Home | Newest Editions | Most Popular Issues | Free Newsletters | Forums

Custom Search
Publication: ViewPoint
9-11 Analysis Part 2

Subscribe FREE to ViewPoint by clicking here.

"Exploring The Powerful Issues & Emotions of The Middle East" 
  Reaching out to 51,228 Viewpoint readers around the globe

Editor's Note:

Here is part 2 of David Ray Griffin’s analysis of 9-11. 

Guaranteed To Improve the Look & Feel of Your Skin...
At A Price Guaranteed To Save You Money...


Store Price: $15.99
OUR PRICE: $5.99 or Two for $9.98

Neutrogena Pore Refining Cream is a daily moisturizer 
clinically proven to visibly reduce the appearance of pores 
for smooth, even-looking skin. This product uses a break-
through formula with a patented liposome delivery system 
and effective combination of Retinol and Alpha-Hydroxy 

- Retinol, the purest form of Vitamin A, works deep within 
  the skin's surface to visibly reduce the appearance and 
  size of pores and refine skin texture.

- Alpha-Hydroxy Acid eliminates dull surface skin that can 
  make skin look rough and uneven.

- Non-greasy formula builds moisture levels for softer, 
  smoother skin.

Grab a tube or two of Neutrogena's breakthrough cream. You 
won't find a better price. NEUTROGENA PORE REFINING CREAM

                Video Clip Of The Week

            9-11 Truth: Power Downs at WTC

 What has gone unreported from the media who are complicit 
 in the 9-11 cover-up is the fact that prior to 9-11, 
 there were unusual power downs at the WTC. Were explosive 
 planted at that time? 
View: 9-11 Truth: Power Downs at WTC 
IV. Why Did the President and His Secret Service Agents 
Remain at the School? 

Upon hearing that a plane had struck one of the Twin 
Towers, President Bush reportedly believed that it was an 
accident. It was not terribly strange, therefore, that he 
decided to go ahead with the photo-op at the school in 
Sarasota. Word of the second strike, however, should have 
indicated to his Secret Service agents---assuming that 
these strikes were unexpected---that the country was 
undergoing an unprecedented terrorist attack. And yet he 
was allowed to remain at the school for another half hour. 

This behavior was very strange. The president's location 
had been highly publicized. If the attacks were indeed 
unexpected, the Secret Service, having no idea how many 
planes had been hijacked, would have suspected that the 
president himself was one of the targets: What could be 
more satisfying to foreign terrorists attacking high-value 
targets than to kill the president? For all the Secret 
Service would have known, a hijacked airliner might have 
been bearing down on the school at that very minute, ready 
to crash into it, killing the president and everyone else 
there---including the Secret Service agents themselves. It 
is, in any case, standard procedure for the Secret Service 
to rush the president to a safe location whenever there is 
any sign that he may be in danger. And yet these agents, 
after allowing the president to remain in the classroom 
another 10 minutes, permitted him to deliver his regularly 
scheduled TV address, thereby announcing to the world that 
he was still at the school. 

Would not this behavior be explainable only if the head of 
the Secret Service detail knew that the targets did not 
include the president? And how could this have been known 
unless the attacks were being carried out by people within 
our own government? The 9/11 Commission, far from asking 
these questions, said only: “The Secret Service told us 
they . . . did not think it imperative for [the president] 
to run out the door.”[58] A serious inquiry into this 
matter, therefore, remains to be made. 

V. Why Did the 9/11 Commission Lie about Vice President 
Cheney’s Activities? 

One sign of the complicity of Vice President Cheney is the 
fact that the 9/11 Commission evidently felt a need to lie 
about the time of two of his activities: his entry into the 
Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) under the 
White House and authorization to shoot down any hijacked 

It had been widely reported that the vice president had 
gone down to the PEOC shortly after the second strike on 
the WTC, hence about 9:15.[59] The most compelling witness 
was Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who 
testified to the 9/11 Commission that when he entered the 
PEOC at 9:20, Cheney was already there. The 9/11 Commission 
Report, however, claimed that Cheney did not enter the PEOC 
until “shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.”[60] Mineta’s 
testimony was simply omitted from the final report of the 
Zelikow-led 9/11 Commission. Why would the Commission go to 
such lengths---telling an obvious lie and omitting publicly 
available evidence---to conceal the true time of Cheney’s 
entry into the PEOC? 

One possible reason would involve the testimony of Mineta, 
who said: 

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the 
Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say 
to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The 
plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane 
is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice 
President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice 
President . . . said, “Of course the orders still stand. 
Have you heard anything to the contrary?”[61] 

Mineta reported that this conversation occurred at about 
9:25 or 9:26. 

This testimony creates a problem for the official story. 
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s spokesman, in explaining 
why the Pentagon was not evacuated before it was struck, 
claimed that “[t]he Pentagon was simply not aware that 
this aircraft was coming our way.”[62] The 9/11 Commission 
supported this claim, alleging that there was no warning 
about an unidentified aircraft heading towards Washington 
until 9:36 and hence only “one or two minutes” before the 
Pentagon was struck at 9:38.[63] Mineta’s account, however, 
says that Cheney knew about an approaching aircraft more 
than 10 minutes earlier. There would have been over 
12 minutes for the Pentagon to be evacuated; 125 lives 
could have been saved. 

Mineta’s account also implies that Cheney had issued stand-
down orders. Mineta himself did not make this allegation, 
saying instead that he assumed that “the orders” were to 
have the plane shot down. But that interpretation does not 
fit what actually happened--the aircraft was not shot down. 
It would also make the story unintelligible: The young 
man’s question whether the orders still stood would not 
make sense unless they were orders to do something 
unexpected---not to shoot the aircraft down. By omitting 
Mineta’s testimony and stating that Cheney did not enter 
the PEOC until almost 10:00, the 9/11 Commission implied 
that Cheney could not have given a stand-down order to 
allow an aircraft to strike the Pentagon. 

The full brazenness of the Commission’s lie is illustrated 
by the fact that it contradicts Cheney’s own account, which 
can still be read on the White House website. Speaking on 
NBC’s “Meet the Press” five days after 9/11, Cheney said: 
“[A]fter I talked to the president, . . . I went down into 
. . . the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. . . . 
[W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word 
the Pentagon's been hit.”[64] So he got there, as Mineta 
said, some time before the Pentagon was struck, not 20 
minutes afterwards. 

The lie about Cheney’s entry into the PEOC was also 
important to the controversy over whether the US military 
shot down Flight 93. The 9/11 Commission, simply ignoring 
a vast amount of evidence that the plane had been shot 
down,[65] supported the official claim that it was not 
shot down by claiming that Cheney, having not arrived at 
the PEOC until almost 10:00, did not issue the shoot-down 
order until after 10:10---which would have been seven or 
more minutes after Flight 93 had crashed (at 10:03, accord-
ing to the official account). But in addition to the 
evidence that Cheney had been in the PEOC since about 9:15, 
we also have evidence---including statements from Richard 
Clarke, who was the national coordinator for security and 
counterterrorism, and Colonel Robert Marr, the head of 
NORAD’s northeast sector (NEADS)[66]---that Cheney’s shoot-
down order was issued well before 10:00.[67] 

The 9/11 Commission’s obvious lies about Cheney’s 
activities give reason to suspect that it, under the 
leadership of Philip Zelikow, was trying to conceal 
Cheney’s responsibility for the Pentagon strike and the 
downing of Flight 93.[68] 

Incidentally, although Michael Bronner’s aforementioned 
article and the movie United 93, on which he worked, were 
obviously intended to bolster the official account about 
this flight, they do not refute the conclusion that this 
account is false. For one thing, the cell phone calls, 
which play a central role in the drama, were 
technologically impossible in 2001.[69] Moreover, Major 
General Larry Arnold, who was the commanding general of 
NORAD’s Continental Region at the time, said after seeing 
United 93: “The movie trailer said the military was not 
notified of UAL 93 until 4 minutes after it had crashed. 
That is not true as we were notified a short time before 
it crashed. . . . I advised Col. Marr to intercept UAL 

VI. Did the Bush-Cheney Administration Have Motives for 
Orchestrating the 9/11 Attacks? 

When prosecuting attorneys seek to prove the defendant to 
be guilty as charged, they have to show “means, motive, 
and opportunity.” It is clear that the Bush-Cheney 
administration, including its Pentagon under the leadership 
of Donald Rumsfeld, had---unlike al-Qaeda---the means and 
the opportunity to orchestrate the events of 9/11. Of the 
several motives that high officials in the administration 
would have had, I will mention three: 

Afghanistan: Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Grand 
Chessboard, said that establishing military bases in 
Central Asia would be crucial for maintaining “American 
primacy,” partly because of the huge oil reserves around 
the Caspian Sea. But American democracy, he added, “is 
inimical to imperial mobilization,” which requires 
“economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and
. . . human sacrifice (casualties even among professional 
soldiers).” Explaining that the public had “supported 
America’s engagement in World War II largely because of 
the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,” 
Brzezinski suggested that Americans today would support 
the needed military operations in Central Asia only “in 
the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived 
direct external threat.”[71] 

Support for these operations was generated by the 9/11 
attacks plus the claim by the Bush-Cheney administration 
that these attacks had been planned in Afghanistan by 
Osama bin Laden—-a claim for which the administration 
refused to provide any proof[72] and for which even the 
FBI admits that it “has no hard evidence.”[73] 

I'm Walking Here....

Here's an item (the Telescopic Walking Stick) that I never 
really thought I would use. But I decided to try it out
when we went for a walk along a trail a few weeks ago. 

It was fun to use.... yes I said fun. When we would come 
up to a stream, I would poke at things in it. I also used 
it when I wanted to venture off the beaten path, just to 
make sure that there were no snakes in front of me. Believe 
it or not, it made the walk more enjoyable. Check it out 
and the unbelievable low price. 

Normal Price: $19.99

Whether you're an avid hiker or just looking for a little
extra help walking around, the Telescopic Walking Stick 
is just what you need. It's fully adjustable to fit your 
height and the spring loaded shaft helps reduce strain on 
your wrists, back, knees, legs and feet. With a built in 
compass it will get you through hard rocky terrain or just 
across the street. 
Make Walking Fun with The Walking Stick

A more specific motivation was provided by the “pipeline 
war.”[74] The Bush-Cheney administration supported UNOCAL’s 
plan to build an oil-and-gas pipeline through Afghanistan, 
but the Taliban, being unable to provide sufficient 
security, had become regarded as an obstacle. In a July 
2001 meeting in Berlin, representatives of the 
administration, trying to get the Taliban to share power 
with other factions, reportedly said, “Either you accept 
our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a 
carpet of bombs.”[75] When the Taliban refused, the 
Americans reportedly said that “military action against 
Afghanistan would go ahead . . . before the snows started 
falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the 

Given the fact that the attacks on New York and Washington 
occurred on September 11, the U.S. military had time to get 
logistically ready to begin the attack on Afghanistan on 
October 7. 

Iraq: Some key members of the Bush-Cheney administration---
including Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Donald 
Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney himself---had in the late 1990s 
been active members of an organization, the Project for the 
New American Century (PNAC), that advocated attacking Iraq 
to remove Saddam Hussein, establish a strong military 
presence, and control the oil.[77] PNAC’s Rebuilding 
America’s Defenses, released late in 2000, reiterated the 
idea of a permanent military presence in the Gulf region, 
saying that the “unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the 
immediate justification,” but “the need for a substantial 
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue 
of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”[78] 

Immediately upon taking office, both Paul 0’Neill and 
Richard Clarke have revealed, the Bush administration was 
intent on taking over Iraq. The only question was “finding 
a way to do it,” as O’Neill put it. “The terrorist attacks 
of September 11,” said Bob Woodward, “gave the U.S. a new 
window to go after Hussein.” Although no Iraqis were among 
the alleged hijackers, the Bush administration was able to 
use 9/11 as a pretext to attack Iraq. Given the state of 
fear created of fear created in the American psyche by 
9/11, the administration needed only to fabricate evidence 
that Saddam was acquiring nuclear weapons while also 
suggesting that he had been involved in 9/11.[79] 

Increased Military Spending: A second possible motive was 
provided by PNAC’s more general goal of increasing America’s
military superiority sufficiently to establish a global Pax 
Americana. This goal had already been asserted in the 1992 
draft of the “Defense Planning Guidance,” written by 
Wolfowitz and Libby under the guidance of Cheney, who was 
completing his tenure as secretary of defense. 

In 2000, Wolfowitz and Libby were participants in PNAC’s 
project to produce Rebuilding America’s Defenses, in which 
this goal showed up again. This document also contained an 
idea perhaps derived from Brzezinski’s book: After saying 
that the desired Pax Americana “must have a secure 
foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence” 
and that such preeminence will require a technological 
transformation of the US military, it added that this 
process of transformation will “likely be a long one, 
absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new 
Pearl Harbor."[80] 

When 9/11 came, it was immediately treated as “the Pearl 
Harbor of the 21st century,” as Bush reportedly called it 
that very night.[81] It was also characterized as, in 
Bush’s words, “a great opportunity,”[82] with Rumsfeld 
adding that 9/11 created “the kind of opportunities that 
World War II offered, to refashion the world.”[83] This 
idea then showed up in the previously mentioned Rice-
Zelikow document, The National Security Strategy of the 
United States of America for 2002, which brazenly said: 
“The events of September 11, 2001 opened vast, new 

A central dimension of the desired technological 
transformation of the military was the weaponization 
of space, euphemistically called “Missile Defense.” 
(One neocon, Lawrence Kaplan, has candidly said: 
“Missile defense isn’t really meant to protect America. 
It’s a tool for global domination.”[85]) In January of 
2001, the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security 
Space Management and Organization, which was chaired 
by Rumsfeld, published its report. Speaking of the need 
for massive funding for the U.S. Space Command, the 
Rumsfeld Commission asked whether such funding would 
occur only after a “Space Pearl Harbor.”[86] 

On the evening of 9/11 itself, Rumsfeld held a press 
conference. Senator Carl Levin, the chair of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, was asked: “Senator Levin, you 
and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you 
simply don’t have enough money for the large increase in 
defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for 
missile defense. . . . Does this sort of thing convince 
you that an emergency exists in this country to increase 
defense spending?”[87] Congress immediately appropriated 
an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon and hundreds 
of billions more later, with few questions asked. 

Conclusion: The Preeminent Importance of 9/11

The above evidence, plus the fact that all the “evidence” 
that seems to implicate the alleged hijackers, such as 
cellphone calls, airport photos, and discovered luggaqe 
and passports, appears to have been fabricated, leads to 
the conclusion that 9/11 was a false-flag operation 
orchestrated by the Bush administration for primarily 
imperial reasons.[88] 

If this conclusion is correct, then exposing the falsity of 
the official account of 9/11 should be high on the agenda 
of all people committed to reversing the present policies 
of the U.S. government, for at least four reasons. 

First, 9/11 has provided the pretext for at least most of 
the malevolent and destructive policies carried out by 
the Bush-Cheney administration since that day. When any 
objection is raised to this administration’s illicit 
policies---from illegal invasions to torture to illegal 
spying to weaponizing space to talk of a nuclear first 
strike---the answer is always the same: “The critics fail 
to understand that the world changed on 9/11.” Until the 
truth about 9/11 is exposed, it will remain a blank check 
for virtually anything desired by this administration. 

Second, the truth about 9/11 is one truth that the American 
people would not tolerate. They have proven remarkably, 
even disturbingly, tolerant of many other things---such as 
the clear indication from the Downing Street memo that the 
Bush administration planned to “fix” the intelligence 
about Iraq’s WMDs---that should have led to demands for 
impeachment.[89] But the American people simply would not 
allow an administration to stay in power after learning 
that it had orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. 

Third, the orchestration of the attacks of 9/11 goes 
far beyond any previous instance of “high crimes and 
misdemeanors” that have previously been cited as cause 
for impeachment. The attacks were---in the words of Bush, 
Cheney, and Rumsfeld themselves---heinous crimes. Any U.S. 
citizens who participated in planning, carrying out, and/or 
covering up these attacks are guilty of treason, as defined 
by Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution, because these 
attacks were acts of war against the United States---again, 
according to the assessment of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld 
themselves. If this treason is not publicly uncovered and 
prosecuted, there is little hope for the survival of the 
democratic forms we still have. If we fail to have a 
serious investigation of the prima facie evidence for such 
treason---especially given the fact that this evidence, 
once examined, is overwhelming[90]---we will in effect be 
telling the perpetrators that they can get away with 
virtually anything. 

Finally, to reverse the policies of the Bush-Cheney 
administration will require more than simply removing 
this administration from office---something that could be 
legitimately done for any number of reasons. The attacks 
of 9/11 were orchestrated to further the project of 
creating an American empire of truly global scope and, 
as we saw earlier, this has been a long and bipartisan 
project. Differences have involved strategy, emphasis, 
and demeanor more than the goal itself. The replacement 
of the Bush-Cheney administration by a Democratic 
administration for some reason other than 9/11 would 
probably simply result in a reversion to the subtler, 
more sophisticated, and hence more effective form of 
imperialism that the United States previously exercised.[91]

What needs to be publicly recognized is that the bipartisan 
global domination project is, as I have put it elsewhere, 
“propelled by fanaticism based on a deeply perverted value 
system.”[92] Those who read books and magazines about U.S. 
imperialism know that there has long been abundant evidence 
for this assessment. But the public revelation of the truth 
about 9/11 could have an educative value extending far 
beyond the circles of those who read policy-oriented books 
and magazines. If Americans came to see that the attacks 
of 9/11 were, in the minds of those who planned them, 
justified by the goal of creating an all-encompassing 
empire, this realization could lead to widespread revulsion 
against the goal itself and the values implicit in it---
values that are diametrically opposed to basic values 
embedded in all the world’s religions and ethical systems. 


[58] The 9/11 Commission Report, 39. 

[59] Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and 
Distortions, 241-44.

[60] The 9/11 Commission Report, 40.

[61] 9/11 Commission, Public Hearing, May 23, 2003. YouTube 
has Mineta’s exchanges with Hamilton and  Roemer, during 
which these statements were made. 

[62]“Air Attack on Pentagon Indicates Weaknesses,” Newsday, 
September 23, 2001. 

[63] The 9/11 Commission Report, 34.

[64] “The Vice President appears on Meet the Press with Tim 
Russert,” Camp David, September 16, 2001. 

[65] See Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and 
Distortions, 238-39. Additional evidence came from Paul 
Cellucci, Washington’s envoy to Canada in February of 2005. 
Seeking the convince Canada to support the missile defense 
shield, he told his Toronto audience that a Canadian 
general [Captain Michael Jellinek] was in charge of NORAD 
on 9/11 when it scrambled military jets to shoot down a 
hijacked aircraft headed for Washington (Colin Perkel and 
Beth Gorham, “Missile Rejection Perplexes U.S.,” Canadian 
Press, Feb. 23, 2005). 

[66] Clarke reports that he received the authorization from 
Cheney shortly after 9:45, when the evacuation of the White 
House began (Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on 
Terror [New York: Free Press, 2004], 7-8). According to 
James Bamford and an ABC News program entitled “9/11” 
(September 11, 2002), Colonel Marr, after receiving 
Cheney’s shoot-down order, “sent out word to air traffic 
controllers to instruct fighter pilots to destroy the 
United jetliner” (Bamford, A Pretext for War [New York: 
Doubleday, 2004], 65-66). 

[67] See Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions 
and Distortions, 237-40. 

[68] Why exactly the military and the White House denied 
shooting down Flight 93, rather than taking credit for 
preventing a second attack on Washington, is unclear. But 
the very fact that they have steadfastly denied shooting 
down Flight 93 suggests that this was a criminal act, 
which needed to be covered up. 

[69] See Michel Chossudovsky, “More Holes in the Official 
Story: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls,” Aug. 10, 2004) and A. K. 
Dewdney, “The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight 
UA93,” Physics 911. However, the technology of “voice 
morphing,” through which the calls could have been faked, 
was sufficiently developed at the time, as explained in a 
1999 article by William Arkin (“When Seeing and Hearing 
Isn’t Believing,” Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1999). I discuss 
this issue at considerable length in Debunking 9/11 

[70] Larry Arnold, “MG Larry Arnold on UAL Flight 93,” 
NavySEALs.com, June 8, 2006. 

[71]Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American 
Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic 
Books, 1997), 24-25, 35-36, 212. 

[72] Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to prepare 
a White Paper presenting this proof but never did. And 
although the Taliban said that it would hand bin Laden 
over if the United States presented evidence of his 
involvement in 9/11, Bush rejected the request (“White 
House Warns Taliban: ‘We Will Defeat You,’” CNN.com, 
Sept. 21, 2001). 

[73] Ed Haas of the Muckraker Report, being puzzled by 
the fact that the FBI’s list of the attacks for which bin 
Laden is wanted does not include 9/11, asked Rex Tomb, 
Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, why not. 
Tomb, reported Haas, said: “The reason why 9/11 is not 
mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because 
the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” 
(“FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 
9/11’” Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006). 

[74] See Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and 
Fundamentalism in Central Asia (New Haven: Yale University 
Press, 2001), chaps. 12 and 13, entitled “Romancing the 
Taliban: The Battle for Pipelines.” 

[75]Julio Godoy, “U.S. Taliban Policy Influenced by Oil,” 
Inter Press Service, Nov. 16, 2001. 

[76]This according to Niaz Naik, the highly respected 
Pakistani representative at the meeting, as reported in 
George Arney, “U.S. ‘Planned Attack on Taleban,’” BBC 
News, Sept. 18, 2001. According to a story in the Guardian, 
“Threat of U.S. Strikes Passed to Taliban Weeks Before NY 
Attack” (Sept. 22, 2001), one of the American 
representatives confirmed that this discussion of military 
action did occur. 

[77] See Paul D. Wolfowitz and Zalmay M. Khalilzad, “Saddam 
Must Go,” Weekly Standard, Dec. 1997; PNAC, “Letter to 
President Clinton on Iraq,” Jan. 26, 1998; and PNAC, 
“Letter to Gingrich and Lott,” May 29, 1998. The signers 
of the latter two letters included Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. 

[78] The Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding 
America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a 
New Century, September 2000. 

[79] For Paul O’Neill, who was secretary of the treasury 
and hence a member of the National Security Council, see 
Ron Susskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the 
White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill (New York: 
Simon & Schuster, 2004), and O’Neill’s interview on CBS’s 
“60 Minutes”. Richard Clarke, confirming O’Neill’s charge, 
said: “The administration of the second George Bush did 
begin with Iraq on its agenda” (Against All Enemies, 264). 
Woodward’s statement is in his Bush at War (New York: 
Simon & Schuster, 2002), 83. I have discussed the way in 
which 9/11 was morphed into a pretext to attack Iraq in 
“Imperial Motives for a New Pearl Harbor” (in Christian 
Faith and the Truth behind 9/11). 

[80]Rebuilding America’s Defenses, 50-51.

[81]Washington Post, January 27, 2002.

[82]Bob Woodward, Bush at War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 
2002), 32. 

[83] “Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with the New York 
Times,” October 12, 2001. Condoleezza Rice made a similar 
statement (Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire, 229). 

[84]The National Security Strategy of the United States 
of America, Sept. 2002 (www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html). 

[85] Lawrence Kaplan, New Republic 224 (March 12, 2001), 
cover text; quoted in Bacevich, American Empire, 223. 

[86]Report of the Commission to Assess U.S. National 
Security Space Management and Organization 

[87] Department of Defense News Briefing on Pentagon 
Attack, 6:42 PM, Sept. 11, 2001. 

[88] “False-Flag Operations, 9/11, and the New Rome: A 
Christian Perspective,” in Kevin Barrett, John B. Cobb Jr., 
and Sandra Lubarsky, eds., 9/11 and American Empire: 
Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out (Northampton: 
Olive Branch, 2007). 

[89] For an analysis of the memo and the press coverage, 
see Mark Danner, “Why the Memo Matters,” New York Review 
of Books, July 14, 2005. 

[90] In calling the evidence “overwhelming,” I mean the 
total evidence now available (much of which is contained 
in my five books on 9/11), not merely the brief summary 
given here. 

[91] See David Ray Griffin, John B. Cobb, Jr., Richard 
Falk, and Catherine Keller, The American Empire and the 
Commonwealth of God (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 

[92] “9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious 
People Respond?” Originally on BookTV (C-Span 2), April 
30, 2005; text published at 9/11 CitizensWatch, May 7, 
2005. A somewhat revised version, entitled “9/11, the 
American Empire, and Common Moral Norms,” is in Griffin 
and Scott, eds., 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals 
Speak Out. I have used the term “demonic” for this value 
system in “The Divine and the Demonic,” chap. 8 of 
Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11. 


Check out Political Videos on the Net at evtv1.com 
Political Videos


All VIEWPOINT subscribers, we have a special. You can now
SAVE $10.00 on the book:

               PALESTINE & THE MIDDLE EAST   
           A Chronicle of Passion and Politics

Written by the editor of Viewpoint it's ONLY $4.98.
Visit: A Chronicle of Passion and Politics

For Viewpoint archives, visit: Viewpoint Archives

Questions...Comments...? Contact: Contact Viewpoint

Here's the link to the Viewpoint Forum: Viewpoint Forum

Copyright 2007 by NextEra Media. All rights reserved.

E-Mail this issue
Subscribe FREE to ViewPoint by clicking here.

The ViewPoint Forum
View this Forum | Post a topic to this forum

Home | Newest Editions | Most Popular Issues | Free Newsletters