Shortly after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, the Philadelphia Inquirer pegged 911 as one of a dozen or so moments in American history that changed the country forever. "Sept. 11 joins the short list of events that redirect our future as a nation," Jeff Gammage explained, "one of the rare, transforming moments. . . when the unimaginable becomes real and everything that comes afterward is different." The Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, the Lincoln assassination, JFK's assassination, Pearl Harbor, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and the Sputnik launch were all listed, but as early as Sept. 30, 2001, it was obvious that 911 trumped them all. "Just as the nation changed after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik on Oct.4, 1957, it will change now, in ways we cannot even imagine," Gammage added.
Even then, however, few could have imagined what was in store. What if the post 911 period had been handled differently? What if, in lieu of waging pre-planned wars with hidden agendas, the Bush administration held Saudi Arabia and Pakistan accountable for funding the attacks? What if the president immediately requested an independent investigation into 911 -- just as he did with last year's Columbia space shuttle disaster? As traumatic as Sept. 11 was, the aftermath would have been far less unnerving if our leaders had been honest and trustworthy. Unless, of course, they couldn't be honest without incriminating themselves, as Gore Vidal and former British environmental minister Michael Meacher have suggested.
As it stands now, however, thanks to the secrecy, duplicity and incompetence of the Bush administration, we've experienced yet another transformational moment that has changed America's course -- the preventative attack on Iraq. Flimsy justifications for this illegal war aside, between Halliburton contracts and the resurrection of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, Bush's egregious lies smell decidedly worse. Two years into our post-911 reality, inquiring minds are still drawing sordid conclusions -- with some flat out charging that the U.S. knew about the impending 911 attacks, but chose to ignore warnings for strategic gain.
Though it hasn't been proven that Bush knew about Sept. 11 beforehand, evidence suggests that Vidal, Meacher et al are not mere conspiracy nuts. "They don't have any excuse because the information was in their lap, and they didn't do anything to prevent it," former ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee Senator Richard Shelby said, of the Bush administration's failure to protect America. "I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to know why they didn't act on it," another Republican, Senator Arlen Specter added.
"Moreover, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Bush administration is covering its hide, while hiding an unholy alliance with the Saudis. Because of this, questions that arose immediately after 911 not only persist, but take on sinister overtones. (If anyone has a reasonable explanation as to why James Baker's law firm is representing the Saudis against Sept. 11 families, for example, I'd sure like to hear it). "
What the Bushies would have done, if the 19 terrorists instead of crashing airplanes, had decided to in synchronicity, say at 2PM EST, walk into the 19 most crowded malls in the country, and mowed down the food courts with conventional weapons such as assault rifles and a couple hand grenades, killing the same amount of people.
What would the war on terra have shaped up like then?
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.