Pelosi and Harman Aided and Abetted 9/11 Cover Up

House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi is blocking efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney, or to take any other real steps to save America. One of the grounds for impeachment is that the government made knowingly false claims about 9/11.

Congresswoman Jane Harman chaired the hearing of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security which pushing for the labeling 9/11 truth sites as terrorist incubators.

What do these two congresswomen have in common? They were both part of the 9/11 cover up.

Veteran reporter Robert Scheer gives the background in his opinion piece today in the San Francisco Chronicle. The first two lines of the piece set the stage:

"When the CIA destroyed those prisoner interrogation videotapes, were they also destroying the truth about Sept. 11, 2001? After all, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the basic narrative of what happened on that day - and the nature of the enemy in this war on terror that Bush launched in response to the tragedy - comes from the CIA's account of what those prisoners told their torturers.

Scheer then moves on to Pelosi and Harman' role in the cover up:

But what about those congressional leaders who were briefed on the torture program as early as 2002? That includes Democrats like Nancy Pelosi . . . .

Pelosi claimed that "several months later" her successor as the ranking Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman of Los Angeles County, was advised the techniques "had in fact been employed" and wrote a classified letter to the CIA in protest, and Pelosi "concurred." Neither went public with her concerns.

Harman told the Washington Post "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four . . . an insider reference to the top members of the House and Senate intelligence committees . . . .

Not only did the congressional Gang of Four fail to inform the public about the use of torture by our government but they also kept the 9/11 Commission in the dark.

Pelosi testified before the commission on May 22, 2003 but uttered not a word of caution about the methods used. However, more than two years later on Nov. 16, 2005, Pelosi stated correctly that on the basis of her "many years on the intelligence committee," she knew that "The quality of intelligence that is collected by torture is ... uncorroborated and it is worthless."

***
As matters now stand, they not only concealed torture but, more significantly, they abetted the waterboarding of our democracy.

Pelosi and Harman played an instrumental role in the 9/11 cover up by keeping their knowledge about the interrogation videotapes secret from the 9/11 Commission and from the American people (they weren't the only ones who knew). This is made all the worse because Pelosi knew that intelligence "collected by torture" is worthless, and yet she never even hinted to the Commission or to anyone else that the CIA's version of events should be questioned. They could have stopped the whole farce cold -- but they chose to go along with it.

These two congresswomen -- who are fighting against 9/11 truth -- previously aided and abetted the 9/11 cover up. Is that why they don't want the truth to come out?

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Excuses

You've heard the excuses:

• We can't impeach, because we don't have the votes

• We can't impeach, because then we won't get anything done

• We can't impeach, because people will think we're mean and nasty

Well, a picture is worth a thousand words. Take a look at this photo from today:

Does it look like there is any way that the majority leaders of the House (Pelosi) and Senate (Reid) have any intention of standing up to Bush? Or does it look like no matter what the White House proposes -- war against Iran? shredding of another part of the Constitution? stupid new economic policy? -- they'll smile and put their best face on it (like Pelosi, on Bush's left) or tie themselves up into pretzels to avoid a confrontation (like Reid, on Bush's right)?

Do these look like people who want to stand up to wannabe-fascists and lead? Or do they look like people who are desperate to avoid taking the wheel (other than in a pretend, student-driver like manner)?

Given the "lead, follow, or get out of the way" test which should apply to all politicians, Pelosi and Reid should immediately resign their positions. The American people demand leadership, and Pelosi and Reid are neither providing it or allowing the people to lead the charge of impeachment themselves. So they should get out of the way of the will of the public.

Call In the Bulldog

Ed Haas is on the money when he rallies everyone to contact new House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

However, it is important to also call in the bulldog. Without getting help from the bulldog, Pelosi will never listen.

Who's the bulldog?

Congressman Henry Waxman.

Waxman may be a super-nerdy looking guy, but he is the bulldog of investigations in the House. Even when there was no chance of criminal prosecutions due to the political make-up of the House, Waxman methodically documented wrongdoing in multiple areas and issued numerous, well-documented reports of wrongdoing.

Indeed, the scoop from Republican insiders before the election was that the biggest fear was Waxman being in the majority party, since he is such an investigative bulldog (the other main fear was Conyers being in the majority party in the Senate and initiating impeachment proceedings).

While contacting Pelosi is vital, she will not lift a finger unless Waxman tells her it is a vital issue with abundant evidence of wrongdoing. He's the guy who digs up the dirt, and he's been champing at the bit for years to bring criminal investigations against the wrongdoers in Washington. Light a fire under Waxman about 9/11, and he will light a fire under the House leadership.

So please write a thoughtful letter laying out the FACTS which prove that 9/11 was an inside job, and politely demand that Waxman investigate. Please write AND fax. If you have time, please also call.

You should know that Waxman has already called for investigations into certain aspects of 9/11. See here, here, here, here, here, and here.

And Waxman recently said that there are so many areas of wrongdoing by the Bush administration, that "The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose" which areas to pursue.

Thoughtful, fact-based letters with links to source materials may push him to the next level concerning 9/11. And once the bulldog is on the trail of wrongdoing, he just might not let go.

Waxman's contact information is:

In Washington, D.C.:

2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-3976 (phone)
(202) 225-4099 (fax)

In Los Angeles:

8436 West Third Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90048
(323) 651-1040 (phone)
(818) 878-7400 (phone)
(310) 652-3095 (phone)
(323) 655-0502 (fax)

If you don't know where to start with your letter, look here.

Rotten to the Core

Those who still have hope that the Democrats will save them from the Neoconservatives have forgotten something.

The Democratic leadership in the country does not give 2 cents about what is best for the American people. Don't believe me?

The Democrats just handed the White House even more powers to spy on Americans that it had under its secret, illegal spying program.

And Speaker of the House Pelosi refuses to impeach or conduct a new 9/11 investigation, even though a majority of Americans want Cheney impeached and the government's version of 9/11 is about as solid as swiss cheese that's been left out in the sun for a week.

And Cindy Sheehan says "John Conyers told me ... that winning the presidency in ’08 was more important to him than ending the war in Iraq." Get it? The head of the Judiciary Committee, charged with upholding the rule of law in America, cares more about politics than about the Constitution, the people or the country.

If you still don't get it, its because you don't understand that -- just like neoconservatives are NOT real conservatives -- neoliberals do not hold any traditional progressive values. They are just a velvet-gloved version of the Republicans, a "kinder, gentler face" of the same machine.

The Democrats will not investigate 9/11, they won't do anything other than posture about getting out of the Iraq war, they won't question anything having to do with Israeli policy. Nancy Pelosi, that most "liberal" of congress people from San Francisco, has said repeatedly that "impeachment is off the table", even though impeachment is the one thing which might restore the balance of powers and the Constitutional rule of law. The Democrats have been just as bas as Republicans in carrying out false flag attacks. Hillary Clinton has said that, if she's elected president, the Iraqi war will probably continue until the end of her first 4-year term. She and Barack Obama have strongly hinted that they are for war against Iran.

The American government is rotten to the core. The Democrats won't save us.

The sooner we wake up to that fact, that sooner we can start taking real action to change things and save the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

I was raised in a Democratic household, and grew up believing the Democrats were "the good guys". My family has close friends who are fairly influential in the Democratic party. In addition, I regularly slam the Republicans (see, for example, this essay). And I have -- despite all of the contrary evidence -- held out hope that the Dems might finally start doing the right thing. So good luck trying to paint me as being a partisan Republican.

Here's What the Democrats are REALLY Thinking

True, Democrats are just as weasley as the neoconservatives currently trespassing in the hollowed grounds of the White House.

But there's a purely political calculation which is also driving the Democrats, and about which they are deadly wrong.

When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into effect in 1964, he famously said that, by signing the bill, it would ensure that democrats would "lose the South for a generation".

Ancient history? Not really.

Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid and the other Democrat leaders are secretly telling each other:

"If we keep pretending like we oppose the Iraq War, oppose the Iran war, oppose the destruction of the Constitution, oppose spying on Americans, oppose torture, oppose vote fraud, but then we don't really fix anything, the Republicans will lose the country for a generation starting in 2008."

The knuckleheads think that actually doing anything by revoking their authorization for the "war on terror", holding a real investigation into 9/11, cutting Iraq war funding, passing legislation against invading Iran, impeaching Cheney, Bush and company, restoring the Bill of Rights, restoring checks and balances, stopping spying or stopping torture would kill their plan.

Because -- these numbskulls think -- if they fix anything, people won't have as much to be mad about that is going wrong, and so they won't throw the Republicans out on their ears.

Not only is this a very destructive, cynical calculation which is flushing our nation down the toilet, but it is wrong -- even on its own, cynical terms.

Why?

There won't be a country to win, because it is being effectively destroyed.

Torture is causing hatred towards America to become so strong that you won't want to be its leader.

Shenanigans with the nation's finances mean that there won't be any economy for you to manage.

Authorizations of big brother spying are destroying your liberty to govern, as well as your constituents' liberty.

Stolen elections may mean that you won't stand a chance in the first place.

And further false flag attacks, or wars (against Iran, Syria, etc.) , between now and election time might mean that elections have to be "postponed" due to "national emergency" or disruption of the nation's infrastructure.

The strategy of the Democratic leadership will not be successful. The Democratic leaders are not only selfish and corrupt, they are also stupid.

Let's Talk Impeachment, Not Violent Revolution

Apparently, a number of articles and groups are discussing -- in one way or another -- violent revolution. See, for example, this essay.

Prominent impeachment activists argue that impeachment, rather than violent revolution, is the appropriate mechanism built into the Constitution to fight tyranny.

But some people respond that Congress won't impeach, and so that mechanism is not available. Specifically, House leader Pelosi has said "impeachment is off the table", Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers won't take action, and the Congress as a whole simply won't start impeachment proceedings. So they argue that with impeachment unavailable, the only option left is violence.

But I think that argument is missing a very important point.

Nixon said he didn't care what the American people thought. He said that -- no matter what the public did or said -- he was going to escalate the war in Vietnam. Nixon actually planned to drop a nuclear bomb on Vietnam (and see this). However, a well-known biographer says that he backed off when hundreds of thousands of people turned out in Washington, D.C. to protest an escalation of the war.

This could work today. If a million Americans peacefully surround Capitol Hill and hold signs saying "we're not leaving until the Constitution and the rule of law are restored: IMPEACH", Congress would be forced to start impeachment proceedings -- no matter what they've been saying or doing.

No matter how subservient Congress and the corporate media are, they could not ignore a peaceful sit-in surrounding Capitol Hill. A non-violent action of that size, and totally surrounding Congress, simply could not be ignored.

Therefore, why is anyone talking about violent revolution when we haven't tried smart, creative forms of mass action demanding impeachment?

I am not naive. I understand that there are arguments against non-violence. However, I believe so strongly in non-violence that I am committed to giving it every possible chance to succeed.