The obligatory fifth-anniversary 9-11 post, with a difference

Blah, blah blah…

That, Gentle Reader, is the sound of the mainstream media in the US, talking a lot and not actually saying anything. For the last five years, it’s been doing nothing but that on one particular day when it owes the public so much more than just some obligatory annual orgy of grief and remembrance with an unholy admixture of misplaced patriotism.

It’s not that I begrudge the victims and their families the right to a memorial ceremony. It is right to remember the dead of a major national disaster. It is right to publicly honor them. It is right to do so with the utmost compassion and dignity. What is not right, however, is to piss on their memory by insinuating–or blatting right out–that blood must be avenged by blood, and that war and fascism are the only right and proper responses (besides the Annual Sombre Ceremony, comme il faut) to a terrorist act which nothing more than proper enforcement of existing laws could have easily prevented. Just look at Great Britain.

And of course, this is what’s going on still: the media continues to uncritically broadcast the official BushCo version of the day and what it means. Their coverage of the ceremonies is invariably tainted by commentary to the effect that “this is why we’re fighting” or “it’s all Clinton’s fault”, even though it is now manifestly obvious that this was never the case.

I don’t expect to see much change to that pattern this year. Or next year, or even the year after that. In fact, until BushCo is out of office, I don’t expect to see anything more than the usual blah-blah-blah in the US mainstream media on September 11.

Oh sure, this year we’re starting to hear the talking heads coming halfway out of their collective coma and taking on the conspiracy theorists. We’re starting to see mention of David Ray Griffin, for example, outside of the 9-11 Truth movement’s usual haunts. That’s a good thing, right?

Um, no. Not really.

You see, they’re still lumping all CT, from the very respectable to the downright loopy, in the same category: Tinfoil Hat. And of course, they’re fixating on the most tinfoily of all CT versions–the demolition theory and the cruise missile theory–as being emblematic of the whole shebang.

This is manifestly unjust to the 9-11 Truth movement on the whole. It barely touches the fact that within the movement, there is an intense debate as to whether BushCo actually made 9-11 happen on purpose (the so-called MIHOP school of thought), or whether they simply let it happen on purpose (LIHOP). It downplays or altogether ignores the most serious lines of reasoning–put out by the most respectable sources, some of them connected to government and intelligence agencies themselves. And when it does touch on any of that, it swiftly retreats to the insinuation that this is is all just chatter amongst a bunch of wild-eyed nutters, and that there’s nothing to it–nope, nothing to see here, move on, folks. By implicitly presenting the 9-11 Truth movement as monolithic–and uniformly tinfoil-clad–the mainstream media is signalling that everything they say, no matter how well they back it up, is to be dismissed out of hand. Only the Officially Sanctioned Version (TM) is to be taken seriously.

Of course, all the 9-11 Truthers are doing is pointing out the obvious flaws in the Officially Sanctioned Version. And demanding a better explanation than the one we’ve had foisted upon us. Lacking an inquisitive press corps and a responsive government, though, they’ve had to do the answering as well as the questioning all by themselves. And the outcome, while spotty in places, is still undeniably provocative and damning; government and media both come out looking like shit, starting with the mind-boggling fact that $55 million more was spent sniffing around Bill Clinton’s zipper than convening the 9-11 commission.

And then they have the gall to call this movement nuts?

Oh, I’ll give them a few bones where due. Some of the movement’s more out-there “explanations” don’t pan out, or they pick on flaws that aren’t; for example, the assertion that the Twin Towers “fell neatly into their own footprints” is readily belied by simply looking at the messy, volcano-like outward eruption of the debris (a controlled demolition falls inward, not out, and doesn’t leave huge jagged teeth of ruins still standing.) Likewise, the assertion that “it had to have been a controlled demolition, because burning jet fuel alone doesn’t cause such a building to collapse” is easily refuted. It wasn’t a case of burning jet fuel alone–it was the impact of two large jets, bigger than the Boeing 737s the building was designed at most to withstand, travelling at full speed and then exploding almost the instant they hit. You can see the bright orange fireball erupting out the other side of the tower. That is no small explosion. The planes both went in on an angle, seeing as they were in steeply banked turns. How many steel supports, and on how many floors, do you suppose the wings sheared on impact? The explosion was so intense that burning jet fuel fell all the way down the elevator shafts of the towers, burning unsuspecting people on their way into the WTC from the subway!

Yes, by all means, let’s discuss how WTC 7, which wasn’t hit by any aircraft or debris, fell later that day. It is certainly enough of an anomaly to be worth inquiring into, and I don’t see that either FEMA or the 9-11 Commission (convened more than a year after the fact, and then only very reluctantly, by BushCo) has addressed it adequately. But at the same time, let’s not get carried away by saying that just because WTC 7 smells suspiciously of a “pull”, therefore the Twin Towers also had to have been demolished by something other than two careening jumbo jets.

You don’t need such far-fetched theories to make a convincing case for MIHOP; hell, even LIHOP, which is my own personal leaning, is entirely equivalent to MIHOP from a moral standpoint. Whether it was made to happen or allowed to happen, either way, it’s hard not to see a sinister purpose at work when you connect the dots. Let’s do that now, shall we?

First of all, there isn’t the slightest doubt that BushCo knew of al-Qaida well in advance, and still did nothing to stop it. The first thing Bill Clinton did when he handed over the reins of power to King George the Dubya was to impress on him the paramount importance of tracking and eliminating that network–especially its most prominent member, Osama bin Laden. And what did Dubya do? Ignored everything, at times openly dismissing information that was literally shoved under his nose. There was no effort to get the various governmental agencies working together and sharing intelligence, as there had been under Clinton (with some success.) Antiterrorism director Richard Clarke demanded an urgent meeting with Bush to light a fire under his butt. Bush put that meeting off for nine whole months! And when presented by an unnamed CIA briefer with the infamous August 6 PDB that outlined that al-Q was poised to strike on US soil and all but gave a map and timetable, Bush waved the startled functionary off with a curt “All right, you’ve covered your ass, now.”

What do you suppose he meant by that?

Strange, is it not, that a president should speak dis
paragingly of an alarming intelligence report as being just a “cover your ass” thing? One would think that if he really cared about preventing terrorism, he’d have taken it as seriously as a heart attack. But then again, I’m sure Little Georgie Bushie had bigger things on his mind…

Ahhhh, Iraq. Root of all evil. The very place PNAC told Bill Clinton about, but which he kept ignoring because he was too busy doing crazy shit, like looking for some dude named Osama elsewhere. Clinton had pegged Osama, and his band of brigands, for the largest non-domestic terror threat America faced. He was like Ahab with Moby Dick, pursuing him everywhere. Afghanistan, Sudan, back to Afghanistan, then Pakistan, then Afghanistan again…sheesh! Who knew that one tall skinny fuck could cause such a fuss?

But Iraq was a menace! They kept repeating it, therefore it must be true. Yes, Iraq must be bombed back to the Stone Age. After all, it’s on top of “our” oil. Afghanistan? That was just a dry run. It doesn’t have any good bombing targets. Worse, it’s a stinking embarrassment to the Forces of Democracy. One would never choose it for a showpiece. It’s full of hidey-holes and escape routes. It can’t be bombed back to the Stone Age, because it is there already. Plus, it’s easier to pipe oil from Iraq through Syria and Lebanon than from the Black Sea over the Hindu Kush. Forward to Baghdad, the Oil Ministry awaits!

But wait! What about the terrorists?

They’re worth more to BushCo alive than dead, trust me.

I mean, where else is he going to get the political capital? 9-11 was Dubya’s trifecta. He said so himself. Nothing like disaster to give you carte blanche to open a country’s veins and suck on ’em till the cows come home.

Or, in Dubya’s case, the chickens come to roost.

If not now, then when?

People of the United States, it’s been five years of unmitigated disaster. You have borne enough. It’s okay–you can impeach your bad president.

All you have to do is look around you: do you really feel safer? Is your children’s future secure? Are you? Exactly what has BushCo done to merit your annual display of unquestioning, unqualified loyalty?

Trust me, no one will think you’re a bad American if you attend the Annual Sombre Ceremony, cry for the lost, and then turn around and say “Fuck Bush, he got us into this.” You’d be absolutely right, and truth is a legitimate defence in any court of law, even the martial law that I see hanging over your head like a Damoclean sword right now. You have nothing left to fear; you’re already living your worst nightmare. What have you to lose by admitting the ultimate 9-11 truth?

Dubya DID get you into this. He had the reins of the country for nine whole months before 9-11, and that makes it his baby–literally. He fucked America, and this bastard is the result. He ignored every warning, fixated as he was on planning the Iraq war, the gutting of the social infrastructure, and the invasion of your privacy–all of which he was doing even as Richard Clarke was running around with his hair on fire, trying for nine months to get the Chimperor’s attention. Bush is worse than Nixon, and that’s really saying something. Curse, swear, hate his guts–damn Bush until the bile runs dry, and then damn him some more.

I would if I were you.

PS: Keith Olbermann and Capitol Hill Blue’s Doug Thompson both kicked ass along similar lines today. I bow in homage.

PPS: If you’re in the mood for some powerful healing tunage instead, check out what my talented friend Tony has put together. It’s called Song of Solace, and it kicks ass with compassion.