Recognizing that few support its planned slaughter in Iraq besides its two perennial lapdogs (Britain and Israel), the U.S. ruling elite has shamelessly exploited the tragedy of 9/11 in order to advance its own goals. This is nothing new, as 9/11, having been radically manipulated by the corporate-controled media, has provided the perfect justification for every draconian, authoritarian, and imperialist whim of George W. and his cabal of terrorists. But as 9/11 approaches, this practice has been turned up a notch, and they insult the peoples' intelligence even more:
Here's what Mr. "Halliburton" Cheney had to say recently:
"We are in a place now that some, I think, some Americans as well as some of our European friends, for example, have difficulty adjusting to," he said, "because they haven't — in the case of the Europeans, they haven't the experience we have of 3,000 dead Americans last Sept. 11. They are not as vulnerable as we are, because they are not targeted.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/09/international/middleeast/09POLI.html]
(The Vice President should ask himself why his country is targeted.)
And here's the concern that they have for the countless people that will be killed in any military action against Iraq. Speaking of this horror as a "marketing scheme," with total disregard for human life. But they're just sand n-words anyway, right, USA? Furthermore, Bush and co. decided that Ellis Island would provide a better photo-op and higher nationalistic propaganda value to deliver his manipulative speech, preying on people's fears to launch the second wave of his crusade:
“From a marketing point of view,” said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff who is coordinating the effort, “you don’t introduce new products in August.”
A centerpiece of the strategy, White House officials said, is to use Mr. Bush’s speech on Sept. 11 to help move Americans toward support of action against Iraq, which could come early next year.
“Everybody felt that was a moment that Americans wanted to hear from him,” said Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political advisor. Sept. 11 will also be a time, Mr. Rove said, “to seize the moment to make clear what lies ahead.”
Toward that end, in June the White House picked Ellis Island in New York Harbor, not Governors Island, as the place where President Bush is to deliver his Sept. 11 address to the nation. Both spots were considered, White House advisors said, but the television camera angles were more spectacular from Ellis Island, where the Statue of Liberty will be seen aglow behind Mr. Bush. "
[http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/07/politics/07STRA.html]
Such as in the above piece, sometimes the corporate media does provide a glimpse of truth, if one reads between the lines. The war on Iraq is not about "terrorism" or supposed "weapons of mass destruction," but about maintaining control over the region. This is why the infrastructure of Iraq had to be destroyed in "Desert Storm." This is why the birthplace of civilization, home of ancient cultures, and what was once one of the most modern and developed countries in the Middle East was bombed into oblivion in the early 90's, and why they will do it again: for control, political and economic:
"the Bush administration fears that Iraq's acquisition of nuclear arms would embolden a hostile Iraqi government and transform the strategic balance of power in the Persian Gulf."
[http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/09/international/middleeast/09MILI.html?tntemail0]
Finally, Noam Chomsky presents a more sane voice on the current situation:
"In Iraq, a decade of harsh sanctions under US pressure has strengthened Saddam Hussein while leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - perhaps more people "than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history", military analysts John and Karl Mueller wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1999.
Washington's present justifications to attack Iraq have far less credibility than when President Bush Sr was welcoming Saddam as an ally and a trading partner after he had committed his worst brutalities - as in Halabja, where Iraq attacked Kurds with poison gas in 1988. At the time, the murderer Saddam was more dangerous than he is today.
As for a US attack against Iraq, no one, including Donald Rumsfeld, can realistically guess the possible costs and consequences. Radical Islamist extremists surely hope that an attack on Iraq will kill many people and destroy much of the country, providing recruits for terrorist actions.
They presumably also welcome the "Bush doctrine" that proclaims the right of attack against potential threats, which are virtually limitless. The president has announced: "There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland." That's true.
Threats are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless war poses a far greater danger to Americans than perceived enemies do, for reasons the terrorist organisations understand very well."
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,788508,00.html]
--*-- Marc Rodrigues Voicemail: 866.206.9067 x4217 Students for a Free Society: http://qcsfs.tripod.com
"I cock back tha sling to stone a settler And breaks him off clean, call me the upsetter" -Zack de la Rocha