Several impressive developments over the last 18 months have lifted the 9/11 truth message into the mainstream news and public awareness. These developments include the Rethink911 campaign, CNN’s coverage of the alternative 9/11 Museum Guide and outreach effort, Richard Gage’s interview on C-SPAN, the debut of The Anatomy of a Great Deception, and the huge video billboard in Times Square depicting the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.
Now there’s a new opportunity that holds great promise.
Join Ray McGovern, Ramsey Clark, and 9/11 family member Terry Strada in New York City on Saturday, November 22, in their call to:
End America’s Blindness . . . Restore Its Vision . . . Open the 28 Pages
The reference to 28 pages relates to congressional bill H.R. 428, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC). It calls for the release of 28 pages that were redacted (actually, excised) from the Joint Congressional Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001. The Joint Inquiry report dates back to 2002. Shortly after Rep. Jones’ bill was introduced last December, a group of 46 U.S. senators wrote to President Bush requesting that the 28 pages be declassified and made public. Ever since, former U.S. Sen. Robert Graham (D-FL), who chaired the Joint Inquiry committee, has continued to demand the release of these pages and even made a FOIA request to the Obama administration.
On September 9, Rep. Jones and several congressional cosponsors, along with 9/11 family members, held a press conference at the National Press Club to promote H.R. 428’s passage. Currently the legislation has 20 co-sponsors and growing support from 9/11 families. In addition, some members of the 9/11 Commission are on record calling for the pages’ release.
The bill’s cosponsors say their views on the 9/11 attacks changed after reading the 28 pages. Rep. Jones, for example, declared that “[the 28-redacted pages do] not deal with national security per se” but are “more about relationships. The information is critical to our foreign policy moving forward and should thus be available to the American people. If the 9/11 hijackers had outside help — particularly from one or more foreign governments — the press and the public have a right to know what our government has or has not done to bring justice to the perpetrators.”
This bill is a serious call to action for the 9/11 Truth Movement. It should motivate each of us to pressure our own legislators to:
read the 28 pages
cosponsor the resolution
promise to vote in favor of its passage
The release of the 28 pages will bring new attention to the events and consequences of 9/11, including the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers, which is AE911Truth’s focus.
The issue also has the potential to bring to the fore the truth behind the current violence in Iraq and Syria. The entire global war on terror could be seen for what it is — part of an ulterior motive far different from what the public has been told. Many of us AE911Truth supporters have spent years studying the alternative research on 9/11. Now, with just a few hours of reading and simple actions, we can each make a impact.
For more information, see this website with its comprehensive overview of this issue online. It contains an explanation of the significance of H.R. 428 as well as detailed steps that seekers of 9/11 truth and justice can take. Our ongoing political actions will help ensure passage of the resolution. See the “Take Action” section of HR428.org for instructions, sample letters, and an automated function that delivers your letters directly to your member of Congress. Please review this material today, then do whatever you can to take this issue viral through your social networks and your personal and organizational contacts.
Come to New York if you can and help spread the word!
Saturday, November 22, 2014
2:00 PM to 5:00 PM
All Souls Church
1157 Lexington Avenue (at 80th St.), New York City
End America’s Blindness . . . Restore Its Vision . . . Open the 28 Pages
(Dedicated to President John F. Kennedy and the victims and families of 9/11)
Speakers and topics include:
Ray McGovern, retired CIA analyst; co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity. Topic: “The Surveillance Pseudo-State — Release the 28 Pages”
Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General (1967-69); founder, International Action Center. Topic: “Global War is Over — If You Want It”
Jeffrey Steinberg, senior editor, Executive Intelligence Review. Topic: “The Erinyes Principal: The BRICS Nations Revive JFK’s New Frontier”
Terry Strada, 9/11 family member, speaker at press conference at the National Press Club hosted by Walter Jones on Sept. 9, 2014
The crises in the world today require that nations move forward by returning to the outlook of peace through scientific and technological progress and through a willingness to engage in international cooperation, as embodied in the John F. Kennedy presidency. This challenge is now being renewed by over half of humanity, led by the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) nations and their allies.
Let us, the American people, join this renewal process — by getting at the truth about 9/11. There is no better way to honor the memory of John F. Kennedy and the victims and family members of 9/11.
The Boston Marathon bombing is much more important than has been acknowledged, principally because it is the defining domestic national security event since 9/11—and has played a major role in expanding the power of the security state. For that reason, WhoWhatWhy is continuing to investigate troubling aspects of this story and the establishment media treatment of it. We will be exploring new elements of the story regularly as the January trial of the accused co-conspirator Dzhokhar Tsarnaev approaches.
The defense witnesses in the Boston Bombing trial certainly have reason to be afraid to testify, given the long official intimidation campaign against them.
Yet, ironically, it is now the government that is claiming its witnesses are scared and even unwilling to testify. Unsurprisingly, the judge overseeing the trial against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has agreed with the prosecutors.
Since the Boston Marathon bombing last year, WhoWhatWhy has reported on a pattern of intimidation towards people associated with the accused bombers, Dzhokhar and his late elder brother, Tamerlan. Those connected to the case have been intimidated, deported, jailed, and even killed.
It got so bad that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s defense asked U.S. District Court Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. for permission to conceal the names of individual witnesses until the day before they’re due to testify. That’s because, the defense argues, they fear the witnesses will be subject to further FBI harassment.
Judy Clarke, a member of the defense team, admitted it was an unusual request. “We don’t want to do it,” Clarke told the court. “We’re already struggling to get people to talk to us. We are really worried about losing the slim list of real potential witnesses we have.”
The government countered that it was having trouble convincing bombing victims to cooperate. They are “afraid, if not unwilling, to testify against the man accused of dismembering or traumatizing them in a terrorist attack.” Further, the prosecution argued, keeping Tsarnaev’s witnesses under wraps would hand him an unfair advantage.
On Nov. 12, O’Toole sided with the prosecution, ordering the defense to disclose its preliminary witness list by Dec. 29. He also announced that jury selection will begin on Jan. 5, when an initial 1,200 prospective jurors will be called in to fill out questionnaires over the course of the next three days.
Leaving aside the question of Tsarnaev’s guilt, which has been officially presented as a foregone conclusion with little outside critical analysis of the investigation, his chances at trial are numerically slim.
The Justice Department’s latest statistics show a criminal conviction rate of 93 percent.
The following is WhoWhatWhy Founder and Editor-in-Chief Russ Baker’s interview with Joan Brunwasser, first published on OpEd News.
My guest today is Russ Baker, forensic journalist, author and founder of WhoWhatWhy. Welcome back to OpEdNews, Russ! Last week you wrote a piece called The “Double Government” Secret Gets Out. What can you tell any readers who might have missed it? And why is this such an important story?
RB: Well, no reason to “miss it.” Please click the link and then I’ll just assume anyone here has read it and I’ll proceed to expand upon it.
JB: Thanks for that!
RB: I think it is an important story because for very, very long, the media in the U.S. has by and large denied the reality of the degraded state of democracy and freedom. Its nature is to be simplistic and incremental. At WhoWhatWhy, we’ve felt a bit like outcasts trying to get people to see what is happening to our country. Now, we’re pleased to see some elements of the “establishment” beginning to move, ever so slothfully, to acknowledge the crisis.
JB: Why has the Boston Globe finally, suddenly decided to jump into the fray? They’ve been pretty quiet on this issue up to now, correct?
RB: They have not actually been quiet on the issue—they’ve been on the wrong side. Their coverage of the “9/11 of Boston”—the Marathon bombing—has been little short of disgraceful. They quickly accepted whatever law enforcement told them, even when there were signs everywhere that a cover-up of some kind was afoot. (Be sure and see our ongoing series on the Marathon bombing, for example http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/10/02/boston-update-fbi-war-on-marathon-bombing-witnesses-continues/ )
JB: I stand corrected. In that case, though, isn’t it even more surprising that the Globe is suddenly open to reason? How do you account for the shift, Russ?
RB: Well, I don’t know if we can claim total credit, but WhoWhatWhy has, as of my most recent count, published 18 articles questioning the conventional narrative on that incident. And a poll from a few months ago showed 40 percent of Bostonians skeptical. That’s a fair amount of pressure, even for a big dominant local player like the Globe.
JB: So, did they do some long-overdue serious investigative journalism? And what is this secret “double government” exactly? Whatever it is, it doesn’t sound good, that’s for sure.
RB: Naw, but they did run a couple of pieces about a book by a “respectable” person starting to edge into the territory we’ve been blazing for several years—the idea that while we put all our attention on what the president and Congress do and don’t do there’s a whole other apparatus calling the shots. It’s that old combo Ike warned about—the one percent and their allies in the permanent part of government—intel agencies, Pentagon, bureaucracy throughout.
JB: Tell us a bit more about the “respectable” book and author that launched the Globe’s about-face. We need something to sink our teeth into, beyond generalizations about the evils of the 1%.
RB: A Tufts professor wrote a book on the “Double Government.” I haven’t read it yet, but his thrust is that a president’s will can easily be thwarted by the non-elected part of Washington. The point for me is that the mainstream media is willing to embrace critiques that get beyond the fantasy of a viable democracy where we choose our leaders and they do our bidding. What’s generally missing, even probably from his book, is the notion that it is not really the “double government” that drives things, but private capital. And then we begin to come to terms with why we never seem to get what we want—or what we are promised by the pols.
JB: Is there a tie-in between this reputed “Double Government” and the Bushes, the subject of your 2010 book, Family of Secrets? If so, what is it?
RB: Well, I haven’t read the professor’s book yet, but I highly doubt he mentions the Bushes in any detail. Academia generally shies away from anything too controversial. But I’d say the Bushes themselves embody the notion that elected officials are only successful to the extent they have deep links into the Double Government—and funding and support from…ahem…the Triple Government. My research for Family of Secrets really underlined the extent to which secret events and alliances shape our country’s course constantly.
JB: Well, that’s certainly a teaser, Russ. What are you referring to? Can you give us something more concrete to sink our teeth into, to mix a metaphor? It could ultimately cause a groundswell of interest in your book, you know!
RB: Well, what I found is difficult to sum up in just a few sentences, because the facts are so incredibly disturbing, and run so counter to what we’ve been told up to this point. There’s a fantasy in this country that our politicians, as occasionally criticized as they are, fundamentally are gentlemen and gentlewomen. We treat them like celebrities or royalty. But power accrual and wielding is an ugly business, more akin to other lines of work that are about ruthlessness. Anyway, handicapped by not being able to present my thousand-plus footnotes here, I’ll just present a few particulars on the Bush clan:
Bush 41, HW Bush, was in the secret employ of the intelligence services decades before he was appointed as a supposed newcomer, to the CIA directorship. Among other things, he was part of a group, inside and outside CIA, that felt threatened by JFK and furious at him. He hid the fact that he was in Dallas the day Kennedy was shot. He was a good friend of Lee Oswald’s mentor. He was mentioned in FBI documents related to the assassination and to Cuban exiles who were enraged at Kennedy.
He and his family were, secretly, principal sponsors of Richard Nixon’s career. But when Nixon tried to buck his handlers, they turned on him. The real story of Watergate is the framing of Nixon by others in the Republican camp.
JB: Hold on a second, Russ. Why did Bush and Co. want to get rid of Nixon? Didn’t they like him initially?
RB: I devote three chapters of Family of Secrets to unraveling the mystery of the relationship between Nixon and George H.W. Bush. I spent a long time investigating—discovered they anointed him to be the pawn of banking interests, but over the years he chafed at being dominated. Then he began seriously challenging the corporate folks. And then he was out.
JB: I had no idea. That’s quite a backstory. Sorry for the interruption. I was just curious. Nixon was such a nemesis in American history.
RB: No problem. Also:
The Bushes, including George W., were up to their elbows in bizarre massive money movements and odd companies that never seemed to be about actually turning a profit—populated by the Shah of Iran, the Saudis, Ferdinand Marcos, Harvard University, and other rogues and mainstays.
Much more on this in Family of Secrets—about 600 pages of this kind of stuff. Enjoy!
JB: Yikes! 600 pages of “this kind of stuff”? I’m not sure that “enjoy” is the operative word here. What happens with all these explosive revelations? The Bushes seem pretty impervious to major scandal or outrage which this might have engendered in years past. How has your blockbuster been received? Has the corporate media just ignored you? Does everything just get swept under the rug?
RB: The corporate media—and so-called “progressive” and “alternative” news sources as well—have almost completely ignored these discoveries. Why? Laziness and discomfiture with major openings that could fundamentally shift our understanding of how things work. Everyone’s in on the game of “left-right” that keeps members of the public at each other’s throats while the one percent of one percent of one percent keeps on driving the train. The good news is that Family of Secrets has sold close to 100,000 copies, is in libraries across America, and likely has been read by half a million people.
JB: Good news, indeed. I had no idea!
RB: The web and some radio outlets have made it possible to go around the gatekeepers. And more and more people get that there is a giant con being perpetrated year after year, with elections the “bread and circuses” we all demand as a substitute for real introspection. More WikiLeaks, more Snowdens, more of the kind of work being done by “renegade” journalists and a growing army of activists, and we’ll get to critical mass.
JB: Based on what you’ve said and what I’ve read, how are things shaping up with the Bush Co. vis a vis 2016? Are we in for, God forbid, a permanent Bush-run, Republican dynasty?RB: I would say that, due in large part to a complacent and docile media, plus a public with little long-term memory, we are very likely in for a third President Bush, aka Jeb. And, if I were to peer into a crystal ball, I’d say that in a dozen years or so we might see a fourth President Bush, in the person of Jeb’s son, George P. Bush. Just elected overwhelmingly to state office in Texas! Half-Hispanic! That will wow the same media that brought us Barack Obama.
JB: If that’s the case, do you worry that your work will be some day burned, banned or outlawed? Has everything you’ve learned so far caused you to pretty much given up on our restoring any semblance of a true democratic system or do you somehow hang on to a bit of cautious optimism?
RB: I am always alert that things can go very bad very quickly in any society. I do see signs of that possibility here. The Boston Bombing with the related apparent cover-up, harassment of witnesses, passivity of the media, tolerance of disappearing public rights to privacy and inquiry into law enforcement actions—this kind of situation is deeply disturbing. At the same time, I see the rise of a vigilant opposing sector, and remain both hopeful and energized—because, what option do we have?
JB: Agreed. Anything you’d like to add before we wrap this up?
RB: In the end, we are only as good as what we know—and what we do, armed with the information. At WhoWhatWhy, we’re a nonprofit, non-commercial outfit devoted solely to digging for the truth and providing it to the public. We hope your readers like what we’re doing. We welcome their ideas, and their support.
JB: While much of what you had to say today was not easy listening, Russ, keeping our heads in the sand is just not a viable option. I’m glad so many people have been reading Family of Secrets. Thanks so much for talking with me again. Keep up the good work over at WhoWhatWhy!
RB: Thanks, Joan. You are a delightful conversation partner.
JB: Why, thank you! Likewise!