 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 5, 2007 at 01:07:23
by Michael Bonanno Page 1 of 3 page(s) |
|
 
|
9/11 Truthers, I’m going to write something that may make many or some of you angry. I ask that you “hear me out” or “read me out” before passing judgment. I think that we should give up. When I say I know as well as any of you, I mean that on more than one level. I truly believe that most 9/11 Truthers don’t want a brand new investigation in order to find The Regime guilty, imprison them and throw away the key. I believe most 9/11 Truthers want a transparent investigation in which anybody and everybody whom the defense or prosecution thinks may have been involved can be called to testify, must testify and must testify at the hearing/trial under oath. There should be no exemptions for anyone. 9/11 Truthers want all questions asked concerning the most horrible crime committed in the history of the USA (now The FUSA). All of the questions that have been asked in books such as “The New Pearl Harbor”, all of the questions asked by Truthers online, all questions should be allowed.
I believe that 9/11 Truthers would be satisfied if they could be convinced that the hearing was honest, open, impartial and unbiased at all levels, that all who should be called are called and are forced to testify under oath and that all evidence is presented.
If those judging this hearing adjudicated in favor of The Regime, Truthers would be extremely disappointed, but could accept the judgment. This is what I believe. I believe that Truthers want the truth, they don’t want to find The Regime guilty unless it is guilty. Let them and their representatives present whatever facts and witnesses that they are allowed to legally present.
Having said all of that, it’s obvious that this will never happen.
I’ve never done much deep research into the attack at Pearl Harbor, the assassination of JFK or the Oklahoma City bombing. 9/11 is the first time I’ve ever become intently serious about the possibility that those in high places, those who one is raised to believe are almost perfect, could conspire to accomplish something as grand as 9/11.
In truth, when my wife watched 9/11 unfold on television, her first words were, “Bush did this.”
I didn’t think much of Bush, especially after the 2000 election. I guess that was a conspiracy in which I believed, wasn’t it? So I didn’t respond to her comment. We didn’t have an argument. I didn’t respond with an automatic, “That’s ridiculous.” It’s difficult how I felt about it. I listened and waited for our president to lead us in defense of our nation.
I gave up on Bush very quickly because he began talking about invading Iraq very quickly. I joined protests against a war that had nothing to do with what happened on September of 2001.
I then saw David Ray Griffin on C-Span. That was the first I heard any of the arguments for the case that 9/11 didn’t happen the way The Regime said it happened. It was the first time I heard any of the arguments for making our government complicit in the “attack”.
I’ve seen and heard the evidence that could prove that our government planned and carried out 9/11. I’ve seen and heard those arguments rebuffed.
On Friday, August 31, I was listening to “Brunch With Bernie”, a segment which Thom Hartmann broadcasts on his radio show every Friday. The segment presents Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont giving his opinion on many of the issues of the day and, in many cases, interacting with those who call into The Thom Hartmann Show.
I don’t know what this particular caller was referring to. I either didn’t hear it well or I’ve forgotten. It may or may not have had anything to do with 9/11 conspiracies. I did hear the words that exited from Senator Sanders’ mouth. Those words were, “I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.” Up until that moment, if I heard someone who could help Truthers in their quest for a real hearing about what happened on 9/11 say those words, I would have become angry enough to spit nails.
In fact, I’d recently seen a History Channel presentation entitled “9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Fact or Fiction.”
www.worldconditions.com
Michael Bonanno is an associate editor for OpEdNews.
He is also a published poet, essayist and musician who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Bonanno is a political progressive, not a Democratic Party apologist. He believes it's (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 13 comments |
|
Give up what?
If Michael feels disposed to give up on our leaders, I'm with him. They lie, they cheat, they steal, and they act always in their own interest and in the interest of the people who bankroll them. Are we surprised at their refusal to find truth? The truth--about anything--is their nemesis. On the bright side, there's nothing stopping us from assembling our own citizens' tribunal. It's way past time to take the law into our own hands, to press for truth in spite of our corrupt government, and finally to unseat our leaders and hang them. by Steve Fournier (32 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 43 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2007 at 7:08:25 AM  (0+)
|
|
Sure, why not?
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." A saying so true it's become cliché, and yet so many still think that the entire 3000 miles and 280 million people of our country SHOULD be run from one central location. It's time to ask: instead of trading one set of corrupt leaders in Washington for another, if we shouldn't be returning power to the states and local municipalities where government is much more accountable to people. The larger central government is, the more corrupt it gets. Even you, on your site, call for central government power, and it's obvious that you are an intelligent and articulate man. But centralizing government power means placing increased power in the hands of power seekers, and those who seek power for the sake of power are seldom wise or benevolent. When was the last time a Federal agency accomplished its stated goal? Once in place, any central government agency's goal changes from its stated one to another: that of growth and increase of power. Name one that is not true of. The law of this land states that central government should have EXTREMELY limited power for the very reason that history indicates that any time you have power concentrated centrally, you get exactly what we have now. A decrease in the size and scope of the Federal Gummint is the only thing that will be of any help to this country now. I share your frustration over the lack of investigation and sweeping under the rug of any questions revolving around the attacks of 9/11, but I'm much more concerned at this point about the destruction of our economy and freedoms that the resulting response has wrought. Where are those calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act? Where are those calling for the elimination of the ridiculous TSA whose security policies allowed this to happen in the first place? The ridiculous and failed War On Some Drugs is a perfect example of this type of thing. Until there are enough voices raised calling for the dissipation of Federal power back once again to the states, cities, and even (dare I say it?) individuals, we simply will get more of the same. How could it be different? by p henson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2007 at 8:32:45 AM (0+)
|
|
Conspiracy theories
Michael: "Everything that has, is, or ever will happen(ed), except acts of God was a conspiracy, and even He planned(s) things well." I cannot recall anything in my lifetime which occurred which was exempt from being planned by someone, anyone who says otherwise is either a conspiritor or a liar or stupid as Hell. As far as Pearl Harbor, years ago I spent months researching it. Certainly the Japanese conspired, but not FDR. Jean Edward Smith in his book FDR, which I recently read, and a follow-up book Roosevelt's Secret War, Joseph Persico confinrmed my research. Between the two books more than 1300 pages of data. As far as "giving up," we should first brainstorm a way to thoroughly punish the Democrats, like voting Republican (Oh God, what am U saying, am I more angry at the Dems than at the Repubs?) or not voting at all or never donating a penny to anyone but independents. I gave up trying to cajole the Dems into anything, they are a lost cause. But I do like writing about this stuff and reading about it. by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2007 at 10:52:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Vote Independent
The Dems don't see a Repub vote as a protest vote. Likewise, the Repubs don't see a Dem vote as a protest vote. The only thing either will see as a protest vote is a vote for an Independent. by Joe Reeser (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2007 at 4:07:39 PM (0+)
|
|
PS
BY ALL MEANS WE SHOULD ALL GIVE UP ON THE DEMOCRATS! by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2007 at 11:12:49 AM (0+)
|
|
Don't Give Up.
The truth will win out. How many people today believe JFK was killed by Oswald? How many people today believe that the Tonkin Bay incident was real? How many people today believe OJ was innocent? Lies leave a strench. People instintively know something is a miss about a lie. There are details that don't fit. And, there are a plenty ot those in the administration's 9/11 account. After awhile, those continuing to play along with a lie become a laughing stock and are discounted. There is no question that future historians will call 9/11 an inside job. So, be patient. by Dan Merica (23 articles, 73 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 49 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2007 at 12:09:25 PM (0+)
|
|
But THEN What?
by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 312 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2007 at 12:12:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I agree with him and him and you and him too....
Post USA. Yes Don't pay taxes to former country of residence...yes. The cititzens of the United States vs the United States Government....(from the prof's other comment from today)...yes! And can I add my own idea...collect money to buy plane which will fly the troops (who are really Prisoners of War) home...NOW! by sherry clark (47 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 116 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2007 at 12:39:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: One more thing...
DON'T GIVE UP!!! by sherry clark (47 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 116 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2007 at 12:40:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Learn From The Experience and Communicate It
Success is ALWAYS the best revenge. Now that you have learned that you are governed mostly by sociopaths, channel that energy locally. Do not even let the lowest public job (that's voted on) be held by a sociopath. Clean up your district representatives, then your county, then your state and finally the congressional representatives. Tell people NOT to sell their vote. Why buy 49 to get one free? Mentally spit on every sociopath you encounter. Do not let them ever manipulate you again. I know this is all easier said than done, but where else do you start? We are supposed to outnumber sociopaths at least 24 to 1, so where did the "living" start letting the "dead" rule them? I don't know, but I'm doing the best I can at GreatRedDragon.com to point these things out. by Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 232 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2007 at 4:15:24 PM (0+)
|
|
What's Wrong with the Small Government We Have Now?
I agree that giving power to a central government can be dangerous. Yet, if we think that corporations will do anything else but work for the bottom line, we’re naïve. In my essay “Shock Over Richards’s Rant is Curious”, I recall my first experience hiring for a Fortune 500 Corporation. This was in 1988! If others who were on the “hiring team” had their way, no African-American, Hispanic or female would have had the chance to be interviewed for the job for which we were hiring. If it was this way in 1988, I wonder how it was before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was created. As much as other members of the team whined like little kids because we were being forced to hire, and these are their words, not mine, “niggers, spics and split tails”, we were forced to give them a chance. That government goal was obviously reached. It’s a close call between letting the government handle programs that aid in the welfare of citizens who need aid and handing all of those programs over to corporations who would pay people a lower wage than the present minimum wage to do a job about which they probably wouldn’t care because of the wage they were being paid. Oversight over corporate greed has evaporated and deregulation has led to fewer and fewer corporations owning more and more shares of certain industries. What would start out as “competition” to run these programs would end up as a Wal-Mart of citizen aid programs, run by one or two corporations whose CEOs would be raking in millions of dollars. That’s much more dangerous than the incompetence of government. At least incompetence isn’t intentional and people within the program try to fix things and some programs actually do work without being run by a greedy Corporation. By the way, we are not being governed by an all encompassing government right now. Right now, we are being governed by The Corporacracy, which is just another way of saying that the actual government is very small right now and has abdicated its power of governance to the private sector. We’re already being governed by the private sector. So those who want small government have already gotten their way. Michael Bonanno by Michael Bonanno (119 articles, 19 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 152 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2007 at 4:26:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I agree, but . . .
What I said earlier in the above comment about sociopaths also applies to corporations, education and religious establishments, even your group associations and lodges. You must not allow sociopaths to lie, steal or murder in your name. Clean your own "houses." Everybody gets over-protective when outsiders try to clean up their groups, and rightly so. So there is no one left but you. Set the example, and other non-sociopaths will join your efforts. I am well aware this sounds pollyanna-ish, but what other choice do we have? Any other suggestions, anyone? by Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 232 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2007 at 6:48:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Getting on with life?
The problem with just allowing the status quo to become fait accompli is basically that it makes "making the world better" impossible. A big thing included in fighting this fight is opposing the annointing of W with the blessings and justifications of history. His cronies are dedicated to selling the lie as truth, and that has the intent of guaranteeing that things don't get "better" for those we likely both think of as deserving yon better life. The rhetoric of "making the world better" is like the rhetoric of "freedom". The Freedom promised to a slave is very different from the freedom promised to the slave-owners!!! The Civil War was not about the North trying to enforce the abolition of slavery on the South. Rather it was about the North defending against a legalistic approach via which the South was insisting that the North respect the rights of slave-owners -- including returning those the South claimed were their slaves, and in all their extensive business dealings in the North. Appeasement wasn't going to work then; it wasn't going to work with the Nazis; and it's not going to work with the NeoCons. Yes, I do want to see the murderers executed. And I won't misuse the word "alleged". I don't want "alleged murderers" executed. I want actual murderers executed. The prosecutor will "allege" that the guys we try are the right ones. But when they're convicted, it'll no longer be a mere "allegation". They will always have been the real murderers, and the "trial" is the "proof". The best we can say is that, right now, we don't know exactly who did the deeds. And you say you want to not bother with that ?!! by lenngray (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 77 comments) on Saturday, Sep 8, 2007 at 2:11:19 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
