Oh, no, Congress won't do a thing. Perhaps a member, here or there, who will get no support. Haven't you noticed that GW Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, etc., are free as birds? In the case of Bush, they can pull in over 100K per speech. No war crimes prosecutions for them - not even a truth and reconciliation committee!
So, when crimes are well-known, their perpetrators receive zero accountability. But a 911 investigation, which has no political support by the same politicians who can be so cowardly (at least in the case of Democrats) when it comes to war mongering lies, torture, etc., are supposed to somehow change their spots and at least open their mouths?
I don't think so.
We know by now that Obama is quite a liar, and his lie about the 'not campaigning on a public option' is one of the most outrageous. His back door deal with Tauzin, in which they basically agreed not to correct Medicare Part D, and thus allow the pharmaceutical companies to continue legally looting the American taxpayer, was a stab in the back to working class Americans of all political persuasions. Oh, and if you want to read about 'Constitutional scholar' Obama's fidelity to the Constitution, read Glen Greenwald and Chris Hedges.
Morally, Obama's administration is status quo, and the continuation of so many of Bush's disgusting policies is almost eery. Who would have thought that 'Obama = 3rd term of GW Bush' actually makes so much sense, from a year ago? I mean, to this extent? OK, there were probably a lot, en toto, but as a group they weren't prominent.
Unfortunately, the 911 Truth Movement seems awfully naive, politically, when it comes to having a viable political strategy. Fortunately, 911 truthers are less naive than the general public when it comes to understanding how the Democratic/Republican duopoly obscures a commonality in which corruption and non-stop lying (including lying by omission) is the order of the civic day. Partly this is because activist groups, in general, typically fail to achieve fundamental change, even when those deep changes have majoritarian appeal. However, this 'lesser naivete' doesn't translate into lesser naivete when it comes to developing a viable strategy. Especially since we're dealing with systemic corruption, a study of the history of activism in the US was called for, and would not have given a very promising prognosis even for the most enlightened of activist strategies. However, some honest, if painful, study of the our history both before and after 911 would have at least encouraged some outside-the-box thinking.
I don't recall any serious essay on 911blogger entitled anything like "What is the record of the peace movement in the US, and how can we not repeat their mistakes?" Certainly, the question of how successful has the peace movement been is relevant at at least a tactical level. But other than the Vietnam War, I can't think of a single American war or invasion that it's prevented or curtailed, nor a single perpetrator of war mongering or torture so much as censored. (Some dude is doing serious time in Leavenworth for torture of Iraqis, but I think the pressure for his prosecution had everything to do with the photos, and little to do with the peace movement.)
Of course, it much easier for movements to fail if they've been coopted. Every American should read about the "Veal Pen", which has been discussed a lot at Firedoglake.com, whereby we learn that the Obama White House can shut down the voice of prominent lefty organizations almost immediately, to suit their political ends.
Last edited:
