Remember after 9-11, everyone made solemn vows that they were going to live different lives?  People recoiled in shock and horror from the tragedy.  The bodies falling.  Why did they jump?  The voice mail messages they left . . . do you remember?  “I’m in New York . . . in a building . . . (crying) . . . and there was a bomb and now . . . (sobbing) . . . and now there is a fire . . . (sobbing) . . . and we are trapped,  we can’t get out . . . I love you . . .”  Remember?  

I just asked you a question.  Do you remember hearing that woman’s voice?  Do you remember hearing that message played back?   Answer me!  Do you remember?

We resolved to live better lives!  Do you remember you cynical bastards?  We made those vows. 

Some even went on the Don Imus show and pathetically tried to explain to the old fool that “this is different”  and “we can not go on living as we did before, you understand Don?”  The degenerate said he understood.  He is missing the ‘70s and the ‘80s but he had sobered up;  just in time to endorse Billy Clinton.  (Good work Don.) And even he was, that old fool, even he was moved to take the pledge.  He promised to be a better man. 

Don, it lasted how long, a week, a month?  Now Don Imus is dumping his New York real estate and moving out of state.  His young wife has been trying to get him to move for years due to fears of terrorists attacks, (which Imus has himself reported, on his show.)  Is this why he is dismissive of the dangers?   He denies there is a threat hanging over the city. However, after he has gotten his price on his New York real estate will he then allow a discussion of the dangers?  When he is safe in New Mexico?  (By the way New Mexico will not be safe.  Did you ever read the ‘The Masque of the Red Death’  by Poe?)  Go ahead Don, run.  You can retire. 

Next door to you the retired president of the airline pilot’s association who fought the efforts to secure the cockpit doors.  On the other side the retired crooked New York police detective who is still on the take.  Down the road the retired newsman who substituted his decrepit ideology for the truth.  Across the street the retired Senator, who stopped the accounting reform bill for the corporate thieves. (Himself the son of a censured Senator, and a defender of an impeached President. (I refer to Senator Dodd.)  Censured:  Blameworthy.)  F.A.A. officials.  Architects of our Vietnam policy.    All of you go, get out, take your money and retire, we need not concern ourselves with you.  Death will soon fix you.   I say good riddance to you all.   

Here we are, just two years on from 9-11, and nothing is changed.  McLaughlin shrugs it all off, and calls Mylroie’s Study in Revenge:  “junk.”  A meticulously researched book trashed as “junk” and also dismissed by every member of the panel.  Why?  Because it was recommended here at this web site?  (See 45 Minutes and the Distortion of History and the McGurk Tutorial)  More recently McLaughlin brought up the subject again and then dropped it saying, “We are not supposed to talk about that.”  (Then Imus referenced McLaughlin approvingly.)

When I first wrote of the danger of bio warfare I thought to myself:  Why?  If you say anything they will  just do the opposite out of spite.  And sure enough, no sooner had I recommended the immediate establishment of quarantine zones on this web site, (see Judgment Day and Don Imus says Good Morning),  than, Jack Germond was on the air scoffing, “We can not set up quarantine zones.  If the Chinese can not set up quarantines then there is no way we can.”  (No need to debate it here, Mr. Germond’s point is obviously wrong.  No, more, obviously corrupt.)

(Of course, if we do not make any plans, then the quarantines will be harder to establish when the emergency arises.  The public will have no idea what is happening.  Panic will be more likely and cooperation less likely.  For example, during the SARS out break,  which was a kind of public health practice exercise, we were treated to the spectacle of flight attendants having to act as public health doctors because there was no procedure for monitoring the traveling public.  And since then, no effort has been made to establish procedures for identifying and the quarantining of even those travelers who are evidencing obvious symptoms.  Not only has nothing been done for international travelers, but the Public Health Director of Denver complained in a televised interview, during the first SARS out break, that there was insufficient authority granted to him, that would allow for the establishment of a  quarantine even within his state.  Did we expect leadership?  The Director for the National Institute of Health said at the time that America would, “have to learn to live with SARS.”  (He still holds his position.)   And, three years on, the F.A.A just last month, March, 2004, ordered foreign airlines to keep their cockpit doors locked.  Just 30 days ago.  The F.A.A. is staying right on top of things.  (Not really, a passenger noticed the door was open and complained.  Only then did the bureaucrats at the F.A.A. notice their omission.  This is because we are not paying the F.A.A. lard asses enough.  If we paid them more money then they would do their job.)

The most important part of the SARS story was the dismal failure of the detection system.  Our entire strategy, in the absence of a system of automatic bio detectors and matching quarantine zones, is the early detection of contagious diseases, when patients present themselves.  (But we are closing down our emergency rooms just when the need is increasing,  (see Psy Ops number five)).  Because we have no system of bio detectors the people themselves must be our bio detectors.  You are our Canary in the mine shaft.  When you get sick we know to take precautions.  Yet with SARS, thousands of cases went unreported for a month.  If this should happen with an engineered weapon the result would be catastrophic.  (Catastrophic on the scale of the Australian rabbit population die off, (See 45 Minutes)).

I realize it will be said that we do not expect much from The Group.  But please!  3,000 died on 9-11.  Just a few miles from The Group’s studio the Pentagon was on fire, and nearly 200 people were being burned to death on 9-11.  Can we expect no better than this from them:  “Junk?” 

But even ordinary reporters crowded into the Oval Office after the McGurk Tutorial was published here at this site.  In September 2003 there was a flurry in the press about Iraq and terrorists.  (That is before Losing bin Laden, and the THE WEEKLY STANDARD’s Case Closed and the Pentagon memo all set out the facts, irrefutably.)  So to day the press ignores the issue, but then they were all :  “Mr. President!” they shouted, “Mr. President, is there any evidence . . .”   What are they about?  If they did not read “The War Against America,” did they not read the Wall Street Journal’s (also ABC News) report on Abdul Rahman Yasin ?  If they really are journalists why not clarify the facts?  Why not ask, ‘Mr. President, was Abdul Rahman Yasin working for the Government of Iraq?’  Again I ask are you trying to clarify or obfuscate?   (see McGurk Tutorial)  Note that just before the fall the Iraqi’s offered up Rahman Yasin to placate the Americans.  They knew what was at issue.

As the week progressed  in early September 2003  we were given more news  by the Associated Press:  "Khalik Shaykh Muhammod divulged to interrogators that he first devised the Sept. 11 plot after three of his cohorts were thwarted in a 1995 plan, codenamed Bojinka, to blow up 12 airliners in Southeast Asia.  (This part of the story sounds familiar.  Where have we read this before?  The War Against America, See no Evil, and Sleeping with the Devil, Losing bin Laden, Bush v. The Beltway.)

“Mohammed kept the core idea of Bojinka in place, initially proposing to bin Laden in 1996 that al-Qaida operatives hijack ten planes --- five on each American cost.  Then he began refining the plan.”  (Oh, look how the F.A.A. jumped into action.)

“At one point, Mohammed said, he considered using a shoe bomb --- something British radical Richard Reid tried after Sept. 11.  At another point, he said the plan resembled "a smaller version of Bojinka."

“Failures seem to be no roadblock to bin Laden.  In fact, recycling old terrorist plans is portrayed as the norm in Mohammed's interrogations. 

“Though al-Qaida failed to topple the world trade center in a 1993 bombing, the towers were still a prime target for the 2001 mission.  The 1995 plan for Asian hijackings was just as interesting to al-Qaida  four years later.

“And an idea the 1995 Bojinka plotters discussed  ---  flying planes into U. S. landmarks  --- became the centerpiece of its 2001 attack."    -----   John Solomon,  Associated Press, 9-22-2003    

Did you notice that?  I feel like a subject in Stalin’s Russia.  One day history is one way, and the next history is rewritten.  As Orwell observed “history” is just another element of control.  The 1993 plot was an al-Qaida plot?  We do not expect The Group to be responsible but shouldn’t newspapers let us know when they are making a U turn?  If they are now reporting the 1993 plot an al-Qaida plot shouldn’t they explain that they are making a change?  Or if this is not a change then do they not have to explain how the chief law enforcement officer, Billy Clinton, could legally turn down the Sudan’s offer to turn over bin Laden?  And we know that Abdul Rahman Yasin was living in Iraq after the first attack.  ABC News reported he was an Iraqi Government employee.  The Wall Street Journal has reported on Iraqi agents visiting bin Laden.  Then we learned that just before the invasion the Iraqis offered to give up Rahman Yasin?  Why did they think this would be important?  Why was this so important to them that they only made the offer at the very last moment?  Lots and lots of questions.  If this web site left so many loose ends the visitor would say you are not following through.  You are not being intellectually honest.  And the visitor would be right.  But why not apply this standard to the press?  Why, why, why?  (Party prejudice?  See the Last Letter at the Moynihan.)

All of this and we still have the press shouting at the President, ‘is there any evidence of a link?’   ‘Then it became a “direct link.”  Then it became, as McGurk started to sound like Hussein’s attorney, “They have never shown that he had any ‘personal knowledge’ of those events that transpired on or about 9-11, when my client was vacationing at his summer palace.” Why?  Why are we not asking for comments on the evidence we have already amassed?  Is it that instead of trying to clarify the evidence you are actually trying to create a political issue?  Make the President carry the load?  Run the story, ‘The President claimed . . .’  or better still: ‘The President’s claim was disputed by Senator Kennedy . . .who called it a ‘fraud.’”

Why not ask Senator Kennedy to explain his position?  Fraud?  How could Judy Holland of Hearst Newspapers run a story “GOP accuses Kennedy of ‘hate speech,’” (9-24-03)  and not once use the word, fraud?  Can you claim Ms. Holland is a serious journalist and yet she fails to even report that the Senator used the word: “fraud”?  No.  She is fraudulent.  And if you think:  ‘Who are you to say so?  You are just an internet “loon,”’ then I ask you to note that the New York Times reporting two days later ran the Senator’s word (“fraud”) in the second paragraph.  They could not, liberal as they are, avoid the central word in the Senator’s speech.  The Times did not say Ms. Holland is a propagandist, not directly, but the implication is clear.  The Times could not write the story the way she did. 

Ms. Holland’s compromised position is utterly exposed now that even Senator Kennedy has stopped using “fraud.”  Senator Kennedy, March 2004, says only that the President used “unpersuasive evidence.”  (Note that after the McGurk Tutorial was published here Senator Kennedy was heard to say:  “I know some secrets too.” (see also the Stolen Notebook fragment one at the Moynihan). (When you see  in the movie “Runaway Jury” what is done to tamper with a jury,  do you not think to wonder what people would be willing to do to tamper with the U. S. Senate?  Think about what they already have done?  What they have done to me?  (see every article at this web site)  And know this:  Senator Kennedy is a close friend of Senator Dodd.  And know this also:  Senator Kennedy was a regular reader of the Math Project and New Ruskin College Project letters.))

Does Senator Kennedy agree that the 1993 WTC attack was an Al-Qaida plot as the Associated Press reported?   If so how does the Senator justify the failure of President Billy Clinton to arrest bin Laden when he was offered to the United States?  (Is this not fraud?)  How is it that Billy Clinton failed to advise the nation that bin Laden was involved and that he had been offered to us?  Or to advise of the relationship between Sudan and Iraq when the second New York plot (U.N. and tunnels) was discovered? 

How does Senator Kennedy explain his “fraud” theory given that ABC News reported on Abdul Rahman Yasin living in Iraq as an Iraqi Government employee in 1994?  Does Senator Kennedy believe there was Iraqi involvement in the first attack of 1993?  How does Senator Kennedy explain the fact that: 

“Mohammed  Salameh, (as reported in War Against America), convicted for his role in the Trade Center bombing, made forty six calls to Iraq, the majority to his uncle in Baghdad, a convicted terrorist who spent eighteen years in an Israeli jail.  . . . Following Salameh’s calls to his uncle, Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi resident in Baghdad, traveled to Jordan, where he obtained a U.S. passport. One of the original indicted conspirators, Yasin returned to Iraq after the Trade Center bombing and has been harbored by Iraq ever since.”

“Ramzi Yousef entered the plot only after Salameh’s calls to his uncle.  He transformed the conspiracy from a pipe bombing plot to the audacious attack on the Trade Center by using the ‘largest improvised explosive device in the history of forensic explosives.’

“Someone created a false identity (legend) for Yousef by tampering with the official file of Abdul Basit Karim, who lived in Kuwait.  That included substituting a fingerprint card with Yousef’s prints on it for the original card.  Reasonably, only Iraq could have done that, while it occupied Kuwait.”  Does Kennedy acknowledge these facts?  All fraud?  Who is committing the fraud? Kennedy? The press?

This is all “junk?”  If you were honest journalist you would be asking Senator Kennedy to confirm or deny these facts and defend his “fraud” theory.  But instead you choose to conceal the truth, as did Ms. Holland, when she failed to even use Senator Kennedy’s own word “fraud,” when allegedly reporting on the controversy.  Since ABC News first reported on Rahman Yasin , 1994, or since the publication of “War Against America” why hasn’t Senator Kennedy been questioned on these facts?  Fraud?  Fraud!

Will the liberal press not even admit that it is possible that Iraq was involved in the first attack?  Doesn’t credibility require this much?  And if involved in the first attack not possibly the second, as well?  Or do you suppose Saddam Hussein stopped wanting to bomb the WTC?

Jim Lehrer on his PBS show News Hour interviewed a U. N. Arms Control Ambassador about weapons of mass destruction on 9-23-03.  The Ambassador theorized that the Hussein regime limited its WMD program to experimentation and testing so as to maintain its capability to produce “high quality” WMD should they ever need to resume production.  Then Mr. Lehrer lead the Ambassador into a discussion of the ‘45 minute’ controversy.   And lead is the right word for Mr. Lehrer framed the question to lead the Ambassador to reject the claim that battlefield chemical weapons could be deployed in that amount of time, (45 minutes).  However, Mr. Lehrer’s attempt at obfuscation failed.  For the Ambassador responded not about Hussein’s capabilities but said instead,  "I do not think it was Saddam Hussein's intention . . . "   At this point Mr. Lehrer cut the interview short and ended the discussion.

Yet this surprise ending prevented us from examining what  I had argued is the greatest of fallacies; the failure to distinguish between an enemy’s capability and intention.  Did Hussein have the intention to use WMD?  Who knows?  His psychological state is such that he may not now recall.   But did Hussein have the capability?  Here the answer is certain.  Yes, of course, he had the capability, and had proven  previously that he had the ability.  He actually made them.  He actually used then.  And yet Mr. Lehrer, caught in his own scheme, dropped the subject and did not try to clarify.  Mr. Lehrer, sir,  Iraq had the capability to make WMD.  This is indisputable.  He may not have, but he could have.  He may not have intended to, but he could have.  Do you understand the distinction Mr. Lehrer?

When the U.N. Ambassador started to respond to the question about capability with an answer about  intention, Mr. Lehrer realized that they were doing just what I had written at this web site.  They were confounding two different issues.  Yet, Mr. Lehrer then tried to cover up the issue because both he and PBS and their local station KQED are even now engaged in a cover up of their harassment of the author (see the Last Letter at the Moynihan).  But he could not then correct the Ambassador about changing the subject to intent when the question was about capabilities without making it obvious that he had read the discussion of just this mistake, on this web site.  The cover up of the harassment required him to cover up all knowledge of this web site.

This is not the first time Mr. Lehrer has played around with what he has read on these pages.  For example, when he interviewed Secretary Powell, he asked if the Secretary had the same “checklist” for Syria as he had for Iraq.  “Because if you go down the same checklist for Syria . . . are they not the same reasons as you had for going to war with Iraq?”  (I had said in Don Imus Says Good Morning that “As you go down the checklist of the 12 million reasons, if you say yes to anyone of them, the discussion is over.”  That was naïve, of course Don Imus could be for the war then against the war then for it . . .etc. But how could I know that we would go around and around these questions?  Now even Senators who voted for the war say they have changed their mind.  Senator Kerry for example.) Just like John Flip Flop Kerry.

Mr. Lehrer’s interest and references to this author also go back to the Math Project and New Ruskin College Project letters.   When I organized the protests in front of the KQED studios Mr. Lehrer knew about them, about the reason for the protests, knew all about it.  But he has determined to engage with PBS in the cover up which they have been conducting for these 12 years now.  But what most amazes me is that Mr. Lehrer appears to have no concern for his credibility, or for that of PBS.  That he and many others at PBS and else where are complicit, that their complicity is widely known in Government and in the media seems to make no difference.  It is as if he were saying, ‘Of course I am a liar, we are all of us liars, everyone knows that.’

Back in 1992 I contacted the editor of a magazine.  I told him an outline of the story about KQED’s harassment.  He said he was not interested in the story.  It was a short phone conversation.  But there was one odd moment.  At the beginning of the interview, after a brief introduction, I asked, “Have you heard about me?”  (At that point there were quite a few references at various media outlets so it did not seem an unreasonable question to ask.)  But the reply was quite unusual.  The editor instead of answering, ‘No,’ just a simple reply, said instead, “Have you been published anywhere?”  Why?  I answered simply, “No.”  Then the editor said, “Well then how could I know about you?” 

In other words, for no apparent reason the young editor, in the middle of a short telephone interview sought to propound the position that editors can only know about stories if they are “published.”  It is an obviously wrong position.  How can any story become known to any editor if it must first be published by some other editor? A Catch 22 situation.  What was the editor doing?  Why not just say, ‘No I have never heard of you?’  Then latter that same week Gordon Peterson went on the air and said, out of context, “He denied he ever heard of the guy.”   Since I have never before now revealed the editor’s name, or even that such an interview took place, I call on Gordy to let everyone know the name of the editor.  Expose him for the liar he is.  For, Gordon Peterson could only have heard of the matter from the editor himself. 

Here you have the editor of a national conservative publication who is a self proclaimed liar.  Yet note that Gordy covers up the fact.  Has covered it up these many years.  At least with Mr. Lehrer there is some explanation.  He works for the same organization as KQED.   In Mr. Gordon Peterson’s case, the self proclaimed ‘dean of talk show hosts,’ there is no other explanation than that both he and the editor are members of the same elite.  Flat out, they are self identified as part of the ruling class.  And note again, that neither Peterson or the editor have the least concern that there reputations will suffer if they are exposed.  Indeed the editor was himself bragging about his lie.  (Corruption.)

On the PBS show, Week In Review, (9-19-03),  the moderator struck a more open stance, allowing as she could accept evidence of,  "Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9-11, directly or indirectly  . . . "  “Indirectly,” now is it?  So lass you do not require a photo showing Atta receiving his promotion to the rank of Major in the Iraqi Air Force personally from Saddam Hussein?  It could be indirect you say?  Could it not be that Hussein, having left so many trails back to Iraq from the first WTC attack, decided to cover his connections to the second?  Does PBS have any credibility left at all?  Isn’t their cover up of their harassment of this author just a particular case of their more general cover up?  Their entire careers, their position in the elite media, their spin and slant on stories, even stories about war and the death of thousands of their fellows, are all of it, one big cover up.

This is the view.  We can look up close to what PBS has done to me directly, or we can look at their “news” coverage of things far in the distance.  For  example,  we know that the individuals in the first attack on the WTC over lapped with  Khalik Shaykh Muhammod in the Philippines, where they discussed flying planes into American landmarks.  So we do have evidence of “indirect” involvement.   And we know that  “. . . Although Muhammad was an employee of the Qatari government at the time (ironically , he was working in the public water works), the administration claimed they could not find him.  In fact, they secretly whisked Muhammad out of the country, keeping an FBI squad cooling its heels in a Doha hotel.  Freeh’s dismay must have turned to anger when he found out that Qatar had dumped $23,938,994.20 between 1997 and 1999 into a Washington law firm close to the White house . . .”  (Sleeping with the Devil)

The press is not doing its job.  We have connected the first WTC attack to Iraq and al-Qaida and the participants in that attack to the chief planner of the second attack of 9-11.  We have shown that this person, Khalik Shaykh Muhammod, had received assistance from at least one state, Qatar.   To now claim that this connection has not been demonstrated is itself fraudulent.   Or do you suppose that Saddam Hussein stopped wanting to blow up the World Trade Center?

But cover up is nothing new for you is it Mr. Lehrer?  You know about the oppression of KQED, and KGO, and KSFO.  You know that Michael Krasney used to work for KGO before moving over to KQED, your affiliated station here in San Francisco.  You know that Rose Gilbout, the former Mrs. Doctor Dean Edel, is  Senior Vice President of Public Affairs for the AAA Auto Club, and also used to work for KGO.  You know that Jack Swanson manages both KGO and KSFO.  You know that Weiner worked at both KGO and KSFO.   These connections are easy to establish.

What else do you know Mr. Lehrer?  Do you know about the burglary?  The electronic eves dropping?  About the harassment and oppression at Farmers, (see Intel Operations) AAA auto club, State Farm, GAB Robbins, (see Psy Ops) and at Access, with Ron Owens? 

Do you know directly or “indirectly?”

When I heard that Christopher Matthews was going to go through the revolving door and run for Senate in Pennsylvania, I thought no, he is one of the regulars on the Don Imus show.  Over the years he has planted references to me, about the law suit, the letters, this web site.  He knows about the harassment, the burglary, he knows about it all.  And then I thought, what difference?  Senator Dodd, another Imus regular, shortly after the burglary went on the Imus show and made a reference to the stolen note book.  So if Matthews gets to the Senate he will just be another one of the dishonest liars and crooks.  Crooks much bigger than the GAB Robins sort (see Psy Ops).  Senator Dodd was the principle opponent of the legislation that would have reformed corporate accounting in the 1990’s and therefore has helped steal more money than GAB Robins adjusters will ever see. 

So we come full circle.  The day after I published a Public Letter to Rosie Allen, Phillip Matier, the S. F. Chronicle columnist, (and a coworker of Christopher Matthews),  was on KGO.  He said,  “We better stop, I don’t want to get you into trouble.”  The very morning that I published the letter he was on the radio making references to it.  Why? To show that he is ‘in the know?’  He wants you to see that  Matier is right up there with Don Imus the millionaire degenerate who is missing twenty years out of his life, lost to drugs and alcohol.  Right there with Senator Dodd who stopped accounting reform, and also thought it would amuse Don Imus to reference a page from a stolen notebook.  Right there with Mr. Lehrer at PBS and all the rest.  

Senator Dodd:  You know Don I support Albert Gore.  I really do. I don’t have to  . . . they do not have that much on me. . .  so I don’t have to support him . . . but I do.

Imus:   . . . ah,  so you say you  . . . you say they don’t have that much on you Senator?

Senator Dodd:  That’s right Don,  they don’t have that much on me, so I don’t have to support them but I do.

Yeah, Phillip you are right in there amongst the thieves.  Congratulations.  You have arrived.

“I know some secrets too.”  -----  Senator Kennedy

Does it ever occur to any of you that there are young widows listening to you and/or reading your lies?  Mothers and Fathers of the dead trying to understand, trying to separate out the truth from this mass of lies you spin out to the public?  (Corruption)

And do you not think that in a month or a year there will be a devastating bio attack and millions will be killed?  People will die in part because you failed to apply even the barest standards to your conduct?  (Corruption.)

“The Republicans  . . . trying to scare people.”--- Jim Lehrer

“Fear mongers.” --- Garrison Keeler 

You are no better than gangsters.  Mel Karmazin, mob boss.  Corruption.  

Who Killed Duane Garrett?   It is starting to look like you all were involved.

“I’m in New York . . . in a building . . . (crying) . . . and there was a bomb and now . . . (sobbing) . . . and now there is a fire . . . (sobbing) . . . and we are trapped,  we can’t get out . . . I love you . . .”  Remember?  

The Colonial Motel Suspect