America Needs Full Disclosure of 9/11

The record of the September 11, 2001 attack is incomplete.  What did we know and when did we know it?  What didn't we know and why didn't we know it?  These questions continue to trouble many of us. 

The Bush administration hoped that the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in this country in connection with the abominable attacks on our nation, would put the questions to rest.

Moussaoui’s trial may have helped us gain some knowledge about terrorists and may serve, for some, as retribution for their pain.  During the trial, government attorneys made sweeping efforts to hold Moussaoui accountable for every 9/11 death and injury.  They argued that if Moussaoui had simply told the truth, the FBI and CIA would have foiled the attacks.

The administration would have us focus on Moussaoui’s conviction and end the questions of accountability.  They want us to believe that since Moussaoui is guilty; the FBI, CIA and Bush officials are absolved of any failure or neglect to protect the citizens of the United States. 

The jury recognized that Moussaoui is just a sad Al-Qaida wanabe and there is much more we need to know.  The file is incomplete; we must demand exhaustive accounting to assure we are prepared to protect our country in the future.

The 9/11 Commission was mandated to provide such a definitive account of, “the facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001” and the report itself professes to, “provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.”  But experts do not accept the report as complete, unbiased or that it meets its goal.    

Now, Judith Miller, the ex-New York Times reporter at the center of the case involving White House Official I. Lewis Libby discloses that the Bush administration expected an Al Qaida attack on July 4, 2001 and breathed a sigh of relief when it didn't happen.

The Bush administration has been highly secretive, on matters of security and almost every other issue.  They continue to reject a complete and impartial commission, which only serves to prolong the debate and perhaps even aid those who wish to do us harm.  

Americans are entitled to all the facts and the truth about the most significant attack on our country since Pearl Harbor.  Moussaoui’s conviction will not terminate our angst.  Americans will never be at ease until there is full and open disclosure

Let The Press Work

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretaries Rice, Rumsfeld and others in the administration continually try to convince us that things are going well in
Iraq.  They vigorously complain that the media fails to report the positive side of the
Iraq story.  They also complain that the media does not cover the upbeat side of many other administration issues.  The only exception seems to be right wing media who parrot the company line.    Do you suppose that perhaps they could be right and that things would get better if only the media would report the positive aspects of the stories?

 

As an experiment, let’s review the top stories published in the Cape Cod Times just last week.  On Monday the Times reported, “Quake leaves trail of misery;” a feature on the estimated 5000 Indonesians who died in an earthquake and the 200,000 others who are now homeless.  Would it have been better if they simply reported on the Indonesians who were not affected by the quake?  On Tuesday the lead story was, “Afghan violence turns against
U.S.”  And another headline, “Journalists killed in
Iraq car bombing.” Suppose they just published a story about the Afghans or Iraqis who were peacefully going about their daily life?  Would we be as well informed?  Wednesday began with a story about the “theft of the whale sculpture”, Great Spirit, which was ripped from its base.  Maybe the Times should have used their ink to report on the 54 other whales that were left alone.  Thursday’s top story, “Two pit bulls ‘executed’ in woods;” left open the possibility the paper could have reported on the thousands of dogs that were not shot that day.  Friday’s feature; however, was about another pit bull shooting and “Insurance costs soar on
Cape homes.”  Wouldn’t you rather have heard a report about lower insurance costs in
Zimbabwe?  Friday’s edition also included a story; “Pilgrim plant gets tighter security” (now that radioactive material is missing.)  Come on guys, couldn’t you just give us a report on how the hundreds of other nuclear power plants are generating electricity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  Saturday’s front page was pure agony. “Two charged in dog slayings,” “
Falmouth student stabbed at school,” Two girls charged in theft of whale statue,” and a story about bugs.  I certainly would have preferred something a little lighter.  Sure doesn’t encourage potential visitors to the
Cape.

 

Some years ago I was serving as a Mayor and attended a conference which included a session on “The Media.”  I recall someone asking the panel just what constituted a feature story.  The answer; when John Q. Public falls down drunk in a bar, there is no story, but when Mayor or Congressman John Q. Public falls down, its “front page” stuff.  Although we are all interested in the everyday mundane activities; it’s not news, it doesn’t sell newspapers and it doesn’t expand our knowledge or understanding.

 

We are not well served when important facts and information on any government activity is withheld and not available for debate.  The latest bad news from
Iraq couldn’t be worse and so this weekend, Bush, now concerned about the impact the war news is having on his legacy, is trotting out his own good news on issues that he hopes will distract from the problems we face.

 

You have to wonder if George Orwell’s portrait of a future when government controlled every aspect of life, provided only good news and revised and eliminated bad news to fit its needs, seems closer than ever.  Unless we truly appreciate and support the responsibilities of the “fourth branch” of our government, our minds will be clouded by our ignorance.

High density makes for affordable housing

When it comes to zoning, people on Cape Cod think “density” is a four-letter word. Anytime anyone wants to build more than one house per acre, Cape Codders hyperventilate. But guess what the latest trend in building is in the rest of the country? “Faux urban” developments with high-density residential areas intermixed with retail and office use.

One company is building a 52-acre “town” in North Carolina that is designed to “…recall a New England Coastal town,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

More typical of this type of development is a town called Legacy, built on 75 acres outside Dallas, Texas, in the center of typical suburban sprawl. This town includes more than 1,500 apartments and town houses, 4,000 people, 80 shops and restaurants, two mid-rise office buildings and a Marriott Hotel. And the people who live there love it. Units sell for as much as $400,000.

Refusal to accept density is the main roadblock to the development of affordable housing on Cape Cod. Everyone says they want to solve this problem so our young families and working people do not have to move off Cape, but, realistically, the only way to do that is with high-density housing.

By dividing the cost of the land up among multiple units, and putting more units in one building, you can reduce the cost of each unit, so they can be sold for reasonable prices and rented at reasonable rents.

High-density has other advantages, too. It allows affordable high-tech sewage treatment systems for example, that do not load nitrogen into our bays and estuaries. Shared amenities, like pools and tennis courts, are environmentally friendly and reduce demands on town water supplies.

High-density housing has one more huge advantage: It does not generate as many students for local schools. One- and two-bedroom units, typical for high-density housing, do not have nearly as many school age kids as 3-4 bedroom single-family homes.

The main disadvantage of high-density housing according to most people is what it will do to property values. The evidence does not support this assertion. If you talk to the residents at New Seabury and Kings Way (two large, relatively high-density developments), for example, you do not find anyone complaining about property values except those would like to buy. Haven’t heard the neighbors complain either.

I used to own a home in Newton. In the 70’s they built a condo development across the street on a former parking lot at a density of about 20 units per acre. I was shocked to see that these units, smaller than my house, sold for 20% more than my house was worth. Today, both have gone way up, but my former house sells for more than the condos.

I think that towns make a bad mistake when they try to force builders to put in single-family homes at low density on undeveloped land. The towns would be much better off economically by finding suitable areas – including areas currently zoned for commercial development — and rezoning some of them for high -density development (as much as 20 units per acre). It would be good for the town economically and, at the same time, we would be providing relatively affordable housing for those who love the Cape but are unable to afford it any more.

By Jack Edmonston