On the October 26th 9/11 and Other Deep State crimes Teleconference, David Ray Griffin gave an overview of his most recent book, "Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World" (ISBN-13: 978-1566560610). It is currently scheduled for release on January 25, 2017. His overview concludes with a question-and-answer session that deals with many issues within by the 9/11 Truth Movement that are covered in the book.
The Back Cover Overview
Was America’s response to the 9/11 attacks at the root of today's instability and terror? Because of various factors, including climate change, ISIS, the war in Syria, the growing numbers of immigrants, and the growing strength of fascist parties in Europe, commentators have increasingly been pointing out that the chaos in the world today was sparked by the post-9/11 attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. At the same time, there has also been much discussion of ways in which the Bush-Cheney administration’s response to 9/11 has damaged America itself by stimulating Islamophobia and fascist sentiments, undermining key elements in its Constitution, moving towards a police state, and in general weakening its democracy.
While the first two parts of this book discuss various ways in which 9/11 has ruined America and the world, the third part discusses a question that is generally avoided: Were the Bush-Cheney attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq really at the root of the ruination of America and the world in general, or did the original sin lie in 9/11 itself?
Book Overview by the Author
[DRG] The full title of the book is "Bush and Cheney, How they ruined America and the World." That probably seems like an exaggeration, but I think when one gets through the book, you will be surprised at how much they ruined America and the World.
The first part of the book is about all that; how they ruined America and the world and is ten chapters. The second part of the book is about 9/11 and the title of that is “Original Sin – 9/11.” It has five chapters: “Why Bush and Cheney Should Not be Trusted on 9/11;" "The Miraculous Destruction of the Twin Towers;" "The Miraculous Destruction of World Trade Center Building 7;" "The Miraculous Attack on the Pentagon;" and the fifth one you will not have guessed probably is "The Miraculous Transformation of Mohamad Atta."
As you can gather from these titles, I am not in this book trying to give an overview of all the problems with the official account as I did in some previous books. In this book, in as far as the focus is on 9/11, it focuses entirely on the “miracles” in the official story. I am assuming that the people who read the book don't believe that miracles happen and certainly don’t believe that they would have happened on 9/11 with Allah performing the miracles.
So I take that as the strongest evidence possible that the official story is false because there we have eleven or thirteen miracles. Miracles are defined as things that couldn't have possibly happened or couldn’t – more particularly –things that violate the principles of chemistry and physics. Now, the introduction gives what you would expect.
But in there I talk about Bush and Cheney and their relationship. In particular, during the first part of the Bush-Cheney administration, the first four years, Cheney was really serving as the President – as lots of critics have pointed out. It got somewhat different in the second four years. But most of what went on that caused all the problems were Cheney’s doings. And in fact some people call that position Cheneyism and the advocates Cheneyites or
The book is not about just those eight years, so the book is really about Cheneyism which has continued throughout the Obama period where the Obama administration has pretty much carried it forward. Obama is much friendlier and smiles a lot more than Cheney and he is obviously a nicer guy, and so-on and so-on. But in terms of the policies – they are not so much different.
I then go through the chapters. So "the failures to prevent 9/11" – there I deal with one of the true things Donald Trump has said – in his debate with Jeb Bush. Jeb made the foolish statement, "you don't like my brother, but he did keep us safe." Well then that caused a tremendous amount of discussion and of course Trump was right, Bush did not keep us safe, and as one person put it, he didn't keep us safe either before or after 9/11.
The next nine chapters are about how he did not keep us safe after 9/11. The next chapter is on the war on terror and the Afghanistan war. The following chapter is on military spending and pre-emptive war and regime change. Now those are things I had talked about in previous books – so I pretty much drew on my previous work and those chapters were pretty easy to write. But then there is the chapter on the Iraq War, and that one is pivotal for the book. Because I emphasize how much the war was based on lies – and that leads to jump ahead to the second part of the book – to that chapter, "Why Bush and Cheney Should Not Be Trusted on 9/11." It is strange how some people will say, “well Yeah, they just told terrible lies about Iraq, lie after lie after lie,” but then you say, what about 9/11 itself and then they say "Oh! that wasn’t a lie, that was true!" I try to drive home that point that since they lied so much about Iraq, at least one ought to begin with skepticism about what they said about 9/11.
The next chapter is on Islamophobia. That might seem strange except that most of the things that happened, that had turned to ruin – undermined the world – depend on islamophobia. So you’ve got people, especially in America but also in many countries, in Europe in particular, that they have a lot of islamophobia that is a longer-lasting phenomenon that started back in the Middle Ages – and then more recently in the end of the 20th century. So that it makes it easier for people to understand and accept the fact that we are destroying so many Muslim countries. The thought that Muslims are bad guys anyway and they did 9/11 so let’s not get so concerned about international law here because maybe it is illegal to attack all those countries but it is justifiable. I think that is a fairly strong feature of what has been going on since 9/11.
Then the really big chapter is about global chaos. There I focus on Libya and Syria, primarily. And of course, Hillary was the one in the United States who was really pushing for a no-fly zone over Libya. And that was supposed to protect the people. But of course, once that got started it resulted in the total destruction of the regime and destruction of much of the country, and so on.
And of course now, Hillary was doing it again with regard to Syria. That is part of what I mean by Cheneyism continuing through the Obama Administration – of course she was only there as the Secretary of State the first four years. But she had so filled the State Department with her kind of people that – you know that one of those is the wife of the chief neo-con, Robert Kagan. And that is another thing I can say.
This book is about the neocons and their world view. They have a number of people in the State Department and also a number of people are in the Pentagon that hold basically the same neocon point of view. It is understandable therefore that the same basic philosophy has continued. Obama is somewhat different from Hillary. He has held off –both the Pentagon and the State Department begged him to attack. He almost did it about the so called red-line that was crossed. But he pulled back from that and still has continued to refuse. But they are very excited now that Hillary is most likely going to become president. [This talk was given before the presidential election.] So this pent-up urge to destroy Syria has built up and they are very excited that she is going to do it. She has explicitly said that she will work on the no-fly zone and then use that to bring about regime change. In fact, she evidently said in one of those WikiLeaks that her hope is to make a name for herself and become somebody important in the history books. To bring about more regime change and particularly – not with just Syria but believe it or not– with Russia. So that is a very long chapter.
Then I shift over to drone warfare and international law. Most of you know that it is against international law, partly because it is outright murder. Obama has led the way here. There has been a lot of criticism of him for seemingly enjoying hitting people with drone strikes. And sometimes he even calls the strike himself. That is another long chapter that is closely related to Islamophobia because again we don't get too excited about that because we are killing Muslims.
The next chapter is the one most central to destroying America and it is called "Shredding the Constitution." And of course, Obama was a constitutional lawyer and – I say “was” because he certainly does not act like one recently. But the thing is he knows it so well that he was able to take all the illegal things that Cheney had put through and Obama and his crew, his lawyers, were able to keep almost all of those things going by finding out ways to make them seem to be legal.
Then we come to Russia. The next chapter is about Nuclear Holocaust. A lot of major writers have become increasingly concerned that we are so rabid about this regime change. This is where we are carrying through with the Cheney program most fully: to try to bring out a unipolar world where America is in control of almost everything – well actually everything. There again this was rooted in Cheney.
And then the tenth chapter on "Ecological Holocaust." Of course, I had recently written a whole book about that so that chapter wasn't too difficult. But again, Cheney to a great extent was at the root of that. Obama has been a little better, but not nearly enough better. We just learned today, or yesterday I believe, that Hillary and her crew don't really plan to carry through with their promise to Bernie to really work hard on climate change. In fact, Podesta evidently called it “crap” or something like that.
So that is the first part of the book. And that is supposed to inspire readers who are not yet converted to listen to the main thesis of the book: that the world has gotten into such bad shape over the last 16 years and we are about ready to do ourselves “in” in one of two ways – nuclear holocaust or ecological holocaust although many people would say the shredding of the constitution we have destroyed America and so on.
It is my hope that people would at least look at that and say, "Griffin doesn't seem like an idiot. His first part of the book seemed pretty good, pretty scholarly, pretty good account of the data – so maybe we will take a look at the second part of this book and see why Bush and Cheney shouldn’t be trusted. Then knowing that I say that the main objection to the official story are all of these miracles, they might get curious about what those miracles are."
So that is basically it.
Question and Answers
Barry: [Lead in about the linguistic use of the word “inside job” vis-à-vis “attack” vis-à-vis “event.”] What do you think about the choice of words or terms in our ongoing discourse about 9/11?
[DRG] If I remember correctly, I use the word “attack” primarily in relation to an attack on Iraq and on Libya and on Syria. On 9/11 it is understood as an attack – I don't think an attack has to be from another country. All sorts of crimes are attacks on other people. I use “inside job” a lot. But I don't see any objection to use the term the “attack of 9/11.” “Attacked” can mean attack by their own government.
Ed: What is the single most thing that the 9/11 truth movement needs to concern itself with.
[DRG] I think the Truth has been enunciated enough times and it became particularly clear once the scientists and the architects and the engineers got involved. So if anybody will seriously look at the evidence, I don't think we need any more evidence. So what I am trying to do in this book is to try to find better ways to get people to look at the evidence.
Dick: What is the impact of the 28 pages effort is on the 9/11 truth movement. Some people are gung–who and say that it is the camel's nose under the tent and it is going to open up all kinds of things that we have yet to see happen, and some of us are concerned that it is confirming the official story in the public and it is a limited hangout that will let the perpetrators off the hook at this point. I'm wondering how you take all that.
[DRG] I think that is basically my view of it regarding the idea that the Saudis put these people involved and they were part of the operation. Now I think that they function in a different way with some people which I’ve noticed – that it shows to them that one cannot trust the official story because they did not see fit to include part of the evidence. It seems to me that it works either way in some cases and other cases.
Rodger: I'd like your comment on an experience I had – that is a gentleman who used to work at Lawrence Livermore Labs who worked there and is now a nuclear advisor to a four star general in Shreveport, LA. He relayed to me over cocktails after dinner, that we have no first strike policy. Russia does, China does, why don't we have a first strike policy to use nuclear weapons. So I asked, what does a policy mean? Today you have a policy against first strike, tomorrow you change youer mind. I think we're going to use them. I asked why? He said in the interests of the United States. Not my interests, I hope it’s not your interests. Whose interest? To which he did not answer. I'd like your comment.
[DRG] It is a very important issue which will get more important as Hillary takes office because she is so rabid both to get out Assad and Putin. So there has been a lot of talk recently about getting rid of the first strike policy. Obama recommended it, but then his people in the Pentagon and the State Department and other advisors talked him out of it. At least he gave in to the argument.
Craig: In 2011 you urged the Movement to adopt a consensus position on the Pentagon. Since then the Consensus Panel has failed to introduce any meaningful points that challenge the claim that a plane impact occurred at the Pentagon. It seems likely to remain the case since it only takes four members to block any point. Also the group that is pushing a plane impact whose claims you refuted in your book in 2011 have become more and more aggressive in writing paper after paper trying to spin the notion that they have proven their case and that we should all unite around their view. So my two part question why should we not consider the consensus panel to have failed when it comes to addressing the claimed impact and also what do you think about the campaign by Chandler, Jenkins, Cole and others to convince the movement to follow them?
[DRG] I had just decided when I wrote my previous book that we weren't going to reach consensus. That group claims to be scientific and therefore their view is right. The other side – we believe our view is right and we are not about to be convinced by data that could have easily have been fabricated. That is at least my position. So we are continuing this with Consensus 9/11. The really important question, I know that you and other don't agree with this, but the really important question is: the official story is false. So I've continued that in this book. Because Chandler and all the others agree that it would have been impossible for Hani to have flown that plane into the Pentagon. So to me that seems to be enough.
Cat: So much of the book is about Cheney and I'm sure that you include the neocons, many of whom are Israeli "firsters" and so I'm wondering to what extent in the details of your book you implicate Israel itself – the Zionists and specifically, Netanyahu – from the [time of the] Oded Yinon Plan?
[DRG] No, I don't introduce that issue.
Cat: Do you believe in that issue? Do you know about it? And if so, is there a reason you didn't introduce it?
[DRG] Well yes there is a reason. The book as it was is too long as it was. Well the other thing is I don't accept the view that Israel or the Mossad was central. That is some people say that Israel did 9/11. Well no. Most of 9/11 could have been done only by insiders. Now of course there are many Israelis who are in the government here. But that mainly had to be people really in operational control. So that was Cheney primarily, who of course had been Secretary of Defense so he knew all of that stuff. Then his good buddy, Rumsfeld was in charge so my view is that it was a Cheney-Rumsfeld operation with assistance from other countries primarily Israel –for example, it seems like the guy who went under the name of Atta, his girlfriend said he wrote sometimes in the Israeli language and there were some others that seem clearly to be Israeli, but their parts are not so central to the operation.
Shiela: [Note: Recounted encountering an article by Paul Craig Roberts many years ago], he said “9/11 didn’t happen the way we were told, if you want to do more read a New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin.” I went and got the book that day and read it over the next two days. And basically I went from knowing nothing about it to full blown made-it happen – mind blown – so thank you for that.
[DRG:] By the way, most of the people I cite in my book are Democrats or at least not Republicans. But he may well be the guy I quoted the most in the book.
[Shiela] He certainly says how we could soon be in a nuclear holocaust.
[DRG] Yeah, he is one of the people most concerned about that – and I think rightly so.
David: My question is about the most recent consensus point about Barry Jennings. I sent some clarification and new information I was wondering if you had a chance to look that over. I am anxiously awaiting a reply from you and Elizabeth.
[DRG] We’ve looked at it and saw that you have some interesting material, but we’ve not had much time to really focus on it because I’ve been finishing this book for a little over a year and have another couple of books going too. And then she has just published a book on emergency climate change mobilization. So she has been working on that for a long time. My name is on the book, but she did all the work. We’re both just about free from these duties so we should be getting back to it pretty soon.
Pablo: At the last teleconference that you were unable to make we endorsed as a group, this think called by Ken the 9/11 Truth Unity Manifesto. The title on the actual document is "End all the wars and Police state now." I was wondering if you have seen it yet and what your opinion was of it if you had seen it.
[DRG] No I have not. Could somebody e-mail it to me?
Shiela: In your book 9/11 Ten years later – you say that what happened at the Pentagon, specifically what hit the Pentagon, is of secondary importance. It sounds like you reached that conclusion because you feel the issue has been destructive to the movement. I know that you also wrote a book about cognitive infiltration and given that you yourself are convinced that no large plane hit the Pentagon. Have you ever considered perhaps, the group arguing that a large plane did hit might be a group of cognitive infiltrators and not a group of genuine truthers.
[DRG] No I don't believe that for a moment. For example, David Chandler. I would never think he would do anything dishonest. There are several others too, but he just stands out – I won’t go into other names. Also, you said I'm “convinced.” I don't think there was a big plane – but I would not say that I'm absolutely certain. The miracle things – those things I’m absolutely certain of. There may have been some sort of way with electronic guidance that the plane could have hit that part of the Pentagon, so I don't completely rule it out I think that there is so much evidence against it and that this group uses that evidence from the instruments on the plane and that could be so easily faked. That's what I think.