of war and the double mirrored smoke and glass. Under the light of August Washington sun, on the Mall this week-end he openly called for every good citizen to move for the Impeachment of Bush.


We all know the Cheney neo-con (short for Neanderthal-Conservatives) cabal lied us into Iraq. Did they also set up or provoke the alleged first aggression of Lebanon? Investigative reporter/author Robert Parry thinks so. Israeli PM Olmert made a historic address before the US Congess (possibly the first time any foreign head of state gave a State of their Union address in our Congress) telling the country that they were happy to withdraw from Gaza and other Israeli lands so they could all co-exist in peace with neighboring peoples. But what was really going on? What was being cooked up during that propitious timely visit:

The following article appeared in www.ConsortiumNews.com



Israeli Leaders Fault Bush on War
By Robert ParryAugust 13, 2006
Amid the political and diplomatic fallout from Israel’s faltering invasion of Lebanon, some Israeli officials are privately blaming President George W. Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the ill-conceived military adventure against the Hezbollah militia in south Lebanon.
Bush conveyed his strong personal support for the military offensive during a White House meeting with Olmert on May 23, according to sources familiar with the thinking of senior Israeli leaders.
Olmert, who like Bush lacks direct wartime experience, agreed that a dose of military force against Hezbollah might damage the guerrilla group’s influence in Lebanon and intimidate its allies, Iran and Syria, countries that Bush has identified as the chief obstacles to U.S. interests in the Middle East.
As part of Bush’s determination to create a “new Middle East” – one that is more amenable to U.S. policies and desires – Bush even urged Israel to attack Syria, but the Olmert government refused to go that far, according to Israeli sources.
One source said some Israeli officials thought Bush’s attack-Syria idea was “nuts” since much of the world would have seen the bombing campaign as overt aggression.
In an article on July 30, the Jerusalem Post referred to Bush’s interest in a wider war involving Syria. Israeli “defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,” the newspaper reported.
While balking at an expanded war into Syria, Olmert did agree on the need to show military muscle in Lebanon as a prelude to facing down Iran over its nuclear program, which Olmert has called an “existential” threat to Israel.
With U.S. forces bogged down in Iraq, Bush and his neoconservative advisers saw the inclusion of Israeli forces as crucial for advancing a strategy that would punish Syria for supporting Iraqi insurgents, advance the confrontation with Iran and isolate Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
But the month-long war has failed to achieve its goals of destroying Hezbollah forces in south Lebanon or intimidating Iran and Syria.
Instead, Hezbollah guerrillas fought Israeli troops to a virtual standstill in villages near the border and much of the world saw Israel’s bombing raids across Lebanon – which killed hundreds of civilians – as “disproportionate.”
Now, as the conflict winds down, some Israeli officials are ruing the Olmert-Bush pact on May 23 and fault Bush for pushing Olmert into the conflict.
Building Pressure
Soon after the May 23 meeting in Washington, Israel began to ratchet up pressure on the Hamas-led government in the Palestinian territories and on Hezbollah and other Islamic militants in Lebanon. As part of this process, Israel staged low-key attacks in both Lebanon and Gaza. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com “A ‘Pretext’ War in Lebanon.”]
The tit-for-tat violence led to the Hamas seizure of an Israeli soldier on June 24 and then to Israeli retaliatory strikes in Gaza. That, in turn, set the stage for Hezbollah’s attack on an Israeli outpost and the capture of two more Israeli soldiers on July 12.
Hezbollah’s July 12 raid became the trigger that Bush and Olmert had been waiting for. With the earlier attacks unknown or forgotten, Israel and the U.S. skillfully rallied international condemnation of Hezbollah for what was called an unprovoked attack and a “kidnapping” of Israeli soldiers.
Behind the international criticism of Hezbollah, Bush and Olmert justified an intense air campaign against Lebanese targets, killing civilians and destroying much of Lebanon’s commercial infrastructure. Israeli troops also crossed into southern Lebanon with the intent of delivering a devastating military blow against Hezbollah, which retaliated by firing Katyusha rockets into Israel..
However, the Israeli operation was eerily reminiscent of the disastrous U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Like the U.S. assault, Israel relied heavily on “shock and awe” air power and committed an inadequate number of soldiers to the battle.
Israeli newspapers have been filled with complaints from soldiers who say some reservists weren’t issued body armor while other soldiers found their equipment either inferior or inappropriate to the battlefield conditions.
Israeli troops also encountered fierce resistance from Hezbollah guerrillas, who took a page from the Iraqi insurgents by using explosive booby traps and ambushes to inflict heavier than expected casualties on the Israelis.
Channel 2 in Israel disclosed that several top military commanders wrote a letter to Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, the chief of staff, criticizing the war planning as chaotic and out of line with the combat training of the soldiers and officers. [Washington Post, Aug. 12, 2006]
One Israeli plan to use llamas to deliver supplies in the rugged terrain of south Lebanon turned into an embarrassment when the animals simply sat down.
Reporter Nahum Barnea, who traveled with an Israeli unit in south Lebanon, compared the battle to “the famous Tom and Jerry cartoons” with the powerful Israeli military playing the role of the cat Tom and the resourceful Hezbollah guerrillas playing the mouse Jerry. “In every conflict between them, Jerry wins,” Barnea wrote.
Olmert Criticized
Back in Israel, some leading newspapers have begun calling for Olmert’s resignation.
“If Olmert runs away now from the war he initiated, he will not be able to remain prime minister for even one more day,” the newspaper Haaretz wrote in a front-page analysis. “You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power.
“You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis in shelters for a month and then say, ‘Oops, I made a mistake.’” [See Washington Post, Aug. 12, 2006]
For his part, Bush spent July and early August fending off international demands for an immediate cease-fire. Bush wanted to give Olmert as much time as possible to bomb targets across Lebanon and dislodge Hezbollah forces in the south.
But instead of turning the Lebanese population against Hezbollah – as Washington and Tel Aviv had hoped – the devastation rallied public support behind Hezbollah.
As the month-long conflict took on the look of a public-relations disaster for Israel, the Bush administration dropped its resistance to international cease-fire demands and joined with France in crafting a United Nations plan for stopping the fighting.
Quoting “a senior administration official” with Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, the New York Times reported that “it increasingly seemed that Israel would not be able to achieve a military victory, a reality that led the Americans to get behind a cease-fire.” [NYT, Aug. 12, 2006]
But the repercussions from Israel’s failed Lebanon offensive are likely to continue. Olmert must now confront the political damage at home and the chief U.S. adversaries in the Middle East may be emboldened by the outcome, more than chastened.
As in the Iraq War, Bush has revealed again how reliance on tough talk and military might can sometimes undercut – not build up – U.S. influence in the strategically important Middle East.



Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

TERROR FOR POLITICAL PROFIT-so what's new.

Aren't you disgusted yet? I am. Aren't you sick of this 'woooooowoooooo everyone hates us and you don't get that everyone hates us and wants to kill us, woooooooowooooooooo, send in the marines!"

If we just recite enough sounding foreign names can we get everyone whipped up in a xenophobic frenzy so we only trust big mouthed long legged blondes?

Beware those self proclaimed public intellectuals who tout their New York Times best-selling status while peddling books for $1.35. Yes, you can now buy “Godless” Ann Coulter’s epistle on Amazon for a buck thirty five. That makes it cheaper than a bag of mixed nuts at the airport or a box of tampax. There’s a rush at Walmart so get yours today.
Beware of people who say things like “All gays are….” “all liberals….” “all abortions…..”. Gays are not all gay or remain gay for the same reason, all people don’t get abortions for the same reasons and all “liberals” don’t all hold views for the same motivation on all issues all the time. Neither apparently are all Catholics on all fours with all alleged Catholic positions all the time.
Neither are self proclaimed public intellectuals smart all the time.
Point in case is Coulter who if she looked like Roseanne Barr would not be on any TV show but Comedy Central and the world would take her about that seriously.
Why anyone takes seriously anyone who thinks she is making a point by posting unconvicted names of British Pakistani young men on her webpage decrying her new straw target –those mythic "liberals" who don’t think terror is worth fighting-is beyond me. I hope those Pakistani youth who are not convicted sue her for Slander and write a book about it. One has already been released as an innocent bystander of the wrong color in the wrong place. Others were detained and arraigned without counsel or even a phone call home. NBC news reports that the Bush administration put pressure on Blair to get these arrests immediately when common sense and the state of evidence didn't support it- none of these characters apparently had even purchased an airline ticket, and many of them don't even have passports.
Coulter apparently has forgotten (if she ever knew because her knowledge of world history ends at Nova Scotia and she thinks anyone who knows anything outside the US "hates America") that Britain once ruled India, Pakistan and Bangladesh such that there are enormous populations of all of them in Britain and they all are entitled to the same due process the rest of the country gets. Not one of them has been convicted of anything. Their arrest has conveniently however coincided nicely with the kick off of Democratic take back the Congress high gear season.

The only thing she has said correctly is her prediction that Republicans will lose many seats this November election. “Lots of them” I think she said. When that happens I will buy her a drink and suggest her next book topic should be “How my vicious loud ignorant mouth tanked it for the Republicans but they all still want me, because I still look hot toting a shotgun in tight jeans and I have more money than Ariana. Na na na na.”

Here is what we do know. Shamelessly the Republicans are expert at Capitalizing on Terror.
Terror pays big. A republican fundraiser letter went out timed ever so conveniently with regard to the terror announcement. Grab your duck tape kiddies, head for the safe room and bring along mommies check book with you:

Click here: ABC News: Democrats Assail GOP Fundraising Effort

WASHINGTON Aug 11, 2006 (AP)— Democrats assailed the Republicans Friday for e-mailing a fundraising appeal mentioning the war on terror hours after British authorities disclosed they had disrupted a plot to blow up aircraft headed to the United States.
"In the middle of a war on terror, we need to remain focused on furthering Republican ideas more than ever before," former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a letter that asked for donations to the Republican National Committee.
The RNC blamed a low-level staffer for distributing the fundraising appeal, which the party said had been scheduled for release before news of the plot broke.
"Once the RNC learned of this error we ceased distribution of the e-mail," said Tracey Schmitt, a party spokeswoman.
Democrats didn't accept the explanation.
"The defeat of the London plot is a warning that we should redouble our efforts to defeat terrorism. It shouldn't be used as a political defibrillator by Republicans on electoral life support," said Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Senate Democrats' campaign committee.



Democracy Truth gives Permission to reprint in whole or part.
Submissions for publication may be sent to DemocracyTruth@aol.com