You can also download the MP3.

On the eve of 9/11, the Washington Post published an article about claims that U.S. officials were behind the terrorist attacks. Reporter Michael Powell noted that David Ray Griffin’s book, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, was “never reviewed in a major U.S. newspaper?” No, but the book and Griffin were prominently mentioned in this article, which was more than 2,600 words.

The book should have been reviewed and debunked. David Ray Griffin is an advocate of the view that Flight 77, a Boeing 757 which was seen by dozens of people crashing into the Pentagon, was actually a missile or small aircraft. However, he has no explanation for passenger Barbara Olson’s call to her husband, Ted Olson, in the Justice Department, alerting him to the fact that the flight had been hijacked, other than to suggest that they were both part of a secret plan to conceal the truth and that it is not clear “what became of Barbara Olson.”

Such a claim would be dismissed as lunacy were it not for the fact that Griffin is a prominent liberal theologian and that his most recent book on 9/11 has been released by the Presbyterian Publishing Company.

If we are to believe the 9/11 Truth movement, the Bush Administration put the plot together-or finalized it-in a short period of time, only eight months, after Bush took office in January 2001. Then, after 9/11, an elaborate cover-up was engineered, with the connivance of top Bush officials, in order to keep the public in the dark.

Make no mistake that important questions remain unanswered about 9/11 and serious figures such as Rachel Ehrenfeld and Peter Lance have been raising them. It is mind-boggling that President Bush gave George Tenet, CIA director at the time of 9/11, a presidential Medal of Freedom. Tenet is also the official who told Bush that finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would be a slam dunk.

Which raises the question: if U.S. officials orchestrated 9/11, in order to go to war in the Middle East, why couldn’t these same officials have planted weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to justify the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime? That would have been relatively easy, compared to the complicated and elaborate schemes required to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and then to blame the attacks on Muslim Arabs hijacking U.S. commercial aircraft.

Or this: if the Bush Administration carried out 9/11, a monumental undertaking of planning and coordination, why couldn’t it have blamed the post-9/11 anthrax attacks on Muslim Arabs as well, thus giving greater impetus to the alleged desire to go to war in the Middle East? In fact, there was evidence of a foreign or al-Qaeda connection to the anthrax attacks but it was glossed over by the FBI, which came under pressure from liberal Senators Patrick Leahy and Thomas Daschle to find a right-wing culprit, based on the mistaken belief the anthrax could only have been manufactured in a U.S. military laboratory.

Such common-sense questions have been thrust aside because the 9/11 Truth movement is not concerned about the real truth but political gain for the opponents of the Bush Administration. Indeed, the political party of Bill Clinton, who was in power for eight years before 9/11 and laid the groundwork for the terrible tragedy through a pro-Muslim foreign policy, stands to benefit.

While the Bush Administration can be criticized for ignoring warnings that an attack like 9/11 might occur, it is the Clinton Administration which facilitated 9/11 by conducting a foreign policy that promoted the rise of radical Islam. As part of his pro-Muslim campaign in the former Yugoslavia, for example, Clinton pursued a controversial policy of approving the shipment of Iranian arms to Bosnian Muslims. The Clinton Administration was also allied with radical Islam when it waged a war on Serbia and ordered the CIA to assist the Kosovo Liberation Army, some of whose members were trained by bin Laden. That was 1999-two years before 9/11.

As we noted earlier, in a commentary entitled, “The 9/11 Conspiracy,” 9/11 was not the first time that the policy had backfired on the U.S. It was during the Clinton Administration that the Iranian-directed bombing of Khobar Towers occurred, and, according to former FBI director Louis Freeh, the Clinton national security apparatus worked long and hard to prevent the truth from coming out. Freeh wrote, “It soon became clear that Mr. Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, had no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the towers.”

Berger would later plead guilty to stealing and destroying classified national security information from the National Archives on what the Clinton Administration did-or did not do-to prevent 9/11. Berger was desperate to cover something up.

Interestingly, Berger would later surface in an article in the Wall Street Journal headlined, “Talk to Tehran,” in which he advised that “diplomacy” with Iran, rather than military action, could produce a “breakthrough.” On January 14, 2005, the George Soros-funded Open Society Institute, together with the American Iranian Council (AIC), had sponsored a symposium on “US-Iran Relations: A View from Tehran,” featuring the Iranian Ambassador to the U.N., Javad Zarif. Commentator Ken Timmerman would note that the involvement of the Open Society Institute in this event meant that Soros was helping Iran spread its propaganda. The event was held at the Open Society Institute (OSI) in New York and the OSI is listed as an AIC sponsor. 

In a recent interview with the Boston Globe, Soros complained about the “anti-international approach” being taken by members of the Bush Administration in the case of Iran and expressed the hope that “moderates” in the U.S. and Iranian governments could make an accommodation. He also called U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton “rabid.”

This is what we can expect from a liberal-controlled Congress, influenced by Soros-financed groups and the 9/11 Truth movement. They will leave in power a fanatical Iranian regime which threatens its neighbors and the world with nuclear weapons.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author