Perle's denial is shaky

Perle told CNN Friday that Tenet was simply trying to shift the blame for 9/11 missteps to him but denied telling Tenet on Sept. 12 that Iraq would have to pay for the attacks. Perle denied having ever claimed that Iraq was responsible for the attacks.

However, someone sent me a transcript of a public statement the weekend after 9/11, in which Perle says that secret evidence, which perhaps might not meet a judicial standard, strongly indicated that Saddam had been conniving with al Qaeda and was involved in the attacks.

So Tenet's recollection may be off, but the substance of his representation of Perle's position is correct.

Google alerts 'restored'
The 9/11 alerts have been restored, but as I said previously, someone is finding ways to leave a lot out, it appears. More so than in the past.

Also, based on past experience, the alerts may capriciously stop again.

As reported previously, no White House email alerts went to any of my email addresses, despite efforts to get them sent. Then, when Card left the White House, they started up again, lasted for a month or two and then fell silent again. Perhaps I was nixed from the list because I rarely opened them. But that doesn't seem a very good reason. Most places wait till you unsubscribe before unsubscribing you.

Stupid 9/11 polls
As the 9/11 truth and justice movement gains adherents, we have polls of U.S. public opinion concerning what they believe. The latest avers that 35% of Democrats think Bush knew about 9/11 in advance while Republicans reject 9/11 conspiracy theories 7 to 1.

Such polls, though seemingly justified as presidential campaigning gears up, are stupid because the media think that it is OK to sample opinion for what the public believes without doing any investigative reporting that might inform the public and give it a firmer basis of belief. It's almost as if some polls represent a rearguard action by the opinion molders saying, well, we can still marginalize "conspiracy theorists" or, short of that, turn 9/11 truth into a "mere partisan game.

Perhaps a more interesting result came from the mad shoebomber (the Padilla) trial in Florida. There the judge asked prospective jurors whether they believed the government and the press were telling the truth about the 9/11 attacks. She expressed surprise at how many people were skeptical.

Another reason this is interesting is that the story got past the AP's state desk and went national. AP coverage of anything challenging the official line has been pretty much nonexistent. So many wire editors play it safe and don't run anything not highlighted in the AP news budget.

The antiwar lobby's missing WMD
The antiwar lobby, which did so much to push through the now-vetoed troop pullout deadline, is worried that Reid, Pelosi et al will capitulate to the White House on war funding, says today's NY Times.

I'd like to point out that, for the most part, the antiwar lobby has followed a leftist political decision to duck the issue of treason on 9/11. Yet this is a most important issue: Bush lacks the moral authority to wage war because of the fact that he is protecting a group of criminals who made 9/11 happen and then, by degrees, gained control of the mass media sufficiently to stanch the hemorrhage of news pointing to official complicity.

Sure, the antiwar leaders fears being smeared as conspiracy theorists, which is kind of silly in that they have no problem talking about all sorts of OTHER matters as if they are Bush administration conspiracies.

Yet, if the antiwar lobby is serious about halting the war, the weapon of mass political destruction should be fired: It's time to pressure the Democratic leadership concerning very serious holes in the official storyline.

Just do it.

Keller hires a dangerous man
Will Clark Hoyt have the power he once had as a top Knight Ridder editor who early on challenged the White House's Iraq war claims? Keller has named the 64-year-old to a two-year term as New York Times public editor.

Though he won't be directing news coverage, Hoyt may well have substantial influence. Just the act of hiring him sends a message to Times staff to get on the ball and start doing some old-fashioned hard-nosed questioning and digging.

Of course, it must be admitted that as a top establishment press editor, Hoyt WAS under control -- but just barely. Despite many brickbats from empty-headed "patriots," the Knight Ridder coverage established a record that would later haunt Bush and Cheney.

Of course, one must wonder whether the conservative investor who pushed through the cannibalization of Knight Ridder was ticked off at Hoyt for not playing the game.

Certainly Knight Ridder was as boxed in as the rest of the for-profit media about probing the realities of 9/11 versus the official myths. Whether Hoyt's hiring will have an impact that way remains to be seen.