|
Remember how Ms. Rice kept denying that the idea that terrorists might hijack an airliner and use it as a missile had never occurred to them (such a thing was just so absurd it naturally wouldn't have occurred to any reasonable person...), and so they couldn't be blamed... Yet Cheney, in the most astonishing coincidence of all time, was actually running several simultaneous NORAD/USAF "exercises" to practice countering exactly that--terrorists using airliners to attack buidings. That this happened on the very day, at the very time the airliners were being actually hijacked--thereby preventing any interception, just cannot be accepted as coincidency by any rational being. Still, if such a "New Pearl Harbor" coincidentally happened to fall into their laps, they'd need to blame it on someone... might as well pick a villain that would allow them to pursue their agenda to obtain a base of power in the midst of the world's most important oil producing region (and... Bin Laden/Taliban/Afghanistan had just rejected the BA's offers of money to allow construction of a major oil pipeline, plus they're close enough to IRAQ/Saddam, the fellow that was being such a pain and had been behind a planned attempt to kill George's daddy... that it'd be easy to spread the suspicion/blame for 9/11 to include them easily enough). Mighty coincidental, and real coincidences are rare, and even more rare in politics.
How could anyone have known? In the very kindest possible analysis, ignoring mountains of what should be damning evidence--a thing apparently surprising easy to do, the Bush Administration would be guilty of criminal incompetence. Apparently it's surprisingly easy to ignore incompetence in our most crucial top governmental/political offices as well. Plainly there was more than enough intelligence to know that such a thing was not only possible but had been being considered by some of the few (as opposed to an organized world-wide terrorist conspiracy we gave name to; Al-Qaeda) terrorists we'd been watching. They can't claim they didn't know. Well, actually they can, and having done so they can even claim that the also did know. Nothing is beyond them.
Admittedly, any such conspiracy would involve such a "big lie" that it would be almost impossible to imagine. Too huge to believe it could be possible, after all, it would be impossible to hide it for too many people would be involved. Alas, the very inconceivability of it works in their favor. As for too many people knowing, there again size is in it's favor--for each person involved is only aware of one tiny piece which is hardly sufficient to expose the whole. Besides, when you control the media, and there's a general consensus that such a giant conspiracy is impossible, anyone who dares (at great risk--the least of which is potentially being criminally prosecuted for leaking information classified as Secret by the government itself), who will listen to them? They can't reach anyone and if they did, nobody would believe them--the truth of their reports be damned, and they know that--so why risk it? Anyone who considers the available evidence can see how difficult it would be to "prove" anything. Besides, being labelled a 'nut' or 'conspiracy theorist' would be unavoidable. Therefore, it's plain, literally anything can be covered up or any explanation can be made to stand as the 'truth'. Especially when the 'truth' is unthinkable and would involve intolerably scary realities that very few would be willing to face, and quite possibly would involve the need to oppose an overwhelmingly powerful enemy, an enemy that one has depended upon being able to trust--at least to some degree. When in order to accept the truth behind such a profound event, it would necessarily require unimaginable change and make life threatening demands which could potentially change your whole world as well as that of millions of people... the cognitive dissonance alone would make truly accepting such an impalatable truth next to impossible.
Realizing that all is not as it seems and that we simply no longer have access to the truth, instead all we get is what our government and media choose to give us, itself is difficult. It seems almost inconceivable (except that it's happened so often and there's so much evidence of it that many have realized and accepted that it's true). Nevertheless, even knowing that it's true--that everything we get to see, hear or read about has been carefully arranged to support some agenda, doesn't seem to keep us from frequently accepting what we're told. Perhaps it's just too hard to be suspicious of everything. Still, the very act of listening to the official story and then debating about it means that we've accepted their premise, their 'framing' of the issue. It limits what we are willing or perhaps able to even consider.
The example. Suppose the Bush Administration did invade IRAQ for oil or for power in the region and deliberately lied to obtain the power to do so. Their reasoning was that IRAQ had WMD's and they took every opportunity to associate Saddam with 9/11. People debate and debate about WMDs and Saddam's aggressiveness, and how he'd so hate us as to make or support a terrorist attack on the U.S. and so forth, never considering the real issue--that they'd been manipulated and lied to by their leaders. Later, WMDs aren't found. More debate about why or how they weren't found... still missing the point. Bush come out and claims it's because Saddam had the intention to rebuild his WMDs. More useless debate. It's found that Saddam didn't have the wherewithal to rebuild... Bush claims the invasion (phrased as 'going into') was to free the IRAQIs and to bring Democracy to IRAQ and maybe later the whole region. More debate that misses the point. Sure it's a laudable goal from our perspective, but so what, it doesn't justify a 'war' or breaking U.S. Law that requires we respect the international agreements we've signed that define our actions as illegal (so the war is illegal). The cycle repeats with every new statment or excuse provided, while only a few people who see through the hype and know they cannot trust Bush point out the real reasons we're there and try to focus attention on the egregious fact that our President lied to us to lead us to a costly, mismanaged and unfortunate war. But for the fact that some of the IRAQIs are using effective guerilla tactics to oppose our occupation (and that some 'terrorists' have joined their effort to resist), few people indeed would be opposing the war and realizing the President lied. Still it doesn't bother an alarmingly large fraction of Americans that their President intentionally misled us all to pursue his personal agenda. Even when the smoking gun appears in the form of the Downing Street Memo, we can't get it covered adequately by the media and too many people remain unaware of it or simply irrationally discount it. Yet we see that the same debate goes on... they need us, we can't leave, etc. Arguments abound that it's not important to lay blame for how we got there, we have to focus on what to do now... which is patently ridiculous (tantamount to saying "yes, this person was murdered, but finding the murderer isn't important, what's important is focussing on what to do now, such as arranging the funeral and grieving"). Finally, the message that there are claims that Bush lied has reached a majority of people! It sounds like the real issue has finally reached the public consciousness, but no, not so fast. In the rare instance that it really does reach the public, that is, to the extent that the media shares the information, it's presented as though it were an absurd claim made by disreputable "liberals" who oppose the President and none of the evidence that supports the claim is presented. So, people are aware that some claim Bush lied rather than that Bush really lied and there's proof. All of which fails to address the real issue... that the President lied to start a war in which thousands upon thousands have died, and that he's unrepentent, and it's all supported by the facts.
It seems that not that many people care that the President decieved us. Even those who recognize this and are angry about it don't seem to think it's a big enough deal--perhaps they're right--maybe it's not illegal for the President to lie to us. Since it's not illegal, it's not grounds for impeachment, hence not really important enough to help us. I guess I'm one of the last romantic idealists that thinks that evidence that the President lied to the People--even if the issue wasn't as serious as involving us in a War, by and of itself is grounds for total outrage. It should be an impeachable offense unless justifiable for purposes of national security (and those sorts of exceptions should be rather rare).
That was just an example. The point being that throughout the whole process, the issue that we were misled and the President and all his buddies are the ones that deliberately and with selfish motivations did the misleading, scarcely entered the debate. That is, most people were locked within the President's frame. Many of "us", Democrats who are actively blogging away and paying attention to the President's misbehavior as available via alternate media and common sense, have rejected the President's frame--to some extent. This caveat is due to the fact that literally vast amounts of time and energy were spent on the specific claims as presented by Bush and his supporters which necessarily require accepting the presumptions of the Bush frame. This was reasonable to a degree since there's some value in winning a debate against their claims on their own terms... Though it could be argued that spending time doing that takes time away from dismantling and discrediting their assumptions/frame. It's true too, that to accept their assumptions, even for the sake of argument, strengthens them. People look around and hear a prevalence of real debate on the merits of the Bush claims, so they don't hear that there's no need to debate them since they are invalid and should be dismissed out of hand.
I recommend we stop accepting their frames, even for purposes of argument, and call a spade a spade. While it's not always obvious what that presuppositional frame is, there's one thing you can count on, and that is that it is always present. Every single argument, statement or claim you hear from their side involves the use of a frame that precludes consideration of the real issue. Just look for that issue, and point it out. Of course, it's not that easy... sometimes, the real issue really does involve making claims that the current leadership has engaged in illicit activities (some of which are so outrageous, merely identifying them makes you yourself appear outrageous--and such issues can therefore be hard to deal with).
To argue whether or not wiretapping would or would not have helped prevent 9/11, assumes that Bush was trying to or would have tried to. When at best, he was incompetent enough that it's not a meaningful question. In reality, and not fully buying into the traditional framing of the issue (that a President would naturally do his best, however feeble, to prevent such events and protect his citizens), it could clearly be argued that the President not only didn't bother to take the actions that the situation suggested were needed, he deliberately ignored the warnings and took actions that reduced our ability to prevent or cope with such an attack. In a deeper reality, the one so few are willing to contemplate, the President not only didn't choose to protect his citizens by letting the event occur (inferring either active or passive complicity), he--or rather his Administration--was actually behind the whole thing. The government's implausible explanations, intentional withholding and destruction of key evidence and it's intentional obstruction of and failure to perform a sincere investigation of the event and what led up to it is circumstantial evidence that there's something to this argument. There are many "coincidental" facts that further suggest that this was something they wanted and knew was going to happen (down to the location and timing), and if that's true (and there's no credible opposing evidence) it's more than an inferrence that they were actively involved in planning and executing the events that transpired on 9/11.
If that's true, it means the end of innocence in this country and means that short of a massive coming together by the people (whoemust understand and believe this is true and who must be willing to risk a great deal--in other words, a highly improbably circumstance), we very well may not be able to actually save our Democratic Constitutional Republic. Anyone who's able to accept the true meaning of much available evidence knows that this government is already, in large part, a disguised combination of a Corporatocracy, Oligarchy and Aristocracy (with real elements of Theocracy). That "We, The people" have no real say in what our government does should be apparent to everyone. It shouldn't be so great a leap of understanding to realize that given the implicit support of the media, along with the massive increase in Secrecy (and flouting of the Freedom of Information Act), our government could do anything it wants and make it appear to us any way it wants.
As for saving our form of government and way of life, the question of saving it from what (or whom) arises. Conspiracy theorists might answer "World Order". As for myself, it's plain that the associated groups comprising the Republican party, are themselves sufficient enemies of America as we've known and loved it. They have very twisted views of what America is, has been and ought to be. They think "their" way is what America once was and should again be, but they're completely detached from reality, particularly with respect to our history and what the founders ("founding fathers") and writers of the Constitution actually believed and intended. These people are of a type that just can't live and let live, they suffer a deep, abiding need to control other people. They have to try to make other's believe as they believe (or destroy them for the worthless, corrupt sinners they are). Believe it or not, it's not just along religious lines. For some of these people, the belief that others must adopt is in their version of free market capitalism and the supremacy of business. Sinners are those who would want the government to regulate corporations for the protection of the people and presevation of the environment. The essence is the same. It's my way or the highway, we're right and you're wrong/nobody. Still, while there are different belief systems included, they do, to a surprising degree, share the same Religion (in all the worst meanings of the term). If not specifically the belief in their G_d, then at least in their so-called "values" (ie. no homosexuality allowed, a fertilized egg is sacred--at least until birth, etc). There may very well be a different group that dominates the 'top'; the people in Washington who call themselves Republicans seem to follow the beat of a different drummer--as they do the will of their constituent Republicans only to the degree that they must in order to keep their offices. They can't give them everything since they'd lose their bargaining power; come next election, they wouldn't have the emotional 'values' issues with which to manipulate their constituents. What their purpose is isn't always apparent; supporting the preeminence and rise of multi-national Corporations is one of them. Supporting the most rapid growth in the wealth and fortunes of the very wealthy is another. These aren't things that the average Republican would really support--if they understood them. Then there's the NeoCon flavor of leadership that wants the U.S. to use it's current military and economic heavyweight status to manipulate the world to prevent the rise of troublesome competitors in future decades. They're also quite happy to use our massive military power to achieve any of their goals. To protect our economy from Oil/Energy disruptions, they wanted a base of military operations in the middle eastern region... we now have both IRAQ and Afghanistan as well as a host of other military bases in former Soviet Republics. We've also made a point to the rest of the world: "no more Mr. Nice Guy, we're willing to (openly) play dirty and be a bully if it servers our purpose". Still, in all cases, the population that supports the people from whom our government and way of life needs protection from is right, here, close to home and not some hidden subversive group... they're Republicans.
Lastly, to return to the wiretapping issue. Plainly, such power cannot be allowed to exist unchecked in a politically elected branch of government since if it can be abused, it will be abused and this would provide sufficient political advantage as to make all future elections practically pointless. Illegal or not, such powers are obviously dictatorial and cannot be justified by a "war on terror" (if such a thing really exists and isn't just the most convenient and effective way imaginable for the Executive to take unconstitutional powers into it's hot, sweaty, greedy little hands). We must reject the frame of reference that it's a time of war and our honest President is just doing what is necessary to protect us. That's patently ridiculous and even if it were so, it's not worth the cost of creating a Dictatorship in all but name. If we value our freedoms... we must stop this activity (and take many other even more urgently needed actions--all of which involve resisting the current imbalance of power in this country (media monopolies, tax-cuts for the wealthy/expansion of the public debt, corporate deregulation, Republican dominance of all branches of the government including the Judicial/Supreme Court and others)). We are very far up that infamous tributary (sh_t creek) and are without adequate means of propulsion (paddle), and while it may be difficult and distasteful, we'd better either start paddling with our arms or get out and swim because the waterfall is dead ahead!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
