President Bush cares more about the special interests he serves than the American people. President Bush obviously lies to the American people for an ugly reason. He lies to cover the real motives because the powerful people who push the agendas he serves don't want U.S. foreign policy to change. The cover story that Bush feeds the American people robs the American people of the chance to decide for themselves if they want to continue to be put in harm's way over specific foreign polices. If the American people knew why they were attacked, the American people might rightly question if the actions of U.S. foreign policy actually serve their own needs. We may question why we are being put in this situation. We may question why we are being put in harm's way and for exactly what reasons. We may decide that the policies are not serving the real Americaninterests: the interests of the average American.
The Press that has played along with the agendas of powerful groups by not pointing out that the President has lied to the American people. Both the President and the Press rob the American people of the chance to decide if they want to continue to risk their lives for policies that are basically unjust and benefit corrupt business interests including the Israeli agenda.
Bush told the American Public a lie: "America
was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom
and opportunity in the world."
Here is what David Corn wrote about Bush's September 11 lie in the Nation: [with my comments]
"As many Americans and others yearned to make sense of the evil attacks of September 11, Bush elected to share with the public a deceptively simplistic explanation of this catastrophe.[ Bush's deception serves the interests of special interests that push the specific foreign polices we are getting targeted over] Repeatedly, he said that the United States had been struck because of its love of freedom. "America was targeted for attack," he maintained, "because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." This was shallow analysis, a comic-book interpretation of the event that covered up complexities and denied Americans information crucial for developing a full understanding of the attacks.[ I agree. I think it should be pointed at that this crucial information is being denied intentionally so that the American people don't question the specific foreign policies] In the view Bush furnished, Osama bin Laden was a would-be conqueror of the world, a man motivated solely by irrational evil, who killed for the purpose of destroying freedom. [Because of the lies, many Americans have this distorted view of what bin Laden and Al-Qaeda actually want and what they don't want]
But as the State Department's own terrorism experts--as well as nongovernment experts--noted, bin Laden was motivated by a specific geostrategic and theological aim: to chase the United States out of the Middle East in order to ease the way for a fundamentalist takeover of the region. Peter Bergen, a former CNN producer and the first journalist to arrange a television interview with bin Laden, observes in his book Holy War, Inc., "What [bin Laden] condemns the United States for is simple: its policies in the Middle East." [In his book he includes: Those are, to recap briefly: the continued U.S. military presence in Arabia; U.S. support for Israel; its continued bombing of Iraq; and its support for regimes such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia that bin Laden regards as apostates from Islam] Rather than acknowledge the realities of bin Laden's war on America, Bush attempted to create and perpetuate a war-on-freedom myth."
Here is a letter I wrote someone who didn't understand Chomsky's 9/11 book (or didn't want to understand it):
Dear Mr. Lockard:
In your review of Noam Chomsky's 9/11 you wrote, "They did so for
their own reasons, apparently religio-cultural xenophobia, and certainly
not out of compassion for the struggles of other peoples for self-determination.
The FBI testified as to motive before the Senate. As any criminal investigator they looked at what bin Laden has actually said. What is provoking the terrorism is not complicated and bin Laden has explained it many times for several years: Opposition to U.S. military forces in the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of corrupt Middle Eastern countries, U.S. support for Israel’s brutal occupation and the ongoing assault on civilians in Iraq.
Your assertion about what they "certainly" didn't attack us because of compassion for the struggles of other peoples for self-determination is unnecessary demonization. The fact is horrible wrongs are being carried by U.S. foreign polices and it is arrogant to think it is not possible that people could be reacting to this fact. When you wrong peoples you can't expect to dictate how some will respond, even if their response is wrong. Yes bin Laden wants a certain form of Islamic rule but he uses a broad appeal to very real and very legitimate grievances and in so doing gains support from even those that may not want exactly the version of government he seeks to establish in the Muslim world.
Nat Turner convinced several other blacks to engage in terrorism, killing dozens of whites. It would be dishonest not to admit the role slavery had in motivating these blacks to do what they did. It was an example of two wrongs. But it is important to keep in mind that to claim that these blacks did it because they were religious freaks is dishonest. It would be manipulative to claim that all these blacks believed in Nat Turners "signs from God" and that a religious and "anti-white" motive was all there was to it. Today I think we can see clearly that the wrongs of slavery were the motivating reasons for Nat Turner and his fellow terrorist's terrorism. And we can see that it is possible for two wrongs to take place.
Every time I read an article that doesn't acknowledge that President Bush had the audacity to lie to America about why we were attacked, I am reminded just how extreme the political environment is in America today.
The bottom line is Bush lied to America about why we were attacked. http://www.representativepress.org/whylie.html
(you will find a link to the FBI's testimony there) The corrupt polices
(a case of two wrongs) are kept safe from public scrutiny by a President
who prefers to feed the public a huge lie (so that people don't question
what it is they are being put in harm's way for)
Dick Gordon: But you do that from a very clinical academic point of view.
Noam Chomsky: It’s not academic. I don’t want to have other terrorist atrocities in the United States. And if you want to reduce terrorist atrocities, if you’re even sane, the first thing you do is look at their causes. If you don’t want to look at their causes you’ll just increase the atrocities. I mean that’s just elementary, there’s nothing academic about it. I mean that’s for my grandchildren. I don’t want them to be attacked. So therefore I want to know the reasons why things like this happen. If we want to know the reasons why things like this happen we are going to have to search the record. And there we will find the reasons.
As I had started to say, you can go back 40 years and find President Eisenhower talking about the campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East and you’ll find the National Security council giving the reasons. People in the region perceive the United States, rightly they say, as supporting oppressive harsh governments which block democracy and development and doing it because we want control of their oil resources. You can find the same things when the Wall Street Journal does analyses of opinion there today. Yeah, we caught to pay attention to that.
|©2003 Representative Press Contact Support Representative Press Representative Press Blog|