Why "criminal negligence" is enough.

This is a very simple concept, elegant and straightforward:

We never had to prove what truly happened on September 11th 2001. No. All we had to do was prove that the US federal government had covered it up.

On that point, I would like to thank George Monbiot of the UK Guardian for his hysterical meltdown of late. George Monbiot has conceded the argument when he said:

"I believe that they [the Bush administration] were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida..." --George Monbiot, "9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns", UK Guardian

Well then, Mr. Monbiot has just validated our main point: We need a truly independent investigation of September 11th, because crimes were committed by the administration and they were allowed to cover them up.

How ironic that a scatterbrained hit piece about Loose Change would lead to an admission of the glaring criminal negligence that -- at the least -- allowed the attacks of September 11th 2001 to occur.

"Criminal negligence becomes 'gross' when the failure to foresee involves a 'wanton disregard for human life'... The accused is a social danger because he or she has endangered the safety of others in circumstances where the reasonable person would have foreseen the injury and taken preventive measures. ...Usually the punishment for criminal negligence, criminal recklessness, criminal endangerment, wilful blindness and other related crimes is imprisonment." --Wikipedia, Criminal Negligence

Well then, the grossly "criminally negligent" Bush regime should certainly have been in no position to influence the outcome of the investigation into September 11th 2001. Is that an unreasonable statement? Is it common to allow the suspect to initiate his own investigation? (outside of Washington D.C?)President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached for Obstruction of Justice, raising that particular offense to the level of an impeachable high crime. Has the Bush regime obstructed justice in regard to September 11th 2001? Yes, George Monbiot, they surely have. Bob Graham's admissions about those 28 redacted pages from the Congressional Joint Inquiry give us a prima facie case for the prosecution. The regime's classification of numerous matters related to their inaction to prevent the 9/11 attacks is further evidence of Obstruction of Justice. The decision of Bush and Cheney to testify to the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors with no oath or affirmation, and no record of their testimony is further evidence that they are obstructing justice and preventing a full and accurate accounting of the attacks.

The fact of Obstruction of Justice by the Bushites is undeniable. It is only the political will to impeach them over it that lacks.

Similar to Monbiot is gatekeeper extraodinaire, senior editor of In These Times with links to The Nation Magazine, Christopher Hayes:

"Of course, the commission report was something of a whitewash -- Bush would only be interviewed in the presence of Dick Cheney, the commission was denied access to other key witnesses and just this year we learned of a meeting convened by George Tenet the summer before the attacks to warn Condoleezza Rice [AND Rumsfeld AND Ashcroft] about Al Qaeda's plotting, a meeting that was nowhere mentioned in the report." --Is 9/11 Paranoia Bad for the Country?, The Nation/Alternet/In These Times

Gatekeeper Hayes dutifully ignores WHAT was whitewashed. There is no hint that a "whitewash" is unacceptable, or criminal Obstruction of Justice, or in any way needs to be re-addressed. No 9/11 evidence appears in the article whatsoever. Plenty of namecalling, yet no examination of the evidence: can they really be this blatant? Yes they can. Another Nation Magazine editor, Max Holland, also edits the Central Intelligence Agency's website, and his specialty has been concocting a link between the KGB and JFK's assassination. As the controlled "left" press laments the independent thinking of their readership, the evidence is mounting that 9/11 Truth has won the debate. Simply, we do not know the truth, therefore we need an investigation to find out the truth without interference from high level criminals in the government. If everyone would just get behind this strong and principled stance, wonderful results would follow. It is not difficult to convince an average reader that the investigations were insufficient. If our marketing efforts centered on highlighting the fraud of the 9/11 Commission Report, with a demand for redress, we could get further.

Getting lost in the minutiae is not necessary, nor is it productive. In fact that is where most of the problems occur. Stick with the message that we need more people to complain about the cover up, so that a new independent investigation will move forward. That is a politically acceptable, politically thinkable demand, which we must pursue.