The Candidate: If he doesn't take on 9/11, do you care? [View All]

[JackRiddler]

Sure, everyone's ABB, but what does that mean? Are you willing to let the Bush accomplishments of perpetual war and repression stand unchallenged and unchanged? Are you willing to let the Bush regime escape with murder?

9/11 is not history. It was the lever with which the world itself was shifted, and continues to be moved. It was casus belli for two wars and pretext for a new police state, including the USA PATRIOT Act. It has transformed our society, our economy and the federal budget. And to this day, it remains untouched by a credible investigation, despite the outcry and demands of the victims themselves.

Yesterday's historic statement of the 9/11 families, on the questions Bush and the Kean Commission have failed to answer, should have been the big headline worldwide. The Bush regime from the beginning has obstructed the investigations in many ways and in absolutely farcical ways (just think: Kissinger), to the point where the Kean Commission was about to subpeona... its own notes, which the White House had classified.

Remember Max Cleland's resignation from the 9/11 Commission? He said "Bush is scamming America," "this government knew more about these terrorists than they have revealed," "I don't want to make the mistakes of the Warren Commission." Then he was given a new job by Bush and he went silent. He also showed up alongside Kerry, but no longer addressed the 9/11 issue.

In thread after thread and internal poll after poll, DU members express support for the well-grounded theory that the Bush regime allowed the attacks to happen for its own gain and as a means of transforming the world, and that our government's covert operators and their friends had a hand in actually orchestrating the attacks. (For those of you who need an introduction, I will provide links galore later in this thread.)

Kucinich once called for an investigation but has been conspicuously silent on this issue, unlike some of his supporters. Dean mentioned it briefly in his "interesting theory" remarks, but did not defend himself vigorously enough when he was attacked for it by right-wingers and Kerry. Nevertheless, this was no doubt one of the signals that he was too unpredictable for the powers-that-be - alongside his comment that he would break up the media cartels.

Given all that, given 3,000 dead in my hometown, given the spectacle of a color-coded coordination of our fear by a bunch of gangsters, given all the death and destruction that the Bush regime has only been able to wreak thanks to 9/11, given their endless criminal pedigree, I cannot take seriously any candidate who does not address 9/11; who, like Kerry, in fact ridicules others who address 9/11, even though he has Max Cleland on his campaign team.

The demand for 9/11 truth disclosure is a central issue; I will not compromise, I will accept no candidate who does not stand with the Family Steering Committee, with full truth disclosure and the idea of a full, truly independent investigation with subpeona power and testimony under oath. I cannot accept a candidate who risks legitimating Bush (if he wins) without ever having called the regime out for its fascism and big lie politics. And I will not accept any candidate supporters' assurances that this issue will be treated one day when it's safe to tread upon it. Speak clearly before the election, or I can never trust you or support you.

911truth.org