The Democratic Party Like the
Repulican Party and the Media, Covered Up the Deep Complicity
in the 9/11 /01 Attack by Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Myers
by John B. Massen
Guest Writer-Summary Analysis
from the book
by Peter Phillips and Project
Seven Stories Press, 2006, paper
On March 11, 2003, Congressman John Conyers,
Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, called an emergency
meeting of 40 some top advisors, mostly lawyers, to discuss immediately
initiating impeachment against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft,
to head off the impending war against Iraq, which began eight
days later. Also invited were Francis A. Boyle, professor of law
at University of Illinois School of Law, and Ramsey Clark, former
U.S. Attorney General, both of whom had drafted Bills of Impeachment,
to argue the case for impeachment. The meeting ended with a second
revised draft Bill of Impeachment, because eminent lawyers believed
that Bush et al deserved impeachment for multiple violations of
international treaties and laws. However, influential Democrats
opposed impeachment on the ground that the effort would hurt their
party's interest in gaining control of the federal government
in the 2004 election.
On 9-13-01, the Senate Armed Services
Committee, with a Democratic Chairman and majority membership,
heard General Richard Myers testify that fighter aircraft responded
to an apparently hijacked plane inbound to the U.S. and forced
it to land in a remote base in Canada. Standard operating procedures
were clearly in effect outside, but not inside, the U.S. on September,
11, 2001. If there had been no advance warning of the attack,
fighter planes responding under standard operating procedures
would have prevented all attacks inside the U.S. The Bush regime
must have decided to permit the attack to succeed.
A comprehensive report was written, by
myself, which cited Myers' testimony, the failure to prevent the
9/11 attacks, Bush's behavior at the Florida school, and evidence
of planning long before 9/11, and aggression in Afghanistan and
Iraq. The report was sent, by myself, to Conyers on November 17,
2003, to Rep. Barbara Lee on January 3, 2004, and to all 257 Democrats
in the House and Senate plus DNC Chairman McAuliffe on January
26, 2004. The transmittal letters all strongly appealed for impeachment
of the Bush regime for complicity in permitting the 9/11 attack
to occur, and stressed that Democrats might receive, and should
request, effective political support by a comprehensive political-educational
campaign by MoveOn.Org and United For Peace and Justice that would
assure a majority vote in the House and a 2/3 vote in the Senate.
The Report was sent to MoveOn.Org and UFPJ, for use as they wished
to inform and motivate their members.
David Ray Griffin's vital book, The New
Pearl Harbor Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration
and 9/11, was released in April 2004. It presented comprehensive
evidence indicating deep complicity by the Bush regime in the
9/11 attack. The simplest "snapshot" of that evidence
is this: (a) the North Tower (WTC-1) was struck at 8:46 AM, and
collapsed 102 minutes later at 10:28 AM; (b) the South Tower (WTC-2)
was struck at 9:03 AM and, with a much smaller fire, collapsed
56 minutes later (55 percent of WTC-1 time) at 9:59 AM; and (c)
the 47-story WTC-7, which was two blocks away and not struck by
a plane and had smaller interior fires, collapsed at 5:20 PM.
(p.l2) The collapse of WTC-2 before WTC-1 indicates the cause
was not fires, but controlled demolition. (p.l'7)
Copies of Griffin's book were sent by
myself to these Democrats: Dennis Kucinich on 3/27/04 with an
impassioned plea; DNC Chair McAuliffe, Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi,
and Senators Daschle, Feinstein and Boxer on 3/31/04; Congress
members John Conyers, Elijah Cummings (Black Caucus Chair), Ciro
Rodriquez (Hispanic Caucus Chair), Barbara Lee, Louise Slaughter
(Co-chair of Women's Issues Caucus), and Tom Udall, between 4/05
and 4/28/04. All transmittal letters urged impeachment action,
contending that such action and injecting the "complicity
issue" into the 2004 presidential campaign was the only way
to assure Bush's defeat; and repeated that Congressional Democrats
might receive, and should request, effective political support
from a comprehensive political-educational campaign waged by MoveOn.Org
Of course, many Congressional Democrats
received, from other persons, much information about the Bush
regime complicity in addition to that reported above.
All Congressional Democrats and especially
its leaders, and DNC Chair McAuliffe, were adequately informed
of the Bush regime complicity and had staff and other resources
to investigate further. Congressional Democrats had sworn to protect
and uphold the constitution. They utterly failed in their obligations
to the constitution and to their constituents to be an effective
opposition party. The title of this essay is fully justified:
the Democratic Party, like the Republican Party and the Media,
covered up the deep complicity in the 9/11/01 attack by Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Myers.
Why does the principal opposition party
join the ruling party in covering up what are probably the worst
presidential crimes in U.S. history? In response to my request
for his evaluation of my report (cited above), Michael C. Ruppert,
on 1/1/2004, provided an astute evaluation of how Congress operates:
"The flaw in your work is not in
the legal foundation or in the way the evidence is presented,
[but] in your basic assumption that the system functions and operates
as you think it should or the way it is described in textbooks.
History is replete with instances of impeachable or prosecutable
conduct which are much better documented, more easily proven,
and more glaring than what you have described."
"In Watergate, there was an abundance
of evidence that Richard Nixon had committed offenses far greater
than the one which brought him to the brink of impeachment-obstruction
of justice. The issue was not what offense would be used to remove
him, but (as far as Congress was concerned) finding an offense
which could remove a sitting president without destroying the
entire American system of government. The same question governs
Congressional response to 9/11," Ruppert wrote.
Ruppert went on to write, "The entire
system is corrupt. Those who participate in it rationalize-in
order to protect their seat at a crap table that when one player
gets out of line the primary objective is to protect the crap
game. (I thank Peter Dale Scott for this analogy.) I can guarantee
you that many members of Congress are aware of every detail you
have documented, and much, much more... To impeach Bush et al
on the grounds you have delineated would open a can of worms that
would call into question the legitimacy of the entire government.
That will never be permitted.
"In the late 1990s I secured hard
documents (much better evidence than you have presented from a
legal standpoint) showing an active conspiracy to protect drug
traffickers by the CIA that was sanctioned by the White House.
An impeachment trial would have been open and shut. It never came
about for the reasons I have stated above.
"In the case of the Clinton impeachment,
while there were perhaps ten (or more) offenses upon which that
president could have been removed and jailed, none of them were
ever pursued. Why? Because they involved the simultaneous exposure
of Republican corruption and/or demonstrated that the entire government
was complicit in one degree or another. So what did they go after
Clinton on? Extramarital sex and lying about it. It was the only
charge available that did not bring down the whole system.
"I believe that (as it was with Watergate)
Bush will likely be impeached after winning the 2004 election.
On what charge? The forged Niger documents about alleged attempts
by Saddam Hussein to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program and
the malicious exposure of Valerie Plame (wife of Ambassador Joseph
Wilson who was critical in exposing that lie) as a CIA case officer.
That offense does not expose the whole crap game.
"There is no legal argument you can
make that will make a broken system function the way that you
want it to function."
Another valuable insight about the Democratic
Party was provided on February 20, 2005 by Bruce Coordinator of
the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.
"Hillary Clinton, who hopes to become
president, is on the Sunday morning talk shows saying that our
troops might be in Iraq for some time to come.
'We've been in Korea for 50 years,' she
said. 'We are still in Okinawa,' she told the TV cameras.
"That is it. Pack up your bags, peace
movement, and just go home. Hillary has made the pronouncement.
She is in sync with George W. Bush, the neo-con crowd, Haliburton,
Bechtel .... She wants to be president and she knows that the
road to the White House has to pass through the gates of the military
industrial complex... and the oil corporations... and the globalization
crowd that intends to create a 'market economy' in Iraq (read
privatization of everything there). Hillary has totally sold out.
"The war in Iraq, and the very long
presence of U.S. troops there, will bleed America to the bone.
The Democratic party, with few very noble exceptions, is on their
knees in loyal complicity with the war machine. How can any self-respecting
peace activist contemplate for a moment supporting such a party
in the next election?"
Obviously, our nation is in very deep
trouble. All citizens must unite and take back our nation from
the corporate oligarchs!
John B. Massen finally retired at 90 in
San Francisco this year. Massen's peace activism was principally
in the United Nations Association of the USA, climaxed by his
creation in 1980 and wide distribution of his highly acclaimed
16-poster exhibit on the Effects and Dangers of Nuclear War, co-sponsored
by seven national organizations. E-mail: JackMassen@ aol.com