Helen & Harry Highwater's cranky weblog of news and opinion.
|
"News that's not known, or not known enough." Helen & Harry Highwater's cranky weblog of news and opinion. |
|
| 
|
|
|
Investigating 9/11, or not so much by Helen & Harry Highwater, Unknown News September 17, 2003 The 9/11 Commission was originally given a budget of $3-million to conduct its investigation. That's a little less than one-fifth of one percent of one percent The investigation's budget was later increased, after much complaining from the Commission itself, to $12-million. Some reports say the budget is now $14-million. By comparison, when the shuttle Columbia disintegrated during its descent in February 2003, $50-million was budgeted for an investigation, which began about an hour and a half after the disaster. Another $305-million was spent by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), searching for shuttle debris. The investigation into the shuttle accident began publicly releasing its findings within several weeks, and concluded its work with an exhaustive report about six months later.
You might think it would cost substantially more to thoroughly investigate a complicated event The Bush Administration seems to disagree. They think it should cost substantially less. At least, though, there finally IS an investigation. The government's 9/11 Commission moved into an office a few months ago, and they're hoping to have a report ready by mid-2004 (about 2½ years after the attacks). Lord knows, there's plenty to investigate. Reliable sources have repeatedly reported that the Bush Administration was expecting a terrorist attack in the autumn of 2001. Ponder that for a moment, and ask yourself, what does that mean? We'd like to know what it means, but all we know for sure is that we need an honest, open investigation. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, instead of coming back to the White House, Bush criss-crossed the country in Air Force One. When critics asked why, "White House sources" said a mysterious phone call had threatened Air Force One. But a few weeks later, White House officials said there had never been such a phone call. The non-existent threat got widespread media coverage, and the retraction got almost none. Ponder that -- while the rest of the nation was in shock and mourning on Sept. 12, 2001, the Bush Administration was lying about what had happened the day before. When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) voiced concern about toxins in the smoke after the World Trade Center collapsed, the White House re-wrote the EPA's concerns and reassured New Yorkers that there was nothing to worry about in the air. We're hoping the investigation will look into that. It's misinformation that might mean plenty to your long-term health, if you were living in the New York area in autumn of 2001. For the rest of the country, it suggests that in the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration was more concerned with calming the public than with telling the truth. While all private and commercial planes were grounded for days, the White House granted special permission for a huge entourage of the bin Laden family and their employees to fly home to Saudi Arabia. We certainly don't know what that might mean, but it's bizarre, isn't it. A serious investigation would seem like a good idea. But are we getting a serious investigation? Strangely, the Bush Administration worked hard for a year and a half after the attack, to limit, control, or effectively block any meaningful investigation of the 9/11 attacks. Incredibly, Bush even named Henry Kissinger to 'handle' the investigation of Sept. 11. When Kissinger's name proved too controversial, Bush picked Thomas Kean to chair the investigation, and Kean is the man running the investigation now. But Kean is an ex-business partner of Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law. Under ordinary circumstances, you might think that's a conflict of interest, and you might think mainstream journalists would point it out. The circumstances, however, are far from ordinary. President Bush, after all, got his start in the oil business in a partnership with Osama's brother. What on earth does that mean? In reality, Kean's conflict of interest probably means nothing, and Bush's partnership with Salem bin Laden is probably of no serious significance We mentioned the Warren Commission, above, and indeed, the Warren Commission provides a poignant comparison to the 9/11 investigation. Forty years after Kennedy's assassination, people still whisper misunderstood half-truths and harbor suspicions about who was really behind the events of November 22, 1963. The only thing that's widely agreed is that the Warren Commission's report was a sham, more concerned with calming the public than with telling the truth. And now, it looks like they've done it again. The Bush Administration has stood in the way of a meaningful investigation of Sept. 11, 2001 and, it seems, given us instead an investigation that will be remembered for raising more questions than it answers. And what does that mean? It means we might never know what it means.
Comments? newsuneed@yahoo.com
| Big howdy | Disclaimer for dummies | Our privacy policies |
|
|
