Reply #65: Sorry for my personal silence. I'm answering a question from thread 18.

[robertpaulsen]

robertpaulsen (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-12-04 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #260

273. H20, not to marginalize, but what about Sibel Edmonds?


Don't you think her testimony is proof that the government is trying to cover up their involvement in 9/11, and that this involvement ties in with narcotic and arms trafficking in the Middle East, the latter part which involves Plame?

I don't think it matters whether this involvement was negligence or complicity (or both), either way it is criminal and if the motive is to protect the same network Plame was trying to expose with her sting operation, then it very relevant to the work we've been focused on.

I respect your right not to involve yourself in this matter, but your contributions would be sorely missed by me. You helped everyone here focus on the question: Why? So I wonder why does the DOJ gag Sibel Edmonds? Who benefits?


H2O Man (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-12-04 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #273

277. Sure.

Edited on Thu Aug-12-04 11:47 PM by H2O Man
Sibel Edmonds is a serious topic. As a matter of fact, it provides a great vehicle for making people think. And that is of great value.

Listen: in terms of politics, or culture, you need to look at human nature. And I know you do. I'm speaking in general. All people who have been able to motivate the public have understood this simple rule (which you won't find written in any book) .... and that is this: before you can possibly hope to get people to act differently, you must first get them to think differently.

That means you have to give them a NEW WAY to view things. And isn't that exactly what occured on the first Plame thread? I'm not giving myself a pat on my humbly bowed head, because I am the first to recognize -- as I stated then -- that I was using Man X's lesson. But, by asking "Why?" .... didn't it open up an entirely new way of thinking about Plame? And once your eyes are opened to that .... what happens?

And this is the way it has been, in terms of human nature, throughout history. Think in terms of Isaiah saying "You have heard; now see all this: and will you not declare it? From this time forth I make you hear new things, hidden things, which you have not known." (48:6) And what is he saying? That by creating a new way to see things, people will then behave in a new way. And that, my friend, is the revolutionary thinking that concerns me. We need a human evolution: to see things in a NEW WAY, and to behave in a new way.

But tell me: what will -- because of human nature alone -- the reaction of people be to anyone who says "we can prove that the bush administration was involved in 9-11 in an effort to set up the invasion of Afghanistan and especially Iraq"? Will it change the way people think? Or will it allow people to discount everything else that has been done on here?

But that's for everyone else to decide. I don't think of that as a serious topic. I will not participate in it. But that doesn't mean that I'm cutting out completely. My focus remains Plame, the grand jury, and publicity for that topic. Perhaps we have taken it as far as we can on this format. That's not a bad thing at all; rather, it's a job well done.



My response:

When you respond with "Sure", I believe you are answering affirmatively that Edmonds testimony proves government involvement in the events related to September ll have been covered up, and that this involvement ties in with narcotic and arms trafficking in the Middle East, the latter part which involves Plame. If that is correct, then taking this thread in that direction should not be a problem, until we get to the point that you describe when we go public and spread the word about the discovered truth. At that point, we must do as you say, get people to think differently. I don't see how we can attempt to before that point.

But to answer your question that I highlighted, I have to give some historical perspective to what we are attempting to do here. Granted, my perspective is that of a 31 year old idealist who has read a few books here and there. But maybe you can corroborate: back in 1966, two years after the Warren Commission released their infamous Report, it was viewed at the time, from what I know, as thorough, complete, and above all, the truth. From Anthony Lewis' instant endorsement in the New York Times on down, the media pretty much reached a consensus that Oswald acted alone and Ruby acted alone, case closed. But that year, two books came out that directly challenged this assumption, Whitewash by Harold Weisberg and Rush to Judgement by Mark Lane. What happened? As far as I know, there was not an immediate shift in public opinion to believe that our government was complicit in the crime. But by documenting their research with proven facts, it allowed people the opportunity to think differently about something they thought they knew before, which allowed for a gradual shift over time.

Now to answer your specific question:
But tell me: what will -- because of human nature alone -- the reaction of people be to anyone who says "we can prove that the bush administration was involved in 9-11 in an effort to set up the invasion of Afghanistan and especially Iraq"? Will it change the way people think? Or will it allow people to discount everything else that has been done on here?

What will their reaction be? If you're referring to mainstream FAUX-fed America, probably shock. If this occurs before the Plame indictments, probably disbelief. But that's why we're attempting to connect their involvement in 9/11 WITH the Plame indictments. If the work that we've accomplished here can help contribute to increasing public awareness of Cheney's complicity in the outing of Valerie Plame, we can certainly do the same regarding the truth about 9/11. Don't get put off by labels like MIHOP, LIHOP, "complicit" or "connected". Either way you cut it, be it negligence or manipulation, it was criminal and we need to investigate it with the hope that just as we exposed Cheney in our research compiled in American Judas, we will do the same concerning the misadministration and 9/11.

Will it change the way people think? Just like the JFK assassination, it won't happen overnight. But it most certainly won't happen if we drop the ball and not use the investigative skills that many of the Plame thread posters obviously possess to find a connection between what Edmonds knows and what Plame's "sting operation" was all about. You have counseled many of us, including me, on the virtue of patience. Given time, and proof, we can gradually shift public opinion to support the documented truth.

Will it allow people to discount everything else that has been done on here? Hell no! The people who read our research with an open mind and become convinced that Cheney had the greatest motive for outing Plame will probably take the next jump and ask: Are the "arms sales" that Sibel Edmonds refers to connected with the same A.Q. Khan network Cheney profited from? We're not putting the cart before the horse here. This is a natural extension of our current investigation. It's still the Plame thread, just a new chapter.

If someone is familiar with the work we've done here, I'm not concerned about them freaking out over an investigation into misadministration involvement in 9/11. That includes you, H2O Man. I read your paper on Bush, bin Laden and 9/11. You make an accurate point that any investigation into 9/11 must include an examination of bin Laden. But for you to write an entire paper about Bush's involvement with 9/11 without a single mention of Sibel Edmonds is incredibly disingenuous. That was just my initial reaction to reading your paper. To your credit, points 1 through 5 in your paper are essential for anyone investigating 9/11. But reading point 6 made me think that you don't want to investigate anymore; you've reached your conclusions. As far as points 7 through 9 are concerned, it's all part of the 9/11 timeline. I encourage you to read cooperativeresearch's timeline for thoroughness. Point 10 made a point that confused me. You say, "In the summer of 2001, we know that the relaxed and vacationing president got a report that predicted that bin Laden was planning to strike within the United States. There has been some public confusion as to why President Bush seemed undisturbed by this information. As this paper makes clear, it was because he was aware of a plan being put in motion to have a bombing campaign in Afghanistan, and to invade Iraq. And that is why he was so unconcerned." While I agree Bush planned to invade Iraq, bombing Afghanistan, from what I remember in Against All Enemies, was Clinton's plan, not Bush. Rather than follow through with that plan, I recall Richard Clarke saying Bush sat on it for the entire 9 months he was in office until 9/11. You reiterate this in point 11. But the part of point 11 that irked me was section H. To repeat: H- "Usama bin Laden believed that his strike would do more than prevent the attack on Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. He believed that he was ordained to destroy the Evil Empire. He believed he would destroy the American economy, and damage the military to a degree that would make a US response impossible." How could you possibly think he believed this after all the research you did? He is trying to ignite a holy war! You mentioned this in point 8 of your paper. That's his reason for 9/11! And it's Bush's Dominionist Theology justification as well! Why no mention of that in your study of Bush, or completely omitting the PNAC from your paper? If your intention with this paper was to convince me that Bush was not complicit in 9/11, you've got a long way to go.

Then again, the rest of us at the Plame Indictment threads have a long way to go as well. As far as 9/11 is concerned, I think you know without me having to tell you that we're still at the tip of the iceberg. I'd appreciate your reconsideration, but if you've made up your mind not to join our investigation, so be it. But for the rest of us who refuse to believe 9/11 is a case closed where misadministration involvement is concerned, we've got a lot of researching to do. Whatever you decide, I wish you the best.

Peace to you,
RP