portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

Stop Asking Questions and Prepare for the Next Attack

One of the government maintained lines with regard to the attacks was that suicide missions in the form of massive airliners crashing into skyscrapers was unprecedented. This claim is irrefutably and absolutely false (and always has been). In fact, there is abundant mention and evidence of such techniques as suicide hijackings not only in theory, but in direct threats: there was a threat of an airliner suicide mission targeting Bush, among others, in Genoa, Italy at an economic summit last year.
 http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=287
''The rhetoric spewing Bush administration''
Printed on Thursday, May 23, 2002 @ 03:44:56 EDT

By Matthew Riemer
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) -- George W. Bush is actually not stupid or illiterate as many of you may think and laughingly describe him as. But in that case then, what is he? Well, he's a full-fledged living characterization of himself, which has now reached the level of complete parody. Just as you confidently expect the Road Runner to dodge Wiley E's projectiles and to outrun semis and Bugs Bunny to bring himself to a stop one inch off the ground after a thousand foot freefall, you fully expect the President of the United States to make absolutely no sense, while embarrassing himself as he sounds like someone just beginning to grasp the verbal patterns of rudimentary American English.

His rhetoric, too, has reached the level of that of a satirical script. (Did a presidential speech writer pen the words that Bush just mangled or did a Saturday Night Live cast member?) This has been especially evident in the past few glorious days, which have brought us revelations in the form of reports and memos regarding terrorist warnings throughout the summer that explicitly and definitively expose the lies of the Bush administration.

In his initial response to the questions regarding what he knew before September 11, Bush said: "I'll do whatever it takes, and I know you'll join me in doing whatever it takes to prevent the enemy from attacking America again like they did and causing thousands to suffer and to mourn and to grieve." (CBS, May 17, 2002)

Aside from basely invoking American suffering, mourning, and grief for his own ends and creating a "link" between him and us, he completely fails to address what was known and what wasn't with regard to warnings of terrorist attacks last summer. Obviously, this shouldn't come as a surprise, it's the status quo for political answers; however, with regard to an issue of such gravity, as well as his convenient reference to the mysterious yet ubiquitous "enemy," Bush's comments can only be seen as being Orwellian on their face.

Imagine if, when the police asked a murder suspect where they were on the night of the murder, the suspect responded with: "I know we'll catch this guy. It'll take teamwork. You and I will have to trust each other, but will find 'em."

The significance of these reports, buoyed by their appearance in mainstream media, is that they legitimize the suspicion of the current administration's actions regarding the events of September 11th, as well as their knowledge of such attacks, even in a theoretical form, and any other information that may have shed light on the events that were about to ominously unfold.

Of course, while many objective and informed individuals have long questioned what happened that day (or more importantly - how and why), to seriously examine such things was still considered too extreme for many. But now, in the last few days, mainly due to mainstream (legitimate, reliable) exposure, many individuals are running the thought process through their heads for the first time that point to George W. Bush and his cronies as horrible villains on par with those in a bad Hollywood movie, not to mention some real life guys.

These new reports reveal outright lies in one case and further incrimination in another.

One of the government maintained lines with regard to the attacks was that suicide missions in the form of massive airliners crashing into skyscrapers was unprecedented. This claim is irrefutably and absolutely false (and always has been). In fact, there is abundant mention and evidence of such techniques as suicide hijackings not only in theory, but in direct threats: there was a threat of a suicide mission targeting Bush, among others, in Genoa, Italy at an economic summit last year. [See AP story "White House prepares for more questions on warnings" (May 17, 2002) for more examples.]

Even though the above story was reported and highly disseminated, the new reports now coming from the AP are far more influential and the proof-positive final nail in the coffin of the "we'd never thought of such a thing before" theory/excuse.

The AP (May 17) quoted a 1999 intelligence report: "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA or the White House."

This report indicates that the possibility of suicide missions, such as those that occurred on September 11, were fully acknowledged as legitimate means by intelligence personnel and anyone connected with or part of some terrorism prevention apparatus.

So the fact that the Bush administration has lied to the public concerning the gravest of issues is now uncontestable. But why? What purpose was served? Who would benefit from such lies? Why the scramble in the days immediately following the attacks to portray suicide hijackings as one of the most unimaginable things one could never imagine?

The new information also serves to further invalidate claims made by the administration that the success of the hijackings represents a massive intelligence failure. From the start this is both a pathetic and unacceptable explanation, but now has become even more outrageous.

We just screwed up. We were taken by surprise. We weren't as good as we thought. Are these supposed to represent legitimate excuses when it comes to the world's most well funded security and intelligence apparatus conceding the lives of three thousand individuals it is employed to serve and protect? This level of incompetence is criminal.

But now, on top of all that, we learn that there were warnings and indications, such as the FBI report from Arizona warning of suspicious Saudis taking flight lessons. This was, like so many other things, inexplicable ignored.

What's significant about these warnings, even if they are less than specific, is that they should have heightened awareness on all levels. What if an evaluation of airport security was carried out in the wake of the warnings instead of well after the fact? What if more thorough investigations of supposed Al Qaeda members were carried out, as should have been done in the above example?

All the emerging evidence only makes the administration's excuses and statements more farcical than ever.

Yet they continue the rhetoric to the point of frustration. Ari Fleischer, on May 18, was as saying, "I think that anytime anybody suggests or implies to the American people that this president had specific information that could have prevented the attacks on our country on September 11, that crosses the lines."

What's amazing about this comment is that Fleischer only responds to the daring of the critic and not to their critique. Why doesn't the Bush administration respond with a mixture of amusement and shock and say: "Here are all the memos and intelligence reports and everything you need to prove our cooperation and innocence"?

Instead they respond with veiled statements and now, apparently, threats.

In the same AP article, Donald Rumsfeld deflected questions: "The likelihood is - because it's not possible to defend at every place at every moment - that there will be another terrorist attack. We should just face that reality."

So, in other words, stop asking questions and prepare for the next attack. That sums things up quite nicely, as one would only expect from such a good ole boy as Rumsfeld, because it perfectly describes the place where I live: a place were questioning is frowned upon, if not vilified, and the new fangled procedure of nationally issued terror warnings (sensational scare tactics) is the order of the day. Warnings that, apparently, nothing can be done about.

[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In addition to his work with YellowTimes.org, he's also maintaining  http://www.rottenindenmark.org, as well as being in the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work. Matthew lives in the United States.]

Matthew Riemer encourages your comments:  mriemer@YellowTimes.org

YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction must identify the original source,  http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to  http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.

homepage: homepage: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=287
address: address: YellowTimes.org