portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

9.11 investigation

Why Bush thinks Ruppert is a terrorist, and why he is not

I'm not going to prove Ruppert's claims one way or the other, just give an
account of how he could respond to Bush, et al.
On September 11, 2001 over 3,000 Americans were murdered in the World Trade Center in New
York City by hijacked airplanes. The Bush administration quickly blamed an Islamic "terrorist"
group based in Afghanistan. No sooner said than our military bombed and occupied that country
causing a debatable several thousand more deaths.

Almost as quickly, others charged President Bush and his team with complicity in the 911 crimes.
Michael Ruppert, for example, claims Bush and his team:

1) knew about the 911 plot to commit mass murder,
2) were complicit in those murders, that is, they were not just criminally negligent, a
situation where there were responsible for protecting Americans, but failed to do their job, but
instead gave aid and encouragement to the terrorists,
3) had a motive in oil and drug profits which explain why they would murder Americans.

The events of 911, the charges and counter charges about Ruppert's claims define our time.
Many of us would agree our goals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are at risk. I am
not in a position to gather more facts to support or refute what Ruppert is saying. However, the
leaders of our country tell us that because of what he's claiming, without hearing those facts, we
should think he's confused or a traitor. I can address myself to this claim because such criticisms
stand or fall on the arguments that Ruppert and the rest of us make. I will show his argument
makes sense, so he is not loony tunes. I will show that if our concern is the protection of people,
and the defense of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," he can not be a traitor.

This is how I understand his position: Ruppert stands with normal people. He thinks to defend
the workers in the World Trade Center, the people who have been trapped by drug addiction,
those of us who depend on an oil economy, the rest of us who are challenged by normal stresses
of living. He's an ex-cop and maybe he identifies with the words, "to serve and protect." He also
refuses to distinguish between Americans and non Americans. As long as any of us are at risk,
he might believe, we are all at risk. As an unofficial protector he's naturally aware and critical of
the official protectors. He's interested to give credit to the police, FBI, or CIA agents he finds who
have integrity and do their job. He's also interested in exposing those who can't or won't do
what's expected of them.

Given what he's discovered about how our government works, he's suspicious of Bush's
professed innocence. He suspected early on there would be evidence of Bush's corruption and
treason. Being sympathetic to the left, I can readily believe people like Bush who need to be
watched. However, it's not clear to most people what we are so afraid of. If they saw what the left
sees, Bush would not have gotten so close to being elected. Ruppert suggests there is a tension
between what we believe our government should do for us, and what people like Bush think
about it. The purpose of government is to protect its people. We look to it to be fair and to keep
the strong from taking advantage of the weak. If our government cannot be trusted to be fair, or
fails to protect everyone, then common people will no longer think well of it. They won't
participate in its running. They'll pay as little attention as they can to its requests. However, our
idea conflicts with Bush's idea that people must be prosperous in order for this government, or
any other, to continue doing any of its jobs. If people aren't able to prosper, I imagine Bush
thinking, they'll find it difficult to support that government. This demand for prosperity will
make government torn between the people's demand for fairness and the protection of the weak
from the strong, and the elite's demands that the government assist them in accumulating more

Bush represents those who have wealth and want more. One could argue, as many of his party
do, that he represents the common people who are not deluded by the wacky ideas of liberals and
the left. However, Bush is in the White House, not because he appeals to more people than his
political rivals, but because he has powerful friends. According to Ruppert's argument, political
elites, of whom Bush is one, make deals with economic elites to obtain political power. Bush
doesn't have the personal resources to finance a campaign, but with the aid of the oil industry, for
example, he can afford more of the tools of a successful campaign. Economic elites make these
deals in order to get the respectability and protection of being American companies. They need
this credibility, being the way they are, otherwise they see no one would do business with them.
Being respected, they prosper. Being as they are, however, according to Ruppert, they've stolen
oil from those who had it, promoted drug economies, in order to survive on laundered profits,
and deceived Americans, at least, into thinking their wealth came justly.

Ruppert's concern is that as these elites prosper, our government's credibility as our protector is

The problem now is that it's getting harder and harder to make a buck. Ruppert has reported, for
example, that the supply of oil is running out. There are some significant reserves in lands that
U.S. companies haven't controlled. Ruppert's claim is that it is plausible to see the mass
murders of 911 as part of a plot to gain control of that un-tapped oil in central Asia. If the
American people were frightened by a horrible terrorist attack, Ruppert imagines them to be
thinking, they would unthinkingly agree to the U.S. military taking over the countries of central
Asia, and to giving up a little freedom in exchange for more effective security.

He thinks this idea is not far fetched at all because there are good reasons to believe this kind of
manipulation has gone on before. For example, the battleship Maine was blown up off the coast
of Cuba, by some accounts it was planned that way, to start the Spanish American war. There's
evidence the Roosevelt administration sat on information that the Japanese would be attacking on
December 7th. The Gulf of Tonkin incident which started our war in Vietnam never happened.
And we're told the military had suggested astronauts and airplanes be blown up to enrage
Americans into a war with Cuba. Each involved someone who knew something assisting and
encouraging harm to people in order to get the American people to support a war. The fact these
things have happened before makes Ruppert, and many of the rest of us, suspicious about Bush
trying it again.

The President is not without his supporters. He's argued that you have to be insane to accuse the
very people who are dedicated to protecting the American people of being responsible for
harming them. The fact that an attack succeeded, he claims, only reflects the difficulty of
preventing them. That Ruppert and others would attack the President at a time of war is
traitorous because, he claims, it causes disunity and weakness at a time when the country is
threatened. Ultimately, this puts the American people at risk.

Basically, Bush and his defenders are committed to the idea that Bush is indistinguishable from
the Presidency. They're saying, you cannot allow Ruppert to win this argument because, if he
would win, he would bring down the government. If you bring down the government, you leave
the American people defenseless. Their argument does not address the question of whether
Ruppert is correct in his accusations. There may very well be overwhelming evidence that Bush
and some number of others were indispensable in the commission of the 911 operation. Their
argument is just that, whatever the facts say, you better save him or else. It's a threat, more or
less. The consequences of moving Bush out of the White House will be too much for the
American people to bear.

I can imagine, for the sake of argument, that "good" Germans faced the same situation and
argument during WWII. Yes, they could have realized, Hitler and the Reich were murdering
millions of Jews and others. This was an exceedingly bad thing. However, as the leader of
Germany, and the tough SOB he was, getting rid of him when they faced forces bound to harm
them, they could not get rid of him without thinking they would doom themselves.

It will be difficult for Ruppert to support his claims. If he is right, and there are powerful people
within the government with their fingerprints at the crime scene, they will be intent on wiping
them off, shredding evidence, and burying witnesses. They will be interested in undermining the
credibility of their pursuers.

There are three tasks for Ruppert, at least,

1) The first will be to determine the facts, and show who was responsible and who was
guilty and who deserves to be punished, and even, who deserves our trust concerning 911.

2) The second will be to expose the "crimes of capitalism," so to speak. Whether or not
Bush and the political elites were negligent or guilty of anything, there remains the question of
whether anyone is stealing oil or laundering drug profits.

3) The third is to show people that they are much better off with a government they can
trust, so its crucial they clean it whenever its dirty. There would always be others who could do
the job without corrupt relationships.

To sum up, Bush thinks Ruppert is a traitor because he thinks his prosperity keeps the
government strong, where the people's security depends on keeping him that way. Ruppert is a
traitor for challenging his right to do whatever is in his interest to maintain his wealth. Ruppert
believes the most important job for government is to protect people and this government cannot
do this when the leadership is involved in such conflicts of interest. They are always tempted to
betray the people for their own benefit.

I would appreciate someone pointing out the links that would support the factual claims. I don't
believe there are any links that would put the argument together this way. I would be interested
to hear how this argument could be clarified. I will do two more parts, one about Ruppert and
the claim he's a conspiricist.

phone: phone: 503 709-6044

Ruppert isn't the only one 08.Jun.2002 01:20

New American Rebel

Ruppert isn't the only one saying these things. The info and websites are popping up on the web like mushrooms. Your story is great, but the way, but makes it seem as if Ruppert is the only one saying that Bush is complicit. The evidence is overwhelming. It's all over the web. just start searching from others links.

CNN Poll said two weeks ago 08.Jun.2002 16:27


Two weeks ago, a CNN poll said that one out of four Americans believed that Bush had enough knowledge to prevent the attacks.

People are asking questions.

Our task is to educate and organize faster than they can convert the US to a full fledged police state.

The 5 w's 09.Jun.2002 01:48

Chris Schmidt blazers1975@yahoo.com

As I sit and ponder the events that took place on 9-11-02 I ask myself where are the answers, but the better question is where are the questions? Why is the mass public not asking the important questions concerning 9-11 for instance ; How was it possible that, according to the Bush administration, this was a total surprise and they had no for knowledge of this incident yet we had the 20 hijacker's names, locations, birthday, and mother's maidens name the same day. Also the fact that we had such a prompt response from our military, carpet bombing innocent civilians in Afghanastan. When Mr. Ruppert was giving his seminar in Portland I happened to attend and found him awe inspiring to say the least. I pose this question to anyone that claims he or anyone like him is a traitor just because he speaks his mind ; Isn't that what an American should do.

Violence is never the answer....question everyting.

Peace, Love, Happiness......stay aware!!!


Citizen's Inquiry of 9-11 09.Jun.2002 13:47

Carol Brouillet cbrouillet@igc.org

Good article. Hopefully much will be revealed at the big DC Press Conference on Monday, June 10th.

I would urge everyone to help raise awareness of this event (which includes Mike Ruppert and key investigaters of 9-11)-

C-SPAN denies public TV access to 9-11 victims' families and 9-11 panelseeking answers and accountability.

**A public plea to citizens interested in fair and balanced media coverage --please forward as appropriate**

Since mid-May, organizers of the 9-11 and the Public Safety press event, June 10th, at the National Press Club (NPC) in Washington, D.C, have been campaigning for media
coverage. This past week, co-chair, Tom Flocco has solicited C-SPAN for coverage hoping for a live TV broadcast, or at minimum a taped and delayed broadcast.

C-SPANs web site says: "Certain events, like speeches at the NPC and news conferences by Congressional leaders, automatically receive coverage." The site also details pre-conditions that an event must meet to be selected for coverage:

1) The event should be of a public affairs nature.
2) The subject should be an issue of national importance.
3) Event should be selected to show balance between different sides of a
4) Speakers participating should be closely related to the topic under

Initial reaction was positive; "this is very interesting, something we want to consider" said Rob Harleston, Assignment Editor, a sentiment echoed by Karen Gaither, another assignment editor. They requested that we keep them updated on any new developments and confirmations.

Friday was D-Day. The editorial/camera shoot committee met Friday afternoon after a few last minute calls to Tom requesting updates as to panelists and other media
coverage, still expressing enthusiasm. Tom and co-chair Kyle F. Hence expeditiously dispatched confirmation updates and a detailed minute by minute agenda and
timeline of presentation -- clearly indicating that positive momentum and significant interest was building for the event.

We were particularly pleased that representatives from the group organizing the June 11th Rally on Capital Hill (Families of September 11th) were planning on
attending our conference and offering their own questions to our 9/11 investigative panel.

We now felt the people and the press were eager to hear the unaddressed issues and unanswered questions to be raised at our Monday event. And we felt somewhat
confident based on their expressed interest that they would at the very least tape the show for a later broadcast given our focus on key issues with regard to the
pubic safety.

But we were wrong!

Tom called C-SPAN at 5:30 pm to inquire about their TV coverage decision. He learned they had decided NOT to cover Monday's Unanswered Questions press event. They
have instead scheduled detailed coverage of Bush Administration officials (VP Cheney,Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge) and others promoting President Bush's
new plan to centralize major national and domestic security and border agencies under the auspices of one government official -- administration events all afternoon.

Tom offered this response to his contact Ms. Gaither. He said, "C-SPAN has fallen for the Administration's 'damage control' and their effort to keep the FBI whistleblowers and the real, unanswered questions totally off the radar screen." "We are standing by our decision to cover Bush Administration events," Ms. Gaithor said, adding "I could not persuade the other editors to cover your program."

C-SPAN's bias toward airing the Homeland Defense restructuring issue is part of an ongoing diversion and reticence to address gross government failures and
negligence surrounding 9-11, without responding to the general public call for full accountability.


If you feel that the American people, and especially the family members who lost loved ones, deserve real answers, open investigations, and access to secret government
documents; we are urging you to do the following:

1) Between 8AM and 2PM on Monday take a half hour to an hour to phone (most important), fax and email C-SPAN asking them why they are refusing any coverage or
taping of such critically important subject matter. (If the phone is continually busy, that
means others share your outrage and concern.)

2) Send an email and a fax if you have access to a fax machine. Please be courteous and concise in expressing your views.


C-SPAN's website says that their editorial staff strives for balance. Why are they ignoring a press event at the easily accessible and prestigious National Press Club --
one that will cover key questions and critical information thus far not addressed by our national leaders? These issues include air defense and airport security failures, profits from pre-attack insider trading, anthrax attacks, encroachment on guaranteed constitutional rights, and the withholding of secret document, etc.

C-SPAN is refusing any coverage or taping of the press event on these 9-11 issues even though two of the three C-SPAN channels became open with no required congressional programming since the House of Representatives is not even in session on Monday afternoon.

Please urge C-SPAN to reconsider their decision and send a team to videotape the conference to be sure that substantive 9/11 issues, new information important
questions are fully addressed that help build a case for a full and independent investigation.


Main number: 202-737-3220
Assignment editor: 202-626-7965 (Rob Harleston)
Assignment editor: 202-626-7965 (Ellen Schweiger)
Fax number: 202-737-6226
Viewer services: 765-464-3080
 dceditor@c-span.org (Rob Harleston, Assignment Editor)
 congress@c-span.org (Karen Gaither, Assignment Editor)
 journal@c-span.org (producers of Washington Journal, shown daily)
 events@c-span.org (C-SPAN established venue to suggest a public event -
polling email address)
 radio@c-span.org (C-SPAN radio)

We are disappointed that C-SPAN has chosen not to cover unanswered questions, un-addressed issues, and hidden information pertinent to public safety and national
security. However, we are hoping that the response of many Americans willing to phone,fax and email C-SPAN will convince them to reconsider their position and cover our
event so many others will have the benefit of evaluating previously un-addressed issues.

The goal of our event is to raise glaringly obvious and disturbing questions that remain unanswered in the wake of 9/11. In its prejudiced decision not to cover this
important event, C-SPAN is in effect taking our money (taxpayer cable-funded fees) and using it against us to deny public access to legitimate and credible inquiry regarding issues of paramount importance to the public safety and national security.

If we should fail in our attempt to have C-SPAN reconsider, we will call on concerned citizens and victim families to take the initiative to research civil
procedure regarding C-SPAN's actions. While UnansweredQuestions can play a minor role in this
effort, it will remain true to its primary goal of galvanizing the public's call for answers and full
accountability with regard to the events and issues surrounding September

Look for audio archive and transcript at our site
(www.unansweredquestions.org) by the
end of the week.

This is not up to Ruppert! 09.Jun.2002 16:04

Mykylykzyt mykylykzyt@yahoo.com

Perhaps you may be "sympathetic to the left" and willing to give due consideration to the ideas that Mike Ruppert has developed regarding 9-11, but to frame this argument (perhaps unconsciously) as being essentially "Ruppert vs. the Bush Administration" or "the Left vs. the Bush Administration" is inaccurate and misleading. To my knowledge(perhaps I'm mistaken), noone in the Bush Administration has sought to dignify Ruppert's claims with any specific acknowlegement whatsoever. Additionally, why should it all be up to Ruppert to conclusively solve the entire puzzle about what happened on 9-11, what led up to it, and what specific political objectives it is now being exploited to justify? IMHO, Ruppert has presented ample evidence, documented and sourced, to show that the official explaination of 9-11 and the rationale for the war in Central Asia is a brazen lie, and we as Good Americans must demand an independent investigation. There is no need for anyone to gather more information than we currently possess to realize that there are many serious questions that must be addressed, questions much more serious than the spin over whether or not Bush or Ashcroft can remember seeing an FBI memo about Arabs in flight schools (this is a damage control technique called confession and avoidance - coming clean on a relatively minor "mistake" to divert attention away from the bigger issues while creating an impression of candor and honesty).
Your three-pronged tasking to Ruppert and those who think along the same lines is useful as a means to understand and anticipate some of the truth-suppression techniques that have and will continue to be used by the Bush Administration. The first tasking requires Ruppert to completly and irrefutably solve the entire crime in order for any of his points to be taken seriously. If our country's intelligence agencies are supposedly unable to explain how 9-11 happened, how can anyone reasonably expect this from one investigative reporting team like Ruppert's? The second tasking is much like the first, and involves what is sometimes called "the search for the smoking gun." Though we already know, for example, that the Bush family and Cheney are heavily invested in the oil industry, that the Bushes have ties with the Bin Laden family, and that the Bushes stand to profit from warfare via the Carlyle Group, it is supposedly seditious and slanderous to pursue questions in this regard because there is no PROOF! Guess what? No one is ever going to uncover a letter on White House stationery and signed by the president instructing George Tenent to work with Al Queda in order to produce a terrorist event that will solidify support for the administration, provide a rationale for arbitary military action anywhere on the globe, help curtail our civil rights, and put a few extra bucks into the pockets of friends and family. As for the third tasking to Ruppert - if any American who reviews Ruppert's evidence and sources and takes a look at the way events are unfolding around the world can still not appreciate that he or she would be better off without this regime that so readily sacrifices human lives for political gain, then no amount of evidence will convince this person.
The thing that Ruppert has said over and over again is that he is merely showing people the evidence, the sources, the tools that we can use to discredit the lies we are being told. When I saw his presentation, he said several times not to take his word for anything - here is the evidence, here is the documentation, verify it yourself, spread it and USE IT. Ruppert is not a messiah - this fight is for all of us.