Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search


UQ Wire: 9/11 Truth and the 2004 Election

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire .

9/11 Truth and the 2004 Election

An editorial by Michael Kane and Nicholas Levis
Sent out at Midnight, Election Day, Nov. 2, 2004.

(NOTE: This message is intended for a limited audience activists for justice, seekers of truth, and 9/11 researchers. We are assuming that our readers are well-versed in the skeptical view of 9/11. If the thought never occurred to you that 9/11 was likely an inside job, and that the dream of peace and freedom will die if the 9/11 cover-up is allowed to stand, then the following may not make much sense. Those looking for clarification on the "unanswered questions of 9/11" are ill served here; go check out sites like,,, and

Dear Friends and Readers,

As writers and activists, we have been involved in 9/11 research and the truth movement since day one. Today we are urging New Yorkers to vote for Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb - and we are asking our allies in the rest of the country to suspend their gag reflex long enough to vote for John Kerry.

We know that this is going to require some explanation, so here goes...

Should 9/11 truth activists be voting at all?

Surely no other group is more aware of what a farce elections are. We probably don't need to review the following for you:

(1) The big decisions about the course of our nation, and thus to a large degree the fate of the world itself, are made by hidden hierarchies of wealth and ownership, who are immune to elections.

(2) Covert operators and remote elites stage-manage events like 9/11 to their own ends, making irrelevant the public decision-making of voters, and even of the Congress. For example, we all know the entire Bush agenda, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, was planned long in advance of 2001. But the program was not launched openly after the (s)election of George W. Bush in Dec. 2000. It was rolled out after the shock of September 11, using 9/11 as the pretext.

(3) Elected representatives are dependent for their campaign financing on support from corporations and the wealthy. This conditions what even the most honest politician can do.

(4) The major news media, with all their reach to mass audiences and access to sources, are under the tight control of a cartel of corporations, with long-established practices that amount to self-censorship. With very few exceptions, this restricts the information they provide to the narrow bounds of allowable debate: Democrat vs. Republican, "liberal" vs. "conservative," "qualified experts" vs. "conspiracy theorists." Knowledge that would change how people vote is withheld from the public, or drowned out in the circus of stories about Kobe and Laci and The Dean Scream. (Only the Internet, where everyone has a chance to project their own voice, has begun to alter this.)

(5) The last presidential election was decided by vote fraud and brought to power the loser of the popular tally. Since the people responsible for that crime were rewarded, there is no reason to think they won't try it again, both by making use of the ever-more widespread electronic voting machines, and by more traditional means of manipulating the vote. (The difference this time is that so many people are on the look-out for fraud and manipulation; but the "reforms" implemented after the 2000 debacle actually made things worse, as they favored more e-voting.)

(6) Even assuming a fair count, the only two "viable" candidates were decided for us, as always, by the internal mechanics and fundraisers of the major parties. Nearly everyone is forced to make a choice they almost invariably view as the lesser of the two evils, rather than getting to choose what they really want.

(7) Beyond that, the Electoral College and the winner-take-all system of representation leaves about half of the voters disenfranchised by the Constitution itself.

In a nutshell, democracy is impossible when elites can control the reactions of the majority by keeping them in ignorance and fear. The real problems we face cannot be addressed within our present political system, which is little more than an increasingly transparent and corrupt cover for the dictatorship of corporate capital.

Our economic system lives from war, imperialism, plunder from the Third World, and an insane drug war. It relies on destructive forms of energy, unsustainable debt loads in a Monopoly currency (for which the whole world still has to work to pay off the interest), and a reckless devastation of the natural basis for human civilization. Our society is in the stranglehold of corporate interests, covert power and organized crime.

If and how you vote today cannot change any of that. What we need is a peaceful revolution, one in which the vast majority of hearts and minds awaken to reality, turn away from the abyss, and use the democratic sparks of the present society to fire up a different world.(1)

Our first answer for "what is to be done" will therefore always be the same: Organize. Reach out to your friends, make allies and work in every way available to change the circumstances under which we labor - to expose hidden truths, to open the media, to show political force in lobbying and on the streets, to win over the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens.

More than this, find ways to free yourselves from the money system, from the media system, from the energy system, from reliance on the government and the big corporations. Put your money and your time to work in your communities - to build a sustainable opposition that can actually replace the remote-control cannibalism we currently live in.

If all you are planning to do is to vote and then forget about it, thinking you have done your civic duty - then yes, you may as well stay home. It's pointless.

But if, in addition to organizing for a peaceful revolution, you can also imagine taking the hour to cast a vote, then we say: Good for you. It's easy. And how you vote today can improve the conditions for a peaceful revolution. The outcome of this election will affect the circumstances under which the dissident forces in our society operate.

We have heard many people argue that if only enough people refused to vote, the whole rotten process would lose its legitimation and fall apart. But this is a false hope, passive and helpless. Majorities have already stayed home. Two-thirds of the people don't bother to vote in years without a presidential election - and the media, the establishment, the parties and the voting minority are still able to present election results as legitimate outcomes.

You may say that once you vote, you surrender the power to interpret the meaning of your vote to the media and politicians, who will spin the results however they like. You're right.

Unfortunately, that is just as true if you do not vote. There is no means by which you can effectively protest by not voting. No matter how you intend your act of not voting, it will simply (if wrongly) be interpreted by the powers-that-be as apathy, or stupidity, or tacit acceptance of how things are.

So much as we abhor the present system, we cannot pretend that we do not engage in it, whether we vote or not. We see no conflict in believing that elections are a scam, and yet still saying it is best to make use of your right to vote, if you are also working to change the system by other, more significant means.

In the case of New York, the "safest" state in the Union, where no level of believable vote fraud will elect George W. Bush, our choice as 9/11 truth activists is an easy one. Quite apart from the Green Party's progressive positions on many issues, David Cobb was the first candidate of any party on the ballot to endorse the cause of 9/11 truth and call for a new investigation of September 11. (See

Cobb's lead has since been followed by Ralph Nader and the Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik, both of whom joined him in signing the recent 9/11 Truth Statement (see Nevertheless, Cobb's position on 9/11 truth is the earliest, strongest and most reliable, and to us he also seems to be the most serious of these three candidates on the other issues.

Furthermore, the Green Party and its activists have been the fastest and most daring among all parties in comprehending the significance of 9/11 truth, and in forging an alliance with the emergent truth movement. This will be of significance after the election, regardless of who wins.

So if you live in New York State, vote for David Cobb for President!

And what if you live in one of the 49 less-than "safe" states?

We harbor no illusions about John Kerry.

Kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution and has a pretty lousy excuse for claiming he didn't know the basis for the illegal invasion was actually a lie. If WE were aware of what the actual U.N. weapons inspectors had determined about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction already back in 1998, then certainly HE was. If we knew the "Saddam connection to 9/11" was the most outrageous "conspiracy theory" of all, then of course Kerry did.

Kerry also voted for the Afghanistan war resolution, the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act, all of which are outright demolitions of constitutional government in our country. He has claimed that he will fight a better "War on Terrorism," which is a pretty frightening thought given what that war has really been about: the pretext for seizing territory around the world and for intervening in the affairs of every country on earth.

In the dark days of autumn 2001, when the anthrax mailings were sent out to intimidate the loyal opposition, when the Shadow Government was activated, Kerry watched and did nothing, along with almost everyone else in Congress. He also did nothing as the 9/11 cover-up proceeded, as the investigations were stonewalled, and as the bogus results of the delayed investigations were finally released.

There is little reason to believe Kerry will want to reverse any of the Bush crimes. There is no reason, in fact, to think he will try to do anything other than continue, perhaps more slowly, along the same general course as Bush - unless all of the Movement people are ready to keep up and to triple the fight they have already begun against the Bush agenda.

Fifty million people across this country have taken to the streets and mobilized in other ways to oppose the Bush agenda of preventive and eternal war and domestic repression, and its steady barrage of accompanying lies. If Bush loses and this movement fails to stay the course and keep growing, then we have no right to expect that a Kerry Administration will change anything much for the better.

But if you are ready to keep fighting, then we believe that the fight will be easier under a first term for Kerry, than under a second term for Bush. There are several reasons for this, but the most important ones should be obvious:

Once ousted from power, the Bush regime's officials will lose the immunity from investigation and prosecution they now enjoy. Until they are removed, there is no chance of a real 9/11 investigation with the necessary subpeona power. There is thus no chance for the wake-up call that a real investigation will produce.

Yes, Kerry's behavior under the Bush regime amounts to complicity after the fact in that regime's crimes. He may attempt to equal those crimes, when his turn comes at the helm. But the great crimes of the last years are still those of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their whole sick crew.

And it is they in their blind hubris who have left so many loose ends for us to pull at.

Remove their immunity, and if we stay strong and keep growing, we still might see them carried off in shackles and orange jumpsuits. Whereas a victory would reward them, and encourage them: they will understand it as a reward for their crimes, as an incentive for more of the same.

More important, of course, is that exposing the Bush regime's role in 9/11 can serve as a positive shock experience for our fellow Americans. It can open up the possibility of exposing, and changing, the entire system that spawned the Bush regime as its logical culmination.

It won't be easy, it may be a long shot, but we believe this is our best chance. 9/11 was exploited as the pretext for atrocity; 9/11 truth can still become the way in which we put an end to the policies of atrocity.

Do we have anything good to say about Kerry? Yes. There is little doubt he is different on several very important material issues: judicial appointments; the rights of women; protection for minorities and gays from at least some of the excesses of racism and homophobia.

Kerry is a smart guy who can speak English, and who hasn't always played for the machine. He committed at least one indisputable act of courage during the U.S. invasion of Vietnam - which was to fight against it when he returned home.

In the 1980s, he was among the politicians who held hearings on the Bush-related mafia who took over the government at the time. He ran investigations into CIA-drugs, the Iran-Contra dealings, and the October Surprise of 1980. These released important information, even though the introductions and statements he slapped on the findings tended to limit the damage for those incriminated in the actual reports.

Of course, Kerry has yet to use his vast knowledge of the Bush mob in the present campaign; he has apparently kept it in store as his own personal insurance policy, and otherwise acted like a good Bonesman who always keeps the Secrets of the Tomb.

Do we expect a President Kerry to suddenly drop the wishy-washy facade, and expose the Bush mob's crimes once he is safely in the White House? Do we expect him to prove that crime does not pay, to expose the hidden hierarchies, to reverse the system of covert power that actually governs?

Never. Not unless we force all that by showing numbers and an organization that no government can ignore.

But we have few illusions that our chances of doing so, however slim, are better than if the Bush mob gets back in with carte blanche to do whatever they feel like, no longer fearing the possibility of an election loss.

Beyond the major exceptions cited above, the material differences between Kerry and Bush may be slight indeed. But the symbolic differences are great, and we should recall that symbolism is real when people believe in it.

Kerry and Bush are both corporate tools. But in the minds of Americans, they stand for different things. They are also forced to pay attention to different clienteles. A Bush victory will signal approval of the Bush agenda. The regime will turn into the modern equivalent of an absolute monarchy, with no further need of catering to anything other than its own fascist fantasies.

Kerry may try to pursue the same agenda as Bush, but his regime will be conditional. In the minds of Americans, his victory will stand as a rejection of the Bush program. Kerry will have to pay some kind of lip service to the people who elect him.(2)

Whereas a Bush victory will be a signal to this country's minority of true fascists and ultra-Apocalyptists that their time has come. It will mobilize all the true believers, the obedient foot-soldiers whose first question on November 3 will doubtless be, "When do we clean up with the liberals?"

And their definition of "liberal" will extend far beyond the likes of us; it will be flexible enough to include Alex Jones.

To the rest of the world, a Bush victory signifies the American peoples' approval of what Bush stands for. The doors will shut on any chance of peaceful and cooperative solutions. We're not saying Kerry is a peacemaker, but he will actually have a chance to be one, should he take the opportunity.

All that being said, do we really believe that there is any chance the Bush mob won't try to steal today's election, just as they did in 2000?

Not really, even if many among the global elites seem to have chosen Kerry as a necessary tranquilizer for all of the rage that Bush has inspired around the world.

The Bush mobsters are well aware of their exposure to criminal prosecution for what they have done. Though there little doubt remains that they will lose a fair election,* they won't want to make it easy. This is why they have issued so many telling warnings about the likelihood of an Election Day attack; we pray they won't dare, we pray they have already over-exposed themselves too far to try it; but come Wednesday, you had all best be ready to fight for your freedom and what's left of the democratic dream.(4)


Michael Kane is chairperson of NY 9/11 Truth and fronts the band Clarity. See his blog at Nicholas Levis is a staff member of and a co-founder of American Voices Abroad. See his site at Both are speaking for themselves. Levis wrote the above, with Kane's approval.



(1) As for the pipe-dream of revolution by means of a vanguard seizing power: Good luck! The reason this has never worked to change things, even when it was possible, is simple. When force determines the outcome, the winner will always be the side that achieves military superiority. The outcome will have nothing to do with peace or justice. To win by violence, the opposition will have to adopt the same means and mentality as the present rulers.

(2) Of course, we cannot rule out the chances that Kerry will be given "the freedom" to pursue an even more fascist course, in the same fashion that Bush received it: in the form of a "New 9/11." We have no idea if he will react any differently, but we can't cover all the possibilities in advance. Kerry would, unfortunately, be just the right candidate for extending the "War on Terrorism" to cover Saudi Arabia. This will be something to guard against, and prepare for mentally as best we can. Yes, it is sickening that the choice we face may be between the war on Iran and Syria already intended by the Bush regime, as opposed to the possible war on Saudi Arabia that a Kerry presidency would enable. It doesn't change our main point that, all other things being equal, a second Bush term presents the worse alternative for pursuing and succeeding with opposition politics in the United States itself, and therefore changing American policy worldwide.

(3) Go back and study the polls in advance of every election since 1988; you will find that the Republican vote has always been exaggerated through the technique of presenting results among "likely voters." Dukakis was said to be down by 15 points, he lost by six; in the next three elections, Clinton and Gore also beat their opinion-poll numbers. Bush was called a lock in the 2000 election; he lost. When you are told that Kerry and Bush are in a dead heat, recall that this does not include the huge number of new-voter registrations, which has mainly been mobilized against Bush. Especially under-counted are the Black and youth votes, which will be decisive.

(4) And come "Thursday," if the Bush regime has met with its demise, it will be time to start the fight in earnest for the abolition of the Electoral College, public campaign finance, free media time for all candidates, and the establishment of proportional forms of representation in this country, so that no party can ever again wield a monopoly of power; just as the wisest among the Founders intended.


STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.

© Scoop Media

Top Scoops Headlines


Keith Rankin: Liberal Democracy In The New Neonationalist Era: The Three 'O's
The proposed ‘New Zealand Income Insurance Scheme’ (‘the scheme’) has attracted strong debate among the more left-wing and liberal groupings, within New Zealand-Aotearoa. This debate should be seen as a positive rather than negative tension because of the opportunity to consider and learn from the implications and sharpen advocacy... More>>

Dunne Speaks: Words Matter, Prime Minister
Words matter, especially when uttered by politicians. History is littered with examples of careless or injudicious words uttered by politicians coming back to haunt them, often at the most awkward of times. During the 1987 election campaign, when electoral reform was a hot issue, Prime Minister David Lange promised to have a referendum on the electoral system... More>>

Dunne Speaks: New Zealanders' Ongoing Quest For Security

In many ways, the essential story of New Zealand over the last hundred years or so has been our search for security. Whether it be security from want, or unemployment, homelessness, or cultural alienation, it has always been a constant theme which has occupied the minds of successive governments over the years... More>>

Digitl: Infrastructure Commission wants digital strategy
Earlier this month Te Waihanga, New Zealand’s infrastructure commission, tabled its first Infrastructure Strategy: Rautaki Hanganga o Aotearoa. Te Waihanga describes its document as a road map for a thriving New Zealand... More>>

Binoy Kampmark: Leaking For Roe V Wade
The US Supreme Court Chief Justice was furious. For the first time in history, the raw judicial process of one of the most powerful, and opaque arms of government, had been exposed via media – at least in preliminary form. It resembled, in no negligible way, the publication by WikiLeaks of various drafts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership... More>>

The Conversation: Cheaper food comes with other costs – why cutting GST isn't the answer

As New Zealand considers the removal of the goods and services tax (GST) from food to reduce costs for low income households, advocates need to consider the impact cheap food has on the environment and whether there are better options to help struggling families... More>>