t r u t h o u t | Statement
Congresswoman
Cynthia McKinney
Congresswoman McKinney Presses for Investigation of Bush
Administration Links to 9-11
April 12, 2002
The need for an investigation of the events surrounding
September 11 is as obvious as is the need for an investigation of the
Enron debacle. Certainly, if the American people deserve answers about
what went wrong with Enron and why (and we do), then we deserve to know
what went wrong on September 11 and why.
Are we squandering our goodwill around the world with what many
believe to be incoherent, warmongering policies that alienate our
friends and antagonize our allies? How much of a role does our reliance
on imported oil play in the military policies being put forward by the
Bush Administration? And what role does the close relationship between
the Bush Administration and the oil and defense industries play, if any,
in the policies that are currently being pursued by this Administration?
We deserve to know what went wrong on September 11 and why.
After all, we hold thorough public inquiries into rail disasters, plane
crashes, and even natural disasters in order to understand what happened
and to prevent them from happening again or minimizing the tragic
effects when they do. Why then does the Administration remain steadfast
in its opposition to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack
upon our nation?
News reports from Der Spiegel to the London Observer, from the
Los Angeles Times to MSNBC to CNN, indicate that many different warnings
were received by the Administration. In addition, it has even been
reported that the United States government broke bin Laden's secure
communications before September 11. Sadly, the United States government
is being sued today by survivors of the Embassy bombings because, from
court reports, it appears clear that the US had received prior warnings,
but did little to secure and protect the staff at our embassies.
Did the same thing happen to us again?
I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or
members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks
of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. For
example, it is known that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle
Group had - at the time of the attacks - joint business interests with
the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings,
the stocks of which, have soared since September 11.
On the other hand, what is undeniable is that corporations
close to the Administration, have directly benefited from the increased
defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11. The Carlyle
Group, DynCorp, and Halliburton certainly stand out as companies close
to this Administration. Secretary Rumsfeld maintained in a hearing
before Congress that we can afford the new spending, even though the
request for more defense spending is the highest increase in twenty
years and the Pentagon has lost $2.3 trillion.
All the American people are being asked to make sacrifices. Our
young men and women in the military are being asked to risk their lives
in our War Against Terrorism while our President's first act was to sign
an executive order denying them high deployment overtime pay. The
American people are being asked to make sacrifices by bearing massive
budget cuts in the social welfare of our country, in the areas of health
care, social security, and civil liberties for our enhanced military and
security needs arising from the events of September 11; it is imperative
that they know fully why we make the sacrifices. If the Secretary of
Defense tells us that his new military objectives must be to occupy
foreign capital cities and overthrow regimes, then the American people
must know why. It should be easy for this Administration to explain
fully to the American people in a thorough and methodical way why we are
being asked to make these sacrifices and if, indeed, these sacrifices
will make us more secure. If the Administration cannot articulate these
answers to the American people, then the Congress must.
This is not a time for closed-door meetings and this is not a
time for se crecy. America's credibility, both with the world and with
her own people, rests upon securing credible answers to these questions.
The world is teetering on the brink of conflicts while the
Administration's policies are vague, wavering and unclear. Major
financial conflicts of interest involving the President, the Attorney
General, the Vice President and others in the Administration have been
and continue to be exposed.
This is a time for leadership and judgment that is not
compromised in any fashion. This is a time for transparency and a
thorough investigation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34565-2002Apr11.html
Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot
By
Juliet Eilperin
Friday, April 12,
2002
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation
into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance
notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them.
She added that "persons close to this administration are poised to make
huge profits off America's new war."
In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio station,
McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to
come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when
did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and
why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were
needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"
McKinney declined to be interviewed yesterday, but she issued a
statement saying: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President
Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the
attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the
case."
Bush spokesman Scott McLellan dismissed McKinney's comments.
"The American people know the facts, and they dismiss such
ludicrous, baseless views," he said. "The fact that she questions the
president's legitimacy shows a partisan mind-set beyond all reason."
In the radio conversation, McKinney delivered a stinging attack
on the administration. In 2000, she charged, Bush forces "stole from
America our most precious right of all, the right to free and fair
elections." With the September attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, McKinney said, "an administration of
questionable legitimacy has been given unprecedented power."
She suggested that the administration was serving the interests
of a Washington-based investment firm, the Carlyle Group, which employs
a number of high-ranking former government officials from both parties.
Former president George H.W. Bush -- the current president's father --
is an adviser to the firm. McKinney said the war on terrorism has
enriched Carlyle Group investors by enhancing the value of a military
contractor partly owned by the firm.
Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman asked: "Did she say these
things while standing on a grassy knoll in Roswell, New Mexico?"
During her five terms in office, McKinney has often given voice
to radical critiques of U.S. policy, especially in the Middle East. She
defied the State Department to investigate assertions that international
sanctions are brutalizing innocent Iraqis.
With her comments concerning Sept. 11, McKinney, 47, seems to
have tapped into a web of conspiracy theories circulating during the
past six months among people who believe that the government is
partially -- or entirely -- to blame for last year's attacks, which
killed more than 3,000 people.
"What is undeniable is that corporations close to the
administration have directly benefited from the increased defense
spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th," McKinney
charged. "America's credibility, both with the world and with her own
people, rests upon securing credible answers to these questions."
None of McKinney's colleagues has embraced her allegations, but
a few said they are familiar with the theories.
"I've heard a number of people say it," said Rep. Melvin Watt
(D-N.C.), who quickly added, "I can't say that it would be a widely held
view" among lawmakers.
Some lawmakers have a less charitable view of McKinney's
penchant for publicity. Rep. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said McKinney is
simply trying to impress her constituents.
"She's demonstrated at home an ability to win," he said, "and
she's demonstrated in Washington a total lack of responsibility in her
statements."
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a friend of McKinney's, said the
Georgia Democrat is adept at seizing on "red-meat" issues that resonate
with her political base and have helped her fend off a series of GOP
challengers.
"She's not as random as people think," Kingston said. "People
always want to hear a political conspiracy theory."
Print This
Story
E-mail This Story