Saturday, July 18, 2009

Walter Cronkite Speaks on 9/11 and Global Governance
art by Miguel Tio

Cronkite wrote an interesting but deceptive article in 2004 questioning the Bush administration motives in investigating 9/11. He was an integral part of the established order and perhaps not the 'saint' of the media that we are now being led to believe. Being an insider, you might think he had some insight as to 9/11 not being an 'arab' attack.

Mr. Cronkite never got to see his world government.

“It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government [emphasis mine] patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order. But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen.” {more}

Published on Sunday, April 11, 2004 by the King Features Syndicate

White House Hindering 9/11 Probe

by Walter Cronkite

Last week, this column trod, perhaps too softly, on the issue of the veracity of President Bush and his administration.

Since then, questions concerning their truthfulness -- or, at the minimum, their candor -- have multiplied alarmingly.

In this regard, the independent commission investigating 9/11 has smoked out the Bush administration as nothing has since George W. came into office pledging to return integrity to the White House. From the beginning of the commission's work, the White House has thrown in its way one roadblock after another regarding funding, duration and its access to people and documents. And time after time the White House has relented in the face of political pressure, but only as much as needed to reduce that pressure.

We recently witnessed a tug of war over National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who refused to appear before the panel (whose members have top-secret security clearance), under oath, to answer questions raised by Richard Clarke, both in his book and his testimony. It was, Rice and the White House insisted, a matter of principle that a presidential adviser not be so required -- the principle being the independence of the executive from the legislative branch and the president's right to protect the confidence of his advisers.

The fact that this commission was not a congressional body caused a lot of people to question the applicability of that principle, but be that as it may, it was the basis, we were told, of the president's stand -- until the pressure built up again, raising fears it could undercut the president's re-election campaign. Once again, the White House relented.

Then came the news that the administration had withheld from the 9/11 commission thousands of pages of counterterrorism documents (two-thirds of the total) from the Clinton administration that presumably reveal what the Democrats had done and, more importantly, what they had passed on to the incoming Bush administration.

President Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, trying to explain the White House policy, was quoted by The New York Times as saying some documents had been withheld because they were "duplicative or unrelated," and others because they were "highly sensitive." McClellan added a comment revealing the arrogance of the White House toward this whole investigation, saying, "We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job."

Well, that created a new firestorm, and the following day the White House backed down again, or seemed to. Members and some staff of the commission can go and read the documents in question, McClellan says, but he wouldn't say whether the White House would actually hand over copies. Furthermore, commission members and others felt that this raised a question about whether the White House has withheld similar Bush administration papers.

Once again, the president and his team have resisted cooperation with the commission, claiming principle, budget constraints, secrecy, irrelevance, duplication -- everything but the kitchen sink -- as its reasons, only to relent under pressure. The entire history of this investigation raises the question of whether the administration recognizes any principle higher than re-election.

There is no reason why this commission of important and responsible leaders from both sides of the political aisle should have to accept these continued insults to its integrity by an administration that demonstrates repeatedly its own lack of integrity so flagrantly.

When the commission's work is done, will the nation feel confident that it knows what can be known about how and why 9/11 happened, and what truly needs to be done to prevent a recurrence? Not at this rate. That assurance might have to await an assessment by a future body unhampered by the meddling of an administration whose resistance arouses suspicions that it has something -- perhaps much -- to hide in failing to protect the nation on 9/11.


1 comment:

  1. It's so blatantly obvious (to me at least) that 911 was a staged event. Holes in the groound with no wrecage, holes in the Pentagon with no wreckage? C'mon folks...

    I don't think the Americian Psyche can handle the fact that their own government would attack them in order to further the spread of globalism.