The other night, someone sent me a link in an e-mail entitled “Greg Palast discredits 911 Truth.” Clicking on the link, I found myself at 911blogger.org watching an INN Report interview of Greg Palast.
At the very end, Palast tries to explain his frustration with the issue of the falling World Trade Center buildings. He has spent too much time trying to determine the evidence and without sufficient evidence is stymied. He does not take the time to explain himself fully — he probably believes the listeners do not want to hear the details of what it is like to build solid evidence in such a situation. Indeed, such explanations are not entertaining or the stuff of soundbites.
There is no one more sympathetic with Greg Palast on this point. The first time I heard Greg Palast review –step by step– his evidence trail on voter fraud it took my breath away. I had never seen someone dig out such astonishing amounts of hard evidence and put it together in such a solid, yet entertaining way. Here was someone who truly understood what it took to win in both a court of law and the court of popular opinion. Not only is Palast trained to produce evidence for a court of law, he has dealt with the hard knocks of being sued and threatened by those he exposes. How many amazing investigation pieces am I deeply grateful to Palast for writing? I can go through my fingers and toes counting them — Enron, Florida Voter Fraud, Barrick, World Bank in Latin America and on and on.
Finally, Palast knows that he has to run a financially sustainable operation. Despite the incredible leaks of documents and information that come his way, it is no small managerial feat to produce the hard scoops he does and keep the effort funded and organized while producing more scoops and organizing them into radio shows, tv shows, articles and books. That means that it is not possible to spend a year going down a rabbit hole on a story for which a complete trail of evidence is not available.
What this means, is that if Greg Palast wants to say “I don’t know what the truth of 911 is and it is beyond my resources to figure it out,” that is fine by me. We must each be able to do the best we can do — and if enough of us do that, it all adds up.
Sad to say, he did not do that. Nor did he use the format of Unanswered Questions — the questions that the government has been asked to answer and has not. It is a legitimate position to stick to questions when the government has the authority, money and resources to build the evidentiary trail, and private reporters do not — even reporters as extraordinary as Palast. Instead, he made a comment that would lead the uninformed listener to believe that Greg Palast believed that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 911. I am not sure how he can say that without having an evidentiary trail to support the theory that Osama Bin Laden is responsible — which is something, to my knowledge, that has yet to be produced.
Right after 911, I attended a church service. The preacher looked at the audience and said “We all know that no one can accomplish an attack like 911 alone. I came to preach today about the most important accomplice — Osama Bin Lucifer.” Now that seemed like a great idea to me — we could get into the deeper problem without getting caught in the complexity and
divisiveness of who “pulled the trigger.”
So I wish Palast had said he didn’t know or that he had questions that had not been answered, or that it was Osama Bin Lucifer, so we could share a bad guy who was not someone walking around in the material world as part of one side or another. I wish he had decided that it is not OK to promote official orthodoxy that has not been held to the same evidentiary standards to which he holds himself and the 911 Truth movement.
I don’t know why he handled it that way. However, Greg Palast has earned plenty of “get out of jail free” cards with me. So, I don’t agree with him on this, but he is all right by me. Ted Williams and Hank Aaron were my favorite all time baseball players and they did not get a hit every time at bat either. Thanks, Greg, for all you do. Keep doing it and let me know how I can give you energy.
Some time after watching Palast, a sad feeling come over me. I realized that several weeks ago, I had discovered that Stephen Marshall of Guerilla News Network had written a book, Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing — The New Liberal Menace in America. I think Guerilla News Network is terrific. I admire Marshall’s work and think his partner Ian Inaba is just terrific.
So I immediately ordered it — not an insignficant act if you know how many books people send me and how many are stacked up to be read. So I am reading along — it’s start off great — and then suddenly there is a reference to 911 that sounds like the official orthodoxy…and then on page 92 Marshall writes, ” But (Thomas) Friedman, and the millions who buy his books, is immune to it, because from his perspective, the forces of liberalism have only left enriched and industrialized societies in their wake. And this is precisely the kind of shortsigntedness that crippled the West’s ability to understand, or indeed prevent, the 9/11 attacks. In the somber days after al Queda hit New York and Washington, DC, Americans like Friedman were unwilling to identify the casual forces that had inspired the terrorists.”
Al Queda hit New York and Washington? This from a partner in Guerilla News Network that made Aftermath: The UnAnswered Questions of 911? I turn to the Index, check for World Trade Center and it appears that save one brief reference, the rest of the book appears silent on 911. I put the book down. Marshall is writing about Democrats and liberals who are pushing the party line. But if Marshall is attributing 911 to al Queda without an evidentiary trail, then it is not just the people he is writing about that are pushing a party line. I thought about the same type of reference in David Korten’s The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community — more promotion of an official orthodoxy that defies the facts as we know them — that I described in Material Omissions, Part I.
In total contrast, I recently finished David Ray Griffin’s A Call to Reflection and Action: Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 911. I am going to read it again — it is that good. As a Christian, I believe as my pastor in Washington once said, “If we can face it, God can fix it.” I think it takes a powerful faith to face the facts and unanswered questions of 911, to live with the complexity and uncertainty, let alone what it means about our current circumstances. It is this kind of faith that I feel in Griffin’s words and which I have seen in the efforts of hundreds of extraordinary colleagues throughout the 911 Truth movement. It is this kind of faith that is the beginning of power — the power we need to address our future in a positive manner.
I was sitting at dinner next to Jeff Golden several months ago. Among many other hats, Jeff is an excellent radio show host in Ashland, Oregon. He asked me about a particular organization that was highly regarded by his audience. I explained why I was not comfortable working with them, based on their dependency on government contracts and the positions that had caused them to adopt, as disclosed to me by a member of their senior management. Jeff asked me why I had said nothing about that on the shows that we had done. I explained that there were many good people working there and who liked them, and I did not want to hurt them or give offense. Jeff looked at me — almost shocked –and said, “You don’t understand, you have an obligation to tell people the truth. They depend on you for “the real deal.” They are really counting on you.” It was a sobering moment — one that started me thinking more about material omissions and my responsibility to avoid them.
The time has come to say something. Korten, then Marshall and then Palast — that is one too many. I want to write about positive things. I want to write about things that are rejuvenating, that give life. I want to research investments and invent transactions that will move us down the road in a more positive direction. But I know healthy markets and businesses first and foremost need the rule of the law. The rule of law does not start in the courts — it starts with the integrity of transparency and culture. I have decided to write something because I have faith. I have faith in the American people and, for that matter, people throughout North and South America, and Asia, for that matter, and Africa, Europe and Australia/New Zealand. I have faith in all living beings and in life — and in our future together despite the invasion that is upon us all. I side with Winston Churchill when he argued against appeasement and rather to “tell the people.”
The truth is hard to know, hard to tell. How do we share the responsibility to dig it out, piece it together, circulate it? It will take thousands if not millions of us to do so. I don’t have the answers — but I know we can find them. I know another world is possible. I send prayers tonight to David Ray Griffin and the courageous people who have stood and stand now for 911 Truth. I send prayers to Greg Palast and Steve Marshall for the truths that they have told and the work that they do. I send prayers to David Korten because I have lived through what he is afraid of and I know his fears are realistic. I send prayers to the those responsible for 911 –whoever they are — and for those who covered it up and those who profit from it — “for they know not what they do.”
And I send prayers to each of you and remind you of ally Caroline Casey’s encouraging words — our circumstances are far too dire for the luxury of realism – let us instead call forth the magic that comes in dangerous times.