portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

9.11 investigation

Two Dangers

The second danger is that the pseudo-opposition press and "progressive" pundits who have buried their heads in the sand?as Al Giordano, editor of Narconews puts it, those who have "come down on the wrong side of history"?will succumb to shame and pride and refuse to speak out with the appropriate level of outrage and insistence for a full and speedy independent investigation into White House activites before 9/11, thus undermining the necessary buildup of public and media pressure on this issue.

Two Dangers

Those of us who have been sacrificing long hours and sleepless nights feel some vindication about the breaking in the news of the advace warnings before 9/11 that were apparently ignored by the Bush Administration. It's tempting to hope that the issue of 9/11 prior knowlege might truly break open, along with a discussion of the complex and multifaceted array of evidence on a number of other fronts, and that someone in the mainstream press might finally start asking the bold questions that need to be asked.

However, at the same time I fear that there are two big dangers approaching: The first is that the Bush administration and the National Security establishment (i.e. the military / intelligence arm of America's ruling elites), backed into a corner by an increasing avalanche of disclosures which are strengthening allegations of willful negligence and possible collusion in the deadly 9/11 "terrorist" attacks, will lash out in desperation in some unexpected way. With so many alerts of new terror coming out (which reek of wagging-the-dog) and so many remaining unsolved puzzles post-9/11, especially the coverup of the Anthrax mail investigation and the alarming series of suspicious deaths among world-class microbiologists with expertise in biological weapons, I must say that it is hard to keep my worries in check.

The second danger is that the pseudo-opposition press and "progressive" pundits who have buried their heads in the sand?as Al Giordano, editor of Narconews puts it, those who have "come down on the wrong side of history"?will succumb to shame and pride and refuse to speak out with the appropriate level of outrage and insistence for a full and speedy independent investigation into White House activites before 9/11, thus undermining the necessary buildup of public and media pressure on this issue. To be frank, I have the inescapable feeling that there are all too many who would tend to hold back and allow an investigation into 9/11 to become another tainted, inconclusive debacle like the investigations into the Iran-Contra affair or BCCI, rather than be in position of having to admit their deep failure in refusing to challenge in any meaningful and vocal manner the clearly fraudulent and inconsistent official story of 9/11 over the past half-year.

The sort of folks who, it seems, might actually lose more sleep over having to face even the chance that the "conspiracy nuts" that they have been villifying and dismissing might actually be right in some way, compared to the sleep they would lose if it were later proven conclusively that the Bush Administration had willfully failed to take preventive measures that could have stopped the 9/11 attacks.

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, who has spent the months since 9/11 lambasting anyone who has raised arguments about possible Bush Administration prior knowledge as a "conspiracy theorist", has condescended to scratch out this useless puff piece:

Bush's Little Secret
http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=13341

Two things of note in this article: first, the gratuitous, snide jibe at "conspiracy theorists" right in the opening?setting an obviously defensive tone; second, note carefully how, halfway through, he diverts the focus away from the question of Bush administration negligence towards the idea of investigating an "intelligence failure." Those who have been paying attention know quite well that it has been the central strategy of the Bush administration to rein in a Congressional investigation solely to an inquiry into internal problems with the CIA & FBI, inter-agency communication, intelligence analysis, etc. So, here Corn, while taking an easy potshot at the feeble Congressional efforts taken thus far, is disingenously parroting the official line and shifting the focus in a way that surely must please Ari Fleischer.

Why is he putting out spin which protects Bush's flanks? Why is he going through such contortions to look like an outraged "progressive" while actually subtly flakking for the official line by stating more or less that an investigation into the White House is warranted only insofar as it provides information that helps proceed towards the prescribed, foregone conclusion of "intelligence failure"? This is, more or less, mirroring the PR damage control coming out of the White House which is obviously (to anyone with an IQ above room temperature) setting up the CIA and FBI as the fall guys to take the blame. Corn's indirect assertion that the White House secrecy up until now can be chalked up to an effort to hide the failures of the intel establishment is wholly unconvincing, in my opinion. As many have already pointed out, if this were so it would have been much less damaging for these recent revelations to have been made soon after 9/11, when public sympathies and open-mindedness were still at a peak, rather than now. Even if the pre-9/11 warning memos and briefings were the only important evidence related to official prior knowledge (which they are not), I would not ready to believe that the spin- and PR-obsessed Bush administration would miscalculate this very sensitive and risky issue so badly. Until an unimpeded investigation proves otherwise, I find the most credible claim to be that the White House is hiding something substantially more incriminating and problematic than has been previously assumed in the mainstream media.

And furthermore, why does Corn insist that the investigation should proceed "inch by inch"? What's that all about? We need a broad, powerful investigation that proceeds mile by mile!

By the way, Corn is also flakking for Bush in a critical way by hedging around the false official assertion that US intel did not have confirmed knowlegde of al Qaeda plans to use airliners as flying bombs. No, it may not have been in the content of the August CIA briefing?but it was known to the US years before that! (furthermore, since when did garden variety hijackers worry about taking flying lessons ? and not bother learning how to land, as was reported to FBI agents on the trail of Moussaoui and others? Duh!) For more info on the weakness of this and the other Bush Administration denials see:

The Lie Won't Stand: Bush Administration Explanations for Pre-9-11 Warnings Fail the Smell Test
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/051602_liewontstand.html
Mike Ruppert, From The Wilderness

For those of us who are pressing for real answers about what was known and what was going on in the White House in the months before 9/11, now is not the time to let up and "watch the fireworks." This is the time to ramp up every effort to spread information and make a louder noise than ever about the unanswered questions and shocking evidence surrounding the official lies about 9/11. There is of course a great danger that the investigation being called for, if it happens, will become a watered-down whitewash (which would be all too typical, based on the precedents). There is an even greater danger that any attempts at an inquiry would be swept away in the chaos following a new and bigger "terrorist" attack, which Cheney and US intelligence spokespersons have confidently assured us will be coming very soon.

Brian Salter
questionsquestions.net

homepage: homepage: http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/two_dangers.html