Al Who?

[Lightning Rod]

Politicians of both parties can be heard these days making the assertion, stating it as a given fact, that "the world has changed since 9/11." This is patent nonsense. The world did not change on 9/11. The sun still rises in the East. They still pump gas at the corner service station. Television continues to get more and more tasteless with its programing. There are still desperate and ruthless people who will do anything to advance their causes. Nothing has changed.

Terrorism was nothing new on September 11, 2001. Our own homegrown nuts had blown up buildings and planted bombs in crowed places and massacred schools. Our barracks and embassies and ships had been attacked across the world. Hijackings and kidnappings and bombings certainly weren't invented on 9/11.

What happened on 9/11 was that a highly organized small group of fanatics scored a lucky hit, a bulls eye, a home run. It was a spectacular act of vandalism. They had tried to do the same thing at the same place nine years earlier and it didn't "change the world." Only when the fanatics succeeded did they 'change the world.'

The only thing that really changed on 9/11 was that suddenly an administration that had limited legitimacy and big economic problems got a blank check and a hook on which to hang its political hat. And ever since 9/11 the boys at Bushco have bin Ridin' the terrorism horse. They have used terrorism as an excuse to look into your bank accounts and internet habits, arrest citizens and hold them incommunicado and without benefit of counsel, and to embark on imperial wars.

It is appropriate that both Bush and Kerry were members of Skull & Bones at Yale. Pirates are famous for sailing under false colors and at the last moment hoisting the Jolly Roger. To sail under the banner of anti-terrorism is an example of the same ploy. Although both parties want to claim that terrorism is a major issue, the fact is that it isn't a major issue. More people died of the flu last year than died on 9/11. But influenza is not as glamourous as jet crashes and buildings tumbling down on national TV. More people in our country died from lack of adequate heath care last year than in all the spectacular terror events in the last decade.

It is useful to the bureaucratic snakes and lizards and the neo-con New World Order crowd to have you believe that terrorism is some new and threatening disease. It takes your mind off the real problems, like the fact that jobs are escaping our borders and we don't have adequate healthcare, while they accomplish their own greedy agendas.

This week the BBC will begin running a three-part documentary series called, "The Power of Nightmares," which advances the idea that the so-called war on terror is a pure political fantasy. The series is written and produced by respected documentarian Adam Curtis who asserts,

"al-Qaida is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells". It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all."

In other words there are street gangs in LA with more membership and organization than Al Qaida, which did not even have a name until early 2001, when the American government decided to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and had to use anti-Mafia laws that required the existence of a named criminal organization.

Leo Strauss, a political philosopher at the university of Chicago in the 50s was the father of the neo-conservative movement. Strauss' disciples such as Paul Wolfowitz, now the US deputy defence secretary, believe in using grand myths as a higher form of political propaganda. This was the same bunch that made their living off of the Cold War until that myth collapsed. Then in the 1990's they needed a new villain so they invested great energy in monsterizing Saddam Hussein until he became, in our minds, nothing short of Hitler's little brother.

Americans have all seen enough spy movies to, on a subconscious level, be an easy market for the notion that an evil mastermind is sitting somewhere in a mountain redoubt stroking his ocelot and commanding a secret army of mindless minions. I smell a grand myth cooking. If Al-Qaida didn't exist the neo-cons would have had to invent it. Hmmm....maybe they did.

The Poet's Eye sees that terrorism will always be with us. Anybody that says he can rid the world of it is a liar and a rainmaker. And if you believe that terror would cease if we had bin Laden in handcuffs, then I've got some bootlegged James Bond movies to sell you on CD.

[abcrystcats]

"More people in our country died from lack of adequate heath care last year than in all the spectacular terror events in the last decade. "

Have you got statistical backing for this somewhere? (You knew this would catch my eye!) Please let me know.

Other than that, this is a wonderful piece and I'd like to copy and email it to some of my relatives still hanging out on the right after the final debate.

[Lightning Rod]

I have no firm statistics to back that statement which was a pure editorial assertion. I'm allowed to do that since I am not a reporter but a commentator. But even if you just consider the deaths from AIDS in a year in our country (15-20 thousand) that exceeds by far all the deaths by terror attacks here in the past half-century.


I'm wondering how long this terrorism hoax is going to play in the boxoffice. I guess until enough children declare that the emperor has no clothes.

[abcrystcats]

"consider the deaths from AIDS in a year in our country (15-20 thousand)"

Absolutely. Perhaps that would make a good substitution for the health care comment.

I didn't know that in editorials you are allowed to make "pure editorial assertions". In future, I will be EXTREMELY careful whenever I read editorials. I always thought that if something is stated as fact, then the writer has a basis for believing it is fact. How stupid of me.

[Doreen Peri]

LOL!

yeah, Cat... i thought that, too!

we must be two dummies, eh?


as always, LR, enjoyed your Poetic Eye...
You're a fine writer...

did I tell you yet today...
.... how much i love you, clay?

[Lightning Rod]

cat,
sure you can make editorial assertions in editorials
that's why they call them editorials, they are statements of opinion

of course most editorial writers understand that their stock and trade is their credibility so they are as careful as they can be to base their opinions on good information.

If I wrote articles based on obscure bible verses or the teachings of my guru or astrological portents as my basis for opinion, it wouldn't take you long to ingnore me. So I try to keep my facts pretty honest.

But facts aren't my sole domain. I also deal with speculation and analysis.


and thanks doreen

[Doreen Peri]

usually facts are stated, then the commentator offers opinions about the facts, no?

fact is, thank YOU
and you are most welcome.

[mnaz]

Lightning Rod....

Another home run.

Saddam may have been built up into "Hitler's little brother", but it took our very own little "suede Mussolini" to bring him down....
(remember that one?)

Bush had absolutely no mandate when he was "elected", but the attacks of 9/11/01 at least gave him an assignment: to track down those responsible for the attacks and bring them to justice one way or another. Remember that in addition to the lives lost, 9/11 had a sizable negative impact on the US economy. Having bin Laden in handcuffs would not end terror, but it would be a reasonable response to a specific demonstrated threat.

But this is far too goddamn logical for the public to keep track of, apparently. Even today, the Bushies continue to reel people in, "hook, line, and sinker" about Iraq. It just astounds me. The public has been so duped and stirred up that even opposing candidates who see through this crap are forced to talk tough about "The War on Terror" just to have any shot at getting elected.
It's insane.

There is a small, but growing subset of people out there which believes that Bushco "set up" the 9/11 attacks, or at least did nothing to try and stop them. What do you think about this idea? (I can't remember if I've asked you this before or not).

[abcrystcats]

Here is my "moderate" position about 9-11.

Bush had been President for eight months when the attack occurred. He also received a warning in writing from the CIA about the impending attack on August 6, 2001. I hold him 100% ACCOUNTABLE for the attack. Forget this BS about the Clinton Administration setting us up. Bush had eight months to make appropriate changes if he felt the Clinton Admin hadn't handled homeland security correctly. If he thought it ought to be beefed up, he should have done it. And, he had a month's advance warning.

Eight months is close to 20% of Bush's entire four year term of office.

I don't think you have to go as far as a conspiracy theory to believe that the primary job of the President of the United States is to protect our people. I am just amazed that so many people are voting for President Bush because they think he can "protect" us. He wasn't protecting us on September 11, 2001.He isn't protecting our soldiers in Iraq, either, I'm sorry to say. Whoever votes for Bush for "security" reasons must be crazy. That's all I have to say about that.

As for the "editorial" discussion, I realize that editorial=opinion, but I thought that for an opinion to have weight, it must have its basis in fact. But ... I'm not arguing or challenging. It sounds like you agree with that, anyway, LRod. I am glad that I know this little tidbit about "facts" stated in editorials and I will be fairly careful in the future when I read them -- not that I was ever careless, but it's good to know that making stuff up is allowed!Thanks. It's still a great piece and I intend to send pieces of it to the conservative holdouts in the family.

[mtmynd]

Excellente! mi amigo.

Couldn't be more focused nor timely...

Keep 'em rollin', Mr. J

[note: "...planted bombs in crowed places..." crowded, perhaps?]