A number of readers have written to Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin complaining about her distortion of Rep. Cynthia McKinney's entirely legitimate demand for answers about September 11. Here are a few of these outstanding letters.

We Believe Cynthia! Letters from our Readers

A number of readers have written to Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin complaining about her distortion of Rep. Cynthia McKinney's entirely legitimate demand for answers about September 11. Here are a few of these outstanding letters.

To share your letters and further discuss this topic, join our community.

"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."

Was this an editorial or a news report? I am a little confused on this point.

Nevertheless you did a pretty good job of twisting what Ms. Mckinney said. I do not embrace all of Ms. Mckinney's positions, but I think her questions regarding what information the Administration had regarding September 11, are reasonable. When President Kennedy was assassinated, President Johnson appointed a commission to investigate. After Pearl Harbor, there was an official investigation which resulted in a court martial. Where is the September 11th investigation? Its possible the administration had no inkling of any attack, but I haven't seen a definitive investigation say so.

Here's what I do know from legitimate news sources. Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor explicitly informed Condi Rice, Bush's national security advisor, in January 2001 that Bin Ladin was a major problem that would occupy quite a bit of the Bush administration's time. I know in March 2001 the Hart Rudman report was received and apparently ignored by the current administration. Cheney was to write his own report, as the Hart Rudman report suffered from the "not invented here" syndrome. Unfortunately with the energy task force, Cheney was on task overload and didn't get around to it before September 11.

No one seems real interested in these two points, except cranks like me. Let me say for the record, I don't believe the administration was involved in a September 11 conspiracy. I do wonder if their inexperience (Ms. Rice is an expert on the defunct soviet Union, not Middle Eastern politics), their determination to undue anything President Clinton's Administration ever did (regardless of its merits), caused them to miss warning signals. I think it is self evident from the comments that were reported in your article that the Bushies don't want to discuss this. I don't think there is a conspiracy on their part- they don't need one, because reporters aren't asking the hard questions. From your article it seems to me you reported Mckinney's comments, asked for an administration response, got it and phoned in the story/editorial. What you didn't do was ask what warning signals, if any at all, did this Administration have regarding a possible terrorist attack prior to September 11th? If Bob Woodward were still alive, this would never happen.

Greg Winters

I congratulate Rep. Cynthia McKinney on her courage in calling for a complete and open investigation into the September 11 attacks. We don't know how history will eventually read as to what happened on that day.

In my opinion, the least likely scenario is that the vast US intelligence structure was so uninformed as to be unable to stop the attacks from starting or that the entire military defense establishment was unable to intervene once they began. Yet this is what Americans are expected to accept without question or else be called a crazy "conspiracy theorist" or even unpatriotic.

Threats to democracy and freedom can come from inside. I think it is smart to reject weak answers for important questions. It is sane and it is patriotic. Thank you Representative McKinney.

Julia Kauffmann, Santa Barbara, CA

Ms. McKinney is not the only person in this country that is wondering what the Bush admin knew and when they knew it. With Bush Senior in cahoots with the Carlyle Group, that has everything to gain and nothing to lose by the US being at 'war', begs an answer. Too bad the "press" is no longer interested in pursuing the facts and is acting only as a rubber stamp to anything this illegitimate administration wants to do or say. For a democracy to work, we need a press that asks the tough questions, that does not align itself with ANY faction or party, that reports the truth and informs the public of the shenanigans going on in DC. The press has been dangerously lax in its duties to the people and the country, and for ANY 'reporter' to not wonder why McKinney is saying what she is saying, and instead condemning her for her concern, says to me that you along with others in your profession, are again refusing to look into the Bush take over of this country. Get busy! Find out why McKinney is saying what she is...Dig a little, see if there is any credence in her words. Just stop criticizing her without even trying to find out what makes her think what she thinks. If you look objectively at what she has to offer, you may just begin to be doing the job you are being paid to do. Report the facts, and stop with the opinion and conjecture. That would be a refreshing change from the thick coating of syrup you are smearing the public with where Bush and his energy and big business cronies are concerned. Seems we have an admisitration that hires has beens from Enron and other factions of the energy industry...Why nothing scathing on this little subject?

And this 'war'...with a barely third world country, that has already been torn apart by the USSR, not really an equal match, don't you think? Who is gaining anything from this? What? Not interested? But you should be! IT's up to you and others like you to DIG and find the facts, not just accept evrything that the Bush admin throws at you! They say 'Good boy! You caught the ball, now feed it to the rest of the dummies out there,' and you oblige them! Incredible!

The fourth estate that is supposed to keep the politicians honest, has dropped the ball, and can't even see it!

From a concerned and disgusted citizen,

Marcy Roberts

Those of us that have been reading the foreign press know that both Russia and Israel warned our intelligence services prior to September 11th. Americans deserve to know why those that are supposed to protect us failed so miserably. Furthermore, I live in the flight zones for Andrews AFB. For the past ten years, fighter jets have flown over my house several times a day, primarily in the morning hours. As a former member of the military, I have to question where those jets were on the morning of the 11th. There can be no answers until there is an investigation. My father and I both served in the military. He is a veteran of WWII and landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944. I was a member of the Army Nurse Corps for eight years and am a veteran of the Gulf War. Neither of us trust or support the present administration. Anyone that would steal an election in broad daylight would not hesitate to allow this attack to go forward to further their own ends politically. And, where is our American media? The very same media that has given a free pass to Bush from the get go is still asleep at the wheel. On the day that the Supreme Court gave the selection to Bush, my father said that he would have gone AWOL (much like the current commander in thief) in England if he had known that this is what America would come to.....a sorry state of affairs for all of those that have given their lives to protect democracy. Representative McKinney is not a crackpot; nor, are the millions of Americans that have questions about the numerous failures in our defensive capabilities that had to occur in order for the September 11th attacks to take place. Those attacks happened on Bush's watch and it is past time for him to face the music.

Marcia Furayter Roberts Army Nurse Corps 83-91 Gulf War Veteran
Joseph P. Furayter 1st Inf Div 38-40 42-45 Northern Africa, Sicily, Omaha Beach, Battle of the Bulge, The Rhineland

Those who attack Congresswoman McKinney for speaking her mind regarding the right of the American citizens to know the facts of the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks should heed these words on patriotism from President Teddy Roosevelt:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country." -- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1908

George W. Bush has a responsibility to tell the truth about Sept. 11th. The fact that he and members of his administration are opposing a thorough investigation of the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil is highly suspicious. What are they hiding?

I salute Congresswoman McKinney for having the courage to speak out on her convictions. Perhaps if more elected officials were so courageous, the American people might not be so skeptical about politicians.

Becky Knight

Kudos to Rep. Cynthia A. McKinney (D-GA) who finally called for a public investigation of the Putsch Administration's implication in the September 11 terrorist attacks! Her comments on Berkeley's own KPFA Flashpoints even got the attention of the pResident and Thief's press secretary who commented that she "must be running for the hall of fame of the Grassy Knoll Society." Exactly, Ari! Been watching any of the History Channel lately?

Better yet, the Southeastern Legal [sic] Foundation in Atlanta sent a letter to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct requesting an investigation and sanction of the congresswoman for her statements. Oh, me thinkst thou doest protest too much!

And after begging the question by stating that "such statements have no place in a country united behind a common goal and against a common enemy" outraged [sic] Rethug Dick Armey put his foot in one of his orifices by concluding that Democrats should condemn her statements before someone takes them "seriously." This was echoed by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) who condescended, "I don't think anyone's taking them seriously." Whether it's religion, politics or common sense, ever notice how Rethugs tell us what and how to believe, let alone think and live? Anyway, Dick and Jack, wanna bet? Check Unless it's been freepered by now, it shows that those "someones" you haven't reached account for 46% of the public! Scientific or not, that's a lot of "serious" Grassy Knoll Society members considering how corporately whored the American media is in its universal silence.

I'd wager most Democrats would agree that 9-11 would never have happened had all the votes been counted. A far less speculative and more concrete reason has recently been revealed. In addition to the $43 million that went to the Taliban in May, the shutdown of the Arab-Isreali peace process, and the failure to implement Al Gore's airport security regulations, several credible French and German journalists and intelligence analysts (blacked out by America's corporate mediawhores) have reported that the Putsch administration had been hampering governmental efforts to apprehend the 9-11 terrorists. Of course, the Rethugs and their "court" press speciously feed us that it was really Bill Clinton's fault!

Furthermore, Putsch was negotiating an oil pipeline deal in June with the Taliban going even so far as to promise the Taliban a carpet of either gold or bombs (depending on their decision) in order to divest the region from the Russians. Purportedly it came from former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill who was-interestingly-killed at the WTC on 9-11 after he had resigned in protest over Putsch's obstruction of the FBI's and CIA's apprehension pursuits apparently to appease the Taliban. Coincidently, the September 11 attacks have (and will) immeasurably enriched both the Bush and bin Laden families' Carlyle Group's war-profiteer-err, defense contractors.

Of course there's more. Like Putsch's reaction of remaining in his element of reading to schoolchildren for a half-hour after learning of the attacks. Like his callous reaction to the attacks ["I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or - anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, 'America is under attack'.Anyway, it was an interesting day." (By the way, the tape of the first plane flying into the first WTC was not available until after the second WTC tower collapsed!)] And, finally, like bin Laden's clandestine meeting with a CIA operative in Dubai last July. An admitted terrorist bomber of our African embassies in 1998 meeting with a CIA operative? What, indeed, are we missing?

Is it any wonder that der Wunderkinder's January 29th request to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (citing, naturally, national security) that Senate investigators limit their investigation into the September 11th terrorist attacks takes on a much more (are you listening, Dick and Jack?) serious tone?

Yeah, Dick, I and a whole lot of other loose cannons are outraged all right! And, unlike you, justifiably so! And it's not just me-Mr. Fringe.

After all, Mr. Armey and his Rethugs are forgetting one thing. But what do you expect from the logically challenged? The political, let alone logical, thing to do would be to engage that special prosecutor in order to once and for all lay all us conspiracy theorists low before the American public, wouldn't it? What a political coup-d'etat! No? If the tables were reversed, I doubt Ken Starr, let alone the "mainstream" mediawhore press, wouldn't be happily pursuing this mother of investigations?

Now what was this about corpor-err, national security?

Will Wyche, California

Instead of dismissing out of hand the questions raised by Rep. Cynthia McKinney, why not actually do some investigative reporting on the Bush Administrations failings prior to and after 9-11? Is it because it is easier to ridicule someone that asks some serious questions rather than to actually do some work? Or, is that your knees quiver at the thought of going up against the Bush Juggernaut. If conspiracy theories abound, it is because the media is not doing their job. Whatever the Bush Administration says is veiwed as gospel and not to be challenged. The main stream media has become irrelevant when it comes to holding our elected (and unelected) officials accountable for what they do, except of course if there is a juicy sex scandal. You are pathetic!

Anthony Bertucci, Newfield, NJ

I completely agree with Cynthia McKinney when she says, "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." I am appalled that the mainstream media condemns Congresswoman McKinney for refusing to let the Bush administration get away with sweeping 9/11 under the carpet. September 11th was an unprecedented tragedy that completely traumatized the nation. Our government, which is supposed to protect us from attack on our own soil, so obviously profoundly failed us, in many ways. First, because our intelligence agencies were seemingly blindsided by the attack, despite the fact that they possess the most sophisticated, taxpayer-funded surveillance equipment in the world, had been investigating al Qaeda for YEARS, and were tipped off by law enforcement officials in the midwest about Zacarias Moussaoui prior to September 11th.

Secondly, there is a lot of information out there - not all of it from much-derided "conspiracy theorists" - indicating that certain people may have had prior warning that an incident would occur. Just to cite a few examples: 1) the San Francisco Chronicle reported on September 12th that Mayor Willie Brown got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel. ( /12/MN229389.DTL) 2) The CIA was warned weeks ahead of time about a possible attack. (See the New Yorker: 3) Brian McWilliams of Newsbytes News Network (a division of YOUR paper's owner, The Washington Post Company) reported that “Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks.” Was anyone in the government informed of this fact? If so, why weren't F-16s deployed above the twin towers?? 4) Why did the Bush administration lie and say that Bush hopped aboard Air Force 1 because they had received a credible threat against the President (and then retract that story)? 5) Why do Bush's stories about how he first heard of the attacks keep changing? [For more unanswered questions, go to:]

Your reporters may be willing to dismiss all of this evidence, but I don't think you're doing the American people any favors by urging us to dismiss it as well. It's about time that someone in Congress stood up to this administration, which is manipulating our distress over 9/11 to trample our civil rights, conduct government policy shrouded in secrecy, create secret kangaroo courts, and squelch criticism and dissent, among many other anti-democratic actions. It's about time someone stood up for the public's interest. You do the brave Congresswoman McKinney and the American public a grave disservice by criticizing her simply for doing her job.

If we don't get to the root of why this failure occurred, how can we ever hope to protect ourselves from future attacks?

Sandra Wade-Grusky, Pacific Palisades, CA

Congratulations to the Washington Post for having had the courage to mention the scandalous matter of the role of the Bush Administration in 9-11. However, I do not believe you gave fair coverage to Cynthia McKinney. Many intelligent people have questions about the official version of 9-11. Foreign countries and the underground press are awash with evidence of contradictions, puzzles and outright lies of the administration concerning the terrorist attacks. Most damningly the Administration has not investigated and does not want Daschel or anyone else to go there. Either they were out-and-out complicit or their ties with the Saudis and dealings with the Taliban opened the gates for the terrorists. Why is the Washington Post afraid to go there? You've opened the door a crack. Is it so impossible to believe that a regime crooked enough to steal the election might get up to some pretty bad stuff once they got into office? Who believes the official story about Bin Laden? It was all about oil. Why keep the ordinary American people in ignorance? Most of them are just now finding out about that crooked election not because of the timid distorted reporting of the mainstream press but because of Michael Moore's best selling book STUPID WHITE MEN . Every outside country covered that story from the start. Shame on you for burying it! Give Cynthia McKinney a break.Please don't join in the "vast right-wing conspiracy" now to smear a courageous woman. America looks like a corrupt stupid banana Republic to the rest of the world after that election. Please don't roll over and succumb to that bunch of thugs you have in office by stifling legitimate criticism of them.If you cared to and did minimum research you would have to agree that there are plenty of questions the Bush bunch needs to answer about how 9-11 happened under their watch. At the very least they were criminally negligent to have allowed it to happen.Your lack out outrage or even curiosity is a marvel to the outside world.

Kathleen Abell, Canada

I believe that Rep. McKinney has every right to raise the questions mentioned in this article. I too, wonder why there has been no investigation by Congress into the worst failure in our country's history, of the agencies who are responsible for protecting us.

While I completely disagree with some of her foreign policy positions, I certainly don't think it's proper to target her for honestly articulating what many American citizens are privately wondering about the horrible tragedy of September 11.

S. Sanchez, Florida

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is hardly the first person to suspect that the mysterious events of September 11 took place with advance knowledge on the part of Mr. Bush and his coterie. Rather than simply airing the views of those politicians who violently disagree with the Congresswoman, how about actually INVESTIGATING the possibility that her suspicions have some basis in fact? Some OBJECTIVE journalism to shed some light on this situation would be most welcome.

I understand, for example, that Mr. Bush made public comments about having seen the first plane hit the first tower before any such video actually appeared on television. I also understand that Mr. Bush was quoted as saying, "I just won the trifecta!" to a member of his administration after the day's events were televised. I also understand that demolition experts who have watched the collapse of the towers say that, in their professional opinion, the towers went down because of explosive placed at key points in the structures of the buildings. I also understand that many financial intimates of the Bush coterie made stock deals worth huge amounts of money in the days leading up to the events of September 11. I also understand that for the Army jets NOT to have gotten into the air to investigate what were supposedly the surprising deviations of these commercial flights from radar tracking would have required orders from a high level in the chain of command to prevent the usual procedures from being followed.

Surely somewhere in there is a lead for an honest investigation?

Pray for truth. Then face the facts.

Stven Carlberg, Tucker, Georgia
PS - The admirably courageous Cynthia McKinney is my Congresswoman

I had the enjoyable opportunity to read the transcripts of a conversation between Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and a Berkeley; California based radio station, in which Rep. McKinney made some very important points. One being that "Persons close to the current administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war". It is a matter of record that the Carlyle Group earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries. Former President Bush and his former Secretary of State James Baker sit on the Carlyle Group board. She also questioned why our elected officials are not being held accountable and why the media is not being held accountable? Rep McKinney went on to question "Why did the current administration not act upon the numerous warnings leading up to the events of September 11?

Being a retired member of the United States Armed Forces, I dedicated over twenty years of my life to the defense of this great country and on a moments notice was prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our beliefs. I totally agree with Rep. McKinney questioning. She is one of the few people who have shown the courage to speak out and ask the tough questions. America's intelligence network is one of the best in the world, if not the best and being a former member of that network, I find it amazing that the current administration did not know of the pending attack on this great country.

Instead of your character assassination attacks against Rep McKinney, why don't you begin to ask the hard questions? Instead of portraying individuals who question the current administration lack of action as unpatriotic, why don't you recognize them as courageous for it takes a true patriot to question what is wrong. It is time for the media to stop hiding under the bed with its tail exposed. The events of 9/11 have affected every American. The current administration and the Congress owe it to every American to find out what really happened on 9/11.

Chris Thomas

As an Emory alumnus and former resident of Decatur, I have never been prouder of my former Representative, Cynthia McKinney. She is to be commended on calling for an investigation of the Bush administration's demonstrable complicity in the terror attacks of September 11. The evidence is overwhelming and convincing for anyone who follows the international press and does not subject themselves to the blindly jingoistic and self-censoring American media. And since it goes to the question of character, McKinney is also quite correct to link any inquiry to the stolen 2000 presidential election: given that Bush and his political allies -- including five members of the U. S. Supreme Court -- were willing to undermine the democratic process by seizing the White House through election fraud and judicial malfeasance, one can reasonably surmise that treason would be but an afterthought for this illegitimate pretender and his cabal.

David Harnden-Warwick, Bellingham, WA

Grassy Knoll This
An Open Letter to Ari Flesicher

Mr. Flesicher:

I propose we begin with a riddle. When is a statement of facts still labeled a "conspiracy theory?" Apparently, when that statement reflects negatively upon your boss, President GW Bush. I am, of course, referring to your offhanded dismissal of the April 12, 2002 statement of U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney. While it is easy to dismiss your comments as a Press Secretary doing his job and deflecting any criticism from his President, I take offense to your attempt to alter the English language.

In reference to her suggestion that a need exists for an investigation into the events of September 11, you stated that Ms. McKinney "…must be running for the hall of fame of the Grassy Knoll Society." Ha ha. Very clever Ari. Of course, next time you want to distance yourself from the Carlyle Group, you should avoid use of the same cliches. (Carlyle spokesperson Chris Ullman asked if McKinney "..say these things while standing on a grassy knoll in Roswell, New Mexico). Either way, it can be assumed that you are suggesting that she is speaking not of facts, but of "conspiracy theory."

I am curious as to which statements of Ms. McKinney's you classify as theoretical.. I have read over the text of her statement several times, and it appears to me that the substantive portion of it is comprised of facts.

Ms. McKinney states that "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." This is a fact.

Ms. McKinney states 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." This is a fact.

Ms. McKinney states 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." This is a fact.

Be grateful she never mentioned that President Bush himself twice told the press that he first learned of the 9-11 attacks when he saw the first plane hit the first tower on TV. Of course, this contradicts at least two other official versions of how Mr. Bush learned of the events. This, Ari, is also a fact. She didn't mention that members of the Taliban visited Sugarland Texas as early as 1997 to be warned that they faced a probable war with the US over an oil pipeline for Unocal. This is a fact. She didn't mention that Hamid Karzai is a former consultant for Unocal. This is a fact.

At no time does Ms. McKinney state that any member of the Bush family or the Bush Administration intentionally acted in anyway to allow the events of September 11, nor does she state that any member of the Bush family or the Bush Administration intentionally sought personal profit in the aftermath of September 11. In fact, she outright states that from the evidence she has seen, she is "not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11."

The line which follows the above is the only speculative statement of Ms. McKinney's, "A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case." As White House Press Secretary, clearly you have the language skills to determine that this statement, while speculative, is also a true statement. It is, of course, among the logically possible outcomes that an investigation would reveal such to be the case.

Representative McKinney called for an investigation based on a statement of facts. She has the right to do so. She is a freely elected member of the United States House of Representatives, and as such should be treated with respect by her colleagues, rather than be the victim of the usual political immature rhetoric which you have often stated your boss was not going to tolerate upon his "election.". You cannot just insult those who disagree with you and hope they will go away. You have an obligation as a member of the Congress to act as a responsible adult.

I challenge you to tell me, and the American public, which part of Ms. McKinney's statement is "theoretical." If what she is said is speculative and not factual, come out and prove her wrong. It seems to me that those that criticize the nature of the person making charges against them rather than answer the actual charges may have something to hide. The American people have the right to a full investigation into the details of September 11, and that includes the response to any warnings of the event, and the influence of non-government organizations on our policies. Such an investigation will happen, despite any and all attempts to prevent such. Which side of history do you want to be on Mr. Flesicher?

Jayson Kaplan, Tampa,FL

I am writing to you in support of Rep. Cynthia McKinney. Recently, she has been attacked relentlessly by the media about her statements regarding the evidence on the Bush administration's possible foreknowledge of the events of 911. I and many of my collegues support her statements.

I am a retired Air Force veteran and know how the military works. I cannot believe the level incompetence displayed by the DOD on the morning of September 11. Eastern seaboard airspace is one of the most heavily guarded and monitored areas in the world. The FAA tracked four commercial flights on radar hundreds of miles off course for over an hour. They promptly notified the Dept. of Defense. Andrews AFB (only 10 miles from the Pentagon) failed to launch their interceptors when they tracked Flight 77 approaching, even with the knowledge that the WTC Towers were hit 30 MINUTES BEFOREHAND which is unusual in itself since the airspace around the WTC Towers was classified a "no-fly zone."

Also, taking into consideration just last year when pro golfer Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted promptly by fighters at Tyndall AFB in Florida when it when it went off course and crashed killing him and his crew. Why isn't this brought up by the media?

The actions of president Bush also leave much to be desired on September 11. Why did he just sit and listen to children's stories at a Sarasota elemantary school for over a half hour after he was notifed about a national emergency? A few weeks later at a press conference in Orlando, why did he state that he saw "the first tower hit on television" when there was no live coverage or any possibility that anyone would know? (

Why were the 19 terrorists, identified in less than 24 hours, not on the original passenger lists of the airline companies? And just to expand matters further, why was Osama bin Laden not arrested at an American medical facility in Dubai by the CIA when they met him there just six weeks prior to 911? (Le Figaro)

A petition for a major investigation by thousands of concerned citizens and organizations was brought before Senator's Boxer and Feinstein in California. What is the status of this?

All in all, I do not believe the official version of what happened on 911 as portrayed by the media nor should you if there is any common sense or investigative inquisitiveness left in the government and the media. That is why I support Cynthia McKinney and I urge you to do the same.

Bill Greene, U.S. Veteran for Peace

I strongly object to the recent editorial in the Atlanta Journal Constitution referring to Representative Cynthia McKinney and her call for an investigation into 9/11 as "nutty." The use of this particular terminology to describe her strikes me as ironic, since the overall tone of the editorial itself came off as wacky and desperately patronizing. Looks like that paper (AJC) is working hard to further its own reputation for "infamous remarks."

I clearly recall how the Republicans called for, and pursued, an investigation for years against the Clintons about Whitewater, spending $78 million in the process, and ultimately came up with nothing. So why are these same right-wing Bushie ass-kissers suddenly so scornful of any mention of pursuing a similar investigation into Sept. 11? Do they have something to hide? Whether they like it or not, a growing tide of many thousands of Americans are now wonder both privately and publicly about why the Bush Administration didn't see this coming, and why 9/11 even happened in the first place. Bottom line: we have a right to know; and that right to know is very American, very democratic, and not at all "nutty."

Many of us also think an investigation is the right thing to do, both legally and ethically--even that we OWE it to the victims and the heroes of 9/11 to discover the full truth behind these horrendous events. I daresay it's also the patriotic thing to do. So, what's the matter, aren't those guys over there at the Atlanta Journal Constitution patriotic enough to favor an investigation into the worst national tragedy we've ever experienced on American soil? And if not, then why not? Who are they beholden to?

Stop demonizing Rep. McKinney for a perfectly reasonable call for an investigation into 9/11. The only thing nutty around here is the way these bullies think it's O.K. to publicly villify someone who legitimately challenges their narrow-minded view of the world.

Kathy Saville, Albuquerque, NM

McKinney's minions march to a different drummer indeed umn

Ms. Parker:

Yes, indeed, it is worse than we thought. You and your sanctimonious co-horts who hold yourselves in such high regard are missing the entire point regarding investigating the terrorists attacks on 9/11. You are the anti-Americans in this country, for you advocate the suppression of the right of every American citizen to question our government and our leaders. Perhaps you have forgotten that they work for us!

You are correct when you state that the terrorists don't have to win, but not for the reasons you believe. The terrorists win when people like you try to silence the voices of those who would dare to question the Bush administration. Apparently you believe they can do no wrong.

You are right again in that we have serious problems and we need serious people. We can no longer afford to tolerate hate-filled people like you and the attack dogs of the right wing, such as those you mention in the Southeastern Legal Foundation, which is funded by the illustrious Richard Melon Scaife. We understand where you are coming from Ms. Parker. You want the Bush administration protected from any type of investigation and you will attempt to do it by smearing Cynthia McKinney. Yes, Ms. Parker, most Americans can spot a fool, and the fool is you for throwing your lot in with people who specialize in smear tactics. Cynthia McKinney’s courage is boundless for she has chosen to do her duty as an elected official at the risk of her very career due to the onslaught of the unscrupulous people you favor.

Yes, I march to the beat of a different drummer. I am proud of that fact. Those of you who are marching goose-step style to the tune of anything the Bush administration plays are in the vast minority as evidenced by the very vote count in November 2000.

Common sense tells me and should tell you that the American people have the right to know what mistakes were made, if any, by anyone in government which could have avoided the greatest terrorist attack on our soil in America's history. The very nature and scope of the events demands an investigation. Why would anyone oppose such an investigation? Why would you? Why would Senator Lott cut the funding for such an investigation? Why would Bush and Cheney request that an investigation be limited in scope? Is there something to hide?

If Watergate, Iran/Contra, Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, and Monicagate warrant investigations by Congress, why doesn't a terrorist attack of this magnitude?

Tennessee Gal

While I have become too cynical to be astonished at your criticism of Congresswoman McKinney, I am notheless astonished at how deeply you and other big media choose to insert your heads into the sand.

Why do you choose to ignore the numerous, confirmed reports of actions taken by the Bush Administration that made it easier for the attack to happen? Clinton had a sub carrying a cruise missile with Osama's name on it patrolling the ocean waters nearest Afghanistan. Bush pulled it out. The administration in August told theTaliban they must let us build our pipeline to the Caspian or else they would reap 'a carpet of bombs.' That has been widely reported in major papers around the world. American media has mentioned it only in passing.

Do you not know about John O'Neill, the FBI Deputy Director who resigned in protest over the administration's obstruction of both the FBI and CIA's efforts to apprehend bin Laden?

Why did Bush ask the FBI to LIMIT its investigation of 9/11? Why has Trent Lott moved to obstruct funding of that investigation? America was attacked, for gosh sakes, and our investigators are asked to 'limit' their inquiries?

And now look at the kinds of reactions her statement got. Bush spokesman McLellan said "The American people know the facts and they dismiss such ludicrous, baseless views. The fact that she questions the president's legitimacy shows a partisan mind-set beyond all reason." Carlyle Group spokesman Ullman said: "Did she say these things while standing on a grassy knoll in Roswell?"

Remember as the Watergate story unfolded, Woodstein and Bradlee called such statements "non-denial denials".

I suggest you commence to act like journalists and American patriots rather than mouthpieces for inept and possibly criminal politicians. Go for the Pulitzer, folks. Help save our nation.

Steve Warren, San Marcos TX

Due to the overwhelming volume of letters, we invite you to post additional letters in our community

Send To Printer