David Frum came to the Los Angeles Public Library on January 16, 2008 to engage in a conversation with Arianna Huffington and hawk his new book "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again." Well, considering the question of judgement that quickly springs to mind after considering his choice of which candidate to back and advise, Frum better get his Neo-Con game up if he is to be a Republican Machiavelli.

As he finished up signing books, we approached him. It was not our most tightly vetted truth squad ever, but it illicited an interesting response from one of the architects of the infamous "Axis of Evil" speech. I'm very eager to dialogue about different strategies, thoughts, critiques, ideas on the art and practice of the truth squad. Let's talk after the video.

I agree that "9-11 was an inside job" has done its job by now and that we need new memes to push deeper. My thought is that we need to make a strong move to speaking clearly about treason. "Inside job" feels like a bank robbery. 9-11 was declared an act of war. Thus, MIHOP, LIHOP and even a surprise coup attack covered up afterwards can all easily be defined as treason under Article III, Section 3. This word has weight to it. I saw just a glimmer of its possibilities when CA Representative Brad Sherman's aid in his DC office wouldn't touch my 9-11 facts packet after I explained to her that it had to do with treason and misprision of treason, and that we the people were not counting on Congress to pursue this and thus would be seeking legal recourse through the judiciary. I tried to hand it to her after that and she pulled away, and told me to put it "over there on the counter." So, these are my ideas for possible phrases or memes that might specify our message while keeping its assumptions as open as possible.

"Was 9-11 Treason?"
"The 9-11 Cover-up is Treason!"
"Is the 9-11 Cover-up Treason?"
"Arrest the Treasonous 9-11 Cover-up"

And after giving it much thought, I have come to conclude that every possible level of cover-up can be defined as treason, including covering up negligence and avoiding accountability. Just the fact that there are millions of us who think 9-11 was an "inside job," even if we are wrong, can and should be laid in the lap of those that sought to silence the answering of reasonable questions.

In terms of Frum, I had what I thought was a very well-oiled question to pose to him about false-flag terrorism, but barely got into it before question time was over. So, I sent him the question in an email, which I post here for reference. Still haven't heard back. If you want to send your thoughts into the blackhole of his inbox, you can reach him at dfrum@aei.org

Open Letter to Mr. David Frum with a Crucial Question

January 17, 2008
Los Angeles, CA

Mr. Frum,

As I told you in person last night, my name is Jeremy Rothe-Kushel and I'm a founder of a burgeoning group called Jewish Voices of Conscience for Truth, Justice and Peace. The following is the question I wanted to ask you before you cut me off to ask whether I believed that my U.S. government brought down the Trade Towers. Being a forward man who works to be honest, I told you the truth about what I believe, that I don't know who blew up the Towers, but I know that someone did. And that just looking at the pulverization of 99% of the concrete soon breathed into the lungs of many of the 1st responders gives a strong clue that those buildings were blown up. To be even more precise-almost all the concrete, glass, filing cabinets and office supplies of all sorts, and a thousand human bodies, were molecularly dissociated into sub-100 micron-sized dust. Needless to say, the combination of plane crashes, fire and gravity does not do that in the physical reality that you and I co-inhabit. ( www.ae911truth.org )

Leaving aside for the moment the very important questions of the health of the thousands of first responders and the facts that point to what actually happened to the WTC buildings, the following question is a crucial one for you to answer, both as a foreign policy advisor to Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani, and as a man whose words and/or concepts were used to launch a war of aggression that has led to the death of thousands of people, American and Iraqi. You said that strong people desire criticism and will respond to it even if, in the moment, they don't really want to hear it. Prove yourself to be of strong mind and heart by being willing to grapple with a serious critical question, even if you think my "beliefs" about the fate of the Towers are an indicator that my non-existent Paxil prescription is clearly not heavy enough (which, I should mention, is a point of "left-right" agreement that you have with Bill Maher) and should deny me the possibility of asking an important question of you.

My question has to do with the historical implications and logical consequences of that potent phrase "Axis of Evil," which, as I understand, you originally coined "Axis of Hatred." The natural corollary to this concept is not "the coalition of the willing," but the "Allies of Good," or, to be even more faithful to your original inspiration, the "Axis of Love." If, by the way, you like that phrase, feel free to give it to Mr. Giuliani to use, as it is, at least in my opinion, more inspiring than "9-11, 9-11, 9-11." Just kidding. Sort of.

So, if Iraq, Iran and North Korea were considered to be the "Axis of Evil," then the "Allies of Good" must be the U.S.A., the U.K. and Israel. Supposing this to be true- despite what a wise Palestinian Jew might have once said about the line between good and evil residing at the fine scale of the human heart, let alone the geo-political map- what then are the implications of this set of allies' historical participation in false-flag provocations and other types of state-sponsored terrorism?

Briefly, in terms of the United States, we surely remember the open facts that the Spanish did NOT blow up the Maine, Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh did NOT send out paid thugs to terrorize his people in 1953, and the NSA has just reconfirmed for us that the Gulf of Tonkin incident WAS a hoax; not to mention the sponsoring and training of death squads and other terrorists in Central America and beyond throughout the Cold War.

Just so we are all on the same pages as Allies, I would mention the Fall 2005 arrest, in Basra, of two British SAS operatives, dressed as Arabs, shooting at Iraqi policemen with explosives in their car. And, finally, so no one can say that as a proud Jewish man I am coddling Israel, on 10-10-01, just a month after 9-11, two Israeli operatives, one Israeli Special Forces and one a Jewish Mexican citizen, were caught in the Mexican Parliament with grenades, C-4 explosives, a high-powered rifle and a Pakistani passport each. This incident was reported on CNN, once. And never followed up.

So, the question then becomes: Are we the good terrorists? Meaning, Mr. Frum, in your vision of "comeback conservatism," is there a moral argument to be made for a terrorism of love? Or, as a foreign policy advisor to presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani, will you publicly denounce state-sponsored terrorism and other false-flag psyops as horrific and immoral forms of statecraft in the 21st century?

Sincerely,

Jeremy Rothe-Kushel

p.s. I urge you to look into the FealGood Foundation (http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/) and participate in an online fundraiser for first responders on February 16th. Not only is it the right thing to do, it would be a gesture that "your guy" has not just left the heroes of 9-11 high and dry, awaiting further deterioration of their conditions, while he goes around using his role in that tragic day to generate financial and political capital. With many firefighters wanting to "swiftboat" him for good reason, it's about time "your man" start making amends.

p.p.s. If you just want to answer me personally without it being public, I will respect that, though I would urge you to see the powerful benefit in a free society of open dialogue across seemingly vast gulfs of understandings. A lack of an answer on your part will suggest the presence of silent complicity about a very important subject upon which you have both a moral and civic duty to speak.