| http://www.etherzone.com/2002/fall052802.shtml PHOENIXGATE: BUSH AND 9-11 CLEARLY STRETCHING THE LIMITS OF CREDULITY By: Paul Fallavollita Mainstream media sources, including the New York Times and Washington Post, are discussing the extent of Bush’s foreknowledge of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. The government now admits that the FBI field office in Phoenix produced a memorandum indicating that al-Qaeda terrorists were training in American flight schools. This coverage represents an effort at damage control. It attempts to reveal a partial truth in order to satiate the American people, deflecting them from uncovering the whole horrible truth. Many Republicans and some conservatives suggest that the Democrats are manufacturing this controversy over Bush’s prior knowledge of 9/11 for their own political advantage. This is not surprising. If Bush were to walk into an elementary school armed with an AK-47 and blow away seventeen kids, his cheerleaders would give him a pass on it, explaining how the Democrats and the liberal media are twisting things in an effort to make him look bad. Those who believe that this issue is just political maneuvering on the part of the Democrats and the liberal media are missing the point. Human nature dictates that Bush’s political enemies will obviously use this scandal as a weapon against him, but that does not diminish the truth or import of these revelations. Besides, the media is going rather easy on Bush, as they are downplaying reports that five of the 9/11 hijackers were trained at U.S. military bases including the Pensacola, Florida Naval Air Station and the Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama. The problem this country faces is not about the staged rivalry of the Republicans and Democrats. The real conflict is between the government versus the people, and nationalism versus globalism. Bush is on the wrong side of both of these conflicts—he is an elitist and a globalist, and is therefore an enemy of the American people. Bush’s handling of the events leading up to 9/11 merely confirms his general malevolence. The real question is not whether Bush knew the attack was coming, but whether Bush let the attack happen in the same way that Franklin D. Roosevelt let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor as a way of bringing the country into an unpopular war. We are asked to believe that Bush was "out of the loop" in this "Phoenixgate," and that no one could have predicted that passenger airplanes could be used as flying bombs. The New York Times reports White House spokesman Ari Fleischer as saying, "The president was…provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9/11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile." Continuing that theme, the Washington Post quotes Fleischer: "This was a new type of attack that was not foreseen." Well, al-Qaeda supposedly planned the attack, so they were certainly able to "foresee" it. Towel-headed terrorists, according to Fleischer, have better strategists and tacticians than the combined resources of the United States government. Fleischer’s official denials clearly stretch the limits of credulity. The Filipino government, however, was better able to discern al-Qaeda’s plans for the United States. According to a 1995 Filipino police report, Abdul Marad, an al-Qaeda operative, planned to "board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger…hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters." The Filipinos informed the FBI and CIA. In 1998, American intelligence also uncovered information that Osama bin Laden intended to attack New York or Washington, DC in retaliation for the U.S. attack on his bases in Afghanistan. As early as 1995, these facts expose the flimsiness of Fleischer’s cover story. Even Chris Carter "foresaw" such an attack—and he’s a television show director. The pilot episode of Carter’s FOX television show, The Lone Gunmen, depicted a faction of the United States government plotting to crash a plane into the World Trade Center via remote control of the craft’s avionics. Of course, the premise of the episode seemed preposterous when it aired on March 4, 2001. Now, Carter may just be a prophet. A friend of mine who is running for municipal office in a small Midwestern city commented that Hollywood often fictionalizes elements of the truth in order to make the truth seem more unbelievable, and thus more inaccessible, to the masses. It becomes easier to dismiss those who ask too many questions about the official version of history when people can simple say "you must be watching too many episodes of the X-Files." One can only assume that after White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove’s visit to Hollywood in the wake of 9/11, this fictionalization process has been stepped up. Carter’s creative story contains more than a kernel of truth. The government is not confined to a passive, receiving role in the airline hijacking and terrorism business, and this makes Fleischer’s false testimony about the limits of government foresight even more difficult to accept. Within the "institutional memory" of the United States government, there have been moments where such operations have been planned. Operation Northwoods, for example, was a plan hatched by the Joint Chiefs aimed at creating a justification for an American war against Cuba. Under this plan, agents of the U.S. government were to commit terrorist acts against American facilities and even domestic airliners, and then blame these acts on the Cubans. Such plans have always existed in the history of governments on this planet. Many Americans would not put such behavior past the government—and this is a healthy sign. An anecdote of my own along these lines might prove instructive. A few weeks back, I paid a visit to my family care physician. As a new patient, the doctor discovered that I am in political science. When people learn that about me, they enthusiastically tell me all their thoughts about politics. A grad student friend of mine in economics told me he often gets the same thing. I enjoy hearing people’s ideas, and in these situations with someone I’m just meeting, I tend to keep quiet and let the other person take the lead in the conversation. That way, I can learn what the person really thinks, uninfluenced by my own cues. My doctor informed me that due to the highly compartmentalized nature of the CIA, and presumably al-Qaeda as well, he believes operatives of the CIA hired these Muslims, telling them that they would be working for Osama bin Laden, and warning them to keep their mouths shut. The randomness of my meeting with my doctor is significant. My doctor is an educated professional and does not believe the official version of events offered by the government. I believe this doctor’s attitude is indicative of a large and growing segment of the American population. The truth they are grasping is this: the United States government had the most to gain from the events of September 11. One prime example of these "benefits" which will have long-term consequences is that the government passed the USA Patriot Act, exponentially increasing its power while abridging the sacred and traditional rights of Americans. Vice President Cheney senses the growing discontent across this land now that Bush has been unmasked as the Emperor with no clothes. He recently said of those who would question Bush’s prior knowledge, "such commentary is thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war." Cheney is playing the patriotism card, questioning the loyalty of those who would ask tough questions, but forgetting that true patriotism means loyalty to the people of the United States, not the government—and there is a tremendous difference between the two. Even a liberal such as anchorman Dan Rather has rightly expressed concern and dismay toward Cheney’s "don’t question us" attitude. He told one British newspaper, "It’s unpatriotic not to stand up, look them in the eye, and ask the questions they don’t want to hear – they being those who have the responsibility, the ultimate responsibility in a society such as ours, of sending our sons and daughters, our husbands, wives, our blood, to face death, to take death." In another British newspaper, The Guardian, Jonathan Steele penned a commentary titled "New York is starting to feel like Brezhnev's Moscow" evaluating the kinds of concerns raised by Americans like Dan Rather. Steele states, "Listening to these anguished but private complaints suddenly reminded me of the Soviet Union of the Brezhnev era when lower-level officials, journalists and other fringe members of the regime sat around their kitchen tables, expressing their true views only to family and close friends. A far-fetched analogy, of course, until you look at the narrowness of public discussion, not just on Israeli-Palestinian issues, but also on the threatened American attack on Iraq and the administration’s war on terrorism in general." Steele and Rather diagnose a fundamental problem in this country. Too many Americans are allowing themselves to be corralled into a poor facsimile of the Soviet Union. It is both sad and noteworthy that Americans have had to turn to foreign newspapers in order to speak their true minds. We have become precisely what the neoconservatives, those famed Cold Warriors, presumably hoped to defeat. We have no freedom, but only the illusion that we are free. The only way to regain true freedom in America is if enough people wake up to this fact—that they are not truly free. That alone is half the battle. Then they might want to return to the point I made above—that the battle is not the illusory one between Republicans and Democrats. Once those two points are mastered, the journey toward the truth has begun. Public debate has indeed become too pro-government, too orthodox, and too narrow since 9/11. However, this Bush scandal may be the light at the end of the tunnel. The scandal proves that this regime is not invincible. We have them on the run. Now, more than ever, do what you can to poke your finger in the government’s eye. This is why "the powers that be" hate the Internet and alternative news sources, like shortwave radio. The truth will out. If this is treason in the eyes of men like Dick Cheney, let’s make the most of it. |
