RED ALERT: BUSH NEEDS ANOTHER 9/11
By Ed Henry
No infamous weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the liberated Iraqis don't welcome us or democracy; the Taliban is reorganizing in Afghanistan; most of the people in the rest of the world think we are a bunch of empire building war mongers; people are boycotting our products; we’ve got a growing trade deficit; our economy is still in trouble; the Euro is replacing the dollar; unemployment is growing; and our national debt is on its way to the moon.
After a three month hiatus that sent just about every local government in the union to the poor house, Congress has given Bush an open trillion dollar ($984 billion) line of credit to do just about anything he wants. And the Washington Post claims that this new debt will be used up by the summer of 2004 just before elections get under way in earnest.
According to the polls, the man who won the last election through our republic's Electoral College still enjoys high ratings from the people. Campaigning on the platform of compassionate conservatism with the unique ability to bring opposing sides together, this president now acts like a character from OK Coral and wants portable miniature nukes so troops in the field can kill a number equivalent to one-third of the Hiroshima population at a time.
Watch out, because President Bush needs something dramatic to regain the world sympathy we had after 9/11 and to keep the American collective consciousness diverted elsewhere.
The idea that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by a group of suicidal maniacs who envied our freedoms is beginning to wear thin. It wasn't the Al Qaeda that stonewalled any investigation into why this happened and then delivered the ultimate insult to victim families by appointing Henry Kissinger, Dr. Strangelove himself, a man who can't leave the country without fear of arrest for crimes against humanity, to head up an investigation. And finally, when another commission of friends to the administration is selected to investigate, their results are not released to the public because it might endanger national security. Does that sound like freedom to you?
Come on folks, deep in our hearts we all know that having thousands of American troops spread across the globe has engendered a great deal of hate and distrust of Americans. These troops are not diplomats, they're soldiers trained to follow orders and fight. They can engender hatred just by the accidents that happen while keeping in shape or the boys-will-be-boys encounters with the native populations.
It certainly doesn't require a great deal of empathy to understand how we would feel with Russian or Chinese military bases in Kansas, Texas, or anywhere else in our own country. And how would we feel if some hotshot jet pilot killed some of our loved ones by knocking down a ski-lift in Aspen? How do you suppose the relatives of a fishing boat sunk by a nuclear sub showing off feel towards Americans? And how about the passengers on school buses or airliners that we've blown up by accident?
Even if we pulled these troops home and tried to find them jobs, how long would it take to heal the wounds developed over the last decade or five?
If we can't win the war on drugs, how are we ever going to stop terrorism? If tons of white powder can be smuggled into this country to go directly up people's noses or into their veins, what in the world makes people think that we could stop terrorists from bringing in chemical and biological weapons?
And what would happen to this nation's economy if we won the war on drugs?
Estimated seven years ago at $500 billion a year, a half trillion in profit, just the cocaine business in this country could ruin our economy if it were stopped tomorrow. You don't really think the kingpins of this industry sock their profits back into product improvement do you?
What's to develop or improve? Are they trying for better weeds and kitchens, vacuum packaging and container shipping, owning their own banks and airlines? Did you know that the Chinese recently opened the world's largest container shipping operation on Grand Bahama Island, about eighty miles off our Florida coast?
Now there's a real fear story that could be developed. Suppose the war channels and loyal news services started leaking rumors that shipments of cocaine were laced or cut with anthrax. How many bankers, judges, hotel and restaurant operators, other business types and people on the street would suddenly develop nervous breakdowns?
The booga-booga fear stories about one or two groups of organized terrorists wanting to kill as many Americans as possible make just about as much sense.
Do you really believe that terrorists are dumb, that they believe it's the American people who have caused the problems and injustices in their homelands? Do you think these people don't understand leadership and that it's the U.S. government and the military planners that foment the deeds that hurt them? And you can include international banking, once headquartered in the World Trade Center, right in there with Washington and the Pentagon as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Banking, also headquartered in Washington. These are the terrorist's primary targets.
Therein lays the dilemma. To bolster his own propaganda, Bush needs an attack on the American heartland to prove real terrorism. He needs an attack that cannot be misinterpreted as anything other than an attack on innocent civilians, people that are guilty of nothing more than electing and permitting the form of leadership now running this country, an attack at a major sporting event like the Olympics we recently had in Salt Lake City or a baseball game, Chicago subway, the hotels of Miami Beach or anything other than Washington, our military, or the media and banking cabals. He can't just run around crying wolf whenever he needs a weapon of mass distraction.
When it happens, will we again believe it originated outside the country?
"Published originally at EtherZone.com: republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Ed Henry is the founder of TUFF, the Taxpayers Union, and a regular columnist for Ether Zone. Ed's new book, "Rip Off" is now available... check it out here!. We also invite you to visit his website.
Published in the May 30, 2003 issue of Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2003 Ether Zone.
~ Afterword ~
GOVERNMENT BY INCIDENT
from AUDREY’S MISSILES
(A weekly newsletter dedicated to the peaceful reform of the United States government.)
There has been another incident, the recent Saudi Arabian bombings. The world’s press is reporting that the men who are believed responsible for it were based in Iran, and this may be all that is required for the Bush Administration to go after Iran. Will the case be any better than the one against Iraq? Does it really matter since the hawks will not change their plans anyway regardless of evidence? The world is finding it alarming that a major power is openly discussing methods to subvert another government. Many people realize that the intelligence agencies of most major nations have been subverting governments and even succeeding in causing regime changes for a very long time, but what is new is the blunt, arrogant and brazen openness of the effort. The US government and the press are now turning their verbal guns on Iran. With the tragedy and chaos that the armed intervention in the Middle East has brought, must the world face another disaster? Will the financial outflow cause the US economy to collapse as happened to the Soviet Union? Can the American taxpayer shoulder such an overwhelming burden? Are such radical responses justified?
Incidents have a prominent place in the history of the United States. “Remember the Maine!” plunged us into the Spanish American War while some historians say that the sinking of the Maine was not the result of hostile action at all, but that the ship’s boiler blew up. Then there is the view that President Roosevelt allowed much of the Pacific fleet to gather at Pearl Harbor, tempting the Japanese to attack in order to draw the United States into the Second World War. Roosevelt may have believed that if the US did not enter soon enough it might be too late to keep the Axis Powers from taking Britain and the United States as well. Did he really let the attack happen? If he did, was his action justified? During the Clinton Administration there was the “little shepherd” incident. The story of the young Mexican who was shot and killed, supposedly by US troops, was so convenient and so exploited by the press that it has caused private speculation that the tragedy was contrived to take the pressure off Congress and keep them from placing troops on the US - Mexican border. It did have that effect.
Many articles have been written casting doubt on the official version of the September 11th attacks. The Bush Administration and the CIA were either very lax, very stupid, or so very much in need of a means to rally support for Middle East intervention that they let the attack take place. There is no doubt that some people in the Bush Administration believe that large scale military involvement is necessary to fight the terrorist organizations, and that it is better to find this enemy in oil producing countries.
The big problem is that the policy is stirring up more trouble than would otherwise be the case. George Bush has been blindly lashing out, evidently believing that he can fight and lick the whole world. Have Bush and the Defense Department hawks finally realized that in order to keep our troops from being ambushed and killed during the Middle East occupation they are going to have help the Palestinians? And that plainly means the US is going to have to apply pressure on Israel to take some real steps toward peace. Israel’s economy is in very bad condition, and Bush can cut the lifeline of American aid. Sharon’s very recent published comments are a surprise, "The time has come to divide this piece of land between us and the Palestinians." That comment, together with the acceptance of the provisions of the “road map”, with its goal of a Palestinian State, are a big change in Sharon’s stance. Has he finally realized that, short of genocide, there is no military solution to his problem, or has Powell told him that he faces withdrawal of financial support if he does not move along with the provisions of the road map? If real steps toward peace take place, it may be that Washington has finally realized that they must settle the Arab - Israeli conflict in order to retain military gains in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a bitter pill for Israel. With the US public and Congress heavily favoring Israel, Bush is going to need help with public opinion. Will there be another incident?