The 9/11 "investigation"- sometimes priorities dictate

By Kerry Tomasi
Online Journal Contributing Writer

"My father's no different than any other powerful man. Like a senator or president."

"You know how naïve you sound? Senators and presidents don't have men killed".

"Oh. Who's being naïve, Kay?"—Michael Corleone in "The Godfather".

December 6, 2003—Suppose you were a detective assigned to investigate a rather brutal murder, one in which the victim had been tortured for several days prior to being killed.

At the scene of the crime you get what appears to be a lucky break—the suspect's wallet seems to have been 'carelessly' dropped. It contains his name, address, and phone number, and is someone you recognize as having connections to an organized crime family.

Problem is, you also find your name and address in there, as well as those of your children, grandchildren, and all of your nieces and nephews.

The message is quite clear, and your priorities dictate. You pocket the wallet, and any other evidence you happen upon, and the crime goes unsolved.

Now suppose you were a congressman assigned to investigate the 911 terrorist attacks. As you begin, it becomes apparent that certain members of the US government had conspired to allow the attacks to occur. In fact, it's just lying there, slightly below the surface, right out in the open. You immediately realize you're dealing with the kind of people who would—at the very least, and simply to further a political agenda—look the other way while 3,000 civilians were murdered.

And if that wasn't troubling enough, you then get a 'friendly' visit from someone you've never met before, inquiring into how well your daughter is doing at that overseas university in Dorm Room 305, and if your nephew made it into that prestigious preschool at 735 S. 4th Street in Atlanta.

You might even get a little note in the mail—laced with a powdery substance—just to help you sort things out in your head.

The message is quite clear, and your priorities dictate. When the "investigation" is complete, no governmental complicity in the crime is revealed.

As Henry Kissinger once theorized (as related in Paul Krugman's book "The Great Unraveling"), when a revolutionary power seeks to overthrow an existing and stable system, it begins first by refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of that system, or it's rules. Those living within the system do not realize this, and therefore reject the notion that anyone would, for instance, disobey 'the rules' so blatantly and permit the murder of 3,000 people purely for political gain; even though such an action (or inaction) would hand the conspirators the cover to achieve virtually everything they could have ever dreamed of politically.

Anyone who tries to suggest that they would actually do such a thing, or attempts to find out if they did, is derided as an alarmist and unpatriotic by those within the existing system, and given subtle, or not so subtle, 'encouragement' by the conspirators to 'pocket the wallet.' Thus, the revolutionary power is able to proceed unencumbered, without fear of oversight or challenge.

Could this be where we are in this country right now? Does anything else make sense?

What else would justify the silence and/or acquiescence of certain 'in-the-know' members of our society to the flagrant economic, environmental, and societal devastation going on today? Why are the Democrats, the media (those not controlled by the 'revolutionary power'), the intelligence community, and even traditional conservatives, so cowed by this movement? Why won't they investigate, or at least speak up?

It can't simply be that they're worried about losing their jobs, or want a big tax cut that bad. Not with so much at stake. There has to be something more sinister in play here. Something most of us thought could never happen in this country. Not on this scale anyway.

I know this all sounds somewhat cynical and a bit paranoid. That's probably because I am quite cynical and a bit paranoid these days. I've been paying attention—I can't help but be.

But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong.

And if I am right, we are truly in a dreadfully serious situation.


WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 (UPI)—Former Sen. Max Cleland, a Democrat, has been nominated by President Bush to serve on the board of the Export-Import Bank. As a result he will have to leave the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The statutes governing the panel, formally known as The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, bar anyone who holds a federal job like being on the Ex-Im Board.

Cleland has been one of the more outspoken members of the commission, accusing the administration of delaying access to vital documents in an effort to run out the clock on its investigation.

My best wishes to Mr. Cleland, and all of his family members.

Sometimes priorities dictate.

( categories: )