David Ray Griffin of Claremont, CA wrote:
While Mark Dallas' review of my book [Unflinching: David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor Asks All the Hot Questions] is generally 'fair and balanced,' I would like to respond to his critique about the first chapter, regarding the two planes that struck the World Trade Center.

The task I took on in writing The New Pearl Harbor was to summarize the arguments that others have given, not also to do independent investigation for the sake of making the case for official complicity as strong as possible. The message of my book is that critics have raised questions serious enough to warrant a different kind of investigation than the kinds we have had thus far. Since the kind of information Dallas is saying I should have provided was not provided by my sources, I didn't include it. Had I started doing that kind of investigation on that issue, then I would have needed to do it for all analagous issues, and I would still be trying to get the first edition finished. [Note: The second edition reached bookstores on 8/16/2004 - Ed.]

The strongest part of his positive suggestions, in my view, is his 'bureaucratic labyrinth theory,' which I will probably start using. So I offer my thanks to him for this in particular and for his thoughtful review in general.

The one comment in his review that puzzled me was his statement that the chapter on Bush's behavior is weak. Many readers find that chapter among the book's most powerful, especially given the main point I emphasize ? that the Secret Service's behavior, in not whisking Bush away, implies that they had advance knowledge that he would not be a target of a terrorist attack at the school. I consider that one of the 4 or 5 of the strongest 'smoking guns.'