Green Party Peace Network (GPPN)

Connecting Greens into action for peace!

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Contact

  • Green Party 10 Key Values

  • Grassroots Democracy
  • Social Justice
  • Ecological Wisdom
  • Non-violence
  • Decentralization
  • Community-based Economics
  • Feminism
  • Diversity
  • Responsibility Future Focus
  • Links

  • Advertisements
  • Photos

    School of the Americas Watch 2007 Close the SOA Action
  • Photos by Gray Newman (North Carolina)
  • Photos by Dee Taylor and Tom King (Utah)

    GPAX Sept 29 LA
    Soldiers & Civilians Speak Out Peace Rally in Syracuse, NY 09/29/2007 July 2007
    New York - July 2007
    Maine - May 2007
    Albany, NY - March 2007
    January 2007 March in DC
    New York - May 2006
    Washington, DC - September 2005
    New York - 2005

  • RSS United for Peace and Justice


    Green Party of Washington State Introduces Impeachment Resolution

    Title of Resolution: Support for Impeachment Actions against the Bush Administration



    Authors: Maryrose Asher, Dr. Richard Curtis, Rodger Herbst, Dr. Brian K. Lynch, Trey Smith



    Contact information:; 360-303-3106; Box 321 Shaw Island, WA 98286



    Introduced by (GPoWS members): Maryrose Asher, Dr. Richard Curtis, Rodger Herbst, Dr. Brian K. Lynch, Trey Smith



    Whereas, President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have actively engaged in a systematic pattern of making false statements to the American people and their representatives in Congress concerning the potential threat of Iraqi based weapons of mass destruction (including a pressuring of the United States intelligence community to change their findings concerning the lack of weapons of mass destruction and the corruption of the 2002 National Intelligence Report in order to further the deception of the Congress, the American People, and the world prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq), and



    Whereas, the President and his administration violated the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law (the War Powers Act of 1973) by seizing military powers reserved to the United States Congress, initiating the invasion of Iraq prior to the required debate by the People through their representatives in Congress to produce the necessary official declaration of war (that is, although there was a House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq passed on October 10, 2002, the language of that resolution only authorized the President to make a determination in relation to the standards set forth in the War Powers Act; an official declaration of war would have required indisputable evidence that there was a “clearly defined” and “imminent threat” to the United States—this evidence was never presented much less debated), and



    Whereas, without said Congressional Declaration of War, the President and his administration have authorized the denial of due process, extraordinary rendition, secret detention centers, and torture at various sites, including Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, thus violating U.S. and international law, and



    Whereas, the high crimes of the President and Vice President have resulted in thousands of deaths of U.S. citizens, the violation of privacy for millions of U.S. citizens by their own government, and the wasting of billions of U.S. citizen tax dollars, therefore be it



    Resolved, that the Green Party of Washington State declares its support for Washington State Senator Oemig’s bill (SJM 8016 – 2007-08 – currently stuck in the Senate Committee on Government Operations & Elections committee) to have Washington State bring articles of impeachment against President Bush, calls on the Congress of the United States to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President as well as to support Congressman Kucinich’s HRes 333 IH bill to impeach Vice President Cheney, and its general support for all efforts (Washington for Impeachment, Citizens Movement to Impeach Bush/Cheney, Pledge to Impeach), and that, failing a state or congressional move to initiate impeachment, the call for a National Strike by the Pledge to Impeach organization ( be supported.



    Background Information: Although the Green Party of the United States in its 2003 national meeting approved a proposal calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the GPoWS is not on record as yet in support of impeachment. At least two other state Green Party organizations (Vermont and Wisconsin) have approved resolutions calling for either a state initiation of impeachment (Vermont) or a congressional initiation (Wisconsin). There are also several movements within the state of Washington (Olympia-based Citizen’s Movement to Impeach Bush/Cheney and Washington for Impeachment). In light of the key values of GPoWS, especially Grassroots Democracy and Non-Violence, it seems important that we publicly commit ourselves to support for all efforts to bring the Bush administration to justice for its crimes against the people.



    Citizens Movement to Impeach Bush/Cheney. (



    Green Party of Vermont Historic Resolution of April 23, 2006. (



    Green Party of Washington State. Ten Key Values. (



    Kucinich, D. Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. HRes 333 IH (



    Washington for Impeachment (



    Wisconsin Green Party and Libertarian Party of Wisconsin Call for Impeachment of George W. Bush. July 9, 2006. (



    Green Party of Washington State Calls for Reopening Investgation of 9/11 Tragedy 

    Title of Resolution:  A Call for Reopening the Investigation into the 9/11 Tragedy

     Authors:  Maryrose Asher, Dr. Richard Curtis, Rodger Herbst, Dr. Brian K. Lynch, Trey Smith

     Contact information:;  360-303-3106; Box 321 Shaw Island, WA 98286

     Introduced by (GPoWS members):  Maryrose Asher, Dr. Richard Curtis, Rodger Herbst, Dr. Brian K. Lynch, Trey Smith

     Whereas,  the official explanation for the tragic events surrounding the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 contain serious factual errors and raise numerous unanswered questions (see background section below), and

     Whereas, over the past six years the number of those questioning the official story has grown to include hundreds of distinguished scientists, engineers and architects, intelligence officers, air traffic controllers, fighter pilots and career airline pilots, military officers and generals (including the former commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command), as well as former presidential appointees and members of the White House staff in Republican administrations, and foreign dignitaries, and

     Whereas, some of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s own scientists question the validity of the official story as promulgated by that body (see background information section below), and

     Whereas, the Bush administration initially resisted attempts to investigate the events of 9/11, and when the administration did agree, the Commission was set up not to succeed in its investigation but to fail — according to the book “Without Precedent,” written by the co-chairs of the Commission: “We were set up to fail. The thought occurred to both of us as we prepared to meet for the first time on a cold day just before the Christmas season of 2002.” (Keane & Hamilton, 2006, page 14) and,

      Whereas, the Bush administration repeatedly and falsely connected the government of Iraq to the events of 9/11, exploiting a general lack of awareness of the details of that day on the part of the public to artificially create public support for an illegal war,

    therefore be it

    Resolved, that the Green Party of Washington State calls for a new, fully independent investigation of the 9/11 tragedy by a panel empowered to subpoena information and testimony; not controlled by or dominated by members of the current government (including members of both parties); nominated by a committee representing 9/11 Victims’ families; and comprised of impartial experts in the fields of physics, structural engineering, architecture, foreign policy and intelligence work.

    Background Information:

    There are numerous unanswered questions concerning the events of 9/11:

    ·        Multiple air-defense drills were scheduled for the morning of 9/11, which left only two fighter jets for the protection of the Northeastern United States

    ·        Given the known burning temperatures of normal office fires and the maximal burning temperature of jet fuel, the melting of the Twin Towers’ steel structures could not have caused the buildings’ collapse

    ·        Part of the World Trade Center complex (Building 7) which was not struck by airplanes collapsed in 6.5 seconds at 5.20 pm on September 11 in a manner consistent with that of a controlled demolition

    ·        Basic laws of physics call into question the nature of the collapse of the Twin Towers

    ·        No visible debris was ever documented from the alleged Flight 93 crash in Pennsylvania

    ·        Officials involved in Flight 93 have been forbidden to speak about the events

    ·        Reported phone calls from 9/11 passengers that could not have been made at the altitudes flown by commercial airlines on cell phones, or “Airphone” calls that included bizarre features (such as one passenger calling his mother and using his full name, first and last, to identify himself)

    ·        No aircraft parts consistent with a commercial airliner were ever recovered from the attack on the Pentagon building

    ·        President Bush officially termed 9/11 an “act of war” without any examination of the debris from the Twin Towers’ collapse

    (See Appendix A for a more complete listing.)


    The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) own scientists, in particular Dr. James Quintiere, former chief of the fire science division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, recently said that “the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable” and called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the WTC towers.  Quintiere has called attention to many problems with NIST’s investigation and reports: the absence of a timeline, failure to explain the collapse of WTC 7, the spoliation of the evidence of a fire scene, reliance on questionable computer models, the absence of any evidence for the existence of temperatures NIST predicts as necessary for failure of the steel and a Commerce Department legal structure that instead of trying to find the facts ‘did the opposite and blocked everything.’” (OpEdNews:  Original Content at:

    Another scientist, applied physicist at the University of Iowa, Dr. Crockett Grabbe has said, “Applying two basic principles, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, the government explanation quickly unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored these principles in their reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for each tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall, is not answered in NIST’s numerous volumes of study.” (Information Clearinghouse:

    The 9/11 Truth movement (see  and ) is important to the GPoWS because of the general pattern to which our country has been subjected by the Bush administration:  manufacturing stories based on lies to justify policies that, in the long run, have dire consequences for the planet, with billions of dollars being plowed into a defense industry that is one of the largest global users of fossil fuels and one of the largest single culprits in relation to climate change.

    (See Appendix B for more complete rationale.)


    Reasons why the investigation done thus far is unreliable, and therefore why a new, honest investigation is needed (numbers in parenthesis refer to page numbers from David Ray Griffin’s The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions)

    1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers — including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC — are still alive (19-20).

    2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta — such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances — that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

    3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

    4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

    5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

    6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

    7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

    8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed — an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

    9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

    10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft” — a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

    11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28).

    12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

    13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel — that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel — made no sense in this case (30).

    14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

    15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

    16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

    17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

    18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

    19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

    20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner — even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

    21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras — including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike — could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

    22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39).

    23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

    24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

    25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

    26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

    27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

    28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

    29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

    30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

    31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

    32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the U.S. military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

    33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

    34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family — all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period — were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

    35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

    36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

    37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for U.S. airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

    38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

    39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

    40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

    41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

    42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94).

    43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds — testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

    44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other U.S. officials (103-04).

    45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

    46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

    47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

    48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

    49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

    50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

    51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114).

    52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as “opportunities” (116-17).

    53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the U.S. military (117-18).

    54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the U.S. Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

    55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks — Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart — were also three of the strongest advocates for the U.S. Space Command (122).

    56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

    57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, U.S. representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a U.S. proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

    58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the U.S. public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

    59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

    60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

    61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” (133-34).

    62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command — even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

    63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

    64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

    65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

    66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the U.S. military’s radar to track that plane (166-67).

    67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD’s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

    68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

    69. The claim that the U.S. military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

    70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD’s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

    71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

    72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175’s hijacking (183-84, 186).

    73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

    74. The omission, in the Commission’s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

    75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI’s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

    76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92).

    77. The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three (3) years (192-93).

    78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

    79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

    80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

    81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because “none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department” — although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

    82. The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference — although Clarke’s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

    83. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke’s videoconference (213-17).

    84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke’s account of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19).

    85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

    86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36 — in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

    87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon — one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

    88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from “Phantom Flight 11,” were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

    89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

    90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93’s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

    91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

    92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

    93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

    94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

    95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

    96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the U.S. military until 10:31 (237-41).

    97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

    98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

    99. The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

    100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

    101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

    102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

    103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

    104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

    105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

    106. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

    107. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

    108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

    109. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

    110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

    111. The claim — made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them — that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

    112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed “independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

    113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

    114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

    115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report “without dissent,” to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of “looking at information only partially,” had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).


    9/11 Truth is THE Issue: A Lesson for Green Politics

    By: Richard Curtis, PhD


    We, Greens, oppose the two party system because their fundamental assumptions about the world as well as their overt behavior are all in contradiction with our 10 Key Values (humane values in general, of course).  Most importantly we are for a truly democratic society, and thus specifically against an empire.  But these days the empire is running wild, and what we, Greens, have to come to understand is the connection between the American Empire and the truth about the events of 9/11.


    First, a quick comment about why 9/11 is an open question.  There are literally a hundred (a 140 actually, see good reasons to doubt the official conspiracy theory, but one stands tall above the rest.  Actually, it is the lack of something tall.  What happened to the inner core steel beams of the World Trade Center Towers?  There were 47 of them in each, massive in thickness and rising over a thousand feet.  All of the official accounts of why the buildings collapsed (they are on their third try now) fail to account for this absence.  The official theories would predict the inner cores would be left standing, but they did not.  So something other than what we were told had to have happened (see


    The truth of 9/11 is THE issue of our day because it functions like a religious myth, organizing society around certain beliefs, assumptions, and consequent actions.  This is vitally important.  Greens offer a different vision and different values, not easily compromised with the work of empire building.


    Consider this: the reason we are in two wars now and almost three is because of this myth.  The reason we are not having a national dialogue about responses to global warming is because we are distracted with a farce called the War on Terrorism.  The reason we do not have money to provide health care to all our nation’s children is because we are spending all available resources lining the pockets of defense contractors.  The reason America has become a Torture State is because of this myth.

The official mythology of 9/11 is the key to justifying the expansion in the American Empire and with that a new form of fascism at home.  People accept all of this on the false premise that 9/11 was the work of foreign terrorists.  Some Greens even accept this lie, a lie told to us in concert by both major parties.


    This premise is so vital that it shapes some aspect of nearly all policy at all levels of the US government.  It is the cause of the war, it is the excuse for secrecy and thus fraudulent elections, it is the psychological edge that fascism needs so as to convince people to give up their fundamental human — including democratic — rights.  It is THE issue.  If Greens want to end the war, if Greens want to focus attention on the coming catastrophe of global warming or want money for schools and health care then we need to care about the truth of 9/11, and then challenge the myth covering up that truth.

It seems to me that what is really so daunting about the 9/11 issue to some progressives is that the truth challenges the fundamental lies and mass murder that are at the heart of foreign policy for both major parties.  And it is vitally important to recall here that the official lie — the 9/11 
Commission Report — is a bi-partisan lie.  Both parties contributed to this destruction of democracy and international order.  They — both parties — have become the enemy of the people and our democracy.  We want to believe that if we just asked nicely that our politicians would care enough to solve real problems rather than focus on the ones they create.  Progressives, even Greens, often want to believe that they can trust the Democratic Party to save us, but that fantasy will lead to our ultimate demise with the rising waters of melting glaciers.

In the end 9/11 was a boon to both parties as they continue the façade of arguing with each other over petty issues while the work of the empire goes forward.  Here it is vitally important to note the evidence that both parties want the same empire, as this is more than obvious from policy missives from both Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberals.  They (the Democrats in a 1997 book by Z. Brzezinski; the Republicans in a 2000 policy paper by the Project for a New American Century both recognized prior to 2001 that they could not build this Pax Americana “absent some catastrophic mobilizing event like a new Pearl Harbor.”  So they have their New Pearl Harbor and now they have their empire and some have been so deluded by their mystifications that they do not see that 9/11 is why and thus why the truth of 9/11 is THE issue of our day.


    To confront the evils of empire (let alone to free up all the resources wasted on wars) we have to confront the lies upon which support for that empire is built.  Greens have the moral and political obligation to be at the forefront of this effort – being anti-imperialists is part of our 10 Key Values.






    Below is a book review that Mary Rose Asher wrote for the Green Party of Washington State publication Evergreen Voice.

    Book Review

    The End of America


    Naomi Wolf

    THE END OF AMERICA by Naomi Wolf is subtitled, “Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot and A Citizens Call to Action.”

    With chilling accuracy, Wolf details the parallels between the rise of fascism in the 1930s with the current political environment in our country.

    Wolf writes how Hitler’s rise to power did not happen overnight and how, step-by-step, the legal foundation was established in order to erode the freedoms of those living in Germany.

    There are imminent threats to our free society and our system of checks and balances is under attack. With the past election, many believe that the threat is gone, however Wolf describes the regrouping that is taking place and even gaining in force.

    Wolf outlines the 10 steps, or classic pressures, that are used to close down pluralistic societies:

    1. Invoke an external or internal threat

    2. Establish secret prisons

    3. Develop a paramilitary force

    4. Surveil ordinary citizen

    5. Infiltrate citizens’ groups

    6. Arbitrarily detain and release citizens

    7. Target key individuals

    8. Restrict the press

    9. Cast criticism as “espionage” and dissent as “treason”

    10. Subvert the rule of law

    She closes by urging us not to leave our liberties to the lawyers, scholars, and politicians but to fight to protect our own rights or we may end up in a very different society from what we have now.

    The saying, “You get the government you deserve” has never had more meaning. By lack of action, by being too busy, by feeling there’s no hope, we are on the doorstep of a controlled society where we no longer will have the choices that are presently before us. The echoes of history between the past and our present, which Naomi Wolf writes about in this book, stand as a warning to all living in our democratic society. END OF AMERICA will awaken those who read it to the dangers before us and, hopefully, all will respond to its call.

    — Maryrose Asher



    2 Responses to “”

    1. […] […]

    2. […] […]

    Leave a Reply

    Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: