top
Anti-War
Anti-War
Newswire
Calendar
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Anti-War
We Believe Cynthia
by democrats.com
Thursday Apr 18th, 2002 11:52 PM
What Did Bush Know -
and When Did He Know It?
cynthia4.gif
In March 2002, Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) shocked the American political establishment by demanding answers to the unanswered - and even unasked - questions about September 11, then repeated her demand in an editorial in the Atlanta Journal Constitution published on April 15th:

Thoughts On Our War Against Terrorism
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/03.29G.McKinney.War.htm
Bush Must Answer September 11th Questions
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0402/0415equal.html

McKinney made numerous points, but two of them were selected by the media for mass distribution - and distortion.

1. War Profiteering

"Persons close to this Administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war. Former President Bush sits on the board of the Carlyle Group. The Los Angeles Times reports that on a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army's fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the Sept. 11 attacks. The stock sale cashed in on increased congressional support for hefty defense spending, including one of United Defense's cornerstone weapon programs."

These facts have been widely reported in the mainstream media, and have not been challenged. See Democrats.com .comments on the Carlyle Group.

2. September 11 Warnings

"Now is the time for our elected officials to be held accountable. Now is the time for the media to be held accountable. Why aren't the hard questions being asked? We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, delivered one such warning. Those engaged in unusual stock trades immediately before September 11 knew enough to make millions of dollars from United and American airlines, certain insurance and brokerage firms' stocks. What did this Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?"

The mainstream media has published numerous articles about warnings of an impending terrorist attack that went unheeded. For more details, visit Carolyn Kay's excellent MakeThemAccountable.com.

Rep. McKinney is not the only Member of Congress who wants an open and thorough investigation of the September 11 warnings that went unheeded. Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), and Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) have all called for a thorough public investigation of the events and intelligence failures that led up to September 11. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Trent Lott have adamantly opposed any public investigation. See Democrats.com .comments on September 11 Investigations.

The Smear Campaign

On April 11 2002, the Washington Post's Julie Eilperin took these two points and twisted them into a pretzel in order to accuse McKinney of blaming the Bush Administration for the September 11 attacks.

Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot

As the text of Rep. McKinney's remarks shows, she did NOT imply September 11 was an "Administration Plot." She did not say it, she did not suggest it, and she did not even obliquely hint at it. In other words, Juliet Eilperin is LYING.

Rupert Murdoch's right-wing New York Post twisted the Washington Post's story even further.

She is demanding an investigation into her charge that Bush may have done nothing because his rich friends stood to profit from the military build-up, The Washington Post reported

McKinney did NOT charge "that Bush may have done nothing because his rich friends stood to profit from the military build-up." And since she did NOT make that charge, she is NOT "demanding an investigation into" that charge.

We Believe Cynthia!

The Washington Post, New York Post, AP, and NY Times have variously suggested that Rep. McKinney is a conspiracy theorist, crazy, pro-Iraqi, or an irresponsible publicity-seeker.

In fact, Rep. McKinney is a leading champion of human rights for blacks and all people of color, both at home and abroad. She is best known for working with conservative Republican Chris Smith (R-NJ) to enact a "code of conduct" for selling arms to dictatorial regimes. She is serving her fifth term in Congress, representing a district that was only 33% black in 1996.

The media's attempt to portray Cynthia McKinney as crazy is a repeat of the media's character assassination campaigns against Anita Hill and Lani Guinier. In all three cases, outspoken black women have been attacked for daring to express ideas that challenge the white male establishment. History has shown that both Anita Hill and Lani Guinier were telling the truth. History will also show that Cynthia McKinney is telling the truth. We believed Anita Hill and Lani Guinier - and we believe Cynthia McKinney too.

And we're taking action! We invite you to join our "We Believe Cynthia!" campaign.

1. Write letters to the media - especially those who smeared Cynthia McKinney - telling them "We Believe Cynthia!" Write to eilperinj [at] washpost.com and letters [at] nytimes.com. Send a copy to public [at] democrats.com and we'll publish the best ones here.

2. Post our campaign button (at the top of this page) on your Web site, with a link to this page (http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=270).

Thanks for your support!!


by Sean
Saturday Apr 20th, 2002 11:19 AM
"McKinney's hypocrisy is so concentrated it could eat through metal. The only politician I know of who actively tried to profit from Sept. 11, was Cynthia McKinney herself. She's the one who went whoring after Saudi Arabia's blood money after the attacks."-
click here
by puhlease!
Saturday Apr 20th, 2002 10:28 PM
we are really going to go read some right-bullshit from the National Review!
by john
Sunday Apr 21st, 2002 9:31 AM
McKinney dares to ask a simple question, but the Bush regime does not allow questions anymore, even by members of congress. Forget the Florida election was rigged by brother Bush. Now they are at war (with our democracy). In President Bush’s endless “War on Terror” we have reprise performances by criminals from the Reagan/Bush eras and even some of their children. I came across this quote, ostensibly by Professor Fred Halliday of the London School of Economics who wrote it at the end of the 1980s:
“The most striking feature of the Reagan Doctrine was the way in which Washington itself came to be a promoter and organizer of terrorist actions. The mujaheddin in Afghanistan, UNITA in Angola and the Nicaraguan Contras were all responsible for abominable actions in their pursuit of “freedom” – massacring civilians, torturing and raping captives, destroying schools, hospitals and economic installations, killing and mutilating prisoners… Reagan was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people through terrorism.”
Under President Bush Sr., came sanctions against Iraqi civilians, to which UN agencies attribute an estimated 1.5 million deaths, at least half of them young children. We had Bush Jr. foisted on us in a rigged election. Every action, utterance and wink of the Bush regime should be greeted with suspicion. Nazi leaders also easily characterized some of what they did as response to partisan terrorism. Was "our" government above allowing several thousand people to be killed on 9/11, if it would pave the way for the USA Patriot act, Homeland security, secret detentions and the war for oil? Couldn't say unless we demand to know.
by Vic
Sunday Apr 21st, 2002 11:16 AM
To all the 'puhlease' commenters: if a democratically elected representative is not allowed to ask these valid questions about 9-11, what is your democracy really worth? The official explanations stink to high heaven. The truth will eventually be exposed. just wait and see.
by Vic
Sunday Apr 21st, 2002 11:18 AM
To all the 'puhlease' commenters: if a democratically elected representative is not allowed to ask these valid questions about 9-11, what is your democracy really worth? The official explanations stink to high heaven. The truth will eventually be exposed. just wait and see.
by Mr. Hand
Sunday Apr 21st, 2002 2:26 PM
Iraq, not Iran, you fucking handpuppet.
by Eric
Sunday Apr 21st, 2002 2:45 PM
Little children are dying in Iran for the same reasons JoJo stated. At least Mr. Hand didn't deny that it's his fault. I guess there's a little Spicoli in all of us.

by Ms. Manners
Sunday Apr 21st, 2002 10:57 PM
ie., rude, boorish, inarticulate and vulgar. JoJo's daily emesis is the best advertising our side has ever gotten. Now the whole world knows what kind of people oppose us. Either your with us, or you're with people like JoJo.
by Eric
Monday Apr 22nd, 2002 5:19 AM
Well, I'm with people like JoJo. He's 99% right. You people aide and abed the enemy and this country has a war going on against people like you.

And guess what else? You're the minority.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr020418.asp

So you're either with US, or you just another terrorist cell.

Put that in your Democratic pipe and smoke it.

by charity case
Monday Apr 22nd, 2002 7:00 AM
Well jojo, you really don't have a life do you? No wonder your mother won't pay attention to you. You remind her of your father. Where else would you be? You don't have any frineds. What a perfect set up fpr getting attention. You just come here and act up and everyone gets so upset. But it wears off after a while. Those people you call your frineds don't even wait for you to turn your bacik before they start making fun of you. And that's wrong. There's nothing funny about you jojo. You'er a pathetic little parasite. So everyone stop what you're doing and pay attention to jojo. You really like it when I repeat your phony name over and over don't you? Write back. What else do you have to do?
by yoyo
Monday Apr 22nd, 2002 7:18 AM
It's easy to find you jojo. I know you crave attention. this is a good place to get.it. Just trun on rush and typw away. It's fun to act like a brat and upset everyone. Then they can all pay attention to you... You're a star jojo. So don't stop now. Keep writing more and more . We all need a few laughs. If your mother cared about you , she would have given you the attention you need. but she didn't did she? It's probably because you remind her of your father? You knowyour father don't you? Are you sure jpjo? I don't think so. Be sure to come back with something witty. then I'll give you more attention. I know you'll be back. what else do you have to do? Talk to your firneds? they're not really your friends. Are they jojo? You need us jojo. You need us more than anything.
by bob
Monday Apr 22nd, 2002 2:23 PM
Power Trip
Enron and Arthur Andersen Spent $26 Million Since 1995 to Buy Political Influence in Washington
As stocks plunged on news of hidden offshore partnerships and paper shredders tore through reams of financial documents, this much remained clear: Enron and Arthur Andersen spent tens of millions of dollars in recent years attempting to influence Congress and the White House.

Enron sought a few favors in Washington, D.C.: deregulation of electricity trading; a delay in the imposition of price caps on electricity sales in California by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); and the gutting of key federal regulations covering the electricity industry, such as the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). Enron got all these, thanks, in part to its huge campaign contributions and sophisticated lobbying.

Meanwhile, the Arthur Andersen accounting firm was charged with overseeing Enron s financial books and, as we now know, Arthur Andersen helped Enron carry out a devastating charade about the true state of its financial house-of-cards. Like Enron, Arthur Andersen also used campaign contributions and lobbying to prevent needed federal regulation of its industry scrutiny that might have averted Enron s calamitous collapse.

Together, Enron and Arthur Andersen since 1995 spent $26 million to influence Congress, the White House, and executive branch agencies. Below are some key components in Enron s and Arthur Andersen s strategy to wire the political system to their benefit:

Enron and its employees have given $3.4 million in unlimited "soft money" to federal candidates and party committees since 1995 and a total of $5.0 million to federal candidates and party committees since 1995.
Enron has spent $7.6 million on Washington, D.C. lobbyists since 1997 (the first full year for which lobbying expenditures were required).
Enron and its employees gave another $470,000 in the last year to less visible political vehicles, such as the Bush-Cheney Recount Fund, the Bush-Cheney Inaugural Fund, and "527" political campaign groups like the Republican Majority Issues Committee and the New Democrat Network.
Arthur Andersen and its employees have contributed $3.7 million to federal candidates and party committees since 1995.
Arthur Andersen has spent $9.6 million on Washington D.C. lobbyists since 1997.
A more complete analysis of this spending is contained in the following table.

January 24, 2002

Enron s Contributions to Federal Candidates and Parties
and Lobbying Expenditures, 1995-2001

1995-1996
1997-1998
1999-2000
2001
1995-2001

Soft Money Contributions
$687,445
$691,950
$1,671,555
$304,909
$3,355,859

Contributions from Individuals
$281,900
$145,349
$489,800
$17,050
$934,099

PAC Contributions
$171,671
$212,643
$280,043
$32,000
$696,357

Percent to Republicans
81%
79%
72%
94%
77%

Percent to Democrats
19%
21%
28%
6%
23%

Lobbying Expenditures*
--
$2,680,000
$4,070,000
$825,000**
$7,575,000


TOTALS
$1,141,016
$3,729,942
$6,511,398
$1,178,959
$12,561,315




Arthur Andersen s Contributions to Federal Candidates and Parties
and Lobbying Expenditures, 1995-2001



1995-1996
1997-1998
1999-2000
2001
1995-2001

Soft Money Contributions
$36,758
$107,250
$262,250
$132,262
$538,520

Contributions from Individuals
$398,763
$275,720
$527,761
$45,405
$1,247,649

PAC Contributions
$514,664
$442,086
$640,499
$347,775
$1,945,024

Percent to Republicans
67%
69%
71%
68%
69%

Percent to Democrats
33%
31%
29%
32%
31%

Lobbying Expenditures*
--
$4,365,000
$4,320,000
$920,000**
$9,605,000


TOTALS
$950,185
$5,190,056
$5,750,510
$1,445,442
$13,336,193





* Disclosure of lobbying expenditures was first reported for calendar year 1997, pursuant to the Lobby Disclosure Act of 1995.

** 2001 lobby expenditures are only for the first six months of the year. Reports for the second half of 2001 are not due until February 14, 2002.


http://www.citizen.org/congress/campaign/legislation/shays-meehan/articles.cfm?ID=6677
by bob
Monday Apr 22nd, 2002 2:34 PM
The Return of Otto Reich:
Will Government Propagandist Join Bush Administration?
by Jeff Cohen

In totalitarian countries, government propaganda officers wield great power. They're authorized to use the media to stir up state-sanctioned passions and fears through the selective dissemination of information -- sometimes factual, sometimes phony.

If you think the United States has never employed propaganda officers, meet Otto Reich. He may soon be our country's chief diplomat in Latin America if the Bush administration has its way.

In March, Bush announced his intention to nominate Reich as assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere. If he's officially nominated, it will be interesting to see how journalists handle Reich -- because from 1983 through 1986, it was Reich's job to handle journalists. That's when he commanded the State Department's Office of Public Diplomacy, whose main mission was to inflame fears about Nicaragua and its left-wing Sandinista government that had come to power by overthrowing a corrupt, U.S.-supported dictator.

By covertly disseminating intelligence leaks to journalists, Reich and the OPD sought to trump up a Nicaraguan "threat," and to sanctify the U.S.-backed Contra guerrillas fighting Nicaragua's government as "freedom fighters." The propaganda was aimed at influencing Congress to continue to fund the Contras.

Take the scary news that Soviet MiG fighter jets were arriving in Nicaragua. With journalists citing unnamed "intelligence sources," the well-timed story surged through U.S. media on the night of Ronald Reagan's reelection. At NBC, Andrea Mitchell broke into election coverage with the story. The furor spurred a Democratic senator to discuss a possible airstrike against Nicaragua. But the story turned out to be a hoax. Several journalists later acknowledged they'd been handed the story by Reich's office.

It isn't the only erroneous story journalists link to the OPD. According to the Miami Herald, for example, Reich's office promoted the fable that Nicaragua had acquired chemical weapons from the Soviets. According to Newsweek, the OPD told reporters that high-level Sandinistas were involved in drug trafficking, but U.S. drug officials said there was no evidence for such a charge.

Reich's office worked alongside the White House National Security Council, collaborating with CIA propaganda experts, Army psychological warfare specialists and a then-obscure Marine lieutenant colonel named Oliver North. Declassified documents detailing OPD activities are on file and online at the National Security Archive, a DC-based nonprofit (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB40/).

In a March 13, 1985 "Eyes Only" memo to Pat Buchanan, then-White House Communications Director, the OPD bragged about the recent results of its "White Propaganda" operation in support of the Contras. The OPD said it helped write an anti-Sandinista column for the Wall Street Journal that ran two days earlier; assisted in a "positive piece" on the Contras by Fred Francis that aired the night before on NBC; wrote op-eds for the Washington Post and New York Times that would run with the bylines of Contra leaders; arranged an extensive media tour for a Contra leader "through a cut-out" (to hide the OPD's role); and prepared to leak a State Department cable that would embarrass the Sandinistas: "Do not be surprised if this cable somehow hits the evening news."

The memo said that the Wall Street Journal column, "Nicaragua is Armed for Trouble," was written by an OPD "consultant," but cautioned that "officially, this office had no role in its preparation." Weeks later, after the Journal published a news report on Nicaragua that Reich disliked, the OPD chief wrote an angry letter-to-the editor touting the "Armed for Trouble" column and complaining that the news report was "an echo of Sandinista propaganda." It was an audacious charge since Reich himself was "echoing" propaganda his office had covertly boasted to have assisted in.

Besides media manipulation through planted stories and leaks, there was also cajoling and bullying of journalists. Reich visited CBS in April 1984 to complain at length about its Central America coverage. In a memo to President Reagan, Secretary of State George Shultz described the meeting as an example of "what the Office of Public Diplomacy has been doing to help improve the quality of information the American people are receiving. It has been repeated dozens of times over the past few months."

Six months later, Reich met with a dozen National Public Radio reporters and editors about their allegedly biased Nicaragua coverage. According to NPR Foreign Affairs correspondent Bill Buzenberg, "Reich bragged that he had made similar visits to other unnamed newspapers and major television networks...Reich said he had gotten others to change some of their reporters in the field." Buzenberg told me in a 1987 interview that he viewed the OPD chief's comments as a "calculated attempt to intimidate."

Reich had little tolerance for independent-minded reporters. In the summer of 1985, his office helped circulate a specious story suggesting that U.S. reporters received sexual favors from Sandinista-provided prostitutes in return for favorable coverage. "It isn't only women," Reich told New York magazine; for gay journalists, they'd procure men.

The OPD viewed many in the media as allies to be rewarded, particularly on the weekend pundit shows. According to a Feb. 1985 OPD memo, certain correspondents on the McLaughlin, Brinkley and Agronsky programs had "open invitations for personal briefings."

After Reich had left to become ambassador to Venezuela, the OPD was shut down in 1987, in the wake of a U.S. comptroller general's report which concluded that Reich's office had "engaged in prohibited, covert propaganda activities." According to the Miami Herald, a "senior U.S. official" described the OPD as "a vast psychological warfare operation of the kind the military conducts to influence a population in enemy territory." But the population targeted was not an enemy -- it was the U.S. public

A confrontation is brewing on Capitol Hill over Otto Reich. He is supported by the Cuban-American lobby, which is so powerful with the Bush White House that Reich reportedly got the nod for the assistant secretary state job over a career foreign service officer favored by Secretary of State Colin Powell. The Cuban-born Reich, now a corporate lobbyist, helped draft the Helms-Burton Act tightening the embargo of Cuba.

Reich is opposed by Democratic senators who remember his exploits at the OPD. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) commented in March that Reich's "office may have been the genesis of acts of propaganda not just prohibited in this country, but which reflect a kind of carelessness about the truth."

A key player to watch in any confirmation battle will be the press corps itself. What will be the reaction of journalists who were manipulated by leaks from his office? Or of the newspapers that may have run op-ed columns unaware that his office was behind them?

If senators don't adequately raise questions about Otto Reich's history as a media manipulator, one would hope that journalists will.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff Cohen is the founder of FAIR, a media watch group based in New York -- and a panelist on "News Watch" on the Fox News Channel.

by No JoJo
Monday Apr 22nd, 2002 2:42 PM
Only fools would take this man (?) and his ideas seriously.
by yoyo
Monday Apr 22nd, 2002 5:29 PM
here I am everybody. Please pay attention to me. I don't have a life, but that's okay. I can just be a parasite and try to suck energy off of everybody else. That's why jojo is my hero. I want to be just like him. then eveyone will write me messages and that's all I live for.. jojo is finished. yoyo is what's happening.
by ibm / sf-imc
Monday Apr 22nd, 2002 6:02 PM
the picture above posted by jojo gunn has been hidden for obvious reasons.
by TechKnomen
(searchforit [at] kih.nut) Monday Apr 22nd, 2002 7:47 PM
you are all potential terrorists especially if you dare to question the all powerful police state and the "military industrial complex",Republican President (war hero?) with some sence ~51yrs ago. Keep and Bear Arms
by TechKnomen
Monday Apr 22nd, 2002 7:58 PM
Copy the code below to embed this movie into a web page:
just look at the fbi flyer
by Cush
Tuesday Apr 23rd, 2002 5:33 AM
I cannot beleive anyone would view this woman as credible. I am in her Georgia district and we are all totally embarrased by her idiotic comments. She is anti American and should be viewed as such. Many people in her district are openly attempting to oust her in the next election. I hope she is "ran out on a rail" for the bigoted, racist everyone here know she is.
by Gerry
Tuesday Apr 23rd, 2002 7:31 PM
Do what you will with McKinney - it's a free election right?

But, considering almost half the voters in the AJC poll doubt the official version of events, and all the acrimony and manure that's being spewed onto this site, a full investigation of the events of 9-11 should help to clear the air.

Hopefully, that'll shut everybody up and we can get back to THE GAME! (My money's on the Mariners in six!)

Ten Four Good Buddy!
Gerry
by Bob
Wednesday Apr 24th, 2002 2:41 AM
So a bunch of idiots can really pull off a hijacking when
they can't even fly a Cessna?
Or did radio controlled planes do this precision job?
While McKinney is not accusing Bush directly, the
American people ought to.
Bush saw the 2nd plane hit before it did?
Bush is keeping the public form knowledge about the
options traded by Buzzy. Good old Buzzy, good old
Ken Lay, Good old Dick Cheney, Good old boys.
They just happen to be making $ on 911, kind of like
DuPont made $ on WWI & WWII which they helped fund.
Read "Hemp for Victory". Want to fight terrorism?
Stop the flow of $ to bin Laden and stop buying oil
that Andrew Mellon forced on us.
Those were actually DuPont's words- force acceptance.
They have forced their arms and their oil on America.
They were indicted for treason at the same time that
Prescott Bush had his assets seized under the Trading With the Enemy Act.
Gold old Prescott, Good old W...
They wouldn't harm Americans unless it meant starting
a war to sell arms.
Even their ministers stink to hell, and some of these
people are child molesters.
Read the TranceFormation of America.
Us officials working their way into the church, and
people still don't believe it.
Let Cynthia McKinney investigate, if you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't fear her.
But it is not only Americans who have a right to get the
CIA and Bush investigated, there is the little matter of the rest of the world, where these forces operate child
pornography, dugs, arms deals, etc.
Oh, but they wold never hurt Americans...
Bob
by @
Wednesday Apr 24th, 2002 3:05 AM
pope.jpg
SHOULD THERE BE A SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND CHILD ?
by james
Wednesday Apr 24th, 2002 7:15 AM
>Let Cynthia McKinney investigate, if you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't fear her.

I agree totally w/ Bob. McKinney should convene a Grand Jury and let's investigate these allegations. We should all encourage her to do so.

But, if she doesn't convene a Grand Jury, who are we to blame next?
by Eric
Wednesday Apr 24th, 2002 10:03 AM
>But, if she doesn't convene a Grand Jury, who are we to blame next?

McKinney of course.

Oh, was that a rhetorical question? Me thinks it was. Just goes to show ya, even an idiot can figure out the next step.

1. Mckinney/Ruppert ask grand jusry for investigation.

2. When they say, "get bent" then liberals and conspiracy mongers can pout some more, pitch a fit and claim that branch of government is in on it too. More material for your fiction novel. Yahoo!
by Melvin van Peebles
Wednesday Apr 24th, 2002 10:17 AM
Pass me that wine, man.
by veteran of the armed forces
Friday Apr 26th, 2002 2:19 AM
As a veteran of the US navy, I feel that Congresswoman McKinney is not just doing what's
right, she's doing her job.
She gets paid by the US taxpayer, and she has a
responsibility to not let $2.3 trillion go down a hole in
space to the CIA etc., and just let Arthur Andersen tell
the US to go to hell.
On other points, I don't agree with her, I did not and
would not vote for her.
My grandfather, who was a Marine Corps offficer, had to investigate missing funds in his day (the leather-neck scandal). Funds get ripped off under the cloak of
secrecy, and, "patriotism".
The US government, at the same time, had to investigate Nazi funds, and had to confiscate the property of Senator Prescott Bush. Was the government out of line to invoke the Trading with the
Enemy Act in 1924? Was a soldier wrong to investigate his superior officers? Is a Congresswoman wrong to do the job you pay her to do?
Please read up on this. Some of the books, like
Jules Archer's "The Plot to Sieze the White House",
are hjard to locate, and Gerard Colby's "Behind the
Nylon Curtain" was suppressed by DuPont.
Hugh Haggerty's "Hemp in America" was not allowed
to be seen by the Library of Congress, and it is a rarer
book than a Shakespeare folio, though it was written in
1988.
Sometimes the people getting investigated cast dispersion on the officials and civilians who are sensing that something is wrong. They may be
right about some mistakes that Congresswoman
McKinney has made, but they have something much
greater to hide.
If the village idiot told you your house was on fire and your kids were inside, would you punch him in the face?
Then when it's all burned down, you can explain your
inaction to the rest of the block, and your insurance company. They'll understand.

Veteran
by james
Friday Apr 26th, 2002 7:44 AM
Again, I am in total agreement w/ "veteran of the armed forces". There needs to be an investigation. Let's convene a Grand Jury, pronto. What are we waiting for?
by helenwheels
Friday Apr 26th, 2002 12:48 PM
>An awful lot of people, especially around here, refuse to believe anything said by somebody with whom they do not agree upon everything.

Anarchists head the list.
by anarchist
Friday Apr 26th, 2002 2:10 PM
by Jim Kennedy
(kennedy [at] tc.umn.edu) Monday Apr 29th, 2002 11:44 AM
9/11 Link:
http://www.rense.com/general24/why.htm

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

donate now

$ 97.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network