Greens, McKinney: Investigate 9/11, Impeach Bush and Cheney

Press release published here.


For Immediate Release:
Thursday, September 11, 2008

Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, cell 202-904-7614,
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805,

Cynthia McKinney urges new 9/11 investigation
Cynthia McKinney discusses major issues
Press conference, Sept. 10 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC
Ms. McKinney on the Democratic Party:

WASHINGTON, DC — Green Party leaders expressed support for Green presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney’s call for a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks and for public release of important evidence and files related to 9/11.

On Thursday afternoon, Ms. McKinney spoke at St. Marks Church in Manhattan at a 9/11 anniversary press conference promoting a New York City ballot initiative for a new investigation ( Ms McKinney is speaking at other events related to 9/11 in the next few days (

Greens also supported a resolution passed by Veterans For Peace at the latter’s annual meeting earlier this week in Minneapolis addressing Bush military policy in Afghanistan and Iraq and impeachment and prosecution of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes, violations of the US Constitution, and abuses of power. The text of the resolution is appended below.

“A curtain of censorship hangs over several major national issues in this election,” said John M. Wages, Jr., Green candidate for the US House of Representatives in Mississippi (District 1) ( “The related issues of unanswered 9/11 questions, illegality of the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, and Congress’s failure to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney deserve the kind of discussion that Democrats and Republicans are avoiding. The Green Party, Green candidates like Cynthia McKinney, and groups like Veterans For Peace are working hard to keep them in the public eye.”

Ms. McKinney has supported calls by families of the 9/11 victims for a transparent investigation into what was called a “failure of intelligence,” although it more closely resembled a failure of response, of standard operating procedures, and of government officials and agencies to respond, prepare for, and comprehend the source of these attacks. In 2002, Ms. McKinney questioned the Bush Administration’s response to 9/11 and said that Bush officials may have had evidence that the attacks would take place. Although she was denounced in the media as a conspiracy theorist for her remarks, the 9/11 Commission confirmed McKinney’s assertions. The Green Party has consistently supported calls for a new investigation (see and

The Green Party has long alleged that President Bush exploited public fear, anger, and confusion about 9/11 as an excuse to launch illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which the administration justified with claims based on manipulated intelligence and numerous deceptions. The party endorsed impeachment of Mr. Bush in July, 2003, and Ms. McKinney, as US Representative from Georgia, introduced the first motion for impeachment in 2006.

Greens expressed special concern that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, who is drawing strong supporters from voters opposed to the war, intends to expand US troop presence in Afghanistan, reduce but not end the US occupation of Iraq, and maintain the Bush-Cheney policy of ‘preventive’ military action. As US Senator, Mr. Obama voted for increased war funding and continues to reject efforts to hold Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney accountable for crimes committed in office. Republican nominee John McCain also rejects impeachment and would continue Bush-Cheney foreign policies.

“John McCain is trying to confuse voters by talking about victory in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said Rosa Clemente, Green nominee for Vice President ( “Military occupations aren’t won, they can only be ended either by withdrawal of the occupier’s troops or by resumption of fighting and bloodshed. US victory can only mean total defeat of these countries, which doesn’t square with the stated goal of ‘liberating’ or ‘democratizing’ their people. The longer the US keeps troops in these countries, the more Afghan and Iraqi civilians and US servicemembers will be killed and maimed, and the Iraqi oil grab that’s underway is likely to inflame hostility towards the US occupation. That’s why the Green Party has called for an immediate withdrawal from both countries.”

Veterans For Peace (
Resolution on Prosecuting George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and other Bush Administration Officials for War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace and Crimes Against Humanity

Whereas, the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was not only immoral but illegal, violating numerous U.S. and international laws, including but not limited to USC 2441 (War Crimes Act of 1996), the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter, the U.N. Charter and Resolutions, the Laws and Customs of War on Land and;

Whereas, the Veterans For Peace “Case for Impeachment” details six pages of violations of the above laws and is still but a partial listing, and;

Whereas, the spineless dereliction of duty of the U.S. Congress may well allow Bush, Cheney and other administration officials to avoid impeachment before they leave office in January of 2009, and;

Whereas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson, appointed by President Truman to be the Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunals following World War II, stated so prophetically, “…let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment.” and;

Whereas, the anguished cry of a village sheik in Iraq must be answered when he implored, “You say you live in a democracy. How can this be happening to us?” and;

Whereas, as citizens of the United States we are complicit in the crimes of the Bush administration in Iraq because we cannot claim ignorance of these crimes, and;

Whereas, for the sake of humanity, for the sake of history, and to absolve even a small measure of the complicity we each share as U.S. citizens, we must do everything in our power to hold our leaders accountable and bring them to justice;

Therefore be it resolved that Veterans For Peace will take every appropriate measure on our own and in coalition with others to insure that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and responsible members of their administration are prosecuted for war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity before any court claiming jurisdiction in this country or abroad, for as long as they shall live.


Green Party of the United States
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Fax 202-319-7193

Green candidate database for 2008 and other campaign information:

Green Party News Center

Green Party Speakers Bureau

Green Party ballot access page

Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente ‘Power to the People’ Campaign for the White House

“McKinney Calls for New Investigation, Release of Files on 9/11”

By Don DeBar, iReport, September 10, 2008

“Veteran for Peace: Resolving to Find the Truth”
By Mike Ferner, Pacific Free Press , 07 September 2008

“How the Democrats Helped Bush Hijack the Country”
Text of Cynthia McKinney’s speech in Denver, August 24

Cynthia McKinney on video

Press conference, September 10 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC

Speech in Denver, August 24:

Music video:

~ END ~

47 thoughts on “Greens, McKinney: Investigate 9/11, Impeach Bush and Cheney

  1. TheOriginalAndy

    Wow, McKinney and the Greens just proved that they’ve got more balls than the Bob Barr campaign and the current Libertarian Party leadership. Sad.

  2. Hugh Jass

    How does McKinney intend to impeach Bush when he’ll be out of office by the time she’s in office?

  3. Ross Levin

    A great read and sort of a summary of how the Bush Administration handled 9/11 before and after is “The Dark Side.” It’s given me a much better understanding of why 9/11 happened and what effects it has had on this country.

    I wonder if McKinney met up with Mike Gravel at all. He’s been in NYC promoting this initiative for a lot of the time since he lost the Libertarian nomination.

  4. paulie cannoli Post author

    Wow, McKinney and the Greens just proved that they’ve got more balls than the Bob Barr campaign and the current Libertarian Party leadership. Sad.


    How have other parties tackled these issues? CP, Nader, etc?

  5. G.E.


    I held off on saying who I would vote for for a long time before finally deciding on Nader. Now… hmm…

  6. Hugh Jass


    Baldwin and Nader also support impeachment. Plus, McKinney is a watermelon, unlike Baldwin.

  7. G.E.

    Joking. I know what that means.

    Nader’s a New Dealer which in many ways is worse than a Commie.

    Baldwin is no longer a consideration. I just watched his speech at the C4L press conference. He began with a lie and then immediately praised “the late great Jerry Falwell.”

    This is a greater sin than anything Barr has done, imo.

  8. Hugh Jass


    So, in your mind, Jerry Fallwell is even more evil than Jesse Helms, Al Gore, and George W. Bush put together?

    Sure, Baldwin’s not perfect, but he is libertarian on most issues, spare abortion, marriage, immigration, and trade. That’s still better than Nader, McKinney, or Barr could claim.

  9. Hugh Jass

    For the record, I am undecided between Nader, writing-in Baldwin, writing-in Ron Paul, writing-in Joad Cressbeckler, and not voting at all.

  10. G.E.

    So, in your mind, Jerry Fallwell is even more evil than Jesse Helms, Al Gore, and George W. Bush put together?


  11. TheOriginalAndy

    Nader and Baldwin are also skeptical of the official government story about 9/11 and support a new investigation, unlike Bob Barr.

  12. G.E.

    No, not really. 🙂

    But I was already planning on voting Nader — somewhat regrettably over Baldwin — before I saw that press conf. video. Now it will be easier!

  13. G.E.

    Andy – I was leaning towards voting for Baldwin — you know that. I was trying to organize libertarian support for Baldwin in Denver.

    But after the C4L press conf., I officially decided to vote for Nader for one predominant reason: To do my small part to ensure Barr’s fourth-place finish.

  14. Hugh Jass


    By my optimistic calculations, Nader’s got third-place in the bag. Barr all but assured that by ditching that NPC conference. My hopes are to ensure Barr’s fifth-place finish.

  15. Sivarticus

    Yeah, I really can’t see how Barr could beat out Nader, especially after snubgate. Nader had a money bomb today and appears to have raised $20,000-30,000. That’s far better than those crappy Barr bombs that couldn’t even manage much more than $15,000.

  16. G.E.

    I hope you guys are right.

    If Baldwin got on the ballot in CA, I might be more inclined to believe he could outpoll Barr. But Baldwin isn’t on in CA, NY, or TX — that’s killer.

  17. G.E.

    But at least Baldwin, unlike Barr, has no problem being seen “with people like McKinney.”

    From the front page of his site:

  18. Trent Hill


    The CP hasnt been on in TX or NY since ’96. The real killer on votes is that they lost Montana, California, and Pennsylvania.

  19. Trent Hill

    With that said–he’s going to get extra votes here in LA because Barr failed to make the ballot. Ditto for West Virginia.

  20. G.E.

    Off topic, kinda, but I just watched Alex Jones’s END GAME. I’m not sure what to think other than it was entertaining as hell.

  21. TheOriginalAndy

    All of Alex Jones’ films are great. I’d particularly reccommend the following…

    9/11: The Road To Tyranny

    Martial Law: 9/11, Rise Of The Police State


  22. Deran

    I’m all for looking at the flaws of the Bush regime in the lead up to and after math of Sept 11, but I’m very uneasy abt Trutherism. It doesn’t make any historical sense. If Sept 11 was a US plot and coup; it was the lamest coup ever. Yes, the state has increased its secret police powers, but for all that horror, they really did not “take advantage” of the situation as much as a a real coup would have. Me, and probably most of the posters on IPR, would be breaking rocks in reeducation camps right now if it had been!

    Even if Bush and Cheneya ren’t impeached in the next few months, I would hope they would be proscuted once out of office. I would “hope”, but not expect, that is.

  23. TheOriginalAndy

    9/11 was an inside job makes perfect sense if you understand the history of false flag terror operations and how government’s benifit from them.

  24. G.E.

    Bush will probably issue a blanket preemptive pardon to everyone in his administration on the way out the door, and then McCain will pardon Bush.

  25. G.E.

    Andy – I already watched Terror Storm. I give it four stars. End Game gets five.

    I subscribed to and watched a HORRIBLE bonus movie called “Monopoly Men.” It was actually an episode of some conspiracy theory TV show hosted by Dean Stockwell (from Quantum Leap and Battlestar Galactica) from 1999. It was full of the kind of incorrect info and bad economics that kept me blind on the Fed for about a year out of college. They actually put the monetary views of Jefferson and Lincoln side by side (like they were the same) and celebrated Lincoln’s greenbacks (similar to Freedom2Fascism). They had one moron on there who said the country was built on the protective tariff!

    This wasn’t connected with Alex Jones in any way, other than he put it on his site. Jones is pretty solid, but he does support a few economic heresies from what I can tell.

  26. G.E.

    Yes. The Alex Jones people are socialists from what I can tell. Very disappointing. I posted my critique of Monopoly Men and got slammed with a huge dose of socialism:

    Quote from: G.E. on September 18, 2008, 05:16:38 AM
    I just watched this show with my new account.

    Although it raises some important problems with the Fed, for the most part, this documentary is dead wrong

    I think it’s dead right.

    and 100% against what Ron Paul stands for.

    That alone does not justify dismissing an idea out of hand. Ron Paul is a great man, and easily the most honorable politician in Washington (which is why I voted for him in the primary), but he’s not God.

    Worst of all is the insidious association of Lincoln with Jefferson. Lincoln HATED Jefferson and Jeffersonianism. Jefferson was against paper money and central banks, period. The movie makes it sound like he shared Lincoln’s evil view that the government should directly operate a central bank issuing fiat money. Jefferson was for gold!

    Jefferson, while great in his own right, was not God, either. What matters is whether the reform in question can stand on its own merits, not whether this or that political figure endorsed it or not.

    This movie champions Lincoln’s printing of the greenbacks

    And I applaud it for doing so.

    totally unconstitutional

    Not if the appropriate amendment were enacted.

    and completely ignores the havoc caused in the wake of the ensuing inflation…

    Now you’re just spouting Austrian School propaganda. Allow me to provide a brief history lesson:


    Thanks to over a century of relentless propaganda, the image of the Greenbacks comes down to us as worthless paper money. But upon more careful examination, on balance they were probably the best money system America has ever had….Demonstrating how far monetary history has been distorted, readers may be surprised to learn that every Greenback printed was ultimately as valuable as its gold equivalent, and became redeemable for gold coinage at full value. Today the Greenback supporters are erroneously presented as merely being pro-inflation or against sound money. What they really wanted was a more honest money system, controlled by government, instead of banks….

    They [Greenbacks] were receivable for all dues and taxes to the U.S., except import duties, which still had to be paid in coin. The Greenbacks were payable for all claims against the U.S. except interest on bonds which was still payable in coin. The Greenbacks were declared a legal tender for all other debts, public and private….

    Greenback critics argue that they were inflationary and mistakenly measure the inflation against gold, starting at equal to a gold dollar in early 1862, and falling to 36 cents against a gold dollar by mid 1864. So one gold dollar exchanged for nearly $2.50 in Greenbacks. That is often the whole of their analysis and it is very misleading. Actually the Greenbacks did drop against gold; first to 58 cents at the end of 1862, then back up to 82 cents in mid 1863 and then down to a brief low of 36 cents on July 16, 1864.

    From that point they moved up steadily, averaging 39 cents for August; 45 cents for September; and 48 cents for October, 1864. They retreated to $0.44 in December, and averaged $0.68 for December 1865. From there they gradually rose to $1.00, at par with gold in December 1878. Greenbacks became freely convertible into gold, dollar for dollar, in January 1879….

    Economists mistakenly argue that it was only because the Greenbacks were eventually made convertible into gold by law, that made them hold and increase their value. However, that law was a hard fought political struggle, dependent on the 1868 presidential election. The battle could have gone either way and the actual “resumption” law could not get passed by Congress until 1874, for implementation in 1879. This could not have kept the Greenback from further declines, and start moving it upward back in mid-1864.

    What did occur in July 1864 was that our government put a limit of $450 million on the Greenbacks and from that month they started rising (i.e. gold began falling in terms of Greenbacks)….

    While the Greenbacks lost substantial value for a period, the nation was engaged in the bloodiest war in its history, in which 13% of the population served in the armed forces and 625,000 died….Is it reasonable to expect that any government in those circumstances could completely protect its citizens from financial and other hardships?

    [Economic historian Irwin] Unger has noted that:

    “It is now clear that inflation would have occurred even without the Greenback issue.”

    And comparing a wartime inflation under a government run money system (the Civil War) to wartime inflation under a private banker run system (WW I), Civil War historian [J.G.] Randall wrote:

    “The threat of inflation was more effectively curbed during the Civil War than during the First World War.”….

    The fact that the Greenbacks were not accepted for import duties may also have been an important negative factor against the currency:

    “Hence it has been argued that the Greenback circulation issued in 1862 might have kept at par with gold if it, too, had been made receivable for all payments to the Government,” wrote financial historian [Davis Rich] Dewey.

    Also, if interest payments on government bonds had been paid in Greenbacks instead of gold, a large part of the demand for gold would have disappeared.

    — Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost Science of Money, pp. 453-65


    So the bottom line is that, contrary to popular myth, Greenbacks actually performed quite well — particularly given the extreme circumstances in which they were issued — and would have functioned even better if they had been made receivable for the payment of both import duties and interest on government bonds, and would have functioned better still if they had been issued for the production, rather than destruction, of public goods.

    or the fact that, yes, fiat money makes wars possible.

    Fiat money was what funded the American Revolution, so there wouldn’t even be a U.S. Constitution if the goldbugs had had their way.

    What makes unjust wars possible is the calculated process by which the elite manufacture the consent of the TV-addicted masses via the corporate-controlled “news” media.

    For the real deal, watch the Mises Institute’s video.

    Sorry to have to disagree again, but the “gold standard” which the monetary flat-earthers in the Austrian School incessantly promote is not the panacea that so many misguided yet well-meaning reformers want so desperately to believe it is. On the contrary, it is a deflationary “cure” far worse than the inflationary “disease.”

    The American people found this out the hard way in the late 1830s:


    [Andrew] Jackson and Van Buren removed the monetary power from the private bankers but did not re-establish it in the hands of the nation. Instead, Van Buren organized the Independent Treasury System, establishing 15 sub branches of the Treasury to handle government moneys in 1840. From December 1836 the government moved toward making and receiving all payments in coinage, or truly convertible bank notes….Once the state bank notes were no longer accepted by the government, their circulation was cut back dramatically.

    This was the closest our nation has ever come to implementing a real gold/silver standard. Operating under the commodity theory of money, Van Buren, who truly cared for the Republic, helped bring on the worst depression the Nation had ever seen, starting in 1837. It was reportedly even worse than that caused by the 2nd Bank of the U.S. in 1819. Bad as the state bank notes were, they had still been functioning as money!

    Those who proclaim that no gold and silver money system has ever failed should consider that whether you are a laborer, farmer, or industrialist, the money system’s success or failure is not measured by the value of a piece of metal. When your job, your farm, or factory has disappeared in a monetarily created depression, the system has failed!

  27. G.E. = Commie from what I can tell. They’re cheering the ban on short selling and celebrating crazed Keynesian Jim Cramer!

    CNBC host Jim Cramer says that financial terrorism could have been behind Monday’s stock market crash as part of a conspiracy to “bring down capitalism,” as the SEC this morning announced a ban on short-selling in an effort to fight market manipulation.

    It would have been cool if Ron Paul had taught people like this a thing or two.

  28. Mike Gillis

    I highly doubt that. Neither of them would even move to censure Bush when Feingold moved on that.

    The Dems imply alot of things. Remember when they implied they’d end the war?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *