THE SKY IS FALLING!
If ever there was evidence Washington was exploiting and compounding the fear, insecurity and hyperpatriotism engendered by the Sept. 11 attacks on Washington and New York, the Bush administration’s “Chicken Little, Chicken Little, the sky is falling!” scaremongering about terrorism the week of May 18-25 constituted proof positive. Evidently, there are few lengths to which the White House will not go to advance the right-wing agenda and the fortunes of empire.
By midweek, New York Times headline writers were engaging in soft criticism -- first by announcing that “Security is Tightened in New York After Vague Threat of Terrorism;” then, introducing an editorial headlined “Distractions and Diversions” (noting that “these warnings, which have already lost much of their power to command public attention, will become meaningless if they are perceived merely to be a way of changing the subject”); then “The Warning du Jour Comes via Rumsfeld...” (describing an article stating that most intelligence “was too vague to provide meaningful precautionary advice”); finally concluding with a column headlined, “Cool It!” (pointing out, “Remember, it’s supposed to be al Qaeda that’s running scared, not us”).
The need to minimize the news that Bush and his aides were vaguely informed of a planned attack before Sept. 11 but said nothing publicly evidently was one factor in the flurry of scare stories. As soon as top Democrats began to ask, “What did the president know and when did he know it?” unnamed officials grabbed headlines by suggesting that al Qaeda “is trying to carry out an operation as big or bigger than the Sept. 11 attacks.” This was followed in short order by Vice President Cheney’s announcement that another massive terrorist attack was “almost certain,” by FBI director Robert Mueller’s suggestion that “We will not be able to stop” inevitable suicide bombings and “further terrorist attacks,” by Homeland Security director Tom Ridge’s warning that another terrorist attack was “not a question of if, but a question of when,” by Secretary of State Colin Powell’s declaration that “terrorists are trying every way they can to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction,” and by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s warning that “terrorist networks ... would not hesitate one minute in using” such weapons. By the end of the week millions of Americans were plunged back into fear and trembling.
Diverting the American people from criticizing Bush for ignoring pre-9/11 warnings was only a small part of the administration’s terrifying alarms. The bigger part was to manipulate the multitude into continuing its support for the war on terrorism -- no matter what comes next.
After nine months, the traumatized American people are finally getting their lives back together. Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan are fading from the forefront of consciousness. At the same time, however, the Bush administration is planning several more military adventures, including a war against Iraq that could result in thousands of U.S. casualties -- and there’s no telling what the government is preparing for Cuba, Colombia, Syria, Iran, North Korea, et al.
In order to fulfill its imperial objective of sweeping the world clean of “Rogue States” over the next months and years, the White House requires a pledge of unambiguous allegiance from the great majority of the population, including the craven Democratic Party. And the only way to fashion such fidelity is to keep the people of the United States in a continual state of personal fear of terrorism, livid anger toward those who dared tread upon us, and flag-waving hyperpatriotism. It is thus necessary from time to time for the administration to stimulate emotions similar to those experienced by the American people in the first months after Sept. 11. Hence the choreographed recent reminders that after the twin towers, the sky itself may be next to fall, unless George W. Bush is allowed carry the war on terrorism through to the end, wherever that may be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/11 INQUIRY: FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
The leadership of the Democratic Party, backed by certain forces on the left, are calling for Congress to initiate an “independent” inquiry into what the Bush administration knew about the Sept. 11 attacks before they took place. At immediate issue are revelations that the government was privy to some raw information from intelligence agencies months before the Pentagon and World Trade Center were hit suggesting that al Qaeda planned to hijack airliners -- and did not make this material public, much less prevent the attacks.
By extension, these revelations dovetail with a variety of reports circulating for many months that the Bush administration may well have participated in a conspiracy that knew about but did nothing to prevent the terror raids in order to provide a pretext to further the right-wing agenda and launch a war on terrorism.
We have no doubt that the Bush administration and the Pentagon had various war plans ready to extend the U.S. empire into Central Asia, to topple Afghanistan, to wage war against Iraq, to finish off Cuba and North Korea, to weaken Iran and so on. These plans in fact constitute what has become known as the war on terrorism. Such blueprints have been on the Pentagon drawing boards for years, and are continually updated by the warmakers in each successive political administration, based on political, economic and military considerations of the moment or technical breakthroughs in armaments. And it is obvious as well that the Bush administration has most certainly exploited the situation to pursue its reactionary domestic policies.
But we are dubious about supporting the Democratic Party’s opportunist call for an investigation into why the Republican administration was unable to prevent the attacks. And we remain unconvinced there was a conspiracy involving the Bush administration.
Had the Democratic leaders coupled their call for an inquiry with a declaration of opposition to the war on terrorism, perhaps some good could have come out of it. But since they strongly support the war, backed the $48 billion hike in the Pentagon budget, and remained mute when the White House announced the new policy of first-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states -- among many other outrages -- what, exactly, is supposed to come out of a full-scale investigation?
What we fear is that any such inquiry will conclude that the FBI, CIA and other spy agencies must be strengthened, that the Homeland Security office must be enlarged to play a bigger role in preventing future attacks, and that even further restraints must be removed from police forces to enable them to act faster and more decisively in future, among other such recommendations. Indeed, the Bush administration might even get a ruler whacked across its knuckles for failing to implement sterner security measures before Sept. 11. Who will that help?
What will not emerge from such an inquiry is a serious examination of the role played by the U.S. in creating many of the conditions that ripened to the point where a group such as al Qaeda could launch the terror attacks. Will the inquiry examine the role the CIA played in supporting right-wing fundamentalist forces in Afghanistan (including Osama bin Laden) from 1979 to 1994? Will it analyze the degree to which Washington’s role in Iraq and Palestine and Saudi Arabia, among many other areas in the Middle East, contributed to the rising tide of antipathy toward the U.S. throughout the region? Will it investigate the imperialist uses to which the Bush administration has put the terror attack in terms of extending the empire? Will it question why the Pentagon needs permanent bases throughout Central Asia as a consequence of the war against Afghanistan? Will it probe the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan?
If these and dozens of other similar questions were the focus of the inquiry demanded by Senate Democratic leader Sen. Tom Daschle and House Minority leader Rep. Richard Gephardt, we would have a great deal more confidence that it would serve a politically useful or at least educational purpose. But if it’s just “what did Bush know and when did he know it,” or “who tied the FBI’s hands,” it seems like two-party bourgeois politics as usual, intended to foster the customary illusions. (end)