Daniel Ellsberg (Vietnam Pentagon Papers) 911 Skeptic

[better2know]

Fear of a second attack and a police state take-over

http://www.middleeast.org/read.cgi?category=Magazine&num=1464&standalone=1&month=7&year=2006&function=text

Pentagon Papers Author Daniel Ellsberg Says:
* Government May Have Carried Out 9/11
* Bush Regime Might Stage Terrorist Attack to Provide Pretext for
* Coming Iran and Syria Invasion
* And to Justify Internment Camps for Dissident Americans

http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/07/pentagon_papers.php

The Pentagon insider who revealed the cynical lies behind the Vietnam War disaster has concluded that the Bush Administration probably orchestrated or at least allowed the horrific attacks against America on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Very serious questions have been raised, about how much they knew beforehand and how much involvement there may have been," Ellsberg said Tuesday on the GCN radio show. (Click here for mp3.)

"Is the administration capable -- humanly and physiologically -- of engineering such a provocation? Yes, I would say that. I worked for such an administration myself."

That was the Lyndon Johnson administration, Ellsberg said, which committed "manufactured provocation" to escalate the Vietnam War.

Even worse, Ellsberg expects more fake terrorism either before or immediately after the all-but-certain U.S. invasion of Iran. And those new attacks by criminal elements within the U.S. government will lead to a police state that makes the current abuses of power by the Bush Administration look absolutely tame, he said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

Daniel Ellsberg has continued as a political activist, giving lecture tours and speaking out about current events. Recently he garnered criticism from the George W. Bush administration for praising Katharine Gun and calling on others to leak any papers that reveal deception regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Daniel Ellsberg also testified in 2004 at the conscientious objector hearing of Camilo Mejia at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

The Pentagon Papers is a 2003 movie documenting Ellsberg's life starting with his work for Rand Corp and ending with the day on which the judge declared his espionage trial a mistrial.

Ellsberg was arrested in November 2005 for violating a county ordinance for trespassing while protesting against George W. Bush's conduct of the War in Iraq. <1>

In July 2006 Ellsberg was interviewed on the Alex Jones radio show where he discussed his opinions on US Government involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Interview available in MP3 format. 10 minute segment starts at 23:55
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/daniel-ellsberg-comes-out-for-911.html

[mirandapriestly]

1. Thanks, people are less afraid to speak out

but they still are shunned by the complicit media.

[HamdenRice]

2. I saw an Ellsberg speech in CSPAN -- he was hinting LIHOP/MIHOP

He was on I believe a book tour and someone from the audience asked about 9/11. He very gingerly suggested LIHOP/MIHOP. I think there are a number of well informed writers/analysts/journalists who believe it, but won't come out clearly for lack of evidence.

I believe that Sy Hersh believes in LIHOP/MIHOP also, but won't say it because he never says anything without rock solid evidence.

But Hersh is always saying that the Bush administration has committed many worse crimes than the ones he has written about that will "come out" soon.

Thanks for the post.

[RedSock]

3. Daniel Ellsberg requests a correction.

From http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/daniel-ellsberg-requests-correction.html

(bold = my emphasis)

*******************

Daniel Ellsberg requests a correction.

(The following email was forwarded to 911blogger.com, but is not addressed to 911blogger.com directly. Daniel Ellsberg has risked more as a truthteller than most of us, and so, here are his corrections regarding the Infowars story.)

Friday, July 21, 2006.

The main headline in the story by Kevin Smith and Alex Jones, Infowars.com, July 19, 2006, “Ellsberg Says Government May Have Carried Out 9/11”, is a highly misleading paraphrase of my comments and beliefs. The subheadline, “Predicts Bush Regime Will Stage Terrorist Attack to Provide Pretext for Iran, Syria invasion, and Justify Internment Camps for American People”, is a flat misquotation, which actually reverses what I said. Likewise, the corresponding statement in the second paragraph that “within days after a U.S. military strike on Iran Bush’s handlers would probably stage some type of terror attack in the West to legitimize the new war.”

Both of these alleged quotations are contradicted by the accurate quotation running in a boldface insert alongside them: “If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire DECREE that will involve massive detentions in this country.” .

On the possibility that 9-11 was “carried out” by the government, my views have not changed over the last two years, when I have repeatedly endorsed calls for a thorough investigation of a sort that has not yet occurred, exploring valid questions that have been raised by outside investigators and not directly addressed by the official hearings. Those hearings have at the very least have aimed at obscuring or covering up massive incompetence, inattention, horribly misdirected priorities, and culpable negligence, especially in neglect of warnings (all comparable to the response to Katrina). That there “may” have been more sinister motives at work, I cannot rule out as impossible, after my own insider’s experience of the Tonkin Gulf incidents in Vietnam, but the evidence so far does not make that a major probability in my view.

Since your story has already given rise to paraphrased assertions on the web that I now “suspect” or regard as “probable” or “likely” or “conclude” that the government staged 9-11, I’m forced to try to describe my state of uncertainty less ambiguously than words like “may” convey. I did say that I believed the psychological (not “physiological”) CAPABILITY for staging or provoking an attack did exist in elements in this administration, as in the past, but at this moment I would personally put the odds in favor of this actually having happened at about one in a hundred, or 1%.

Dick Cheney, according to Ron Suskind’s “The 1% Doctrine”, might regard that as sufficient grounds for torture, indefinite detention, or even preventive war, but I would say it falls far short of legal requirements for indictment, let alone conviction. Further investigation, yes, considering the stakes. By comparison, for example, I would regard the evidence that manipulation of the electoral process, unethical or illegal, enough to shift the results in the 2000 and 2004 elections to be very much stronger, though still short of near-certainty. And the evidence that a secret Administration RESPONSE to 9-11 was to accelerate a president-led conspiracy to lie the country into an invasion of Iraq, and to violate laws and Constitutional rights, seems overwhelming, more than enough to warrant impeachment of the president, the vice-president, the secretary of defense, and other top aides.

I know others disagree about 9-11, which I respect, but I would point out that much of the evidence on which they base their conclusions has not been subject to cross examination or directly opposing testimony, precisely because the “investigations” so far have refused to use fully the subpoena powers at their disposal or even to address directly many of the probing questions that have been raised by outside analysts.

I trust you will wish to correct these misimpressions on your website, and arrange for the publication of this correction.

Yours, Daniel Ellsberg

[RedSock]

4. Links to Audio and Transcript

Partial Transcript and links to audio and full transcript

[Ferry Fey]

5. Good to see distortions corrected

Daniel Ellsberg has risked more as a truthteller than most of us, and so, here are his corrections regarding the Infowars story

And if he hadn't had a history of taking risks to speak out, would he not have been as deserving of clarification?

With the instant ability to counter false information that is now at our disposal on the net, there is no reason that
this shouldn't be done more often. Given the stakes involved, we can't settle for less than acccurate interpretations.

I know others disagree about 9-11, which I respect, but I would point out that much of the evidence on which they base their conclusions has not been subject to cross examination or directly opposing testimony, precisely because the “investigations” so far have refused to use fully the subpoena powers at their disposal or even to address directly many of the probing questions that have been raised by outside analysts.

Memorize that passage, use it often. People who accept the 9/11 Commission's report often don't realize that there are contradictions or exclusions.

[better2know]

6. Very Sorry to have posted- Good job RedSock

Glad you found this, and corrected so carefully, fully, and without animosity.
I was wondering why I couldn't find good quotes.
And wondering why it wasn't already up on DU.
My bad!
Good job again RedSock!