|
Thursday, 29 April 2004 |
|
· President Bush initially opposed creating the Commission, and only relented (over a year after it was requested) under political pressure from both Democrats and Republicans alike.
· Bush first appointed Henry Kissinger- a career international criminal from Nixon’s “secret end to the war in Viet Nam” years (there are outstanding warrants for him in Europe) and prevaricator- to head the Commission. Immediately Kissinger was forced to resign because of obvious income-related conflicts of interest.
· Bush delayed giving the commission access to Presidential Daily Briefs, only eventually allowing the Commission to take a guarded look at some of those documents and a select few White House-‘approved’ notes, again, only after extended political pressure from both parties. This time, after over two years had passed, they finally released a version of a pre-September 11 (August 6, 2001 to be precise) PDB titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” as credible as Bush’s Air National Guard records were once they finally (and mysteriously illegibly) appeared.
· Bush refused giving the Commission a much needed and repeatedly requested extension to finish its work after White House delays made its original deadline impossible to meet. Then within weeks he just as arbitrarily agreed to one.
· Bush refused to allow National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly or under oath, again giving in only after political pressure forced him to reverse his position.
· Bush has insisted on limiting his own time with the Commission to be as brief as possible, attempting to arrange a meeting only one hour long with just two of the commissioners and NOT UNDER OATH. Bush has now agreed to meet with the whole Commission, but only if Vice President Cheney accompanies him, and still NOT UNDER OATH. This makes his testimony absolutely useless as he’s the most disingenuous, deceiving, dishonest, dissembling president in American history (see Iraqi WMD’s and al-Qaeda connections, UN international agreements, World Trade agreements, the World Court, EPA report edits and forgeries, administration suppressed, distorted, and ignored intelligence, Medicare, his past personal insider stock trading, military record, etc. (for a fuller, more exacting, source-referenced account of this see ‘The Lies of George W. Bush’-David Corn, editor of ‘The Nation’ and ‘Fox News Channel’ contributor, Michael Moore.com, or any of his recent books and publications, Fairness & Accuracy in Media, Bushwatch.com, or the archives of any daily press from the New York Times to the Washington Post, or weeklies like Time and Newsweek)).
· Bush has handed over only 25 percent of the 11,000 pages of documents requested that reveal former President Clinton’s administration’s emphasis on fighting the very terrorists that were responsible for 9/11. Under repeated pressure the White House has relented and agreed to release the remainder of the declassified files into their possession (like Iraq’s UN WMD report) when they’re done with them.
|  Add as favourites (16) |  Quote this article on your site | Views: 649 |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Thursday, 29 April 2004 |
Buffalo Author Publishes Provocative
and Prophetic Book on National
and Local Politics
Buffalo, New York. April 26, 2004. Buffalo attorney and writer, James Ostrowski, will hold a press conference Saturday May 1st at 6:30 p.m., outside the Larkin House at 65 Lincoln Parkway, to discuss the publication of his controversial new book, Political Class Dismissed: Essays Against Politics, Including “What’s Wrong With Buffalo. Following the press conference there will be a reception (invite only) at the historic Larkin House. The reception (7:00 to 10:00 p.m.) will be open to reporters. Books will be provided at the press conference.
James Ostrowski is the author of over eighty published articles, including a 1989 Cato Institute report, “Thinking About Drug Legalization,” that, according to Google, is currently the most popular article on “drug legalization” in the world.
From the cover: “Political Class Dismissed is an unrelenting assault on America’s (and Buffalo’s) political class: the people who have seized political power and used it to advance their own private interests—domestic and foreign—at our expense.”
Political Class Dismissed contains fifty essays which range widely over the current issues of the day, including the decline of Buffalo, the bloated federal budget, the 9/11 attacks and the mess in Iraq. The essays on 9/11 and Iraq are virtually prophetic and presage the two current topics in the news: the cause of 9/11 and the debacle in Iraq.
9/11
“Your government failed you.” Richard Clarke said. James Ostrowski said this first and specified many more reasons than Clarke has. In response to Clarke, Karen Hughes, the President’s spokesperson, said, “Nothing could have been done to prevent 9/11.” While this is utterly false, there’s the important question, as raised by Political Class Dismissed: “The really interesting question for Ms. Rice and the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment is: If these attacks were not foreseeable and not preventable, why─when our nation has not been invaded since Lincoln invaded Virginia in 1861─were you people out and about before September 11th, in a dangerous world, kicking sleeping dogs and using beehives as punching bags?”
As early as November, 2001, Ostrowski warned:
The failures of our foreign policy interventions have not, as one might have expected, been the cause for serious re-evaluation in the corridors of power. Quite the contrary. Our power elites are stirring the pot for massive and unprecedented and dangerous foreign adventures. (Note: all underlined emphasis has been added.)
IRAQ WAR
On the Iraq War, quickly turning into another Vietnam, here’s what Ostrowski had to say before the war began:
The combined impact of all the prior “good wars” that “we won” utterly failed to bring peace and harmony to the world. Quite the contrary. Excuse me for thinking that the invasion and occupation of Iraq will likewise fail.
More force is always the answer. (What’s the question?) So the U.S. will go to war again over Iraq (maybe). It’s because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and may want to use them. That’s the official reason. The actual reasons are oil, Israel and imperialism.
After the war began, Ostrowski wrote:
That the same government that daily deprives me of the freedom I was born with, is going to liberate the Iraqis is a sickening lie. And, being mindlessly trumpeted by the media, it’s a scary lie as well. . . .
Roughly speaking, Iraq has three large groups, each located in a discrete area. The Kurds are in the north, the Shiites in the south, and the Sunnis in the middle. The Shiites appear to be the most populous group. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that there is no strong tradition of limited government in Iraq. Thus, any democracy will be of the relatively unrestrained variety. Whichever group is in charge will impose its will on the others. The prospects for peace are dim. . . .
The Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis should each form their own separate republics and allow people in their domains the right to leave or stay and live in freedom. If each of these would-be republics paid me a one million dollar consulting fee (Swiss Federal Bank, Account No. 983570957187) for this advice and followed it, that would be an infinitesimal fraction of the money and lives that will be wasted trying to force these disparate groups to live together. . . .
So the warmongers who got us into a big mess, and whose egos and power lust will not allow us to get out of it, now resort to their old ploy—one that Goering described— that last refuge of a scoundrel: challenging the patriotism of the opponents of war to blind the people into continuing to support an unnecessary war that is killing Americans and stirring up anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.
JUDICIAL SELECTION
On another current story in the news—the selection of judges, Jim Ostrowski anticipated this issue by 27 years. The corrupt process by which New York selects its state trial judges has been in the news of late and is now the subject of a lawsuit filed in the federal court in Brooklyn, a lawsuit in which Ostrowski may testify. In Political Class Dismissed, Ostrowski describes his own efforts to reform the system—in 1977!
“At these conventions, the party hacks are told for whom to vote, and they do so, often mispronouncing the unfamiliar names of the candidates written on a slip given to them at the meeting. A recent series in the Buffalo News made public what had previously been an open secret: state judgeships usually go to those who contribute the most money to the local party chairman. So it is that state trial judges are selected in New York. It’s enough to give you butterflies in your stomach.”
What separates this book from other attacks on over-politicized state courts is that the author, a veteran of twenty years of litigation, does not spare the vaunted federal courts. In discussing a case where he was falsely charged with contempt of court by a politically-powerful law firm, Ostrowski writes:
“Violating the ancient rule that no one should be the judge of his own cause, [a federal judge] killed the deposition that, I believe, would have established grounds to prove him a liar and have him removed from the bench. That, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of how our vaunted federal courts “work.” What it came down to was raw power; might makes right; their army was bigger than mine.
“The notion that [federal] judges who were themselves politicians, who are recommended by politicians (the party chairmen) to please their contributors, appointed by a politician (the President), and confirmed by still more politicians (the Senators), are or can be apolitical is one of the grand myths of American government. It is nonsense.”
“In addition to overt corruption, there is a more sinister and largely invisible form of corruption that only close observers of the courts can discern. Judges in a democracy tend to be political animals. It matters not whether they are elected or appointed. The notion that appointed judges are apolitical is a fantasy entertained mainly by naïve and self-appointed “court reformers.” In truth, the politics involved in appointing judges is usually more covert and insidious than that involved in electing judges. The public rarely learns about why judges were appointed. Who pulled what strings? Who owed what to whom? Who will owe what to whom in the future? Even politically astute lawyers often do not know the answers to these questions.”
CHURNING LEGAL FEES
Ostrowski exposes a little-known scam whereby local politicians funnel huge sums of money to big law firms to defend them in lawsuits that could easily have been settled. Multiple firms are hired; cases drag on for years, earning the firms hundreds of thousands of dollars:
In days of yore, lawyers were critical to the fight for liberty, justice and individual rights. Twenty-four signers of the Declaration of Independence were lawyers. Now, many lawyers, who could otherwise use their savvy to expose and battle the corrupt machine, have been bought off with large retainers.
MARTHA STEWART
Political Class Dismissed features two trenchant articles on the persecution of Martha Stewart.
As I wrote last August on Mises.org, Martha Stewart was not guilty of insider trading; she was “guilty” of outsider trading, which is perfectly legal. Nevertheless, she was investigated by people who are virtually immune from suit. They investigate, prosecute and ruin lives because they can get away with it. Martha did commit a serious crime during the investigation. She refused to be intimidated; she refused to grovel; she refused to take a plea. The feds can’t stand it when anyone stands up to them. It’s an attitude they copped after the Confederates kicked them out of Charleston harbor in 1861.
On December 1st, 2003, Ostrowski wrote:
Martha Stewart goes on trial in January for allegedly lying about committing the imaginary crime of outsider trading. All that stands between her and oblivion is a jury of twelve citizens drawn from the liberal-Democratic Southern District of New York. This is an opportune time to review the role of juries in protecting us from tyranny.
. . . Second, juries are now packed with people who make a living from government work [Note: the lead juror worked for the feds] or depend on the government for much or all of their income. Expect such jurors to instinctively identify with the prosecution. . .
. . . Servile juries generally convict those charged with violating the numerous imaginary crime laws, the enforcement of which underlays the welfare/warfare state. Instead of restraining state power; they often endorse it. Can we now add juries to the list of mechanisms to limit the power of the state that have been perverted into rationalizations for ever-increasing tyranny?
Martha Stewart. Good luck in January. You will need it.
INCOMPETENCE OF THE FBI
Timing is everything. Everyone now blames the FBI for failing to follow up on leads that could have prevented 9/11. Who slammed the FBI 27 days before 9/11?:
“The FBI is a case study in how government agencies, programs and powers expand regardless of poor performance.” “The History of the FBI”, from Political Class Dismissed. (originally published August 15, 2001)
THE DECLINE OF BUFFALO
The heart of the book is a never-before published, 25,000-word essay explaining the decline of Buffalo over the last forty years. For the first time ever in print, the cause of the decline is explained: a corrupt, self-serving, ever-expanding political class and their numerous greedy allies and special interests.
The machine has destroyed Buffalo with the efficiency of a modern air force. The machine’s policies and programs have left the inner city and industrial areas looking like a war zone with abandoned and decaying housing and factories. At night, some neighborhoods become war zones, thanks to young men who in earlier years would have found work in the factories. They ply different trades now.
ON GEICO COMING TO BUFFALO
The Geico story perfectly illustrates how the corporate state operates. A huge insurance company gets special favors from big government so that it can get even bigger. The politicians smile for the cameras; their tangible rewards will come later and you won’t hear much about them.
If you are a big insurance company, the corporate state sure beats the vagaries of free market competition. It’s easier to pick up a phone, dial the governor and get $102 million than it is to go out in the marketplace and convince ten million New York drivers that you have the cheapest and best policies.
The politicians get to run these complex deals through their patronage apparatus—connected lawyers, real estate firms, development bureaucrats—all of whom make an enormous amount of money figuring out how the wired fat cats can avoid paying the taxes and complying with the regulations the rest of us are stuck with. The recipients of the patronage then kick-back campaign contributions to the politicians, do free legal work, and form the backbone of their campaign organizations at re-election time.
ANTI-WAR THEME
There is a timely and consistent antiwar theme throughout Political Class Dismissed.
From watching American boys die on television every night, I came to abhor war, “the health of the state.” My father had also spoken out against the Vietnam War in a speech in 1970 before my brother Mike’s high school graduating class. It was the commencement address at St. Joseph’s Collegiate Institute, from which he had graduated early in 1943 to enlist in the Army and fight crack German troops in pitched battles in the Vosges Mountains. I would come to hate war in all its permutations: Cold War, hot war, Civil War, drug war, poverty war. “War” is the term politicians slap onto all their harebrained schemes to improve the world by use of massive aggressive force. War is a bore, but the bored always want more.
There is much, much more: Chomsky dissected; the Clintons sent up; FDR debunked; the corporate state explained; Lincoln revealed; Thoreau venerated; Bowling for Columbine reviewed; Pataki and Andrew Cuomo skewered; all with some of the liveliest prose by a Buffalo writer since Mark Twain left town for Elmira in 1871.
About the book, Ostrowski, whose boyhood hero was Thomas Jefferson, said, “I’d like to think that these essays approximate what Jefferson might say had he been around to witness the rise of the monstrous modern state with its corrupt political machines, ceaseless centralization of power and perpetual wars.”
###
About the Author
James Ostrowski is a trial and appellate lawyer and libertarian writer from Buffalo, New York. He graduated from St. Joseph’s Collegiate Institute in 1975 and obtained a degree in philosophy from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1980. He graduated from Brooklyn Law School in 1983. In law school, he was writing assistant to Dean David G. Trager, now a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York. He was a member of the Moot Court Honor Society and the International Law Moot Court Team.
He served as vice-chairman of the law reform committee of the New York County Lawyers Association (1986-88) and wrote two widely quoted reports critical of the law enforcement approach to the drug problem. New York Newsday described his report on drug-related AIDS as “superb.” He was chair of the human rights committee of the Erie County Bar Association (1997-1999). He has written a number of scholarly articles on the law on subjects ranging from drug policy to the commerce clause of the Constitution. He has written several bar association reports and given continuing legal education lectures on habeas corpus, lawsuits against government officials and jury nullification.
His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Buffalo News, Cleveland Plain Dealer and Legislative Gazette. His policy studies have been published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and the Cato Institute in Washington, D. C. His articles have been used as course materials at numerous colleges and universities including Brown, Rutgers and Stanford.
Presently he is an Adjunct Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a columnist for two of the largest political websites in the world, Mises.org and LewRockwell.com. His personal website, JimOstrowski.com, is one of the fastest-growing sites on the Web.
He and his wife Amy live in North Buffalo with their two children.
Selected Articles by the Author
"Thinking about Drug Legalization," Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 121 (May 25, 1989).
"Was the Union Army's Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act?" in Secession, State & Liberty, David Gordon, ed., (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1998).
“Answering the Critics of Drug Legalization”, in Krauss, Melvyn B. and Edward P. Lazear, ed. Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in the United States. (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1991).
“The Rise and Fall of Jury Nullification,” 15 Journal of Libertarian Studies 89 (Spring 2001).
“The Moral and Practical Case for Drug Legalization,” 18 Hofstra L. Rev. 607 (1990).
| Add as favourites (16) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 768 |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 14 March 2008 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Monday, 26 April 2004 |
|
Well, Kill Bill Vol. 2 is now playing and you can discover for yourself why The Bride went bonkers after Bill, her former boss and lover, ordered the hit on her wedding party. Was it just the old green-eyed monster? As entertainment, the film’s got that great Tarantino pizzazz: a superb look, jazzy editing, perfect music, and some mystery to keep you alert. Uma Thurman is still otherworldly as The Bride and David Carradine finally gets to act as Bill, as opposed to being the mythic figure of the first part. The problem is that Carradine and Tarantino still think he’s in the television series Kung Fu, so we have that mystical serenity prattle that worked well on that program. And you have every right to laugh when Bill starts playing his bamboo flute. Daryl Hannah is a blonde with vengeance in her eye. Yes, you read that right, eye. A patch covers the other one, and don’t think for a moment that Tarantino doesn’t toy with that character trait. Michael Madsen continues his typecast career as a goonish bouncer. There’s a shade less violence in this second part, and it does tie up things from volume one. But, and this is a big but, it would have been much, much better as a single, solid Tarantino adventure.
Hollywood keeps rolling out the Marvel comic book characters. Now we’ve got The Punisher. If you feel like seeing this absurd mess, I will tell you that the Punisher is human, filled with anger and hate, and has no super powers. The movie is one of those revenge epics that seem concocted from ideas written on tissue paper. The Punisher is an FBI agent who has to even the score with a mob boss embarrassingly played by John Travolta, of all people. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos plays a character called “The Mouse,” and I’ll leave it at that. The film’s violence would make Mel Gibson shiver.
Frank Castle, the “punisher” of the title, is played by Thomas Jane who has about as much reason for being an action hero as I do. Oh wait, I would be better because I know the rules for action movies. Never let the bad guy know how smart you are. Never say more than a few words. Never let them see your hidden gun. Or knife. Or baseball bat. As an actor, Jane is about as intelligent as a rock and not very believable as a guy eager to crack the heads of the people who murdered his family. Also in the cast is some bozo wrestler, Kevin Nash, another guy who can’t act. The movie gets silly a lot. There’s one scene where Nash is fist-fighting and the movie crosscuts his action with neighboring tenants discussing how cooking can also be considered a dance routine. Honest, it’s that stupid. Mayhem galore and a total waste of time. The film is the directorial debut of Jonathan Hensleigh, who’ll only learn how to direct by watching the original version of The Punisher, which was released in 1989 and stars Dolph Lundgren. And it’s really saying something to note that Lundgren and his movie are light years better than the new edition.
The United States Of Leland is a risky enterprise, and I admire it because there are people involved willing to take the chance that audiences can handle something a little bit different and a little bit quirky. Screenwriter-director Matthew Ryan Hoge has crafted a movie that challenges preconceived notions about what makes a character sympathetic and where characters should travel in the arc of a story. Soft-spoken teenager Leland Fitzgerald (a superb Ryan Gosling) commits a senseless murder that shocks his community, affecting both his victim’s family and his own in awful ways. When asked why he killed an autistic boy, he replies: “because of the sadness.” Sent to a juvenile detention facility for his crime, Leland comes in contact with a prison teacher and an aspiring writer, Pearl Madison (a very good Don Cheadle). As Pearl delves into the mystery of Leland’s cruel act, he also sees the chance for a career-making book because the boy’s father is a world-renowned author, well-played by Kevin Spacey. Lena Olin is also excellent as Leland’s mother. The movie examines how each family, Leland’s and the victim’s, reacts differently to the crime. It explores motive, responsibility (parental and societal), and how some people are willing to use others for their own personal gain. The emotion-charged film has some frayed edges, but there’s a certain appeal in its resistance to tidying everything up into one neat package.
The Whole Ten Yards is the sequel to 2000’s The Whole Nine Yards, which was a breezy mob comedy that succeeded because the primary cast, Bruce Willis, Matthew Perry, Rosanna Arquette, Natasha Henstridge, Michael Clarke Duncan, and Amanda Peet had a brightness and sparkle that worked well. Now they’ve added a yard and created a movie that feels like it was bought at a dollar store. Once again, Willis is the mob boss, although this time he has a softer side. Peet, an actress I thoroughly enjoy, is Willis’ wry attractive wife. Perry, an actor of not much depth, is the neurotic who needs his help after his own wife has been kidnapped by some goofball Hungarian mobster, played to annoying heights by the grotesquely overrated Kevin Pollack, who was also a pain to watch in the first movie. Gangster stereotypes abound and attempted jokes fly high and crash to the floor like bricks in a tornado. Perry spends most of the movie falling over furniture. Hopefully, when his face hit the ground he saw his future and realized it isn’t very promising if he keeps making junk like this. | Add as favourites (16) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 938 |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Monday, 26 April 2004 |
|
On April 12, there were under 100 protestors at Bidwell Park, Buffalo on April 12 at the emergency demonstration in response to US attacks on Fallujah. Sure, the response was positive, lots of honking horns and waving. But we all know it’s genocide over there; and Bush on April 13 gives the green light to crush Fallujah. Probably new types of weapons will be tried out.
What’s that got to do with 9-11? Good question.
It’s our view that the chief vulnerability of the White House-controlled juggernaut is 9-11.
This view was reified after attending the International Inquiry into 9-11 (San Francisco, March 26-28).
At his April 13 2004 press conference, George Bush again linked Iraq with 9-11: “…the lesson of September the 11th is, when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we’ve got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously. Saddam Hussein was a threat…”
And again, from Bush: “…it didn’t take me long to put us on a war footing. And we’ve been on a war footing ever since. The lessons of 9-11 that I – one lesson was, we must deal with gathering threats. And that’s part of the reason I dealt with Iraq the way I did.”
They attacked us first is the mantra. Bush can spin on deliriously pathological, as long as he and his handlers can keep that first lie going: they attacked us first, Osama, al-Qaida…
They attacked us first. “We’re at war. Iraq is a part of the war on terror. It is not the war on terror; it is a theater in the war on terror. And it’s essential that we win this battle in the war on terror. By winning this battle, it will make other victories more certain in the war against the terrorist.” (Bush, April 13, 2004)
The whole ball of obfuscation and lies is predicated on sustaining the big one: they attacked us first.
No kid wants to believe their father is a criminal, observes Eric Hufschmid, trying to find an analogy to explain the nation’s denial about 9-11. Hufschmid, one of the San Francisco 9-11 speakers and author of Painful Deceptions/Painful Illusions (video and book) characterizes the USA as the “Un-informed Sheeple of America.” Another analogy: sheep are controlled by dogs; people are controlled by criticism. People accept being lied to so as not to be isolated from the crowd. Exposure of the egregious crime of 9-11 offers the potential to break the control, maybe.
Ellen Mariani, wife of 9-11 victim, with her attorney, former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general, Phil Berg (www.911forthetruth.com), both Inquiry speakers, outlined their civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) action against President Bush and other high level members of his administration: based upon the administration’s prior knowledge of 9-11; knowingly failing to act, prevent or warn of 9-11; and the ongoing obstruction of justice by covering up the truth of 9-11. RICO, notes Berg, “…was created to prosecute the mob. Our position is that there is a mob in the White House and we have to do something about it.”
Mike Ruppert, former LAPD narcotics investigator, whistleblower, and 9-11 Inquiry keynote speaker outlined his strategy regarding exposing and bringing the perps to justice: “…you take the statements made by the suspect, you prove them to be lies—and that becomes admissible in court and then any John Q. Citizen on the street can understand that. We have to secure the general public’s understanding that the US government lied. First.”
Bruce Gagnon who heads the Portland Maine-based Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space (12th annual conference April 23-25, 2004), was also a key speaker at the 9-11 conference. Gagnon outlined depths to which German Nazis penetrated the CIA, NASA and the weapons and space programs. See Operation Paperclip (www.space4peace.org) Gagnon noted how easily presidential candidate Gore went down, without a fight, even though he’d clearly been cheated of the presidency, indicating his loyalty to the system rather than any obligation to the US or its people. Texas author Jim Marrs (Inside Job) suggested that Bush in the White House was necessary if the 9-11 and post-9-11 scenario was the same (and Marrs thinks it would have been). The conservatives would have put up a bigger fuss against expansionism and “foreign entanglements.” Better to have their guy. It’s confused them. Also, says the Texan, they’re hornswoggled by religion in the Bible Belt, sanctioning “some of the most unchristian things I’ve ever seen.”
Nafeez M. Ahmed, from London, is the author of The War On Freedom (How and Why America was Attacked Sept. 11, 2001) published in 2002. In his San Francisco talk, Ahmed discussed the findings of his recent book, Behind the War on Terror. Ahmed’s work is featured prominently, along with Michel Chossudovsky’s (a keynote speaker in the upcoming Toronto inquiry) in the very important wrap-up book, The New Pearl Harbor (Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11) by David Ray Griffin (prof. of philosophy of religion, Claremont School of Theology).
Those following critically the 9-11 story will recognize many of the other speakers in San Francisco (Barrie Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Ralph Schoenman, Daniel Hopsicker, Gray Brechin et al). To most, though, these people who challenge the official story are off the radar. Their speeches and/or interviews are posted on www.snowshoefilms.com
For further information on the May 25-30, 2004 Inquiry (phase two), see www.911inquiry.org and www.globalresearch.ca
Roy & Karen Harvey / snowshoefilms.com | Add as favourites (17) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 680 |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
