The Bigger the Lie...

(You can skip the Foreword or Read the Foreword)

In the summer of 2007 screenwriter ('The Siege')/book writer Lawrence Wright did an in depth interview on C-Span's Book TV. Wright is the author of The Looming Tower; Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, which won the Pulitzer Prize for Nonfiction (2007). As I watched the interview—and as a student of the events of 9/11 -- I quickly sensed that Wright's book is a rehash of the 9/11 Commission's 'official story' about the attacks, i.e., a complete crock of shit.

Although a later reading of the book confirmed this, as my TV examination of Lawrence Wright progressed, so grew a sense of outrage. See, as a nonfiction book writer myself, and (in 2007) having not yet perceived the direct correlation between deep state propaganda and prestigious literary prizes, I fantasized that winning the Pulitzer Prize for Nonfiction implied that a nonfiction book, at the very least, would not be a complete crock of shit. I mean, that doesn't seem to ask too much of the Pulitzer Committee.

Although a detailed analysis of Wright's deceptions is not for this purview, some instructive examples may lead us to insights germane to the issues under scrutiny.

When his Book TV interviewer inquired why he did not deal except in passing with the '9/11 hijackers,' Wright squirmed and hemmed and hawed, then blurted the following crapola:

'I..I..I didn't feel drawn to them as a writer.'

Wright squirmed some more, hemmed, then hawed this:

'On some level I wasn't interested in them.'

Mmmmm... Perhaps had Mr. Wright been drawn to the hijackers as a writer, or been interested in them, he'd have had to mention that, according to the BBC and other sources (including the Saudi embassy), a slew of them were very much alive on 9/12/01.

Or had Mr. Wright been drawn to them, or been interested in them, he might have had to make a head count of how many had been trained at U.S. Military facilities. Or seen fit to mention that Mohammed Atta, presumably in preparation for meeting his ('Allah Akbar!') Maker, engaged in (drunken cocaine binges with his stripper girlfriend.

Perhaps sensing that there were some narrowing eyes out there in Book TV-land, Wright did manage a more writerly justification for his hijacker omissions: 'I didn't want to overpopulate the book.' Yes, let's not overpopulate a book subtitled 'Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11' with the al-Qaeda members who, according to your prima facie premise, did 9/11. (In my minds eye I pictured Wright breezing along on his PC, Phillip Zelikow leaning over his shoulder whispering, 'Don't overpopulate the book, Lawrence...')

At one point Wright's interviewer referred to another glaring omission (by now maybe be couldn't help himself), inquiring how the notorious terrorist known as the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdul Rahman – one of the planners of the 1993 WTC bombing (along with the FBI ) -- had gotten into the country, adding that, 'We knew that he was a terrorist; we knew he had been involved in violent, extremist activities in Egypt... how'd he get a visa to come here?'

Should you like to witness a classic deer-in-the-headlights expression of a nonfiction writer caught in (another) whopper of a lie-by-omission, I urge you to watch Lawrence Wright (the Pulitzer Prize-winning Lawrence Wright), after a dumbstruck pause, stammer out the following details he wasn't drawn to/interested in: '...he was uh, given a visa... essentially... by the CIA... in... ummm... Kartoum... and I... I... I understand... I heard... that the guy was fired..'

(Not true – the ‘guy’ was not fired (he was, after all, following orders) – but for me the significance of Wright’s response is that he delved no further into this incredible matter. This is Orwell’s crimestop in action.

Here the tension is so uncomfortable that Wright and his interviewer laugh, or try to, then Wright blurts:

'Here he was, allowed in on a special visa... allowing him privileges... attacking the United States all over the place, essentially as our guest. It's astonishing...'

Astonishing? Let's fire out a couple hundred words (p. 126) analyzing Iman Zawahiri's wife Azza's domestic life ('She brought boxes of Fisher-Prize toys to her grandchildren') but not overpopulate the tale with, say, CIA asset/al Qaeda terrorists.

A revelation that may come as a shock to researchers, or even to just plain folks who are marginally aware of the official bin Laden curriculum vitae is Wright's assertion that Osama bin Laden after all had no kidney problems and was therefore not in need of dialysis; not sporadically, daily, or otherwise.

At first I was mystified by Wright's seemingly pointless obfuscation, then the similarity with the hijacker omission hit me. With Osama's healthy innards there was no need to deal with bin Laden's two significant hospital stays due to his kidney woes: the one in Dubai in July, 2001, during which he reportedly met with the local CIA station head, and his overnight stay in a Pakistani clinic on the night of September 10, 2001 - hours before the attacks - undergoing dialysis ( according to CBS) by our War on Terror ally; both incidents being extremely inconvenient for the official story (and for Lawrence Wright and his Pulitzer).

But if bin Laden didn't have kidney troubles, these troublesome events can be stuffed down the Pulitzer Prize-winning memory hole, as they were by the 9/11 Commission. (Wright's doublethink rationalization being that the two stories must be false.)

Just one more:

On page 228 Wright writes:

'Under the Taliban, Afghanistan became the world's largest [opium] poppy grower.'

Not only is this not true, but the opposite is the case. Under the Taliban opium growing was outlawed (for religious reasons) and all but quashed. After (immediately after) the U.S. invasion, however, opium production was back with a vengeance, to Wall Street's money laundering/liquidity delight.

That we are bombarded on all media fronts by deep state sponsored-disinformation specialists like Lawrence Wright has long been an open secret. (Make no mistake: I am asserting that Wright is an ex officio deep state asset.) But his winning of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for Literary Nonfiction is direct evidence that the layers of cooption rise to the very top of the elite cultural hierarchy. (Wright's book and The 9/11 Report were both nominated for the almost-as-prestigious National Book Award.)

A major essay - or even a full blown book - could be written on the subject of deep state cultural cooption, perhaps subtitled The Bigger the Lie, the Bigger the Prize - with Obama accepting his Nobel Peace Prize on the cover, a ghostly transparency of a Georgie O looking on.

Regarding the power of the deep state in elitist cultural affairs, also consider Wright's one-man off-Broadway show entitled 'My Trip to Al-Qaeda,' which is based on his book, and is equally disinformational in its support of the official story; HBO has even made it into a documentary film.

Speaking of HBO and possible award cooption: Look for Emmys down the Hollywood road for HBO and Tom Hanks (doncha feel like you can trust Tom Hanks?) who have teamed to buy the rights to Vincent Bugliosi's elephantine kowtow to the Warren Commission Report, Reclaiming History; The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, with the intent of making a 3,000 hour (or thereabouts) mini-series. How Hanks/HBO will work in Bugliosi's Turrets-esque invectivizing of 'conspiracy nuts' remains to be seen.

Anyone who doubts CIA Director William Colby's assertion that the media is 'owned by the CIA' might consider that both the delusional Bugliosi and the plagiarist Gerald Posner (of 'Case Closed' infamy) were raved reviewed by our 'newspaper of record,' the New York Times, Buglioi's reviewer being unable to restrain himself from some vilification of his own, suggesting that (awake folks like us) should:

...be ridiculed, even shunned. It's time we marginalized Kennedy conspiracy theorists the way we've marginalized smokers; next time one of your co-workers starts in about Oswald and the C.I.A., make him stand in the rain with the other outcasts.

Meanwhile, James Douglass's brilliantly eye-opening, impeccably sourced JFK and the Unspeakable; Why He Died and Why It Matters languishes unmentioned let alone reviewed, by our newspaper of record, plus every other major media outlet. (Ex-CIA analyst-turned-Truther Ray McGovern says it's the JFK book that changed his perspective on the assassination.)

(My meandering into matters JFK may seem over the irrelevancy tipping point but consider the probability that the spate of JFK conspiracy debunking since 9/11 was after all meant to lump all 'conspiracy theories' into the same 'nutcase' file, in subtext thereby debunking in the zeitgeist 9/11 Truth assertions.)