From the June 2002 Idaho Observer:

Sept. 11 and the origins of the “War on Terrorism”:

A revisionist account

ZURICH, Switzerland -- The May, 2002 edition of Current Comcerns contains an 8-page supplement that explores the events before, during and after September 11 from a meticulously documented revisionist perspective.

September 11 and the origins of the “War on Terrorism”: A revisionist account, by Stephen J. Sniegoski, Ph.D., lists 94 credible references to describe an international set of circumstances that give tremendous insight into the true socio/political issues directly linked to 9-11.

After Sept. 11, President Bush held a press conference before international TV and radio audiences and characterized the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon as, “unprovoked and unexpected.”

The Bush administration has since maintained that the “War on Terrorism” is simply the hurriedly planned response to that surprise attack on U.S. soil.

According to Sniegoski, who earned his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland, the evidence and published documents prove otherwise. “In short,” Sniegoski observes, “it is apparent that the war was anything but an overnight improvisation to address the Sept. 11 atrocities; rather, the Sept. 11 atrocities provided the pretext for the United States to put her existing war plans into motion.”

The article acknowledges that the U.S., like any other militaristic nation, must persuade her public to blindly support the war effort. Sniegoski makes the following unflattering observations about the collective American mind: “I should say that in today's context the word 'persuaded' is too strong a term since the contemporary American public needs minimal intellectual persuasion. Instead, like the less intelligent creatures of Orwell's Animal Farm, it believes whatever story the government and the official media feed it.”

Sniegoski's investigations show that conspiratorialists believe that the U.S. government had prior knowledge or actually facilitated the atrocities. He acknowledges that there is evidence to support those theories, however, one thing is for certain. “...that from the very outset the purpose of the war was to achieve broader goals than simply punishment of those responsible for Sept. 11.”

Calling such claims the “revisionist thesis,” Sniegoski observes that it's a widely held belief that “seems to predominate outside the United States.”

Successful investigators, be they journalists or not, understand that rule number one for any investigation is to follow the money. Sniegoski described it as, “cui bono” -- Latin for, “Who benefits.”

“The Afghanistan war has obviously been advantageous for American Big Oil and for policymakers who think in terms of U.S. world hegemony” [dominance].

Claims that the events of Sept. 11 were an unprovoked surprise are not backed up by the evidence. Claims that plans for a “War on Terrorism and a war against Afghanistan did not begin until Sept. 12 are not supported in evidence. In fact, the evidence proves conclusively to the contrary.

“As a consequence of the war on Afghanistan, it appears that U.S. military and political influence will be a permanent fixture in Central Asia, a region of key geostrategic importance for American global hegemony.”

***

Note: The Idaho Observer trades subscriptions with many of the opposition media publications in America. We read them to stay informed and occasionally we reprint articles from them. Though we appreciate the other U.S. publications that dare to print the truth about our collective American peril, there is something so special about Current Concerns that I drop all other reading assignments to read it every other month when it comes in the mail. Why? Because it proves that our editorial/philosophical beliefs are not uniquely American -- that there is a cadre of journalists from Europe who report the news from the same pro-common sense and pro-national sovereignty perspective from which a cadre of us here in the states report the news. Visit the Current Concerns website at www.currentconcerns.ch.

If you subscribe to The IO you will also want a subscription to Current Concerns. The editorial perspective regarding the U.S. v. the world is even better than the one The IO provides because it comes from outside the influence of living here.