[Peace-discuss] Bush gives important speech

[C. G. Estabrook]

You're right to remind us about Conyers (and Schumer) in regard to Waco, 
but I think you're wrong about this. I think a lot of activists' 
valuable time is being spent barking up the wrong tree.  Not for the 
first time -- something similar happened on the American Left after the 
killing of John Kennedy.

Ten years ago a Defense Department report of declassifying documents 
suggested that information about the JFK assassination should be 
released now and then as a "diversion," as "distraction material," which 
could keep people busy on wild goose chases so they wouldn't investigate 
the serious questions.

Here's Noam Chomsky's response:

     "There's by now a small industry on the thesis that the 
administration had something to do with 9-11. I've looked at some of it, 
and have often been asked. There's a weak thesis that is possible though 
extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to 
inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn't try 
to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The 
evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to 
understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific 
experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange 
coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters 
in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real 
world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the 
sky. That aside, they'd have had to be quite mad to try anything like 
that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something 
would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they'd all be lined up 
before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever. 
That would have happened whether the plan succeeded or not, and success 
was at best a long shot; it would have been extremely hard to predict 
what would happen.

     "One part of the standard story is that they exploited the tragedy 
for their own purposes, which is certainly true, and was completely 
predictable; I pointed out in my first interviews a few hours later that 
every power system in the world would do that, including Washington, as 
they all did -- one of the easiest predictions..."


n.dahlheim at mchsi.com wrote:
> No, the attacks of 911 were planned by the inner circle of the Bush
> White House and the upper levels of the Pentagon...  The plethora of
> research indicating the likelihood of 911 being an inside job 
> perpetrated by these folks is simply overwhelming.  If you haven't
> read any of Dr. David Ray Griffin's copiously researched and
> meticulously argued work on the subject, you are doing yourself an 
> unbelievable disservice.  Gore Vidal has even said that Dr. Griffin's
> first book on 911 linking its cause directly to the Bush-Cheney
> Administration powerfully influenced him to change his views on 911.
>  Others such as international law scholar Peter Falk (who wrote the
> foreward to Dr. Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor), historian Howard
> Zinn, and activist Peter Phillips have passionately argued that
> evidence of the Bush Administration's complicity on 911 stretches
> beyond the point necessary for a new investigation with greater
> impartiality than the 911 Comission.  I mean, honestly, the
> Bush-Cheney record for mendacity is so well-established that I don't
> think they have made any public statements during their six plus
> years in office that have been true----why does anyone expect that
> they wouldn't be lying about the defining event of their
> Administration's term in 911?  Why wouldn't they create it as they
> have had the most to gain from it?
>