ד”ר מרדכי (מוטי) קידר, מזרחן ומרצה במחלקה לערבית באוניברסיטת בר-אילן,
ועמית מחקר במרכז בגין-סאדאת למחקרים אסטרטגיים באוניברסיטת בר-אילן, התמחה בין היתר בחקר ממשל חאפז אל-אסד בסוריה.
By Jeff Clyburn
Who.What.Why.
September 9, 2016
Years of willful deception, the sands of time, and simple neglect all tend to cloud our perception of the reality of history. This is especially true for politically radioactive topics like 9/11.
With the debate over 9/11 heating up as the 15th anniversary of that fateful day draws near, it’s a good time to get back up to speed. WhoWhatWhy believes there are essential pillars of the 9/11 debate that must be acknowledged by all parties before any healthy discussion of that paradigm-changing topic can take place.
What follows is a refresher list of “known knowns” — select, broad aspects of 9/11 that are at present beyond reasonable doubt:
• The money trail was never followed to its logical conclusion. The 9/11 Commission concluded the question of who funded the attacks “was of little practical significance.”
• The Bush White House pushed back against any independent investigation into 9/11.
• Once the White House agreed to an independent investigation, it provided a budget of $3 million, or 27% of the amount requested by 9/11 Commission co-chairs, Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton.
• The Bush White House’s first choice to lead the 9/11 Commission was the highly controversial Henry Kissinger. Under intense pressure due to conflicts of interest, he resigned a month later.
• The 9/11 Commission was compromised by having White House policy advisor Philip Zelikow as its executive director. He was alleged to have been in close contact with controversial White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove throughout the investigation.
• The 9/11 Commission — the only independent investigation into the greatest terror attack in US history — began with a particularly benign mandate. The Preface to the report asserted. “Our aim has not been to assign individual blame,” but “to identify lessons learned.”
• Saudi agents — some with ties to the White House — sent financial and logistical support to men who then provided that support to the hijackers, according to multiple media accounts and at least one FBI agent who worked on 9/11 cases.
• Efforts to further investigate Saudi nationals were resisted by the White House and CIA over and over again.
From Lewrockwell.com, here.
The Marshall Plan is supposed to be a proof of the blessings of government raging to the rescue by “Marshalling” and “Planning” others’ resources (right after WWII’s government Marauding and Plundering).
Is it? Nope it ain’t. For more, see The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Tom Woods.
Run a competition of who can locate the most Mitzvos in the Parsha. Try it.
Ah. Temple Denial.
It gets an entry in Wikipedia for notability. And, surprise!, the New York Times is less than honest.