Outspoken Arizona Senator Questions 9/11 Official Version Of Events
Republican attacked for expressing opinion on September 11th cover-up

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, April 25, 2008

State Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, has come under fierce criticism for going on record with her doubts over the government’s version of events surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

Following a vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Arizona’s 9/11 Memorial, Johnson told Capitol reporters “There are many of us that believe there’s been a cover-up.”

Details of Johnson’s comments come in an vicious hit piece article in the Arizona Republic entitled Drinking the 9/11 Kool-Aid:

The senator gave details about her theories. The World Trade Center buildings could have been rigged with thermite to melt girders. The aircraft could have been drones rather than the commercial airliners most of us thought we saw crashing into the Twin Towers. As to what became of the missing passengers in the aircraft that (theoretically) did not explode against the towers: “That’s what I would like to know,” she said.

Citing no research whatsoever on such theories, and without referring to the hundreds of engineers, scientists, professors, former government and intelligence officials and prominent public figures who have voiced similar concerns over the official version of the attacks, which is about as water tight as a paper bag, the Arizona Republic continues the attack:

Now, we take no issue with private citizens believing whatever fever-swamp nonsense, however outlandish, they wish about their government.

We do take serious issue, however, with a public official affecting public policy on such grounds.

The conservative Republican senator, who has represented Mesa’s District 18 for nearly two decades, is renowned for her outspoken politics and devotion to the US constitution.

In the past she has chastised big government initiatives and social programs such as No Child Left Behind, saying they infringe on state’s rights.

She has previously come under attack, as “nutty” for voicing concerns on the secretive Security and Prosperity Partnership, which she, like many others, has warned represents a bureaucratic undermining of national sovereignty.

“It’s all because it’s going to be open,” Johnson has previously told Capitol Media Services. “It’s all going to be a ‘North American community,’ just like the European Union,” complete with the creation of a single currency just like the Euro.

“We will have no sovereignty, we will have no Constitution left… we are going to be ruled by unelected tribunals, bureaucrats that are unelected,” she said.

In February 2007 Johnson introduced Senate Concurrent Memorial 1002, a bill urging U.S. withdrawal from the SPP, and a North American Union. The text of the legislation is similar to other resolutions offered in South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.

Johnson has also worked hard to introduce bills to overturn legislature outlawing carry concealed weapons on community college and public university campuses, a move that would give students, teachers and administrators a chance to protect themselves during a mass shooting.

She has also introduced a bill prohibiting schools from collecting fingerprints, hand geometry, voice recognition, facial recognition, iris scans and retinal scans
from students. Bill 1216 passed the Senate earlier this year. Johnson has also fought against REAL ID and the biometrically enhanced driver’s license.

Johnson has also been criticized in the past for holding a position on the board of the Church of Scientology’s Citizens Commission on Human Rights. The sum of her work here has consisted of sponsoring bills on its behalf to limit use of psychotropic drugs on children and to oppose mandatory mental health screenings for children.

A senator that actually cares about constitution law and US sovereignty, questions big corporate infested government and promotes freedom? Karen Johnson is undoubtedly kooky and most possibly evil.

Original article here.

Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.

And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )

The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)

Yes, it is available on-line FOR FREE, since this is an “open e-journal.” TOCEJ = The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You may download the paper and make copies to give to local professors and engineers (hint, hint). That’s one reason this particular journal was chosen — open access, free to download and make copies. What do Profs/Engineers say about it — let us know would you?

In this Letter, we emphasize “points of agreement” with FEMA and NIST, seeking to build bridges for further communications. Of course, we will send a copy to NIST for their comment and hopefully open a public discussion on these crucial evidences and analyses. Note the title – but then read more—the paper only six pages long.

Download the .pdf file here.

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

Read the rest of this entry »

On this, the 13th anniversary of the tragic events of the Oklahoma City Bombing, Visibility 9-11 welcomes researcher, activist, and documentary film producer Chris Emery. On April 19, 1995 multiple bombs virtually destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in downtown Oklahoma City killing 169 men, women and children and wounded scores of others. Just as with the events of September 11th, 2001, the official story of what really happened in OKC has been proven to be a falsehood by Chris and his colleagues at the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation Committee.

For more information, visit www.okcbombing.net and listen to the prior interviews on this topic from the Visibility 9-11 archives.

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Oklahoma State Rep. Charles Key

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes OKC Bombing Survivor VZ Lawton

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Chris Emery, okcbombing.org (2007)

Music by John Heartson.

Get this episode here.

National “The Shell Game” Week of Truth – April 16th – 22nd
A Major Nationally
Coordinated 9/11 Truth Effort to
BREAK THE CORPORATE MEDIA BLOCKADE!

www.weekoftruth.org

Week of Truth
April 16th – 22nd

This is the first in a series of Week of Truth events to coalesce the power of the national truth movement. Following this Week of Truth action, we will draw attention to two major 9/11 conferences in the Northeast to be tentatively scheduled in the month of May.The current installment of the Week of Truth features New York Times Best Selling Author, Steve Alten and his new book, The Shell Game. Our effort is to be a focused, movement wide attempt to bring The Shell Game into the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List.

Our Goal

To propel The Shell Game into the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List. To achieve this URGE all your contacts to buy multiple copies of 9/11 truth telling novel – The Shell Game – between April 16 to 22nd, the focused week when the NY Times list will count those sales.Reading the book will be an eye opener for those Americans who have never been exposed to 9-11 truth. Being in the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List will bring 9-11 truth to many more readers but additionally, has far more potential in the form of positive media exposure.

An author who finds his/her book in the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List has many perks and opportunities which perpetuate and expand on the success of the book. For example:

1. Top 10 books and authors get premium placement and shelf space in the front of the store.
2. Major merchandise outlets like Wal-Mart and drug chains purchase their inventory directly off the the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List.
3. Mainstream television and radio shows shop for guests from the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List. Top 10 status will generally get the author mainstream television and radio exposure. Steve Alten has pledged to bring 9-11 truth to the audiences of these programs if given the opportunity.

Due to the fact that Steve Alten has interwoven key 9-11 facts into his novel, a successful campaign of this sort will bring the issue of 9-11 to the forefront of the minds of many Americans. Steve has pledged that if given the opportunity, he will do just that. Take a look at his recent appearance on The Coffee Shop with Monica Malpass on ABC Channel 6 in Philadelphia. We can expect a lot more of this if The Shell Game reaches the Top 10 of the New York Times Best Seller List.

Read the rest of this entry »

9-11 Truth Movement CONVERGENCE MARCH in San Diego (Next one May 10th)

This was an amazing march in San Diego. We were honored to have Luke Rudkowski from WeAreChange.org and Cosmos from TruthAction.org to help lead the march. If you have never been to a large 9-11 Truth march, then you have no idea what you are missing.

The 9-11 Truth Movement is growing in numbers and it’s growing in solidarity. Come join the first ever WEST COAST CONVERGENCE in San Francisco. We meet in Panhandle Park then march down Haight Street to Golden Gate Park! This will be a phenomenal experience. Meet folks from all over the West coast, from Vancouver down to San Diego and all the fantastic people in between.

Expect a visibility experience like never before with an empowering convergence in solidarity!

Do your best to make arrangements to arrive on Saturday, May 10th and join an evening vigil.

Please make plans now.

Your voice and actions will determine our fate as a free Nation….. The World needs all of us to stand together and take action now…

TruthAction.org
WeAreChange.org
9-11.meetup.com

Footage shot by Katy Kurtzman, Tom Frantz, and Bruno Bruhwiler. Editing by Bruno Bruhwiler

Civil Liberties Destroyed Well Before Previously Thought
www.911truth.org

Three rather unsettling news pieces from today, the anniversary of Dr. King’s assassination . . . wow.
1) “Exactly what domestic military action was covered by the October memo is unclear” . . . (Remember when the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was still in force?)
2) “The October 2001 memo arguing for unregulated military searches on U.S. soil has not been formally withdrawn and remains a secret but unclassified document.”
3) 2003 Justice Department memo justifies torture, presidential dictatorship

Thanks to Lori Price of Citizens for Legitimate Government for bringing these items to our attention. Almost seems important enough the corporate media would cover it, too, eh?!

–911truth.org

Post-9/11 Memo Indicates View Around Constitution

Associated Press
Thursday, April 3, 2008
For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush administration argued that the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil did not apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.

That view was expressed in a secret Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001. The administration stressed yesterday that it now disavows that view.

The October 2001 memo was written at the White House’s request by John Yoo, then the deputy assistant attorney general, and addressed to Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel. The37-page memo has not been released.

Its existence was disclosed Tuesday in a footnote of a separate secret Justice Department memo, dated March 14, 2003, that discussed the legality of various interrogation techniques. It was released by the Pentagon in response to an ACLU Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

“Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations,” the footnote in that memo states, referring to a document titled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.”

Exactly what domestic military action was covered by the October memo is unclear.

Source URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/03/AR2008040300067.html

---

Read the rest of this entry »

Griffin Takes Powerful New Approach to 9/11 Truth
by Tod Fletcher
March 15, 2008

From 911truth.org 4-6-08

“Two reviews of David Ray Griffin’s “9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Media” follow. 911Truth.org has just received copies to carry at our store so, naturally, I began reading right away … It’s very good, and I think will quickly become one of the most often reached-for books on our shelves–completely sourced, easily read, thoroughly indexed, and extremely well-organized. Thank you and Bravo, Dr. Griffin!”

–Janice Matthews, Executive Director, 911truth.org

9/11 CONTRADICTIONS by David Ray Griffin is the fifth of his books to examine the official account of the events of September 11, 2001. This brilliant and highly readable book takes a new yet simple approach to the truth about 9/11. It focuses entirely on contradictory statements made by members of the Bush administration, government departments and agencies, and official bodies such as the 9/11 Commission. All the statements that Griffin examines are official claims in direct conflict with other official claims. How could this be? Why would the government keep changing “the official story”? The public, of course, is expected to take all the statements as incontrovertibly true, yet they directly conflict with one another.

And why, if the government pronouncements are contradictory, haven’t members of Congress and the mainstream media launched investigations to determine which are true and which are false, and to ask why are obvious falsehoods about the events of 9/11 being promulgated by the government? I say “obvious falsehoods” because, as Griffin explains in the Preface, “If [Transportation Secretary Norman] Mineta said “P,” that is a fact. If the 9/11 Commission said “not P,” that is a fact. And it is a fact that “P” and “not P” cannot both be true” (p. viii). The subtitle, “An Open Letter to Congress and the Press,” indicates Griffin’s hope that the juxtaposition of the contradictory claims the book provides will stimulate such investigations. But the book is really intended for the public at large, and its clear focus makes it the easiest to read of all Griffin’s books on 9/11. Because of its relative simplicity it is a perfect introduction to the subject.

Drawing on government publications, media reports, testimony from the 9/11 Commission hearings, oral histories from the Fire Department of New York, and other official sources, Griffin documents masterfully 25 of the most serious contradictions, divided into five parts:

“Part I. Questions about Bush Administration and Pentagon Leaders,” reveals the contradictory claims about the activities of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Myers, Donald Rumsfeld and Ted Olson. In this part Griffin shows that Bush’s long stay at the Florida school was initially confirmed and later denied by the White House, that various government spokespersons and the 9/11 Commission could not agree on where Cheney, Myers and Rumsfeld were at key times that morning, and that DOJ Solicitor General Ted Olson’s claims to have received phone calls from his wife on Flight 77 were directly contradicted by the DOJ’s FBI.

“Part II. Questions about the US Military,” explores the many contradictions within government claims about when the military was alerted to the emergencies on the flights, whether the military could have shot down Flight 93, and whether it had envisioned 9/11-type attacks prior to that day.

“Part III. Questions about Osama bin Laden & the Hijackers,” examines the contradictions in official claims about the religious devotion of the alleged hijackers, where the luggage with the Arabic-language flight manuals, attributed to Mohamed Atta, was found, whether cell phone calls from the flights provided evidence of hijackers, and the existence of hard evidence for Osama bin Laden’s responsibility.

“Part IV. Questions about the Pentagon,” spotlights contradictions in the official account of Hani Hanjour’s flying skills, what caused the large hole in the interior C Ring wall of the building, and whether a sophisticated US military reconnaissance plane was overhead during the attack.

“Part V. Questions about the World Trade Center,” exposes the contradictions in Rudy Giuliani’s account of his foreknowledge of the catastrophic collapse of the Twin Towers, in the official claims about explosions in the towers and WTC 7 before they disintegrated, and in official statements concerning the presence of molten steel in the subbasements after the buildings came down.

When examined under Griffin’s microscope, it becomes clear that the “official story” has kept changing over time, just like the stories criminals tell as they are interrogated. As holes in the government’s explanations of the incomprehensible events opened up under questioning, to some degree from the press but primarily from the 9/11 truth movement, they were plugged by new claims. And virtually all of the new claims have been accepted by the press and Congress without asking how they could be true in light of the earlier, contradictory claims. You don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to see that when the story keeps changing, doubt is cast on all of its versions. Any police investigator knows this, as should investigative journalists and elected representatives.

Of course, if Congress and the press won’t do their jobs, it’s up to the rest of us. With this authoritative dissection of the conflicting statements of the principal suspects, Griffin has done much of the pre-trial legwork already. The American public should not allow his selfless devotion to truth and justice to be squandered by inaction. This may be one of those things that representatives just cannot do for us.

Get the book at Amazon.com or 911Truthstore.com

U.S. State Department Misleading About Reason For U.S. War With Afghanistan?

by Aidan Monaghan

U.S. State Department Daily Press Briefing

Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
April 8, 2008

QUESTION: Ahmadi-Nejad’s remarks that the U.S. used the September 11th attacks as a pretext to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I haven’t seen all of his comments, but as a pretext, we went into Afghanistan because that’s where the attack originated.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2008/apr/103106.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/

From the History Commons:

October 11, 1996: Afghan Pipeline Key to ‘One of the Great Prizes of the 21st Century’

The Daily Telegraph publishes an interesting article about pipeline politics in Afghanistan. “Behind the tribal clashes that have scarred Afghanistan lies one of the great prizes of the 21st century, the fabulous energy reserves of Central Asia.… ‘The deposits are huge,’ said a diplomat from the region. ‘Kazakhstan alone may have more oil than Saudi Arabia. Turkmenistan is already known to have the fifth largest gas reserves in the world.’” [Daily Telegraph, 10/11/1996]

December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas

Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban’s policies against women and children ‘despicable,’ appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.” A BBC regional correspondent says that “the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.” [BBC, 12/4/1997; Daily Telegraph, 12/14/1997] It has been claimed that the Taliban meet with Enron officials while in Texas (see 1996-September 11, 2001). Enron, headquartered in Texas, has an large financial interest in the pipeline at the time (see June 24, 1996). The Taliban also visit Thomas Gouttierre, an academic at the University of Nebraska, who is a consultant for Unocal and also has been paid by the CIA for his work in Afghanistan (see 1984-1994 and December 1997). Gouttierre takes them on a visit to Mt. Rushmore. [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 328-329]

February 12, 1998: Unocal VP Advocates Afghan Pipeline Before Congress

Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca—later to become a Special Ambassador to Afghanistan—testifies before the House of Representatives that until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan, the trans-Afghan pipeline will not be built. He suggests that with a pipeline through Afghanistan, the Caspian basin could produce 20 percent of all the non-OPEC oil in the world by 2010. [US Congress, 2/12/1998]

Mid-April 1998: US Official Meets with Taliban; Promote Afghan Pipeline

Bill Richardson, the US Ambassador to the UN, meets Taliban officials in Kabul. (All such meetings are illegal, because the US still officially recognizes the government the Taliban ousted as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan.) US officials at the time call the oil and gas pipeline project a “fabulous opportunity” and are especially motivated by the “prospect of circumventing Iran, which offers another route for the pipeline.” [Boston Globe, 9/20/2001] Richardson tries to persuade the Taliban to hand over bin Laden to the US, promising to end the international isolation of the Taliban if they cooperate. [Reeve, 1999, pp. 195]

July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued

Three former American officials, Tom Simons (former US Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Deputy Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs), and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia) meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. [Salon, 8/16/2002] This is the third of a series of back-channel conferences called “brainstorming on Afghanistan.” Taliban representatives sat in on previous meetings, but boycotted this one due to worsening tensions. However, the Pakistani ISI relays information from the meeting to the Taliban. [Guardian, 9/22/2001] At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, “I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.” [Guardian, 9/26/2001] Accounts vary, but former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” The goal is to kill or capture both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar, topple the Taliban regime, and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place. Uzbekistan and Russia would also participate. Naik also says, “It was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.” [BBC, 9/18/2001] One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between “carpets of bombs” —an invasion—or “carpets of gold” —the pipeline. [Brisard and Dasquie, 2002, pp. 43] Naik contends that Tom Simons made the “carpets” statement. Simons claims, “It’s possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can’t resist the temptation to be mischievous.” Naik and the other American participants deny that the pipeline was an issue at the meeting. [Salon, 8/16/2002]

August 2, 2001: US Official Secretly Meets Taliban Ambassador in Last Attempt to Secure Pipeline Deal

Christina Rocca, Director of Asian Affairs at the State Department, secretly meets the Taliban ambassador in Islamabad, apparently in a last ditch attempt to secure a pipeline deal. Rocca was previously in charge of contacts with Islamic guerrilla groups at the CIA, and oversaw the delivery of Stinger missiles to Afghan mujaheddin in the 1980s. [Irish Times, 11/19/2001; Brisard and Dasquie, 2002, pp. 45; Salon, 2/8/2002] Around the same time, US embassy officials in Islamabad hold secret talks with Taliban security chief Hameed Rasoli.

February 9, 2002: Pakistani and Afghan Leaders Revive Afghanistan Pipeline Idea

Pakistani President Musharraf and Afghan leader Hamid Karzai announce their agreement to “cooperate in all spheres of activity” including the proposed Central Asian pipeline, which they call “in the interest of both countries.” [Irish Times, 2/9/2002; Gulf News, 9/2/2002]

February 14, 2002: US Military Bases Line Afghan Pipeline Route

The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv notes: “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created [in the Afghan war], one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.” Ma’ariv also states, “Osama bin Laden did not comprehend that his actions serve American interests… If I were a believer in conspiracy theory, I would think that bin Laden is an American agent. Not being one I can only wonder at the coincidence.” [Chicago Tribune, 3/18/2002]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=pipelinePolitics

Please distribute this flyer at websites and bulletin boards. A gray scale version will soon be available for printing.

Special thanks to Chris Jankoski for creating this fine flyer.

This week Visibility 9-11 Welcomes 9-11 blogger and researcher Aidan Monaghan. Aidan is an active blogger at 911blogger.com and has focused on using the Freedom of Information Act to get information pertinent to the 9-11 attacks and subsequent cover-up. FOIA requests initiated by Aidan have attempted to gain information about the 4 aircraft used on 9-11, information about remote control technology possibly installed on the 4 aircraft, and the reported power down at the World Trade Center in the days just prior to 9-11.

Intermission music by The DareRing.

Ending music by Syntax Error.

Direct download: visibility911_monaghan.mp3

Congress, the Bush Adminstration and Continuity of Government Planning–The Showdown

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2008040182600233

March 31, 2008
by Peter Dale Scott

In August 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the House that he and the rest of his Committee had been barred from reviewing parts of National Security Presidential Directive 51, the White House supersecret plans to implement so-called “Continuity of Government” in the event of a mass terror attack or natural disaster. (1)

Norm Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, commented, “I cannot think of one good reason” for denial. Ornstein added, “I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual, knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House.” (2)

The story, ignored by the mainstream press, involved more than the usual tussle between the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. Government. What was at stake was a contest between Congress’s constitutional powers of oversight, and a set of policy plans that could be used to suspend or modify the constitution.

There is nothing wrong with disaster planning per se. Like all governments, the U.S. government must develop plans for the worst contingencies. But Congress has a right to be concerned about Continuity of Government (COG) plans refined by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld over the past quarter century, which journalists have described as involving suspension of the constitution. (3)

In the 1980s, a secret group of planners inside and outside the government were assigned, by an Executive Order, to develop a response to a nuclear attack in which the U.S. government had been decapitated, forcing an alternative to the constitutional rules of succession. Two of these planners were Dick Cheney, then a Congressman, and Donald Rumsfeld, then a private citizen and CEO of the G.D. Searle drug company.

“One of the awkward questions we faced was whether to reconstitute Congress after a nuclear attack.It was decided that no, it would be easier to operate without them,” said one of the COG planners in the 1980s, who spoke to James Mann (The Rise of the Vulcans, 141-42). James Bamford reported the same remark in his book Pretext for War (p. 74).

After the end of the Cold War, the urgency of coming up with plans faded. The COG nuclear planning project “has less than six months to live,” reported Tim Weiner of the New York Times. (April 17, 1994). Mann and Bamford concluded, wrongly, that all the COG planning of the Reagan era had been abandoned.

Read the rest of this entry »