Why Bush thinks Ruppert is a terrorist, and why he is not
I'm not going to prove Ruppert's claims one way or the other, just give an
account of how he could respond to Bush, et al.
On September 11, 2001 over 3,000 Americans were murdered in the World Trade Center in New
York City by hijacked airplanes. The Bush administration quickly blamed an Islamic "terrorist"
group based in Afghanistan. No sooner said than our military bombed and occupied that country
causing a debatable several thousand more deaths.
Almost as quickly, others charged President Bush and his team with complicity in the 911 crimes.
Michael Ruppert, for example, claims Bush and his team:
1) knew about the 911 plot to commit mass murder,
2) were complicit in those murders, that is, they were not just criminally negligent, a
situation where there were responsible for protecting Americans, but failed to do their job, but
instead gave aid and encouragement to the terrorists,
3) had a motive in oil and drug profits which explain why they would murder Americans.
The events of 911, the charges and counter charges about Ruppert's claims define our time.
Many of us would agree our goals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are at risk. I am
not in a position to gather more facts to support or refute what Ruppert is saying. However, the
leaders of our country tell us that because of what he's claiming, without hearing those facts, we
should think he's confused or a traitor. I can address myself to this claim because such criticisms
stand or fall on the arguments that Ruppert and the rest of us make. I will show his argument
makes sense, so he is not loony tunes. I will show that if our concern is the protection of people,
and the defense of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," he can not be a traitor.
This is how I understand his position: Ruppert stands with normal people. He thinks to defend
the workers in the World Trade Center, the people who have been trapped by drug addiction,
those of us who depend on an oil economy, the rest of us who are challenged by normal stresses
of living. He's an ex-cop and maybe he identifies with the words, "to serve and protect." He also
refuses to distinguish between Americans and non Americans. As long as any of us are at risk,
he might believe, we are all at risk. As an unofficial protector he's naturally aware and critical of
the official protectors. He's interested to give credit to the police, FBI, or CIA agents he finds who
have integrity and do their job. He's also interested in exposing those who can't or won't do
what's expected of them.
Given what he's discovered about how our government works, he's suspicious of Bush's
professed innocence. He suspected early on there would be evidence of Bush's corruption and
treason. Being sympathetic to the left, I can readily believe people like Bush who need to be
watched. However, it's not clear to most people what we are so afraid of. If they saw what the left
sees, Bush would not have gotten so close to being elected. Ruppert suggests there is a tension
between what we believe our government should do for us, and what people like Bush think
about it. The purpose of government is to protect its people. We look to it to be fair and to keep
the strong from taking advantage of the weak. If our government cannot be trusted to be fair, or
fails to protect everyone, then common people will no longer think well of it. They won't
participate in its running. They'll pay as little attention as they can to its requests. However, our
idea conflicts with Bush's idea that people must be prosperous in order for this government, or
any other, to continue doing any of its jobs. If people aren't able to prosper, I imagine Bush
thinking, they'll find it difficult to support that government. This demand for prosperity will
make government torn between the people's demand for fairness and the protection of the weak
from the strong, and the elite's demands that the government assist them in accumulating more
Bush represents those who have wealth and want more. One could argue, as many of his party
do, that he represents the common people who are not deluded by the wacky ideas of liberals and
the left. However, Bush is in the White House, not because he appeals to more people than his
political rivals, but because he has powerful friends. According to Ruppert's argument, political
elites, of whom Bush is one, make deals with economic elites to obtain political power. Bush
doesn't have the personal resources to finance a campaign, but with the aid of the oil industry, for
example, he can afford more of the tools of a successful campaign. Economic elites make these
deals in order to get the respectability and protection of being American companies. They need
this credibility, being the way they are, otherwise they see no one would do business with them.
Being respected, they prosper. Being as they are, however, according to Ruppert, they've stolen
oil from those who had it, promoted drug economies, in order to survive on laundered profits,
and deceived Americans, at least, into thinking their wealth came justly.
Ruppert's concern is that as these elites prosper, our government's credibility as our protector is
The problem now is that it's getting harder and harder to make a buck. Ruppert has reported, for
example, that the supply of oil is running out. There are some significant reserves in lands that
U.S. companies haven't controlled. Ruppert's claim is that it is plausible to see the mass
murders of 911 as part of a plot to gain control of that un-tapped oil in central Asia. If the
American people were frightened by a horrible terrorist attack, Ruppert imagines them to be
thinking, they would unthinkingly agree to the U.S. military taking over the countries of central
Asia, and to giving up a little freedom in exchange for more effective security.
He thinks this idea is not far fetched at all because there are good reasons to believe this kind of
manipulation has gone on before. For example, the battleship Maine was blown up off the coast
of Cuba, by some accounts it was planned that way, to start the Spanish American war. There's
evidence the Roosevelt administration sat on information that the Japanese would be attacking on
December 7th. The Gulf of Tonkin incident which started our war in Vietnam never happened.
And we're told the military had suggested astronauts and airplanes be blown up to enrage
Americans into a war with Cuba. Each involved someone who knew something assisting and
encouraging harm to people in order to get the American people to support a war. The fact these
things have happened before makes Ruppert, and many of the rest of us, suspicious about Bush
trying it again.
The President is not without his supporters. He's argued that you have to be insane to accuse the
very people who are dedicated to protecting the American people of being responsible for
harming them. The fact that an attack succeeded, he claims, only reflects the difficulty of
preventing them. That Ruppert and others would attack the President at a time of war is
traitorous because, he claims, it causes disunity and weakness at a time when the country is
threatened. Ultimately, this puts the American people at risk.
Basically, Bush and his defenders are committed to the idea that Bush is indistinguishable from
the Presidency. They're saying, you cannot allow Ruppert to win this argument because, if he
would win, he would bring down the government. If you bring down the government, you leave
the American people defenseless. Their argument does not address the question of whether
Ruppert is correct in his accusations. There may very well be overwhelming evidence that Bush
and some number of others were indispensable in the commission of the 911 operation. Their
argument is just that, whatever the facts say, you better save him or else. It's a threat, more or
less. The consequences of moving Bush out of the White House will be too much for the
American people to bear.
I can imagine, for the sake of argument, that "good" Germans faced the same situation and
argument during WWII. Yes, they could have realized, Hitler and the Reich were murdering
millions of Jews and others. This was an exceedingly bad thing. However, as the leader of
Germany, and the tough SOB he was, getting rid of him when they faced forces bound to harm
them, they could not get rid of him without thinking they would doom themselves.
It will be difficult for Ruppert to support his claims. If he is right, and there are powerful people
within the government with their fingerprints at the crime scene, they will be intent on wiping
them off, shredding evidence, and burying witnesses. They will be interested in undermining the
credibility of their pursuers.
There are three tasks for Ruppert, at least,
1) The first will be to determine the facts, and show who was responsible and who was
guilty and who deserves to be punished, and even, who deserves our trust concerning 911.
2) The second will be to expose the "crimes of capitalism," so to speak. Whether or not
Bush and the political elites were negligent or guilty of anything, there remains the question of
whether anyone is stealing oil or laundering drug profits.
3) The third is to show people that they are much better off with a government they can
trust, so its crucial they clean it whenever its dirty. There would always be others who could do
the job without corrupt relationships.
To sum up, Bush thinks Ruppert is a traitor because he thinks his prosperity keeps the
government strong, where the people's security depends on keeping him that way. Ruppert is a
traitor for challenging his right to do whatever is in his interest to maintain his wealth. Ruppert
believes the most important job for government is to protect people and this government cannot
do this when the leadership is involved in such conflicts of interest. They are always tempted to
betray the people for their own benefit.
I would appreciate someone pointing out the links that would support the factual claims. I don't
believe there are any links that would put the argument together this way. I would be interested
to hear how this argument could be clarified. I will do two more parts, one about Ruppert and
the claim he's a conspiricist.
phone: 503 709-6044
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article