With the help of the Obama administration, the coalition is launching a public relations campaign under the radar of the mainstream media — which remains almost uniformly terrified of criticizing the nation’s first black president — to try to change 9/11 from a day of reflection and remembrance to a day of activism, food banks, and community gardens.

That’s right, the idea of 9/11 as a day of service is totally an Obama plot, hatched…

What’s that?

A flashback you said?

All the way back to the year 2008, when this guy named George W. Bush was president.

President Bush Renews His Post-9/11 Call to Service; Honors the Compassion of America’s Volunteers

The President gave a broad and passionate speech on the power of volunteers to transform lives and tackle deep-rooted social problems. Recalling the heroism of the first responders and the outpouring of compassion Americans displayed after the terror attacks, the President urged American to rekindle that spirit of neighbor helping neighbor that was so strong after 9/11.

“Volunteerism is strong in the country. But the truth of the matter is, the farther we’ve gotten away from 9/11, that memory has begun to fade,” the President said. “And my call to people is, there’s always a need. You should be volunteering not because of 9/11, but you should be volunteering because our country needs you on a regular basis. And so today I call upon our fellow citizens to devote 4,000 hours over your lifetime in service to your country. You’ll become a better person for it, and our society will be more healthy as a result of it.”

OMG BUSH WAS TOTALLY TEH COMMUNITY ORGANIZERRR!

The sad thing is, as this bunch demonstrated to us for the last 8 years, they don’t give a crap about 9/11. They don’t care about the people who died, and did the best they could to avoid prosecuting, kiling, and capturing those responsible. 9/11 has always been a political prop for the right, and that will never end.

President Barack Obama on Friday is to unveil a new offensive against terror havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan, aiming to deal a death blow to Al-Qaeda more than seven years after the September 11 attacks.

To win a war aides said was “adrift” the new president will dispatch 4,000 extra troops to train the Afghan army, on top of 17,000 deployments already authorized, in a bold move in defiance of critics who fear a quagmire.

Obama also will send hundreds more civilian officials into Afghanistan and stump up billions of dollars of extra aid to help anti-terror ally Pakistan secure its democracy, senior administration officials said.

“It is a clear, concise, attainable goal, and that goal is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qaeda in its safe havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” one of the officials said on condition of anonymity.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Bush, 2/10/08

Appearing today on Fox News Sunday, President Bush laid into Sen. Barack Obama, claiming he would “attack Pakistan” and “embrace” Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“I certainly don’t know what he believes in,” Bush said when asked if there had been a “rush to judgment” about Obama. “The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he’s going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad.”

Bush, 9/11/08

President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.

The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

American officials say that they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but that they will not ask for its permission.

AVC: In The Great Derangement, you document your infiltration into John Hagee’s Cornerstone Church and your incognito participation in 9/11 Truth Movement meetings. Have you gotten a reaction from either camp since the book’s publication?

MT: Oh yeah. Among the people that I was in church with, one of them actually saw me on television earlier this spring and called me up right afterward. So my cover was blown before the book even came out, which was kind of embarrassing. But I haven’t heard too much from that whole crew. Weirdly enough, the letters I’ve been getting from a lot of Christians—not specifically from that church, but from other fundamentalist Christians—have been strangely positive in a way that I really didn’t expect. A lot of people are very critical of Hagee’s church, that it’s deviating from the real message of Christ. I get a lot of letters of the ‘If only you’d experienced Christ through our church’ variety. There’s a lot of that, but relatively little abuse of the sort that you would’ve expected. The Truthers, on the other hand… [Laughs.] I think they’re probably the most self-Googling sliver of humanity on the planet. The instant you write anything about them, your e-mail is flooded with letters. I haven’t gotten a single positive reaction from anybody who’s a self-described Truther.

AVC: You’d think a movement devoted to seeking truth would encourage debate as a way to arrive at the truth, rather than trying to suppress whatever doesn’t already align with their own views.

MT: Absolutely. I make this point with Truthers all the time, that the whole direction of everything they do is the opposite of what finding out the truth is. They approach the subject matter in much the same way a defense attorney does. A defense attorney takes a case and he sees six pieces of evidence that are going to convict his client, and he sets out to destroy those six pieces of evidence, irrelevant to the actual truth of the situation. That’s not to denigrate defense attorneys, but that’s what they do. It’s exactly the same thing that Truthers do. They just take the 9/11 Commission Report piece by piece, and they try to break down links in that evidentiary chain that compose the official story, but they never really try to find out what happened. They’re just trying to convince you that the official story couldn’t possibly be true. For instance, the stuff about Hani Hanjour—the hijacker who reportedly made that maneuver into the Pentagon. They’re really hopped up about the fact that he was a bad pilot and couldn’t have made that sophisticated maneuver. But they make absolutely no effort to tell you what actually did happen. They’re like, ‘Oh, it could have been a remote-controlled plane.’ Offhandedly, they’ll say that. [Laughs.] Like that’s a very simple thing. It’s really weird.

(By the way, when will the mainstream media ask Ron Paul about his support of the 9/11 truthers, going so far as to have his press guy make regular appearance on “9/11 Truth” leader Alex Jones’ radio show? Just askin’.)

It matters to the security of people here at home if we don’t work to change the conditions that cause 19 kids to be lured onto airplanes to come and murder our citizens.

Kids?

Just not credible.

Take what he says with a giant salt lick.

Then again, like with most conspiracies, that’s what “they” want you to think.

By the way, while I’ve always been fascinated and amused by conspiracy theories, the bunch behind the “9/11 Truth” movement are just dumb and they make the folks who obsess over the JFK assassination look calm and scholarly (I’ve got more than a passing interest in the story). Put bluntly: LBJ working with the mafia, communists, and the military industrial complex to assassinate Kennedy is a heck of a lot more plausible than saying that the single most recorded event in human history was somehow masterfully executed by George Bush — who cannot even fire a bunch of lawyers properly.

Five years ago the White House and Congress were barely spared, but only because the passengers on Flight 94 took matters into their own hands, and died as a result.

Of course, every other American knows that the flight in question was United Flight 93. I mean, it’s not like we all watched the same event or if they made a movie about it. Oh, wait.

But at the end, nearly 3,000 people still die. That’s one scene the liberals will never be able to rewrite.

Yes, 3,000 people died on 9/11. Innocent people killed on a September morning five years ago. The architects of their murders remains on the loose, their hateful ideology now propelled to a major force in the world. Yes, 3,000 people died on the watch of an American president who hasn’t avenged their deaths.

His name is George W. Bush.

President Bush demonstrates the Republican strategy on defeating terrorism and securing America.

The ABC television network — a cog in the Walt Disney empire — unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new “docudrama” called “The Path to 9/11″. ABC has thrown its corporate might behind the two-night production, and bills it as a public service: a TV event, to quote the ABC tagline, “based on the 9/11 Commission Report”.

That’s false. “The Path to 9/11″ is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats and revise history right before Americans vote in a major election.

>> Open Letter to ABC: Don’t Airbrush 9/11

MORE: ABC is actually going out of their way to tell the right-wing that yes, they will smear President Clinton and that they have nothing to worry about. Welcome to the brave new world.

Berger, portrayed as a pasty-faced time-server by Kevin Dunn (Col. Hicks in “Godzilla”) freezes in dithering apprehension when a manly and virtuous CIA agent played by Donnie Wahlberg radios in from the wilds of Afghanistan to say that he and his noble band of local tribesmen have Osama bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to terminate him with extreme prejudice. In the film, the line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.

The moment is clearly intended to encapsulate the notion of American inattentiveness to the terror threat in the 1990s — a point driven home when the camera pans back to show Berger surrounded by a supporting cast of fellow Clinton administration nervous Nellies, including Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Defense Secretary William S. Cohen.

So when the post-screening question-and-answer session began, Ben-Veniste stood to say that the Berger-bashing scene didn’t square with the research he and the other commissioners conducted. “There was no incident like that in the film that we came across. I am disturbed by that aspect of it,” Ben-Veniste, a loyal Democrat, told the panel, which included both the producer and the commission’s GOP chairman, former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey.

Berger, reached by phone after the screening, seconded Ben-Veniste’s criticism. “It’s a total fabrication,” he said tersely. “It did not happen.”