by Ted Lang
If there are any doubts about the truth
and accuracy of the allegation that the Cheney-Bush regime did 9/11,
Dr. David Ray Griffin dispels each and every one of them in his
latest book on the subject, Debunking 9/11 Debunking. He again
emphasizes the stand-down order angrily reiterated by Cheney as
overheard and observed by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta,
and to which the latter offered testimony to that fact during the
9/11 Commission hearings.
The 9/11 Commission Report falsified the
time of Cheney's presence in the bunker-command center, changing the
time as occurring after 10:00 a.m. when in fact Cheney was reported
by several as being in the bunker earlier at 9:25 a.m.
Griffin's book also brings General Richard Meyers and Donald Rumsfeld into the deadly cabal that day proving their direct
involvement via the emergency teleconference they'd like to pretend
they weren't part of, also at a much earlier time than the regime
would have US believe. Griffin discusses how "journalist" Michael
Bronner, when writing a propaganda piece for Vanity Fair, cleverly
time-confused these events by relying upon NORAD tapes selectively
given to him for his review by the Cheney-Bush perfumed princes of
Griffin makes an excellent case
debunking the tapes by pointing out how long Cheney-Bush had them
thereby facilitating their tampering, and goes on to prove how the
timelines on those tapes conflict with the testimony given by the
military during the 9/11 Commission hearings.
Even according to these tapes, Cheney wasn't in the bunker until
sometime after 10:00 a.m. on the morning of 9/11. But as mentioned,
actual eyewitnesses debunk both the 9/11 Commission Report AND the
NORAD tapes. Griffin basically asks: Were the tapes wrong, or was
the testimony wrong? Actually, the obvious answer is that either
members of the military were lying at the time of their testimony,
or the tapes were doctored or selectively edited, or both. Griffin
proves that both the Bronner-Vanity Fair NORAD tapes and the 9/11
Commission Report conflict materially with the facts.
Cheney-Bush did 9/11 all right, and they probably have already
finished plans for the next domestic terrorist event. But where's
the proof you might be prompted to ask. The proof is in their very
behavior, which increasingly, and on a daily basis, demonstrates
their hatred and contempt for America, its people, and its
Constitution. They are becoming braver and more arrogant by the day.
They know Congress will not act, and
part of the reason is probably that Congress knows already that
another 9/11 has been planned and is on the way, and that if they
attack Cheney-Bush, it is they, Congress, who will be blamed for
having invited the attack by evidencing weakness on the Global War
on Terror. GWOT is merely a synonym for the aggressive movement
towards a global
New World Order. And Cheney-Bush have AIPAC on
their side and also ready to strike Congress if need be!
The most obvious anomaly of the Cheney-Bush criminal regime is the
reverse order of its hierarchy:
Cheney is America's real dictator,
Bush his chimpanzee-monkey boy protégé and the regime's White
House Moron heat sink.
Complaints of Cheney's meddling in military
and foreign policy arrangements between Britain and the United
States give credence to Cheney's dominating role. And a video of a
Bush photo-video op with the press included a scene showing Cheney,
likened to a stalking monster about to pounce if needed, and
watching Bush from the rear of the room and behind the cameras.
He hovered as if he knew Bush needed
watching. And the present Cheney flap with the National Archives
over the safeguarding of classified national security documentation
led Cheney to assert that NO ONE has "oversight" over his
activities. Then, following Cheney's absurd assertion, the
chimpanzee-monkey boy chimed in: "Me too!"
Neither is answerable to
the "goddamned piece of paper," the people of America, or the
spineless cowards in Congress.
As has been so often articulated in this space, 9/11 is the very
source of this criminal administration's power; debunk their
officially-stated conspiracy theory, as Dr. Griffin has done
repeatedly, and both their source of unlimited power and their
credibility will be forever destroyed. As reported by Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com in an article posted June 25th entitled "Cheney
and Bush Declare Autonomous Dictatorial Powers Exempt themselves
from executive branch," Watson writes:
"The Vice President and the
President have casually declared their offices to be independent
of the executive branch and completely autonomous, with Dick
Cheney also attempting to abolish agencies his office is
supposed to be accountable to."
Said another way, Cheney-Bush have
abolished the executive branch and replaced it with the Office of
Watson references events relative to the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform and quotes from the Committee's
"Vice President Cheney exempted his
office from the presidential order that establishes
government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national
security information. The Vice President asserts that his office
is not an 'entity within the executive branch.' As described in
a letter from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the
National Archives protested the Vice President's position in
letters written in June 2006 and August 2006.
When these letters were ignored, the
National Archives wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in
January 2007 to seek a resolution of the impasse. The Vice
President's staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency
within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the
President's executive order.
In his letter to the Vice
President, Chairman Waxman writes:
'I question both the legality
and wisdom of your actions.... [I]t would appear particularly
irresponsible to give an office with your history of security
breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all
other executive branch officials.'"
What is wrong with Congress? Isn't it
clear that Cheney runs the country? Where in the Constitution does
Cheney get this authority?
Certainly he is correct in asserting his
only functional responsibility is that of President of the Senate.
And he can function in an executive role only when needed to break a
tie, which can happen given the possibility of an impasse resultant
of an even divide considering two senators per state.
But as Cheney claims this constitutional
void as a defense for his being immune from the executive branch, he
enjoys ruling over this nation based on precisely this very same
constitutional void. In other words, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL
BASIS for his being the undesignated yet actual ruler of police
state America! And it is precisely this lack of constitutional
sanction that defeats Congressman Dennis Kucinich's motion for
Lack of constitutionally defined duties, however, is NO LONGER a
viable argument for Cheney. He just abdicated executive branch
accountability, while proving true, at the same time, the Alexander
Haig assertion: HE IS INDEED IN CHARGE! And don't bother telling me
that all of Washington DC doesn't know this! Watson continues citing
excerpts from the mass media proving that even they are now
beginning to see the dangers of the Cheney-Bush police state. Watson
cites articles from not only the Washington Post, but also from the
LA Times and the Boston Globe.
And NBC News chimed in as well, and their perspective was also
carried by Prisonplanet.com quoting from a piece: "NBC News: Has
the vice president gone too far?" The article by David Edwards and
Muriel Kane, also posted June 25th, offers:
"NBC called Cheney 'a master of
stealth, even inside the White House,' describing how he put
through HIS policy of holding detainees indefinitely without
charges by handing his proposal to the president without the
formal staff review. NBC also noted that 'Cheney's influence
turns out to be surprisingly wide-ranging,' encompassing
everything from cutting the capital gains tax to ending the ban
on snowmobiles in national parks."
We finally have nationally recognized
news sources reporting that Cheney is:
1) in charge of both domestic
and foreign policy [national security information]
2) is initiating as well
domestic policy TOTALLY OUTSIDE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
How did this come to be? Who cares?!
proves that Cheney is acting in not only an executive role from the
White House, but doing so illegally and with the full cooperation of
Bush and the Democratic Congress. Cheney, as chief executive, and
Bush as deputy, are violations of all constitutional laws separating
and specifically defining American governmental powers.
Impeaching at least one of these two co-conspirators was at one time
necessary to defeat the
neoconservative lunatic plan to launch World
War III by nuking Iran to create the chaos needed for the global New
World Order government. Now, impeaching them both is IMMEDIATELY
necessary to prevent another 9/11! Considering Cheney-Bush insults
directed at Congress framed in a you-can't-touch-us attitude, we are
giving dangerous signals to this deadly criminal regime which they
now obviously view as a green light for yet another 9/11 terrorist
As Watson observes later on in his commentary,
"Last month it was
also reported that a high-level group of government and military
officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program
named 'The Day After,' which would effectively end civil liberties
and implement a system of martial law in the event of a catastrophic
attack on a U.S. city."
Considering the Cheney-Bush track record and
the revelations concerning 9/11 documented by Dr. Griffin, is it
really all that hard to imagine the limitless power these criminals
can benefit from by initiating yet another 9/11?
Regarding the first 9/11 inside job, Griffin offers motives and
methods in his Debunking book more succinctly than I have found
elsewhere. Taking the posture of a defense attorney rebutting the
one-sided, single-minded prosecutorial objective of the 9/11
Commission in diverting fact and reality away from the obvious guilt
of Cheney-Bush, Griffin argues the case for the non-existent "Islamofascist"
The 9/11 Commission was thereby able, in its prosecutorial role, to
portray bin Laden and his Muslim followers as having a plausible
motive: they had declared war on America because America, in their
eyes, had declared war on Allah and Islam. However, what if there
had been attorneys for the defense, who would have argued that the
Bush-Cheney administration, besides having had far more means and
opportunity to carry out the attacks than did al-Qaeda, also had a
more powerful motive? Would there have been any evidence to which
they might have pointed? Yes, indeed.
They could have pointed out:
that a movement known as
neoconservatism, which included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,
Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, had expressed interest in
establishing a global Pax Americana, the first all-inclusive
empire in history
that in 1992, Cheney, before ending
his tenure as secretary of defense, had Wolfowitz write a draft
of the Defense Planning Guidance, which has been called "a
blueprint for permanent American global hegemony" and Cheney's "Plan to
rule the world"
that the main points in this
document were reaffirmed in a 2000 document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," written by a neoconservative think tank
called Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
that the stated requirements for the
Pax Americana included a huge increase in military spending, a
technological transformation of the military to reorient it
around computer-guided weapons (including weapons in space), and
a revised doctrine of preemptive war that would allow America to
attack other nations even if they posed no imminent threat
The defense attorneys for al-Qaeda could
also have pointed out that many of the leading neocons, including
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, had been wanting to take over Iraq and its
oil since the early 1990s and that the Bush-Cheney administration
had in July 2001 reportedly indicated that it would attack
Afghanistan "by the middle of October."
Perhaps most important, these attorneys could have pointed out,
Zbigniew Brzezinski had suggested in 1997 that the American public
would support "imperial mobilization," through which America could
retain its primacy by taking control of the oil-rich region of
Central Asia (which includes Afghanistan), only in the event of "a
truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat" just as
the American public had been willing to support "America's
engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."
These defense attorneys could then have
pointed out that "Rebuilding America's Defenses," perhaps inspired
by Brzezinski's argument, suggested that the process of transforming
the US military in the desired direction was "likely to be a long
one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new
They could have further pointed out that, besides the
fact that 9/11 was widely compared to Pearl Harbor, it was also said
to have presented "opportunities" by Bush, Rice, and
the latter saying that 9/11 created "the kind of opportunities that
World War II offered, to refashion the world." [The above excerpt is
from Dr. David Ray Griffin's latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking,
pages 104 105.]
Only a total madman or a Zionist fanatic faithfully following "The
Protocols" would see the horror of war as an "opportunity to
refashion the world."
In his paper posted on Global Research on June 24th entitled,
"Bush Directive for a 'Catastrophic
Emergency' in America: Building a Justification for Waging War
on Iran?" also carried on Rense.com, Professor
Chossudovsky opens by quoting a statement made by a Pentagon
official supposedly leaked to the Washington Post on April 23,
"'Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a
justification and an OPPORTUNITY that is lacking today to
retaliate against some known targets.'"
Chossudovsky goes on:
"The US media consensus is that 'the
United States faces its greatest threat of a terrorist assault
since the September 11 attacks.'"
That the mass media leans heavily
pro-Israel is an established fact. Iran, in spite of it having
neither threatening nor deployable nuclear capability, is being
propagandized as such by the mass media.
"The sheer absurdity that Al Qaeda
might have advanced capabilities to wage a nuclear attack on
America is, nonetheless, pervasive in the US [pro-Israel] media
Comparing the mass media agitprop
raising the specters of both a nuclear armed Iran and al-Qaeda, the
pro-Israel media was silent on the warnings offered by former
CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks. Franks' predictions are
cited again by Chossudovsky wherein he predicted the downfall of our
democracy mildly referring to the activities of the criminal
Chossudovsky quotes Franks:
"'[A] terrorist, massive,
casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western
world it may be in the United States of America that causes
our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to
militarize our own country in order to avoid a repeat of another
mass, casualty-producing event.' Franks was obliquely alluding
to a 'Second 9/11' terrorist attack, which could be used to
galvanize US public opinion in support of a military government
and police state."
Chossudovsky continues ominously:
"It is important to understand that
General Franks was not giving a personal opinion on the role of
a 'massive casualty-producing event' in National Security
doctrine. His statement very much reflects the dominant
viewpoint both in the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland
Security both on the concept of [a] massive casualty-producing
event as well as how events might unfold in the case of a
'Catastrophic Emergency.' The statement comes from a man who has
been actively involved in military and intelligence planning at
the highest levels. In other words, the 'militarization of our
country' is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the
broader 'Washington consensus'. It identifies the Bush
administration's 'roadmap' of war and Homeland defense."
The paper highlights Bush's May 2007
National Security Presidential Directive, NSPD-51. It is a
directive, a presidential executive order, which establishes
procedures for the continuity of government in the case of a
"Catastrophic Emergency." It legitimizes the Cheney-Bush
dictatorship. Chossudovsky observes, "NSPD 51 has barely been
reported by the [pro-Israel] mainstream media."
There was no press briefing by the White
House or by DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, which would be the
normal practice, given the significance and implications of NSPD 51.
The text of NSPD 51/HSPD 20, announced by the White House is not
even mentioned on the DHS's website.
Chossudovsky then sends the Paul Revere alert:
"While NSPD 51 has the appearances
of a domestic national security decision, it is nonetheless, an
integral part of US foreign policy. It belongs to a longstanding
military national security agenda. Were NSPD 51 to be invoked,
Vice President Dick Cheney, who constitutes the real power
behind the Executive, would essentially assume de facto
dictatorial powers, circumventing both the US Congress and the
Judiciary, while continuing to use President
George W. Bush as a
But isn't Dick Cheney demonstrating his
dictatorial power this very moment? Hasn't he told the National
Archives, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
the entire Congress, the American people to all drop dead and go to
hell? Was Kucinich wrong in targeting this monster for impeachment?
The press knows that he is America's
dictator; the Congress knows it; Kucinich knows it; Chossudovsky
knows it, and I know it.
Why isn't anything being done to
stop this ticking international nuclear time bomb about
ready to attack both America and Iran?
Can one madman rule America?
Has America finally come to