February 6, 2006
SEND THIS PAGE TO A FRIEND
MAUREEN FARRELL ARCHIVES
Top 10 'Conspiracy Theories' about George W. Bush, Part 1
by Maureen Farrell
"It is incumbent upon journalists, I think, to distrust conspiracy
theories. But the problem with the conspiracy theory of the machine that
lifted George 'Dubya' Bush to high office is that it never lets you down. .
.. ."
-- Ed Vulliamy, the Observer, Aug. 24, 2003
"This is a government takeover and Bush and Cheney are running it."
-- The Chattanoogan, Dec. 21, 2005
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, a friend sent me an obscure book
featuring predictions by a blind Native American shaman. It was a
thoughtful, but annoying, gesture. For all I knew, this "seer" could merely
be a James Frey-sized figment of the author's imagination and these
so-called prophecies could be nothing more than a patchwork of hunches. A
prediction that the Red Sox would win the World Series would have been
impressive. But wars? Economic downturns? Environmental disasters? Yawn.
This was the age of forged Nostradamus quotes and apocalyptic visions,
however, and, with debunking in mind, I plodded ahead. Some predictions,
which were reportedly made in 1982, were decidedly silly. Others, however,
don't exactly ring foolish. Among the more noteworthy:
* Propaganda and terrorism will increase.
* Religious zealots will use the courts to try to force their views
upon the general public.
* The Supreme Court will make unfortunate decisions that don't
benefit the people.
* Several undeclared wars will be waged simultaneously.
* There will be high-level secrecy and clandestine agreements
between nations.
* America will eventually become a police state.
* The draft will be reinstated.
* Americans will learn of government duplicity and cover-ups.
Whether or not this list is the result of guesswork, fabrications or
something else, nearly a quarter of a century later, such musings have gone
from the fringe to the forefront. Police state predictions? Check. Rumors of
wars? Check. Clandestine agreements between nations? Check. Discoveries of
government duplicity and cover-ups? Triple check.
Predictions are not the same thing as conspiracy theories, of course,
but both can occur simultaneously. Sept. 11 commission co-chair Lee
Hamilton's prediction that another terrorist attack is all but certain, for
example, when combined with concerns about George W. Bush's imperial
ambitions, creates the kind of speculation the founding fathers engaged in,
long before FOX News was there to pooh-pooh concerns about tyrannical
designs.
And though predictions and conspiracy theories are often speculative
and contrived, it must be remembered that the term "tin foil hat" has its
roots in historical fact and the tendency to tag a "gate" onto scandals
proves that some conspiracy theories do, in fact, turn out to be true.
With the most secretive, power-hungry administration in recent
history, George W. Bush has generated a cornucopia of theories. Many of them
are ridiculous while others, like the assorted conspiracies relating to
Skull and Bones, simply confirm suspicions about frat boys and prove that
privilege and networking do, in fact, catapult people into high places.
Some theories, however, have Tina Turner-strength legs. For your
consideration:
10. A Second Terror Attack Will Allow the Bush Administration to
Complete the "Coup" that Began on Sept. 11, 2001
"September 11, 2001, played into neoconservative hands exactly as the
1933 Reichstag fire played into Hitler's hands. Fear, hysteria, and national
emergency are proven tools of political power grabs. Now that the federal
courts are beginning to show some resistance to Bush's claims of power, will
another terrorist attack allow the Bush administration to complete its
coup?"
-- Former Reagan administration official and Wall Street Journal and
National Review assistant editor Paul Craig Roberts, Jan. 2, 2006
"The 9-11 attacks provided the rationale for what amounts to a Bush
family coup against the Constitution."
-- James Ridgeway, The Village Voice, Dec. 30, 2005
Six years ago, anyone suggesting that the Bush administration would
use terror to achieve pre-packaged goals would have been laughed out of
Dodge. The signs were there, however, going all the way back to ***** Cheney
and Donald Rumsfeld's stints in the Ford administration through their
participation in Reagan-era Doomsday drills.
Initially, there were vague murmurings over foreign airways. "There is
a hidden agenda at the very highest levels of our government," a mysterious
American told the BBC in Nov. 2001, regarding allegations that the FBI was
told to "back off" the bin Ladens. "Unnamed sources" eventually morphed into
real people, however, and by the time Pentagon insider Karen Kwiatkowski
came forward with revelations about what she called "a coup, a hijacking of
the Pentagon," and respected journalist Seymour Hersh proclaimed that
"cultists" had "taken the government over," this theory gained traction.
Despite attempts to discredit true believers as "full-mooners,"
revelations continued. And now that a former Bush administration official is
saying that a "cabal" led by Rumsfeld and Cheney "hijacked US foreign
policy" and a former Reagan administration official is saying that America
is now an "incipient dictatorship," the ideology of Loon Land is capital T
Truth to some very smart people.
Gen. Tommy Franks, you might recall, famously predicted that another
terror attack will militarize our society and obliterate the Constitution,
former White House counsel John Dean has warned of "constitutional
dictatorship" and Paul Craig Roberts has openly wondered if another terror
attack will lead to a total usurpation of constitutional government and
"allow the Bush administration to complete its coup."
Roberts, who served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under
President Ronald Reagan, also believes that a "Jacobin coup" took place
after Sept. 11 and that a "police state" is fast approaching. Joining the
host of others raising concerns about questionable elections and a Supreme
Court poised to give the executive branch unprecedented power, he sees
"America's descent into dictatorship" as the "result of historical
developments and of old political battles." But, he also contends that
President Bush "is unlikely to be aware that the Constitution is
experiencing its final rending on his watch."
Others are not so certain.
9. President Bush is Trampling the Constitution and Turning America
into a Dictatorship
"The danger is not abstract or merely symbolic. Bush's abuses of
presidential power are the most extensive in American history... There is a
name for a system of government that wages aggressive war, deceives its
citizens, violates their rights, abuses power and breaks the law, rejects
judicial and legislative checks on itself, claims power without limit,
tortures prisoners and acts in secret. It is dictatorship." -- The Nation,
Jan. 9, 2006
"After September 11, we did not, for example, change from a democracy
to a dictatorship, from a nation of laws to a nation in which one man endows
himself with the authority to act above the law, immune to its dictates and
limitations. We are not that country. We must never become that country.
However, to hear President Bush, we are that country already." -- The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dec. 20, 2005.
To understand the origins of this theory, one would have to go back to
America's founding, when James Madison wrote that the accumulation of power
in any one of the three" separate and distinct" branches of government was
the "very definition of tyranny." Fast forward to ***** Cheney and Donald
Rumsfeld's dream of "restoring the imperial presidency," George W. Bush's
jokes about an American dictatorship, and arguments regarding the "Unitary
Executive Theory of the Presidency," and suddenly Thomas Jefferson's
observation that tyranny is the natural progression of all governments seems
frighteningly apt.
Similar conspiracy theories were circulated during the Clinton years,
too, you might recall, and when the Village Voice's Nat Hentoff called
President Clinton a "serial violator of the Bill of Rights," he was tapping
into an authoritarian trend that diehard Democrats preferred to ignore.
(Republicans who gladly ignore the Constitution and rule of law are also
guilty of putting power over principle.)
But even so, under Bush, authoritarianism thrived. "According to Bush
doctrine, there are no checks and balances in American government anymore. A
president can do what he pleases in the name of national security, and
neither Congress nor the judiciary can stop him. At the end of the day, that
is the real threat to American democracy," the Minneapolis Star Tribune
explained.
Just how much of a threat? In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11
attacks, Bush installed a shadow government and restricted access to
presidential records. Posse Comitatus, the law forbidding the military from
being used to police US citizens, is on its last legs, -- and a new
provision in the Patriot Act will create a federal police force with
unprecedented power. A former Bush White House insider has described
"decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a
democracy," and the Supreme Court is poised to further tilt the balance of
powers towards the executive branch. Need more proof that the idea of
"representative government" is an illusion? Since 9/11:
* US citizens have been detained for years without formal charges or
trial.
* The president's "signing statements" have neutered bills passed by
Congress - expanding presidential authority through a "unitary executive"
doctrine.
* Bush has declared that he, as "commander in chief," can ignore the
Geneva Conventions and laws such as the McCain amendment prohibiting
torture.
* The Justice Department has concluded that there are "no limits" to
the president's war-making authority.
* News of secret prisons and secret laws have come to the fore.
* The Pentagon has spied on groups that disagree with Mr. Bush's
policies, including dangerous militants such as the Quakers.
* The F.B.I. has spied on the Catholic Worker's Group, Greenpeace
and PETA.
* The Bush administration has ordered the National Security Agency
to spy on Americans without oversight -- and did so even before Sept. 11.
Before his death in 1989, All the King's Men author Robert Penn Warren
predicted that the day might come when an America president would possess
too much power. "Well, it'll probably be someone you least expect under
circumstances nobody foresaw," he said. "And, of course, it'll come with a
standing ovation from Congress."
8. President Bush Planned to Go to War with Iraq before 9/11
"A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President
Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure
'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001. The blueprint,
uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana'
was drawn up for ***** Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence
secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger
brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document,
entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For
A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative
think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)"
-- The Sunday Herald, Sept. 15, 2002
"Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate
George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of
attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many
conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned
autobiography. 'He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,' said author
and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. 'It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One
of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a
commander-in-chief.'. . . "
-- Russ Baker, GNN, Oct. 28, 2004
In 2001, the Onion ran a satirical inauguration speech, wherein Bush
promised to run up the deficit, tear down the wall between church and state,
and "engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four
years." Truth is often stranger than satire, however, and it was later
discovered that well before Bush's selection as president, plans for war in
Iraq had been drawn up and were waiting in the wings. "For nearly a decade a
group of people exiled from power during the Clinton years had been making
plans," Ed Vulliamy wrote, referring to the cast of characters tied to the
Project for a New American Century, whose memos and documents signaled a
hunger for battle and foretold a future of wars on multiple fronts. (And
possibly even a reinstatement of the draft.)
Yes, long before George Bush vowed to uphold the Constitution, plans
were in the works -- going back to the last Gulf War, when the realists in
George H.W. Bush's administration felt that unseating Saddam would bog the
U.S down in an un-winnable guerilla war, and the neoconservatives disagreed
to the point of obsession.
This turmoil was evident in 1992, when the radical Wolfowitz Doctrine,
which called for a "go-it-alone" military strategy and a policy of
preemption, was leaked to the press. And by 1998, right about the time
George H.W. Bush was explaining why his administration did not remove
Hussein from power, Paul Wolfowitz was testing the "cakewalk theory" before
Congress, shilling for the Iraqi Liberation Act and promising that the U.S
would not need to send major ground forces into Iraq to do the job.
How did George W. Bush, who promised a "humble" foreign policy during
the 2000 campaign get mixed up in this? Mickey Herskowitz, Bush's ghost
writer on A Charge To Keep, says that Governor Bush began talking about
invading Iraq in 1999, in part, he believes, due to a Reagan-era credo
ascribed to ***** Cheney: "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is
justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade."
"'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the
Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it," Bush told Herskowitz in one of two
taped interviews. "If I have a chance to invade . . . if I had that much
capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that
I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."
PBS' highly informative War Behind Closed Doors also examined how
Bush's ideas might have taken root:
EVAN THOMAS, Asst. Managing Editor, "Newsweek": When George Bush was
running for president, he essentially went to school. And various great and
worthy men trooped down to Austin to teach George Bush about the world. And
by and large, they told him that Iraq was unfinished, basically, but they
had to be a little careful about it because, of course, George Bush's father
was the one who hadn't finished the business. And if George W. Bush was
elected president, he may end up having to do what his father didn't do or
couldn't do, and that is killing off Saddam Hussein.
NARRATOR: In Bush, Wolfowitz saw a chance to get his ideas about a
tougher American stance in the world implemented. But W, as he was known,
was also being advised by Colin Powell. And during the campaign, neither
side really knew where they stood with the candidate.
WILLIAM KRISTOL, V.P. Chief of Staff '89-'92: I wouldn't say that if
you read Wolfowitz's defense policy guidance from 1992 and read most of
Bush's campaign speeches and his statements in the debates, you would say,
"Hey, Bush has really adopted Wolfowitz's world view."
Before the war began, Scowcroft penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed
entitled "Don't Attack Saddam" and both Herskowitz and author James Risen
have chronicled ways George H. W. Bush counseled his son not to invade Iraq
(Risen says at one point, George W. "angrily hung up the phone" during one
of these conversations.). And, of course, who can forget Bob Woodward's
revelation that Bush relied on "a higher father" instead of taking his
earthly father's advice?
But regardless how many times administration officials say "Sept. 11
changed everything," the war in Iraq was a foregone conclusion long before
Mohamed Atta became a household name. "From the very beginning there was a
conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,"
former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told 60 Minutes in Jan. 2004, adding
that the plans to invade Iraq began days after Bush's inauguration. "It was
all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president
saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"
And the rest, as they say, is history.
7. The Bush Administration Conspired with Britain and Used Deliberate
Deception to Make its Case for War with Iraq
"Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would see those words in
black and white...and beneath a SECRET stamp, no less. For three years now,
we in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been saying
that the CIA and its British counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their
countries' leaders to "fix facts" to "justify" an unprovoked war on Iraq.
More often than not, we have been greeted with stares of incredulity. It has
been a hard learning . . . that folks tend to believe what they want to
believe. . . Thanks to an unauthorized disclosure by a courageous
whistleblower, the evidence now leaps from official documents . . . this
time authentic, not forged. . . "
-- Veteran CIA analyst Ray McGovern, referring to the July 2002
Downing Street Memo, TomPaine.com, May 4, 2005
"The president of the United States caught conspiring to create a
modern-day version of the sinking of the Maine? Talk about an impeachable
offense."
-- David Corn, referring to a Jan. 2003 memo of a conversation between
George Bush and Tony Blair, the Huffington Post, Feb. 2, 2006
In March, 2002, a full year before the start of the war in Iraq,
former U.N. official Denis Halliday told Salon that "Saddam Hussein is not a
threat to the U.S." and that "the whole weapons inspection issue is really
just a ruse," echoing the sentiments Colin Powell had expressed earlier in
Cairo, when he said that Hussein had "not developed any significant
capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction" and was "unable to
project conventional power against his neighbors."
Six months later, members of the intelligence community began speaking
out against "cooked information" and false intelligence "from various Iraqi
exiles" -- assertions which were soon backed by revelations about Ahmed
Chalabi's "faulty intelligence," and the U.S. government's willingness to
believe a less-than-credible agent named Curveball. "Keep in mind the fact
that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't
say and that the Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in
whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about," a CIA official wrote in
Feb. 2003, one day before Colin Powell made his regrettable presentation
before the UN.
And while the Office of Special Plans (otherwise known as "the Lie
Factory") generated damning evidence all by itself, the true smoking guns
were found in memos uncovered by the British press. "Military action was now
seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action,
justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and
facts were being fixed around the policy," the Downing Street memo read,
confirming what many suspected -- that Bush wanted war and would lie to get
it. (When Rep Jim McDermott said as much in Sept. 2002, the Weekly Standard
and right wing hacks went on the warpath).
A subsequent memo, written in Jan. 2003, indicates that not only was
Bush trying to "fix" the facts around the policy, but was willing to create
another Gulf of Tonkin type crisis in the skies over Baghdad. "The US was
thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq,
painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach," Bush
reportedly told Tony Blair, indicating that he hoped to deceive Saddam in
order to provoke an attack, even as he was pressing for a second UN
resolution authorizing war.
Other evidence supporting this "conspiracy theory" include revelations
that:
* The President made a list of false claims including the assertion
that "Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and
gases." Declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document
later proved that the Bush administration knew this information was less
than credible.
* Ten days after 9/11, during a highly classified briefing,
President Bush was told that there was no credible evidence linking Saddam
Hussein to the terror attacks. The State Department also pinpointed
countries where al-Qaeda was known to operate, and Iraq was not listed among
them. Even so, the president often uttered "Iraq" and "Sept. 11" in the same
breath, a ploy that would best resonate with traumatized Americans.
* Joseph Wilson wrote his op-ed "What I Didn't Find in Africa,"
refuting the infamous "16 words" in the President's State of the Union
speech, proving that faulty information made its way into high
pronouncements. (Bush also repeated the aluminum tubes lie, which had also
been discounted). The Bush administration countered by "outing" Wilson's CIA
agent wife.
* The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace concluded that the
Bush administration "systematically misrepresented" the threat from Iraq's
weapons programs and former senior US weapons inspector David Kay said that
major stockpiles of WMD probably didn't exist in Iraq.
* Former US Congressman and eventual Sept. 11 co-chair Lee Hamilton
told the Christian Science Monitor that he feared the Bush administration
was twisting the facts. "My concern in these situations, always, is that the
intelligence that you get is driven by the policy, rather than the policy
being driven by the intelligence," he said in 2002. In 2005, when the
Downing Street memo was leaked to the press, Hamilton was proven prescient.
Thanks to lies and innuendo, by the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom,
70% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein was behind the Sept. 11
attacks. Yet ***** Cheney, our beleaguered vice president, still contends
that accusations that the Bush administration misled the public are
"dishonest," "reprehensible" and "not legitimate".
6. President Bush Knew 9/11 Was Going to Happen
"George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11
September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama
bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday. In a
top-secret intelligence memo headlined 'Bin Laden determined to strike in
the US', the President was told on 6 August that the Saudi-born terrorist
hoped to 'bring the fight to America'. . ."
-- The Guardian, May 19, 2002
"By the time a CIA briefer gave President Bush the Aug. 6, 2001,
President's Daily Brief headlined 'Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US,'
the president had seen a stream of alarming reports on al Qaeda's
intentions. . . In April and May 2001, for example, the intelligence
community headlined some of those reports 'Bin Laden planning multiple
operations,' 'Bin Laden network's plans advancing' and 'Bin Laden threats
are real.'"
-- The Washington Post, April 13, 2004
Did Bush know Al Qaeda was going to attack the U.S.? Yes. Of course he
did. If this sounds "out there" to you, I have a bridge to sell you in
Stepford. The fact is, Bush either knew an attack was coming, or has the
reading comprehension of a 2-year-old. In April and May, 2001, President
Bush received a string of reports regarding bin Laden's plans, while in
July, a CIA intelligence report for President Bush read, "The attack will be
spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities
or interests."
That same month, when Bush attended the G-8 Summit in Genoa, Italy,
the security measures were extreme -- considering the reports that Osama bin
Laden might try to assassinate him -- possibly by flying a plane filled with
explosives into a building. And on Aug 6, 2001, the President received a
briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the US."
These are but a handful of the reports pointing to foreknowledge:
* "President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of
Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within
the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a
government official said Friday." -- ("Bush Was Warned of Possible Attack in
U.S., Official Says," The New York Times, April 10, 2004)
* "Even though Bush has refused to make parts of the 9-11 report
public, one thing is startlingly clear: The U.S. government had received
repeated warnings of impending attacks -- and attacks using planes directed
at New York and Washington -- for several years. The government never told
us about what it knew was coming." -- James Ridgeway, ("Bush's 9-11 Secrets:
The Government Received Warnings of Bin Laden's Plans to Attack New York and
D.C.," The Village Voice, July 31, 2003)
* "It seems very probable that those in the White House knew much
more than they have admitted, and they are covering up their failure to take
action . . . After pulling together the information in the 9/11 Report, it
is understandable why Bush is stonewalling. It is not very difficult to
deduce what the president knew, and when he knew it. And the portrait that
results is devastating." -- John Dean, ("The 9/11 Report Raises More Serious
Questions about the White House Statements On Intelligence," Findlaw.com
July, 29, 2003)
* "President Bush and his top advisers were informed by the CIA
early last August that terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden had
discussed the possibility of hijacking airplanes." ("Bush was Told of
Hijacking Dangers," The Washington Post, May 16, 2002)
* "U.S. Had a Steady Stream of Pre-9/11 Warnings." -- (PBS, Sept.
18, 2002)
* "I saw papers that show US knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with
airplanes'" -- FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, ('I saw papers that show US
knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with airplanes": Whistleblower the White
House wants to silence speaks to The Independent," The Independent, April 2,
2004)
Other headlines read: ''Bush Was Warned bin Laden Wanted to Hijack
Planes," (The New York Times, May 15, 2002); "Panel Says Bush Saw Repeated
Warnings: Reports Preceded August 2001 Memo," (The Washington Post, April
13, 2004); and "Bush Knew of Terrorist Plot to Hijack US Planes,"(the
Guardian, May 19, 2002). And in case you think the "liberal media" is the
lone voice saying "they knew" prominent Republican members of the Senate
Committee investigating Sept. 11 and the Sept. 11 Commission have made
similar observations. "I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of
connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to
know why they didn't act on it," Senator Arlen Specter said.
While it's clear "Bush knew," nobody really knows "why they didn't act
on it." Was it laziness? Incompetence? Or something worse? Former British MP
Michael Meacher has questioned if "US air security operations" might have
"deliberately stood down on September 11" while Gore Vidal wondered if the
"Bush junta" intentionally ignored 9/11 warnings to advance its preset
agenda. Citing PNAC's observation that a "New Pearl Harbor" would be needed
to enact the muscular foreign policy they foresaw and the fact that Bush's
National Security Strategy, did, in fact, read like a PNAC wish list,
advocates of this "let it happen on purpose" theory also cite Paul O'Neill's
assertion that President Bush was looking for a reason to invade Iraq just
days after his inauguration.
Others have also pointed to Operation Northwoods to substantiate their
claims. "The Operation Northwoods plan shows the Pentagon was capable,
according to [James] Bamford, "of launching a secret and bloody war of
terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public
into supporting a (war on Cuba)," a Canadian TV show argued. "Can we be
sure, therefore, that complicity by the Pentagon in the events of Sept. 11th
is entirely out of the question?"
Conspiracy theorists have also wondered about John Ashcroft's
"security concerns," Mayor Willie Brown's pre-9/11 warning, and Pentagon
staffers' Sept. 11 flight cancellations. Throw in obvious propaganda,
"problematic" explanations, class action lawsuits and the fact that George
W. Bush just sat in that Florida classroom for minutes and you've added
hefty speculation to the fire.
Yes, there is proof "Bush knew." But as for letting it 9/11 happen on
purpose? As Robert Steinback recently pointed out in the Miami Herald, it
will be years before documents concerning JFK's assassination are made
public, and even longer before the Warren Commission's files are finally
released. Why should anyone expect unanswered 9/11 questions to be answered
any time soon?
Steinback nevertheless points to a group of PhDs who call themselves
"Scholars for 9/11 Truth" who are currently asking the "hard questions" many
prefer to avoid. Even so, admitting that there are inconsistencies within
the official story is a far cry from accusing the U.S. government of
complicity in the attacks. Suffice it to say that some questions may never
be answered and some suspicions will never be laid to rest.
Visit us tomorrow for Part 2
BACK TO TOP
Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in
helping other writers get television and radio exposure.
© Copyright 2004, Maureen Farrell
.
|
