'But the American people simply would not allow an administration to stay in power after learning that it had orchestrated the attacks of 9/11.
'Third, the orchestration of the attacks of 9/11 goes far beyond any previous instance of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that have previously been cited as cause for impeachment. The attacks were --in the words of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, themselves --heinous crimes.
'Fourth, any US citizens who participated in planning, carrying out, and/or covering up these attacks are guilty of treason, as defined by Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution, because these attacks were acts of war against the United States --again, according to the assessment of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld themselves.
'Fifth, if this treason, is not publicly uncovered and prosecuted, there is little hope for the survival of the democratic forms we still have. If we fail to have a serious investigation of the prima facie evidence for such treason --especially given the fact that this evidence, once examined, is overwhelming --we will in effect be telling the perpetrators that the can get away with virtually anything.
'Finally, to reverse the policies of the Bush-Cheney administration will require more than simply removing this administration from office, something that could legitimately be done for any number of reasons. The attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated to further the project of creating an American empire of truly global scope and, as we saw earlier, this has been a long and bipartisan project. Differences have involved strategy, emphasis, and demeanor more than the goal itself. The replacement of the Bush/Cheney administration by a Democratic administration for some reason other than 9/11 would probably result in a reversion to the subtler, more sophisticated, and hence more effective form of imperialism that the United States previously exercised.
'What needs to be publicly recognized is that the bipartisan global domination project is, as I have put it elsewhere, propelled by a fanaticism based on a deeply perverted value system. Those who read books and magazines about U.S. imperialism know that there has long been abundant evidence for this assessment. But the public revelation of the truth about 9/11 could have an educative value extending far beyond the circles of those who read policy-oriented books and magazines. If Americans came to see that the attacks of 9/11 were, in the minds of those who planned them, justified by the goal of crating an all-encompassing empire, this realization could lead to widespread revulsion against the goal itself and the values implicit in it, values that are diametrically opposed to basic values embedded in all the world's religious and ethical systems.'
Dr. Griffin discussed his latest book entitled Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory at SOU Britt Ballroom on the Southern Oregon Universidy campus. Doors opened at 7:00PM. That book is also available on the web. The event began at 7:30. and ran for approximately one and a half hours, including a 30 minute post-discussion Q & A session. Local author Mike Green introduced Dr. Griffin. Information was also provided at the website http://www.911truthnow.org
It's time to start naming names.
So who's first? Let's start with Condoleezza Rice.
On pages 227 through 229 of Against All Enemies, Richard A. Clarke says he approached heCondoleezza Rice in January of 2001 to brief her on al Queda. On page 229, Clarke says,
'...As I briefed Rice on al Queda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before, so I added, "Most people would think of it as Usama bin Laden's group, but it's much more than that. It's a network of affiliated terrorist organizations with cells in over fifty countries, including the US."
'Rice looked skeptical. She focused on the fact that my office staff was large by NSC standards (twelve people) and did operational things, including domestic security issues. She said, "The NSC looks just as it did when I worked here a few years ago, except for your operation. It's all new. It does some domestic things and it is not just doing policy, it seems to be worrying about operational issues. I'm not sure we will want to keep all of this in the NSC."'
Ask yourself why, in that meeting, Condoleeza Rice referred to al Queda an "operatinal issue."
Before September 11, why would al Queda have been regarded as an "operational issue?" Sure it would have been regarded as a domestic security issue, but wasn't that Richard Clarke's job?
At the time, Richard A. Clarke was Chairman of the White House Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG). He served on the Staff of the National Secuity Council. Clarke mentions that Condoleezza Rice was the fourth National Security Advisor he had worked for and the seventh he had worked with. It's time to start naming names for what happened on 9/11. 
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45
