Must a candidate for public office embrace the government's official version of 9-11? by ryan rabalais
(libertarian)
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The recent scuffle between Glenn Beck and Debra Medina regarding her personal views of 9-11, while exposing Beck as a shill, also raises another question. What is acceptable for a candidate for public office to believe regarding 9-11? Are all candidates required to agree with the 9-11 Commission Report? Is it now a litmus test for all those seeking office? That would seem to be asking a lot, especially considering what the Commissioners themselves have said about the 9-11 Commisssion:
In a New York Times article dated 1-2-08, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, co-chairs of ther 911 Commission, said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements.
Kean and Hamilton now admit that political considerations played a large part in the Commission's investigation.
Considering all of this is it that unreasonable for a candidate to suggest that there may still be unanswered questions about 9-11? We must have a real, independent investigation of 9-11 based on science - and not politics or emotion - or this country will be torn apart. It doesn't seem likely that this is an issue that will just go away. 9-11 is an event that is 'too big to stay secret' and the truth about it will eventually be revealed. We should not hold it against anyone running for office or otherwise if they still have questions about 9-11. Personally, I would apply a litmus test against anyone who claimed to subscribe strictly to the government's official story.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 33
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of ryan rabalais only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
ryan rabalais is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2010-02-14 11:50:41
Hi Ryan,
 Why all the focus on this particular incident? Why not ponder what "really" happened everytime the CIA and US Government has been involved in covert operations that resulted in "unintended consequences." All the attention on 911 is a great diversion from the nearly 70 years of questionable circumstances and consequences.
The USA has been whacking hornets nests with sticks in the Middle East since before many of us were born. In the end, it makes no difference what any individual thinks or believes happened for any one of these incidents. Each is used to justify a new generation adopting the fear of the next boogeyman the CIA decides we should target.
In the end, we will get the candidates chosen for us by the tiny number of individuals who participate in candidate grooming and party primaries. They will continue to choose who can be shown to have a chance of winning Right now, that means choosing candidates who buy the party line on policy. It will take relentless work at the local community level for...forever, to counter this momentum. It isn't going to happen talking about it or by focusing on one skirmish in a centuries-long religious war or in a decades old political war.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2010-02-14 14:51:23
I should think it was obvious why he focused on this particular issue, Jahfre. The conservatives, led by the likes of Glenn Beck, have decided to assassinate the character of anyone who hesitates to 100% reject the idea that our government might possibly have played a role in 9/11.
In such an environment, one could easily counter your question with the opposite question: why do you refuse to help focus on this particular incident, in light of current political realities? Or are you so blinded by your own policy of achieving change via a major party that you are willing to help the neo-conservatives deflect attention from this particular issue?
Ryan, your article is right on! Understand, I'm not a '9-11 Truther,' but I believe the government has a lot to answer for on 9-11. It's not so much that I think Fedgov actually CAUSED 9-11. My view is more that the government has manipulated information--both before and after 9-11--for its own nefarious purposes. As Rahm Emanuel recently put it, "you don't want to waste a crisis." Something is rotten out there, as the great quotes you provided so aptly demonstrate. And the stench isn't coming from the State of Denmark, but from Washington!
Thanks Ryan, for some journalistic investigation that provides evidence that the 911 investigation was seriously flawed. This issue is important to every patriotic American. Serious questions have been raised by credible individuals. If the best response from the mainstream media is to discredit the 911 truthers then the 911 truthers will win because of their arguments that are based on scientific evidence. Over 100 people have been freed from death row based on DNA evidence not available when these individuals were convicted of being guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Millions of people believe the original government explanation for 911. Science now has found incontravertible evidence that the official 911 report can not be true in substancial ways. When looked at carefully this evidence is like the DNA evidence that freed over 100 individuals from death row. Some prosecutors of the original cases did not want the DNA evidence presented. Now additional scientific evidence has been presented, sufficient to discredit the official conclusions of 911. It should be made available to the American public. This is a capital case since thousands of civilians were murdered on 911. Justice demands we do not turn a blind eye to any possibility of arriving at the truth using proven scientific methods. www.ae911truth.org houses some convincing data. Thanks again, Jason, for your journalistic objectivity.
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." ~ Chapman Cohen (1868-1954)
In chemistry, Litmus paper turns blue in a basic solution and red in an acidic solution. The 9/11 Litmus test metaphorically turns the face of public figures the patriotic blue or red of the America flag depending on whether they are coolly repeating elements of the government's 9/11 story in order to justify national security measures and military actions or they are hotly belittling alternative 9/11 views as crazy, nutty, loony, conspiracy theories.
Acting in this manner, our public figures have to date seemingly passed their 9/11 Litmus test and thereby continued to reap the rewards that maintain them in their public place as "respected" politician, news anchor, political columnist, professor, etc. Questioning any aspect of 9/11 and specifically the government has been tantamount to failing the 9/11 Litmus test with consequences that include political or professional discreditation and involuntary job loss.
Math- and science-challenged Americans ought well remember that white is the third color both of their patriotic flag lapel pins as well as of the simple chemistry Litmus test. Namely, when the Litmus paper remains white in a given solution, (a) the solution may be neither acidic nor basic, or (b) the solution may be known acidic or basic and the test paper isn't Litmus paper.
When over 1,100 architects and engineers sign a petition to call for a new, independent investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001, the 9/11 Litmus reaction in the corporate mainstream media was: white. Or white out, clear, blank, and silent. It wasn't meaningfully covered (and Tiger Woods was).
Any 9/11 view that includes controlled demolition is political acid and should have resulted in red-faced commentators deriding these architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth as insane. Why didn't this happen and isn't it happening now?
The most obvious reason is that those rosy-cheek commentators -- despite their silver tongues, silver quills, and rhetorical eloquence -- did not have the scientific understanding to go toe-to-toe against these professional architects and engineers on their home court of Newtonian physics as questions are raised about the gaps, misdirections, and omissions in the government's scientific reports on 9/11.
Like any good Litmus Test, white out in the presence of this acidic 9/11 news indicates that the 9/11 Litmus Test that our nation has been applying is a fraud.
The faulty acid test has been hiding that it isn't the war on terror, but the war of terror that America inflicts on the world.
The faulty base test ("the base" = "Al Quaeda") has been hiding the distinct possibility of 19 pawns and patsies, Mossad and high-level U.S. government involvement, and any Al Quaeda growth and activity since 9/11 being blow-back and inspired by us.
The knee-jerk, red-faced, "kook" labeling of anyone who questioned the government's 9/11 version is just as fraudulent as the blue-faced government leaders continuing to justify wars (torture, rules of engagement, Predator drones, DU munitions, and other crimes against humanity and the Constitution) on the basis of national security and America being attacked on 9/11 by Al Quaeda. The world knows that the invasion of Iraq was predicated on lies that were foisted through fear on the American people, as were many other foreign and domestic policies to get us to surrender our civil liberties.
"There's a big difference between the trend lines and the headlines, and one of the things that you need to be able to do ... is to draw that distinction: to understand when you see a headline, if it's troubling or good, whether it's consistent with the trend line. And to know that it is your job as citizens... to try to build your trend lines." [May 2003] "Half the stuff that makes the headlines every day you know instinctively are just fleeting dross. They don't amount to anything. And then some things represent trend lines. They reflect things that show big underlying sweeping changes in society." [March 2007] ~ President Bill Clinton
As of this moment, the 9/11 Litmus Test has to be re-framed in accordance with a 9/11 trend line that is based on science and doesn't shirk from the truth -- where ever it may lead, whatever public figure is discredited for supporting and propagating lies, and whatever government institutions are scattered to the four winds of heaven in consequence of un-Constitutional, illegal, and immoral deeds.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
