Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.)
http://www.house.gov/mckinney/

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. 
  
Are we squandering our goodwill around the world with what many believe to 
be incoherent, warmongering policies that alienate our friends and 
antagonize our allies? How much of a role does our reliance on imported oil 
play in the military policies being put forward by the Bush Administration? 
And what role does the close relationship between the Bush Administration 
and the oil and defense industries play, if any, in the policies that are 
currently being pursued by this Administration? 
  
We deserve to know what went wrong on September 11 and why. After all, we 
hold thorough public inquiries into rail disasters, plane crashes, and even 
natural disasters in order to understand what happened and to prevent them 
from happening again or minimizing the tragic effects when they do. Why then 
does the Administration remain steadfast in its opposition to an 
investigation into the biggest terrorism attack upon our nation? 
  
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. In addition, it has even been reported that the 
United States government broke bin Laden's secure communications before 
September 11. Sadly, the United States government is being sued today by 
survivors of the Embassy bombings because, from court reports, it appears 
clear that the US had received prior warnings, but did little to secure and 
protect the staff at our embassies. 
  

Did the same thing happen to us again? 
  
I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his 
administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9- 11. A 
complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. For example, it is 
known 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. 
  
On the other hand, what is undeniable is 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. 
Secretary Rumsfeld maintained in a hearing before Congress that we can 
afford the new spending, even though the request for more defense spending 
is the highest increase in twenty years and the Pentagon has lost $2.3 
trillion. 
  
All the American people are being asked to make sacrifices. Our young men 
and women in the military are being asked to risk their lives in our War 
Against Terrorism while our President's first act was to sign an executive 
order denying them high deployment overtime pay. The American people are 
being asked to make sacrifices by bearing massive budget cuts in the social 
welfare of our country, in the areas of health care, social security, and 
civil liberties for our enhanced military and security needs arising from 
the events of September 11; it is imperative that they know fully why we 
make the sacrifices. 

If the Secretary of Defense tells us that his new military objectives must 
be to occupy foreign capital cities and overthrow regimes, then the American 
people must know why. It should be easy for this Administration to explain 
fully to the American people in a thorough and methodical way why we are 
being asked to make these sacrifices and if, indeed, these sacrifices will 
make us more secure. If the Administration cannot articulate these answers 
to the American people, then the Congress must. 
  
This is not a time for closed-door meetings and this is not a time for se 
crecy. America's credibility, both with the world and with her own people, 
rests upon securing credible answers to these questions.  The world is 
teetering on the brink of conflicts while the Administration's policies are 
vague, wavering and unclear. Major financial conflicts of interest involving 
the President, the Attorney General, the Vice President and others in the 
Administration have been and continue to be exposed. 
  
This is a time for leadership and judgment that is not compromised in any 
fashion. This is a time for transparency and a thorough investigation.  

*****

Just when you thought there were no heroes to be found in Washington ....
4/15/02
dave@davesweb.cnchost.com

Greetings from the Center for an Informed America! Please forward this 
message widely. If this message was forwarded to you and you would like to 
receive future mailings, e-mail a request to be added to this mailing list.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/
  
Democrat Implies Sept. 11 Administration Plot By Juliet Eilperin 
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Friday, April 12, 2002; Page A16 

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation into whether 
President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of 
terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them. She added 
that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits 
off America's new war." In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio 
station, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events 
to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when 
did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why 
did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly 
murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?" McKinney declined to be 
interviewed yesterday, but she issued a statement saying: "I am not aware of 
any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration 
have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation 
might reveal that to be the case." 

Bush spokesman Scott McLellan dismissed McKinney's comments. 
"The American people know the facts, and they dismiss such ludicrous, 
baseless views," he said. "The fact that she questions the president's 
legitimacy shows a partisan mind-set beyond all reason." In the radio 
conversation, McKinney delivered a stinging attack on the administration. In 
2000, she charged, Bush forces "stole from America our most precious right 
of all, the right to free and fair elections." With the September attacks on 
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, McKinney said, 
"an administration of questionable legitimacy has been given unprecedented 
power." She suggested that the administration was serving the interests of a 
Washington-based investment firm, the Carlyle Group, which employs a number 
of high-ranking former government officials from both parties. 

Former president George H.W. Bush -- the current president's father --  is 
an adviser to the firm. McKinney said the war on terrorism has enriched 
Carlyle Group investors by enhancing the value of a military contractor 
partly owned by the firm. 
Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman asked: "Did she say these things while 
standing on a grassy knoll in Roswell, New Mexico?" During her five terms in 
office, McKinney has often given voice to radical critiques of U.S. policy, 
especially in the Middle East. She defied the State Department to 
investigate assertions that international sanctions are brutalizing innocent 
Iraqis. 

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. 

"What is undeniable is that corporations close to the administration have 
directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the 
aftermath of September 11th," McKinney charged. "America's credibility, both 
with the world and with her own people, rests upon securing credible answers 
to these questions." None of McKinney's colleagues has embraced her 
allegations, but a few said they are familiar with the theories. 

"I've heard a number of people say it," said Rep. Melvin Watt (D- N.C.), who 
quickly added, "I can't say that it would be a widely held view" among 
lawmakers. Some lawmakers have a less charitable view of McKinney's penchant 
for publicity. Rep. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said McKinney is simply trying to 
impress her constituents. "She's demonstrated at home an ability to win," he 
said, "and she's demonstrated in Washington a total lack of responsibility 
in her statements." 
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a friend of McKinney's, said the Georgia 
Democrat is adept at seizing on "red-meat" issues that resonate with her 
political base and have helped her fend off a series of GOP challengers. 
"She's not as random as people think," Kingston said. "People always want to 
hear a political conspiracy theory." 


RESPONSE TO MCKINNEY STATEMENTS 

From U.S. Rep. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and a candidate for U.S. 
Senate: "As a member of Congress and a community leader, Ms. McKinney has a 
special responsibility to the people of Georgia and to our nation. Her 
comments yesterday - which she herself noted are baseless - come at a time 
of national crisis and do not serve any meaningful purpose in winning our 
war against terror. From my works on the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and 
Homeland Security, I can assure Ms. McKinney and all Americans that 
President Bush is working tirelessly to defeat terrorism and to protect the 
American people from future attacks." 

>From U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.: "She has said some outrageous things but 
this has gone too far. If she has any evidence that President Bush has 
personally profited from conspiring to blow up thousands of people, she'd 
better hand it over. Put up or shut up...  We all have the right to free 
speech but with that right comes some basic sense of responsibility. Maybe 
there should be an investigation as she suggests - but one focused on her. 
Maybe the investigation should ask her what knowledge she has of the case or 
what role she played in Sept. 11th. Sound ridiculous? Exactly."


http://www.washtimes.com/

April 13, 2002
GOP demands McKinney apology 
By Amy Fagan 
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 
 
     Republicans were outraged and Democrats were on the defensive yesterday 
over comments by Rep. Cynthia A. McKinney suggesting that the Bush 
administration knew of impending terrorist attacks before September 11 but 
did not stop them. 

     "All I can tell you is the congresswoman must be running for the hall 
of fame of the Grassy Knoll Society," said White House Press Secretary Ari 
Fleischer.  Republicans demanded that Democrats denounce the comments the 
Georgia Democrat made on "Flashpoints," a show on KPFA radio in Berkeley, 
Calif. 

     "Such statements have no place in a country united behind a common goal 
and against a common enemy," said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas 
Republican. He urged "[Rep. Richard A.] Gephardt and all Democratic leaders" 
to condemn Mrs. McKinney's remarks before someone takes them "seriously." 
[Ed: We certainly wouldn't want that to happen!] 

     On the March 25 radio show, Mrs McKinney, 47, said: "We know there were 
numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th.  What did this 
administration know, and when did it know it, about the events of September 
11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New 
York who were needlessly murdered?" 

     Mr. Gephardt, Missouri Democrat and the House minority leader, was 
trying to track down yesterday the full transcript from the radio interview, 
his spokesman Erik Smith said. 
     "We don't agree with everything she says, and we're confident that a 
congressional inquiry will answer anyone's questions," he said, referring to 
a House-Senate panel investigation of the September 11 attacks. 

     Mrs. McKinney did not respond to Mr. Fleischer's comments but did 
release a lengthy statement.  It said: "I am not aware of any evidence 
showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally 
profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal 
that to be the case." 

     She also said on the radio show that the administration stole the 
election and with its "questionable legitimacy has been given unprecedented 
power to fight America's new war against terrorism." She added that "persons 
close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's 
new war." 

     Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, asked 
yesterday: "Was this communicated to her by a psychic? Where did that come 
from?"   One of Miss McKinney's fellow Georgia Democrats, Sen. Zell Miller, 
came out strongly against her comments, calling them "dangerous and 
irresponsible." 

     "I hope President Bush will remember that this is the same 
congresswoman who — during each of his State of the Union addresses [Ed: 
During "each"? Did I miss some of them?]— arrives early to get a coveted 
aisle seat, then leans way over as Bush walks down the aisle, hoping he will 
give her a kiss for all to see on national TV," Mr. Miller said in a 
statement. 

     Mr. Gephardt's spokesman said Republicans were focusing yesterday on 
Mrs. McKinney's comments to draw attention away from the conviction Thursday 
of Rep. James A. Traficant Jr., Ohio Democrat, on several charges, including 
racketeering, bribery and fraud. 

     "Part of me thinks that Republican efforts to focus on McKinney are 
trying to distract people from Republican leadership's apparent defense of a 
convicted felon serving in Congress," Mr. Smith said. "I haven't heard a 
word from Republican leadership about Traficant's fitness about serving in 
office." 

     Richard Diamond, spokesman for Mr. Armey, dismissed that. "He's not our 
member. He's part of the Democratic caucus, not the Republican caucus,"  Mr. 
Diamond said of Mr. Traficant. 

     Mrs. McKinney's on-air comments also suggested that President Bush's 
father, former President George Bush, and other former high- ranking members 
from both parties were enriched by the attacks through their employment with 
the Carlyle Group, a Washington-based investment firm. 

     "For example, it is known 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," Mrs. McKinney said. 

     Mrs. McKinney, who is serving her fifth term in Congress, has a history 
of controversy. After September 11, she angered many people by criticizing 
New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani for turning down a $10 million donation 
from a Saudi Arabian prince. The prince had suggested that U.S. policies in 
the Middle East were partly to blame for the terrorist attacks. 

     The Southeastern Legal Foundation in Atlanta sent a letter yesterday to 
the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct requesting an 
investigation and sanction of Mrs. McKinney for her statements. 

     At least one Republican went a little easier on her, saying that such 
an investigation was not necessary.        "I think they were pretty 
irresponsible comments," said Rep. Jack Kingston, Georgia Republican and 
longtime friend and colleague of Mrs. McKinney. "I don't think anyone's 
taking them seriously. But she has the right as a member of Congress to say 
what she wants or believe what she wants." 

     Mr. Kingston, who served with Mrs. McKinney in the Georgia House in the 
1980s, called her a "savvy politician" and said this incident will not 
affect her political career.  "I've known her for a long time, and these 
somewhat irrational statements pop up from time to time, and she gets 
through them. She gets elected," he said.

*****