92 Obama cancels European missile shield, seeks Russian support over Iran

Obama's rejection of the anti-Putin missile shield is welcome. But only Israel finds Iran a threat.

(1) Obama cancels European missile shield, seeks Russian support over Iran
(2) MidEast Peace falters as Netanyahu spurns Obama call to halt settlements
(3) UN report: Israel's Gaza blockade is crippling reconstruction
(4) Obama aide resigns for saying that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen, as a pretext for war
(5) Why Propaganda Trumps Truth, by Paul Craig Roberts

(1) Obama cancels European missile shield, seeks Russian support over Iran

Barack Obama to meet Dmitry Medvedev in wake of missile decision

President Barack Obama will meet Dmitry Medvedev for face to face talks next week in an attempt to urge Russia to back a tougher approach towards Iran.

By Andrew Osborn in Moscow, Bruno Waterfield in Brussels

Published: 6:53PM BST 18 Sep 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6207173/Barack-Obama-to-meet-Dmitry-Medvedev-in-wake-of-missile-decision.html

Russian missile complex Iskander on display during a military equipment exhibition in the Siberian town of Nizhny Tagil  Photo: GETTY

The leaders are to hold a one-hour meeting in New York on Wednesday with Kremlin officials promising the discussions will be wide-ranging.

Mr Obama is hoping to hammer out a deal on possible sanctions ahead of talks with Tehran on its nuclear weapons programme set for October 1.

The meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations general assembly will come less than a week after Washington dropped its missile shield plans to the delight of Moscow.

Mr Medvedev said the decision to abandon plans for defence bases in Poland and the Czech Republic meant he would listen to US concerns more attentively in future but claimed there had been no "primitive deals". Russia's prime minister, Vladimir Putin, hailed the move as "brave and correct".

Mr Medvedev is due to address the UN general assembly next week almost half a century after Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev took off his shoe and banged it on a desk at the same forum. US officials are hoping he will use the occasion to signal a new approach to international relations.

On Friday, there were a series of signs of an immediate thaw in Russia's icy relations with the West less than 24 hours after Mr Obama's announcement.

In his first major speech since taking over as Nato secretary-general last month, Anders Fogh Rasmussen suggested the US, Nato and Russia join forces when it comes to missile defence.

"Both Russia and Nato have a wealth of experience in missile defence," he said. "We should now work to combine this experience."

In a related demarche that may cause unease in some European capitals, he called for Nato and Russia to conduct a joint security challenges review.

"Russia, sooner rather than later, will recognise that new co-operation with Nato is in their own interest," he predicted.

Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's famously hawkish Nato envoy, called the speech "very positive," promising it would be carefully analysed in Moscow.

He also confirmed reports that Russia would now shelve plans to fortify its enclave of Kaliningrad with a rocket battery of Iskander missiles and nuclear bombers in response to Washington dropping its missile shield in Eastern Europe.

Kaliningrad borders European Union states Poland and Lithuania and Mr Medvedev had said that the Iskander missiles could be used "if necessary" to "neutralise" the shield if and when it was erected in Poland and the Czech Republic. The fact the decision to shelve the Iskander missiles was made public so swiftly suggested the Kremlin was keen to show it is willing to be helpful too.

At the same time, the Kremlin also made it clear that it wants more concessions itself from the US. In particular, Mr Putin said he hoped and expected Washington would lift a raft of trade restrictions and speed its entry into the World Trade Organisation.

But the Russian leadership remains divided on the issue of Iran as Moscow enjoys strong commercial and diplomatic ties which it seems reluctant to imperil.

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the influential Russia in Global Affairs magazine, said he expected the Kremlin to become a bit tougher on Iran but played down the prospect of a serious policy shift.

"The Russian position on Iran and sanctions may become more flexible," he said. "But there will be no revolutionary changes."

Both Russia and the US are also racing to agree deep cuts in their nuclear arsenals before the end of the year in a symbolic deal meant to discourage other countries from going nuclear.

But the Kremlin conceded it was under real pressure to make its own concessions.

"We are now in a more sensitive and responsible position because we are expected to respond," a senior Kremlin source told reporters on Friday. "[President Obama's decision] makes Russia attentively weigh new opportunities for co-operation."

(2) MidEast Peace falters as Netanyahu spurns Obama call to halt settlements

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/18/jewish-settlements-peace-talks-obama

Settlements row throws Middle East peace talks into doubt

• US envoy fails to get deal ahead of Obama meeting
• Palestinians insist on total freeze on construction

Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem and Chris McGreal in Washington

guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 September 2009 19.18 BST

A high-stakes meeting between President Barack Obama and the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to restart peace talks was yesterday in doubt after the US envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, failed to win an agreement on a halt to Jewish settlement construction.

In the last four days Mitchell has met Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, four times seeking an agreement to stop settlement building in the Palestinian territories. Israel offered a freeze, but only with broad caveats. The Palestinians, taking an unusually firm line, said that was not enough.

Obama had hoped to bring Netanyahu and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas together at a meeting at the UN in New York next Wednesday. It would have restarted peace talks between the two sides for the first time in nearly a year, the first such Middle East negotiations under the Obama administration.

Mitchell met Netanyahu in Jerusalem yesterday, then crossed to Ramallah, in the occupied West Bank, where he met Abbas. He returned to Jerusalem to see Netanyahu again just before the Jewish New Year began at sunset, but could not bridge the gaps between the two.

"There is no agreement yet with the Israeli side, and no middle-ground solution," Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said after the Abbas meeting. "A settlement freeze is a settlement freeze."

Netanyahu is not due to leave for New York until Wednesday next week, but it is understood that if the Palestinians do agree to meet, preparations have been made to get the Israeli premier there earlier. The Israelis regard the Palestinians as the side holding up the talks.

Initially the US had asked Israel for a complete halt to settlement activity – one of the commitments in the US roadmap of 2003, which remains the basis for peace talks. However Netanyahu leads a right-wing coalition which strongly supports the settlers. Nearly 500,000 Jews now live in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, even though settlement on occupied land is illegal under international law.

Netanyahu offered a compromise: there would be a freeze to settlement building, but only for a limited period and it would not include east Jerusalem. In addition, Israel wanted work to continue on 2,500 homes where construction has started. In a final move, the Israeli government approved an additional 500 new settlement homes and said work would start or continue on those during the freeze.

Israel views that offer as part of a package: in return it wants Arab states to take steps towards normalising relations with Israel and for the Palestinians to meet their commitments under the roadmap, which include tackling militant violence and incitement.

US officials say they remain optimistic that Obama will finalise an Israeli agreement for a partial freeze on settlement construction when he meets Netanyahu in New York, and suggested that the unusually tough Palestinian position is in part last minute manoeuvring.

The Americans believe a deal to limit construction on existing West Bank settlements to about 2,500 new homes already planned will be endorsed. But they recognise that falls short of the Palestinian demand for a total freeze on expansion that must also include East Jerusalem. Diplomats in Washington say it would be difficult for Abbas to resist pressure from Obama to commit himself to talks, not least because the Palestinian government is heavily dependent on US and European money. However, it would be a setback for Obama if he were not able to at least get Netanyahu and Abbas in the same room.

At first Israel proposed a freeze lasting six months, but the US was hoping for at least one year. One Israeli official suggested yesterday that might be extended up to nine months. "Israel will agree to extend the freeze beyond six months – possibly nine months, but less than a year," the official said.

Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, said a meeting in New York might still go ahead but that it would be meaningless unless Israel committed to a full settlement freeze.

Yesterday the EU gave strong backing to the US efforts. In a statement, the Swedish EU presidency called on both sides to "fully engage in resumed negotiations".

(3) UN report: Israel's Gaza blockade is crippling reconstruction

From: Henry Norr <henrynorr@gmail.com>  Date: 19.09.2009 02:11 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/18/israel-gaza-blockade-reconstruction

Israel's Gaza blockade crippling reconstruction

Eight months after war, import restrictions are delaying aid and causing 'de-development', leaked UN report says

    * Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
    * guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 September 2009 14.58 BST

A Palestinian family, whose house was destroyed during Israel's offensive on the Gaza strip, break their day-long Ramadan fast. Photograph: Ali Ali/EPA

A leaked UN report has warned that Israel's continued economic blockade of Gaza and lengthy delays in delivering humanitarian aid are "devastating livelihoods" and causing gradual "de-development".

For more than two years, Gaza has been under severe Israeli restrictions, preventing all exports and confining imports to a limited supply of humanitarian goods.

Now, eight months after the end of the Gaza war, much reconstruction work is still to be done because materials are either delayed or banned from entering the strip.

The UN report, obtained by the Guardian, reveals the delays facing the delivery of even the most basic aid. On average, it takes 85 days to get shelter kits into Gaza, 68 days to deliver health and paediatric hygiene kits, and 39 days for household items such as bedding and kitchen utensils.

Among the many items delayed are notebooks and textbooks for children returning to school. As many as 120 truckloads of stationery were "stranded" in the West Bank and Israel due to "ongoing delays in approval".

There were "continued difficulties" in importing English textbooks for grades four to nine – affecting 130,000 children – and material used to print textbooks for several subjects in grades one to nine.

Government schools were reported to lack paper and chalk, while the UN Relief and Works Agency, which supports Palestinian refugees and runs many schools in Gaza, was still waiting to import 4,000 desks and 5,000 chairs.

The UN says the current situation "contravenes" a UN security council resolution passed during the war in January, which called for "unimpeded provision and distribution" of humanitarian aid for Gaza.

"The result is a gradual process of de-development across all sectors, devastating livelihoods, increasing unemployment and resulting in increased aid dependency amongst the population," says the report from the UN Office of the Humanitarian Co-ordinator.

According to UN statistics, around 70% of Gazans live on less than a dollar a day, 75% rely on food aid and 60% have no daily access to water. As many as 20,000 Palestinians are still displaced after the war, most living with relatives or renting apartments.

Among the most urgent needs is glass to repair shattered windows before the winter rains. Glass, along with other construction materials, is one of the many items banned by Israel from entering the strip. The UN also wanted to deliver agricultural products to reach farmers in time for their main planting season over the next few months. Industrial fuel was required for the power plant, along with bank notes for aid projects and salaries.

In June and July, there was a slight relaxation of the restrictions, allowing in small amounts of agricultural fertilizers, glass, aluminium, cattle and tools for repairing houses. Plastic pipes have been allowed in but only 69% of the water network that was damaged during the war has so far been repaired.

The UN said that, despite this "ad hoc" easing of the blockade, it found "no significant improvement in the quantity and scope of goods allowed into Gaza". Imports are 80% down on the period before the blockade, and most of what does enter Gaza is from a narrow range of food and hygiene items.

Israel began putting restrictions on Gaza after Hamas won the Palestinian elections in early 2006, and imposed the blockade in June 2007 after the party seized control of the strip.

Egypt has also kept its border with Gaza largely closed, though growing quantities of goods, including fridges and even small cars, are smuggled in from Egypt through tunnels. The UN said the high cost of these goods meant that only wealthier Gazans benefitted, with "little trickle-down effect for the vast majority of the population".

A spokesman for Israel's co-ordinator of government activities in the territories did not respond to calls for comment yesterday. The Israeli military sends journalists near-daily text messages noting the number of delivery trucks scheduled to enter Gaza.

On most working days, between 70 and 100 trucks are due to cross – a number which aid agencies say is still well short of that required. The average flow of 9,500 trucks a month entering Gaza in late 2005 was also considered insufficient.

In July this year, only 2,231 trucks crossed the blockade.

(4) Obama aide resigns for saying that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen, as a pretext for war

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6147267/Barack-Obama-aide-resigns-over-claim-that-911-was-a-pretext-for-war.html

Barack Obama aide resigns over claim that 9/11 was a pretext for war

Van Jones, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, has resigned after it emerged that he had signed a petition stating that the Bush administration may have allowed the September 11 attacks to happen as a pretext to go to war.

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Published: 7:57PM BST 06 Sep 2009

Van Jons resigned from his position as an environmental advisor  Photo: GETTY IMAGES

The ousting of Van Jones, a Left-wing activist appointed by Mr Obama as his "special adviser for green jobs", is a victory for Republicans and a sign of growing weakness within the White House.

It was a major scalp for the Fox News host Glenn Beck, who brought Mr Jones's past to prominence and for weeks has been citing his presence in the Obama administration as evidence that the president is guided by a cadre of radical lieutenants.

Mr Jones was reported to have signed a petition saying that Mr Bush "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war".

In an angry statement issued on Sunday, Mr Jones spoke of a "vicious smear campaign against me" and blamed Republicans for "using lies and distortions to distract and divide".

He said: "I have been inundated with calls - from across the political spectrum - urging me to 'stay and fight'. But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past.

"We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future."

David Axelrod, a senior Obama adviser, praised Mr Jones for the "great deal of commitment on his part" in "removing himself as an issue".

Mr Jones apologised twice last week, for signing the petition and for describing Republicans as "assholes" in February, before he joined the Obama administration.

When asked before the weekend whether Mr Jones enjoyed the confidence of Mr Obama, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, would say only that he "continues to work in the administration".

The White House chose the very early hours of Sunday morning on the Labour Day holiday weekend to make the resignation announcement, a sign that it wanted to bury what had become a major distraction to the battle over health care reform.

Mr Jones's links to a group called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (Storm) led to allegations from the Right that he was a communist.

After the September 11 attacks in 2001, he attended a vigil at which "US imperialism" was blamed for the al-Qaeda strikes on New York and Washington.

In a 2005 interview, Mr Jones said that after the acquittal of the assailants of Rodney King, the black victim of a vicious beating by white police officers in 1991, he was transformed from a being "rowdy nationalist" into "a communist".

The racial overtones of many of his past utterances were a particular liability for a president whose election campaign was nearly derailed by the rantings of his former pastor Jeremiah Wright and has since been anxious to distance himself from black extremism.

Mr Jones had accused whites of using pollution as a weapon against blacks, stating that "the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don't have a racial justice frame".

The episode has drawn attention to the large number of czars appointed by Mr Obama - many more than in previous administration - and a haphazard system of vetting appointees that allowed such an obviously controversial figure to get through.

"Curious how he made it that far into the administration when a google search could have told you he believed that the Bush Administration had allowed 9/11 to happen," Dana Perino, President George W. Bush's press secretary, told the Politico website.

"It'd be like the Bush White House having a former clansman or Holocaust denier in the West Wing."

(5) Why Propaganda Trumps Truth, by Paul Craig Roberts

From: ummyakoub <ummyakoub@yahoo.com>  Date: 17.09.2009 04:58 PM

Why Propaganda Trumps Truth

Paul Craig Roberts

Information Clearing House Tuesday, September 15, 2009

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23498.htm

An article in the journal, Sociological Inquiry, casts light on the effectiveness of propaganda. Researchers examined why big lies succeed where little lies fail. Governments can get away with mass deceptions, but politicians cannot get away with sexual affairs.

The researchers explain why so many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it has become obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the event. Americans developed elaborate rationalizations based on Bush administration propaganda that alleged Iraqi involvement and became deeply attached to their beliefs. Their emotional involvement became wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality. They looked for information that supported their beliefs and avoided information that challenged them, regardless of the facts of the matter.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the believability of the Big Lie as compared to the small lie: "In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation."

What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves. It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose.

The psychology of belief retention even when those beliefs are wrong is a pillar of social cohesion and stability. It explains why, once change is effected, even revolutionary governments become conservative. The downside of belief retention is its prevention of the recognition of facts. Belief retention in the Soviet Union made the system unable to adjust to economic reality, and the Soviet Union collapsed. Today in the United States millions find it easier to chant "USA, USA, USA" than to accept facts that indicate the need for change.

The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the 9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break. The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue. The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government. Unlike their critics parroting the government's line, they know what they are talking about.

Here is a link to a presentation by the architect, Richard Gage, to a Canadian university audience: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13242 The video of the presentation is two hours long and seems to have been edited to shorten it down to two hours. Gage is low-key, but not a dazzling personality or a very articulate presenter. Perhaps that is because he is speaking to a university audience and takes for granted their familiarity with terms and concepts.

Those who believe the official 9/11 story and dismiss skeptics as kooks can test the validity of the sociologists' findings and Hitler's observation by watching the video and experiencing their reaction to evidence that challenges their beliefs. Are you able to watch the presentation without scoffing at someone who knows far more about it than you do? What is your response when you find that you cannot defend your beliefs against the evidence presented? Scoff some more? Become enraged?

Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that few people have the education to follow the technical and scientific aspects. The side that they believe tells them one thing; the side that they don't believe tells them another. Most Americans have no basis to judge the relative merits of the arguments.

For example, consider the case of the Lockerbie bomber. One piece of "evidence" that was used to convict Magrahi was a piece of circuit board from a device that allegedly contained the Semtex that exploded the airliner. None of the people, who have very firm beliefs in Magrahi's and Libya's guilt and in the offense of the Scottish authorities in releasing Magrahi on allegedly humanitarian grounds, know that circuit boards of those days have very low combustion temperatures and go up in flames easily. Semtex produces very high temperatures. There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device that contained Semtex. It is obvious to an expert that the piece of circuit board was planted after the event.

I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer, which does not mean that there isn't one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhatten from the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.

What is the explanation of fires so hot that steel fails but paper does not combust?

People don't even notice the contradictions. Recently, an international team of scientists, who studied for 18 months dust samples produced by the twin towers' destruction collected from three separate sources, reported their finding of nano-thermite in the dust. The US government had scientists dependent on the US government to debunk the finding on the grounds that the authenticity of custody of the samples could not be verified. In other words, someone had tampered with the samples and added the nano-thermite. This is all it took to discredit the finding, despite the obvious fact that access to thermite is strictly controlled and NO ONE except the US military and possibly Israel has access to nano-thermite.

The physicist, Steven Jones, has produced overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. His evidence is not engaged, examined, tested, and refuted. It is simply ignored.
Dr. Jones' experience reminds me of that of my Oxford professor, the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi.

Polanyi was one of the 20th centuries great scientists. At one time every section chairman of the Royal Society was a Polanyi student. Many of his students won Nobel Prizes for their scientific work, such as Eugene Wigner at Princeton and Melvin Calvin at UC, Berkeley, and his son, John Polanyi, at the University of Toronto.

As a young man in the early years of the 20th century, Michael Polanyi discovered the explanation for chemical absorbtion.

Scientific authority found the new theory too much of a challenge to existing beliefs and dismissed it. Even when Polanyi was one of the UK's ranking scientists, he was unable to teach his theory. One half-century later his discovery was re-discovered by scientists at UC, Berkeley. The discovery was hailed, but then older scientists said that it was "Polanyi's old error." It turned out not to be an error. Polanyi was asked to address scientists on this half-century failure of science to recognize the truth. How had science, which is based on examining the evidence, gone so wrong. Polanyi's answer was that science is a belief system just like everything else, and that his theory was outside the belief system.

That is what we observe all around us, not just about the perfidy of Muslims and 9/11.

As an economics scholar I had a very difficult time making my points about the Soviet economy, about Karl Marx's theories, and about the supply-side impact of fiscal policy. Today I experience readers who become enraged just because I report on someone else's work that is outside their belief system. Some readers think I should suppress work that is inconsistent with their beliefs and drive the author of the work into the ground. These readers never have any comprehension of the subject. They are simply emotionally offended.

What I find puzzling is the people I know who do not believe a word the government says about anything except 9/11. For reasons that escape me, they believe that the government that lies to them about everything else tells them the truth about 9/11. How can this be, I ask them. Did the government slip up once and tell the truth? My question does not cause them to rethink their belief in the government's 9/11 story. Instead, they get angry with me for doubting their intelligence or their integrity or some such hallowed trait.

The problem faced by truth is the emotional needs of people. With 9/11 many Americans feel that they must believe their government so that they don't feel like they are being unsupportive or unpatriotic, and they are very fearful of being called "terrorist sympathizers." Others on the left-wing have emotional needs to believe that peoples oppressed by the US have delivered "blowbacks." Some leftists think that America deserves these blowbacks and thus believe the government's propaganda that Muslims attacked the US.

Naive people think that if the US government's explanation of 9/11 was wrong, physicists and engineers would all speak up. Some have (see above). However, for most physicists and engineers this would be an act of suicide. Physicists owe their careers to government grants, and their departments are critically dependent on government funding. A physicist who speaks up essentially ends his university career. If he is a tenured professor, to appease Washington the university would buy out his tenure as BYU did in the case of the outspoken Steven Jones.

An engineering firm that spoke out would never again be awarded a government contract. In addition, its patriotic, flag-waving customers would regard the firm as a terrorist apologist and cease to do business with it.

In New York today there is an enormous push by 9/11 families for a real and independent investigation of the 9/11 events. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers have provided the necessary signatures on petitions that require the state to put the proposal for an independent commission up to vote. However, the state, so far, is not obeying the law.

Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists? The 9/11 skeptics know far more about the events of that day than do the uninformed people who call them names. Most of the people I know who are content with the government's official explanation have never examined the evidence. Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who have studied the matter closely.

There are, of course, some kooks. I have often wondered if these kooks are intentionally ridiculous in order to discredit knowledgeable skeptics.

Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that their natural allies, those who oppose the Bush/Obama wars and the internet sites that the antiwar movement maintains, are fearful of being branded traitorous and anti-American. It is hard enough to oppose a war against those the US government has successfully demonized.

Antiwar sites believe that if they permit 9/11 to be questioned, it would brand them as "terrorist sympathizers" and discredit their opposition to the war. An exception is Information Clearing House.
Antiwar sites do not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 explanation, they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose punishing them for the event. In recent months, important antiwar sites, such as antiwar.com, have had difficulty with their fundraising, with their fundraising campaigns going on far longer than previously. They do not understand that if you grant the government its premise for war, it is impossible to oppose the war.

As far as I can tell, most Americans have far greater confidence in the government than they do in the truth. During the Great Depression the liberals with their New Deal succeeded in teaching Americans to trust the government as their protector. This took with the left and the right. Neither end of the political spectrum is capable of fundamental questioning of the government. This explains the ease with which our government routinely deceives the people.

Democracy is based on the assumption that people are rational beings who factually examine arguments and are not easily manipulated. Studies are not finding this to be the case. In my own experience in scholarship, public policy, and journalism, I have learned that everyone from professors to high school dropouts has difficulty with facts and analyses that do not fit with what they already believe.

The notion that "we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead" is an extremely romantic and idealistic notion. I have seldom experienced open minds even in academic discourse or in the highest levels of government. Among the public at large, the ability to follow the truth wherever it may lead is almost non-existent.

The US government's response to 9/11, regardless of who is responsible, has altered our country forever. Our civil liberties will never again be as safe as they were. America's financial capability and living standards are forever lower. Our country's prestige and world leadership are forever damaged. The first decade of the 21st century has been squandered in pointless wars, and it appears the second decade will also be squandered in the same pointless and bankrupting pursuit.

The most disturbing fact of all remains: The 9/11 event responsible for these adverse happenings has not been investigated.