As we reflect once more on 9/11 as the sixth anniversary of those tragic events has come and gone, we need as a nation to focus on what is truly important.

Ranking at the top is a duty we owe to the victims of the tragedies and their families as well as loved ones, an independent investigation of the events that occurred on that unforgettable day.

First of all, we must take note of the fact that the Official 9/11 Commission that was ultimately convened and delivered a report was established only after the pressures on Dick Cheney and George W. Bush became insurmountable.  

Who could forget Cheney's words on the subject?  According to Cheney we should not investigate 9/11 since it would only take time and precious resources away from fighting terrorism.

With the enthusiastic support of CNN, Bush has relentlessly used the singed flesh of the people slaughtered on 9-11 to justify the monstrous lies that took us into war, and the lies that keep us there.

Strange how something happens and you're unaware that it "registers" with you. Later, perhaps, something will trigger that buried memory and things begin to fall into place.

Something happened on 9-11.

The day began with CNN's Wolf Blitzer frantically reporting that planes had smashed into Buildings 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center. They stood there, so tall that the smoke billowing from their upper floors could be seen for 20 miles. The scene was shocking, grisly, and the horror was broken only by the further news that a plane had rammed into the Pentagon. Death and destruction everywhere. Happening now -- right before our eyes.

Rudolph Guiliani, in Tuesday night's Republican candidates debate in New Hampshire your comments on the Iraq War constituted far more than political error.  They labeled you as a disgrace unfit to serve in any political office, much less the presidency.

In response to a question about the Iraq War you created a world of pathetic fantasy and sought to present this view not only as fact, but also with a tinge of counterfeit patriotism as you heralded George W. Bush's actions as a necessary means to combat world terrorism.

After tossing your ceremonial bouquets at your political hero George Bush, you then declared that because of an action you heralded as courageous, invading Iraq, Americans were now safer than they had been previous to that first shock and awe assault on Baghdad.

A March 20, 2007 editorial in the Los Angeles Times finds results of the Iraq War far less satisfying than Cheney-Bush neocon cheerleader Guiliani.  The nation has become a an international refugee tragedy, as delineated in one succinct paragraph:

Regarding Andrew Speaker's notorious international plane trips, carrying his potential deadly virus, the Seattle Times on June 1, 2007 asked this question:  "What was this guy thinking?  Health law experts say Speaker could be sued if others contract the disease."

Are there Homeland Security laws protecting U.S. citizens from individuals with deadly contagious diseases flying on airlines?

Concerning dangers U.S. citizens face, we vividly recall 9/11.  The 9/11 Commission reported that 2,600 died in that tragic disaster.

Sunday, June 3, 2007, CNN revealed that we have had over 30,l000 murders in the U.S.A. every year.  In 2007 alone, there have been 28 murders in certain Chicago schools, transforming these buildings erected to provide every child with free public education into shooting galleries.

N.B.: An earlier version of this diary was posted to DailyKos, troll-rated, deleted, and led to suspension of my account within two hours.

Hustler magazine's latest issue devotes its lead article ("Was 9/11 An Inside Job?") to "new scientific evidence" that the destruction of the WTC towers was an inside job. This evidence from university and industry scientists and engineers, while certainly not "new" in journalistic terms, suggests the towers were likely brought down by controlled demolition.  

Hustler's effort comes almost exactly one year after Maxim's considerably longer and more indepth feature of March 2006, which asks "What Really Brought Down the Towers?"

What's going on here? Why has the most important media exposure for the 9/11 Truth Movement come from vehicles for male masturbatory fantasies, locker and bathroom humor, and Charlie Sheen?

Carolyn Baker interviewed by Jason Miller

Deep crimson stains mottle the pages of humanity's history. Untold numbers of souls who were skewered, decapitated, eviscerated, or obliterated in anonymity scream out for recognition as one peruses humankind's memoirs. While our historical manuscript is also generously dappled by the milk of human kindness, much of our narrative is dominated by tales of man's savage cruelty to man.

In light of the recent media circus surrounding the execution of Saddam Hussein, I think America needs the following reminder. Please spread this message as far and wide as you can.

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela made two remarkable speeches at the United Nations just four days apart on September 16th and 20th.  In the typical fashion of the mainstream media most every substantive point that Chavez made was ignored, which comprised most of his speaking itinerary, focusing on global economics and how to correct the increasing appalling gap between rich and poor internationally.

In the typical fashion of the tepid "excuse me" current Democratic Party, where the style favored by Joe Lieberman along with Fox pundits Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity is preferred to that of heretics such as Jim Hightower and Al Franken, two leading figures of what sadly passes these days for Republican Party opposition surfaced to denounce Hugo Chavez in conveying a warped interpretation of U.S. unity.

Perhaps it was understandable why Congressman Charles Rangel of New York City and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco sharply denounced certain Chavez remarks.  

They should have been greatly embarrassed since it took a leader of a South American nation to make the case that certain bona fide Democratic Party progressives used to make in what looms as an increasingly distant and scarcely observable past.

"Today, President Bush said the United States is still under the threat of attack, and will continue to be right up until Election Day."

-- Jay Leno 8/29/2006

Once again, Republicans have defined the debate for the upcoming elections -- and it's one we've seen before.

Republicans: "The Iraq war is central to the greater fight against terrorism."

And the Democrats latch on: "The Iraq war detracts from the greater fight against terrorism."

So there you go. Iraq and the fight against terrorism -- together once again. And the only thing the American people will hear over and over and over again is: "Iraq and the war on terror... Iraq and the war on terror... Iraq and the war on terror..." The details are easily clouded and thus relatively inconsequential.

This plays perfectly into the overall issue of 'fighting terrorism', the falsely perceived strength of Republicans. And it will be the defining debate for this election cycle. More importantly, Monsieur Rove will continue with his long-time, frightfully successful strategy of taking his opponent's strength (in this case, the Republican's failure in Iraq) and driving it straight through their political heart (In this case, reframing the Iraq War as the central beam supporting the greater "War on Terror".)

And the Democrats are obliging them by jumping right on board. Of course Dems think they're setting the stage by attacking the Republican's weak spot (Iraq) but instead, they are highlighting and accentuating the Republican frame that the United States is in 'constant peril' and a 'critical state of danger' from various, innumerable, faceless, international 'Islamo-facist' bedevilers.

In short, the Dems are supporting the frame that makes the Republican fear-mongering so damn effective in coercing the American electorate.

The truth will out: in his press conference today, Bush literally admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

"A reporter yelled out, "What did Iraq have to do with the 9-11 attack?" and Bush yelled, "Nothing!'"

I don't have the tech ability -- but somebody who does: please, please record that exchange and set it loose on YouTube.

In his latest column for the New York Times, Paul Krugman discusses the way John McCain is cozying up with Jerry Falwell and the Religious Right. It used to be that McCain was an avowed enemy of these people and thought that they had no place in the Republican Party. His campaign against them was a campaign against them just as much as it was a campaign against Bush. But now, John McCain has flip-flopped. From being an enemy of the Religious Right, he had blatantly sucked up to Jerry Falwell, the very man who was the symbol of the evils John McCain was supposedly against.

You see, the problem is that John McCain is not knowledgeable when it comes to Iraq. So, the logical question is, what else is he not knowledgeable about? Apparently, he is not knowledgeable about social issues, either. So, instead of thinking for himself, he forfeits his credibility as a maverick and drinks at the halls of power with Jerry Falwell instead.

It is always better to say right out what you think without trying to prove anything much: for all our proofs are only variations of our opinions, and the contrary-minded listen neither to one nor the other."~~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I said I'd never do it -- say what I think about that terrible morning of September 11, 2001. I've seen what happens to those who question the elaborate, tangled explanations the Bush administration offers about what happened, how it happened, who did it, and why they did it. It doesn't matter if those who dare speak truth to the lies are professors, investigative reporters, eyewitnesses, scientists -- "conspiracy theorist" is immediately tattooed on their foreheads. They are jeered at, ridiculed, spat upon and swift-boated right out of the room. They are banished to the outskirts of civilized society.

A recent Zogby poll has been getting a fair amount of press because 72% of soldiers say they want to come home.  That is understandable, and not all that newsworthy.  What is stunning to me is why the soldiers think they are Iraq.