Mr. Gurwitz has a pretty outstanding bio that includes being a member of the National Honor Society of Political Science, work with NATO and US State Department, held different offices for the City of San Antonio, and worked and volunteered with several charitable organizations. He is definitely a source that has some credibility. Mr. Gurwitz's intended audience is the voting population of the State of Texas. I am going to have to respectfully disagree with him on his viewpoint of this situation.
First off, Mr. Gurwitz states there is absolutely no middle ground on whether the government had any involvement or knowing of anything related to 911. "You either believe the overwhelming eyewitness, scientific and forensic evidence that it was a plot conceived and carried out by Islamic extremists, or you subscribe to one of a number of interrelated conspiracy theories that — to a greater or lesser extent — relieve the actual perpetrators of their culpability for 3,000 deaths. There's no middle ground." I must respectfully disagree with this. One thing, you should never believe everything you are told, no matter who it is from, especially if it is from an authoritative figure. Their main aim would be to keep their authority. As Timothy Leary put it, think for yourself, question authority. If the government came in and said we are going to take %90 of your earnings and you keep the other %10, would you question them then?
Next is the "overwhelming eyewitness, scientific and forensic evidence." News flash- quite a lot of the people raising questions about this are scientists, architects, and engineers. There is a petition with over 1000 architects' signatures to re-open the investigation. I will take the opinions of a lot of these people over people in the government who want to protect their power and statuses.
Here is part of Medina's quote: "I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I've not taken a position on that.” I don't personally see anything wrong with her statement on that, but apparently Mr. Gurwitz does. There are some good questions that have been raised that should probably be answered. I really don't understand why he has a problem with this.
Now, here is part of Shami's quote “There had been so much controversy. You know, maybe there is no smoke without fire. You know, I mean, yes, we, you know, we read the, or we heard about the conclusion about 9-11, you know, and the committee that we did. But somehow, people are not believing that." I am of the opinion that the public should question something if they don't believe it. Are we always supposed to believe something blindly without proof? The last time I checked, this is not religion. The government kept denying Area 51 and how it didn't exist, but we all know now that it does exist and has for a long time.
One last quote, this one from Gurwitz on Medina: "The truth is that she victimized herself by providing Beck with an answer to a simple question that was either honest but politically intolerable or mistaken and intellectually incomprehensible." First thing, I have a lot more respect for a politician that will answer a question honestly. That is very refreshing. We won't even go into the part about intellectually incomprehensible. The last time I checked, most intellectuals are somewhat open-minded and know that there are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
