Before the "Pentagon Papers," Secret Bombings Were a Conspiracy Theory

Although the government has been caught in substantial lies, anyone who questions the government's official explanation for 9/11 is labelled a conspiracy theorist. There are those, like me, actually, who believe that the federal government had substantial involvement in the planning of 9/11. What was their involvement? It's impossible to say, because the 9/11 Commission's Report was a fraud. Many think it's shocking to suggest that the government was involved in 9/11. Why this is so confounds me. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are sociopaths. Why wouldn't they kill people in order to enrich themselves and their allies? Once you stop projecting your own morality onto people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, the truth is much easier to perceive. What would you have to a 1960's-based Mike who said, "The government is secreting bombing Cambodia and Loas"? Like a Loyalist boot licker, you'd have called the vintage Mike a conspiracy theorist, because you cannot think for yourselves. If the machine inside your homes doesn't tell you something, or you don't "read" about it on FoxNews, CNBC, then it didn't happen. Sometimes you really get sophisticated by turning on NPR or the New Yorker. Both NPR and the New Yorker are pro-big corporation, because their writers and editors need large corporations to fund them, and they need big government to leave them alone. And yet the Pentagon Papers vindicated the conspiracy theorists: The Papers revealed that the U.S. had deliberately expanded its war with bombing of Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks, none of which had been reported by media in the US.[7] The most damaging revelations in the papers revealed that four administrations, from Truman to Johnson, had misled the public regarding their intentions. For example, the John F. Kennedy administration had planned to overthrow South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem before his death in a November 1963 coup. President Johnson had decided to expand the war while promising "we seek no wider war" during his 1964 presidential campaign,[3] including plans to bomb North Vietnam well before the 1964 Election. President Johnson had been outspoken against doing so during the election and claimed that his opponent Barry Goldwater was the one that wanted to bomb North Vietnam.[8] How did the Pentagon Papers become public knowledge? They were illegally leaked. Are you seeing a pattern? Are you going to learn from history, or are you going to allow the government to repeat it? The reason I tied in 9/11 to the Pentagon Papers is because of a phenomenal post appearing at Washington's Blog, which has been reprinted with permission. ***** Pentagon Papers Whistleblowers Call for a New 9/11 Investigation The main players in releasing the Pentagon Papers were Daniel Ellsberg and Senator Mike Gravel. Ellsberg is, of course, the former military analyst and famed whistleblower who smuggled the Pentagon Papers out of the Rand Corporation. Senator Gravel is the person who read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record. This act made the papers public record, so that they could not be censored by the government. Ellsberg and Gravel are receiving a lot of media attention right now for their support of Wikileaks. But little attention has been paid to Ellsberg and Gravel's support for a new 9/11 investigation. Ellsberg says that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". (Here's some of what that whistleblower says.) He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of those in office, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (seethis and this). Senator Gravel has long supported a new 9/11 investigation. Gravel told the Daily Caller this week: Individuals in and out of government may certainly have participated with the obviously known perpetrators of this dastardly act. Suspicions abound over the analysis presented by government. Obviously an act that has triggered three wars, Afghan, Iraqi and the continuing War on Terror, should be extensively investigated which was not done and which the government avoids addressing. Other high-level whistleblowers have alleged a cover-up as well. For example, Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski – whoblew the whistle on the Bush administration's efforts to concoct false intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction – wrote (page 26): I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American. Indeed, Ellsberg and Gravel join a long list of high-level former officials in the government and intelligence services – including many well-known whistleblowers – who have publicly demanded a new investigation. And see this. ***** The burden of proof is on the government boot lickers to establish that high-ranking government officials were not involved in the planning and execution of a terrorist attack on American soil. Until there has been an investigation led by people who do not want a high government office – that is, independent people – then the 9/11 Commission's Report must be discredited for what it is – propaganda.

Read more detail on Recent Constitutional Law Posts –

Legal notice about the Before the "Pentagon Papers," Secret Bombings Were a Conspiracy Theory rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Before the "Pentagon Papers," Secret Bombings Were a Conspiracy Theory?

This entry was posted in Constitutional Law and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply