Maureen Farrell at BuzzFlash.com

Support BuzzFlash Get a copy of click image MORE BuzzFlash INTERVIEWS WORLD MEDIA WATCH P.M. CARPENTER MAUREEN FARRELL BARBARA'S DAILY BUZZ SOUTHERN STYLE CARTOONS THE ANGRY LIBERAL EDITORIALS CONTRIBUTORS MAILBAG PERSPECTIVES ANALYSIS NEWS ALERTS LINK ARCHIVES SEARCH ABOUT FAQ

The Stench, Two Years On

by Maureen Farrell

Shortly after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, the Philadelphia Inquirer pegged 911 as one of a dozen or so moments in American history that changed the country forever. "Sept. 11 joins the short list of events that redirect our future as a nation," Jeff Gammage explained, "one of the rare, transforming moments. . . when the unimaginable becomes real and everything that comes afterward is different." The Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, the Lincoln assassination, JFK's assassination, Pearl Harbor, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and the Sputnik launch were all listed, but as early as Sept. 30, 2001, it was obvious that 911 trumped them all. "Just as the nation changed after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik on Oct.4, 1957, it will change now, in ways we cannot even imagine," Gammage added.

Even then, however, few could have imagined what was in store. What if the post 911 period had been handled differently? What if, in lieu of waging pre-planned wars with hidden agendas, the Bush administration held Saudi Arabia and Pakistan accountable for funding the attacks? What if the president immediately requested an independent investigation into 911 -- just as he did with last year's Columbia space shuttle disaster? As traumatic as Sept. 11 was, the aftermath would have been far less unnerving if our leaders had been honest and trustworthy. Unless, of course, they couldn't be honest without incriminating themselves, as Gore Vidal [LINK] and former British environmental minister Michael Meacher [LINK] have suggested.

As it stands now, however, thanks to the secrecy, duplicity and incompetence of the Bush administration, we've experienced yet another transformational moment that has changed America's course -- the preventative attack on Iraq. Flimsy justifications for this illegal war aside, between Halliburton contracts and the resurrection of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, Bush's egregious lies smell decidedly worse. Two years into our post-911 reality, inquiring minds are still drawing sordid conclusions -- with some flat out charging that the U.S. knew about the impending 911 attacks, but chose to ignore warnings for strategic gain. [LINK]

Though it hasn't been proven that Bush knew about Sept. 11 beforehand, evidence suggests that Vidal, Meacher et al are not mere conspiracy nuts. "They don't have any excuse because the information was in their lap, and they didn't do anything to prevent it," former ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee Senator Richard Shelby said, of the Bush administration's failure to protect America. "I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint, and we want to know why they didn't act on it," another Republican, Senator Arlen Specter added. [LINK]

Moreover, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Bush administration is covering its hide, while hiding an unholy alliance with the Saudis. Because of this, questions that arose immediately after 911 not only persist, but take on sinister overtones. (If anyone has a reasonable explanation as to why James Baker's law firm is representing the Saudis against Sept. 11 families, for example, I'd sure like to hear it).

So much has been written about what the Bush administration knew and when it knew it, in fact, that only Britney Spears seems to believe the Bush administration has been forthright. Though she recently told Crossfire's Tucker Carlson that "we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes," a recent CBS poll revealed that nearly 80% of Americans realize Bush lied about Iraq, which suggests that though the president may not be as stupid as people say he is, he must surely think we are.

The most poignant questions, of course, have come from Sept. 11 victim's family members. "I don't understand, with all the warnings about the possibilities of Al Qaeda using planes as weapons, and the Phoenix Memo from one of your own agents warning that Osama bin Laden was sending operatives to this country for flight-school training, why didn't you check out flight schools before Sept. 11?" 911 widow Kristen Breitweiser asked a senior FBI agent.

"Do you know how many flight schools there are in the U.S.? Thousands," he responded. "We couldn't have investigated them all and found these few guys."

"Wait, you just told me there were too many flight schools and that prohibited you from investigating them before 9/11," Breitweiser continued. "How is it that a few hours after the attacks, the nation is brought to its knees, and miraculously F.B.I. agents showed up at Embry-Riddle flight school in Florida where some of the terrorists trained?"

"We got lucky," the agent replied. [LINK]

Breitweiser also wondered how the F.B.I. knew which A.T.M. in Portland, ME would yield a videotape of Mohammed Atta, which does seem rather strange until we remember other Atta oddities. Though Atta was kind enough to leave behind a "Terrorism for Dummies" manual, which helped us understand everything from 72 virgins to evil doers' grooming tips, we're still trying to figure out how terrorists' passports (unlike black boxes) survive fiery crashes into buildings. And why, despite instructions to fellow hijackers telling them to "renew your covenant with God," did this devout Islamic fundamentalist have a yen for strippers, gambling and lap dances? [LINK]

The answers to these questions most likely rest alongside explanations why requests to search Zacharias Moussaoui's computer were altered and denied -- even after FBI agents raised red flags and the INS agent who arrested Moussaoui wrote that he seemed like "the type of person who would fly something into the World Trade Center." And considering warnings of spectacular attacks and hijackings [LINK] (not to mention pre G-8 summit warnings that Osama bin Laden might try to kill G.W. via explosives-filled remote-controlled airplanes) why were only 14 planes protecting America's mainland that day? If NORAD could intervene to try to save golfer Payne Stewart, why weren't 911 passengers similarly protected? And why were there were seven different accounts of how Bush learned about the first crash -- including his own doozy, that he found out while watching TV outside a Florida classroom? [LINK]

But even when Bush utters blatant untruths (like his huge glaring lie that Saddam refused to let inspectors back into Iraq), the media lets him slide. So how on earth will these questions, which have been asked in the alternative and foreign press for nearly two years now, ever be answered?

The Money Trail

Though banished largely to British airwaves, Greg Palast has uncovered enough Bush mendacity to fill hours of BBC broadcasts [LINK] and has been invaluable in peeling away the layers of Bush, bin Laden and Saudi ties. [LINK] But former conspiracy debunker Gerald Posner also points towards Pakistan, thanks to confessions of captured terrorist Abu Zubaydah. When faced with the staged threat of Saudi imprisonment and torture, Zubaydah didn't recoil in fear as expected, but rather acted relieved. Saying that he got his information from "two government sources" who are "in a position to know," Posner made startling claims about Zubaydah's "work for senior Saudi and Pakistani officials" on a recent Hardball:

"So after three days, they move [Zubaydah] to a center in Afghanistan, where they decide to put him into a room where they will make it look as though he's in a Saudi jail. And the reasoning is the Saudis technically want al Qaeda and Abu Zubaydah. If he thinks he's being held by the Saudis, who use torture all the time, they're going to say, "Ah, they're going to torture me and they might behead me soon," he might be willing to come back to the Americans and talk.

Instead, when the Saudi investigators walked in and they're really special American forces, pretending to be Saudis, and they added an IV to Zubaydah's arm that's a truth serum to sort of loosen him up a little bit. He sees them and says, "Great, I'm so happy it's you guys. Here's a telephone number. Cell phone and office number. Call this man up and he'll tell you what to do." And the name he gives is Prince Ahmed, the owner of the biggest media company in all Saudi Arabia and the nephew of King Fahd." [LINK]

Not only did the phone numbers check out, but three Saudi princes who were implicated in Zubaydah's confession died within days of each other. On July 22, 2002, Prince Ahmed suffered from a heart attack, one day later, Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud was killed in a car crash, while Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir "died of thirst" afterwards. Seven months later, Mushaf Ali Mir, the Pakistani Air Marshal who was also implicated, died in a plane crash. And according to Posner, Zubaydah also claimed that "9/11 changed nothing" as the unholy alliance between terrorism and Saudi and Pakistani interests remains intact. [LINK]

Moreover, the head of the Pakistani ISS, Gen. Mahmud Ahmed reportedly wired $100,000 to Atta days before the attacks [LINK] and those responsible for kidnapping and killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl have been also been linked to the 911 terrorists. [LINK]

Author Bernard-Henri Lévy says that Daniel Pearl was killed because he knew about "the great taboo" -- that Pakistan's atomic bomb was built and is controlled by radical Islamists who are hell bent on using it. "Everyone knows that Pakistan is a nuclear power but Daniel discovered that the nuclear weapons were less controlled than Mr. Musharraf pretends and less under control than the secret services of occidental powers believe," Levy told the BBC in April. [LINK]

In a recent New Yorker article, he elaborated even further. "I opposed the war in Iraq, because of what I'd seen in Pakistan," Lévy said. "Iraq was a false target, a mistaken target. Saddam, yes, is a terrible butcher, and we can only be glad that he is gone. But he is a twentieth-century butcher-an old-fashioned secular tyrant, who made an easy but irrelevant target. His boasting about having weapons of mass destruction and then being unable to really build them or keep them is typical-he's just a gangster, who lived by fear and for money. Saddam has almost nothing to do with the real threat. We were attacking an Iraq that was already largely disarmed. Meanwhile, in some Pakistani bazaar someone, as we speak, is trading a Russian miniaturized nuclear weapon." [LINK]

Feel safe yet?

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, we waged wars against two countries that furthered US oil interests and Bush cartel war-profiteering, while embracing those who funded the terrorists. Add this to the recent charge that the US government made a deal with Pakistan for the protection, rather than capture, of Osama bin Laden, [LINK] and the stench becomes noticeably stronger. Are these accusations true? Who knows. But anyone who's been paying close attention for the past two years, realizes that they very well could be.

Who Needs the UN?

Then, of course, there's the Project for a New American Century. The neoconservatives who pushed for war in Iraq are now also pushing for more US troops and more US dollars and are still balking at any outside involvement. "It's true that, unfortunately, we don't have many troops to spare," the Weekly Standard's William Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote, before the $87 billion price tag was announced, scoffing at calls to "internationalize" the force through the U.N. "But this is the time to bite the bullet and pay the price. Next spring, if disaster looms, it will be harder. And it may be too late." [LINK]

Andrew Sullivan who also acted as a cheerleader for the war, is following Kristol and Kagan's lead. "I could forgive this administration almost anything if it got the war right," he recently wrote. "But, after a great start, it's getting hard to believe the White House is in control of events any more.. . . [I]f we are in a new and vital war, why are we not sending more troops to fight it? And why are we not planning big increases in funding for the civil infrastructure at the same time? . . . What to do? I'd be hard put to express it better than John McCain Sunday: more troops, more money, more honesty from the president about the challenges, swifter devolution of power to Iraqis, and so on."

But, of course, UN meddling means that the neocon's plans for global empire and Pax Americana would have to be put on hold. As conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts explained, "The UN would likely get in the way of the neocons' plan to use Iraq as a staging ground for invading Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia." [LINK]

Though it's obvious that PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" provided the blueprint for Bush's aggressive national security strategy, is it mere coincidence that since 2000, the year PNAC called for multiple wars on multiple fronts, 32 states began beefing up selective service registration by linking it to driver's license applications? "If you think we don't have enough troops in Iraq now - which we don't - wait and see if the factions there start going at each other. America would have to bring back the draft to deploy enough troops to separate the parties," Thomas Friedman recently asserted. [LINK] "If you think about it, you will realize that the neocons' war plans are taking us back to the draft. There's no way around it," Paul Craig Roberts explained. Though less direct, Pat Buchanan alluded to the same. "Sen. John McCain is urging President Bush to add more troops to the 146,000 in Iraq. But it is a law of guerrilla war that the defending power needs 10 soldiers for every guerrilla. If 5,000 warriors of Islam make their way into Iraq, are we ready to add 50,000 more troops? Where do we get them? [LINK]

Hopefully, now that the neocons who've been driving US foreign policy have been proven dangerously wrong, their clout will be forever diminished. In March, 2003, a cocky Richard Perle declared, "Thank God for the death of the UN." One month later, the Telegraph explained U.S. policy with the headline "Powell rules out UN lead role in rebuilding of Iraq." But, as a sign of both the times and of the neoconservative's failure, headlines now blare, "U.S. Wants U.N. Help on Iraq."

Meanwhile, Anthony Zinni, who warned against this war from the start, smells the desperation and wonders what's next. "My contemporaries, our feelings and sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice," Zinni said, adding, "I ask you, is it happening again?"

It would seem so.

As the anniversary of Sept. 11 approaches, memories of frantic family members searching for loved ones amidst posters pinned on flower-lined fences should not be forgotten. Nor should we forget the comfort of having the good will and well wishes of the world. The Bush administration not only squandered that good will, but is shamelessly planning to capitalize on the tragedy during the 2004 Republican National Convention. Even the "primitive propaganda" found in the "disgraceful" made-for-TV movie DC 9/11: Time of Crisis used, as Tom Shales pointed out, "the tragic attack on America in 2001 as the basis for a reelection campaign movie on behalf of George W. Bush." [LINK]

Two years later, we also learned that New York firefighters and Ground Zero volunteers are exhibiting signs of a respiratory ailment known as the World Trade Center cough, which reminds us of Gulf War syndrome and mysterious ailments this new batch of troops are experiencing. Like the mayor in Jaws who persuades islanders to get back into shark-filled waters, the government assures troops that depleted uranium is safe, just as the White House assured New Yorkers that the post 911-air was A-OK (even though it had to alter EPA press releases to do so). [LINK]

The further we move away from the tragedy, the less confident we are. Initially, comparisons between 911 and the Reichstag fire fueled distrust, as did surreal speculation that the attacks were an updated version of Operation Northwoods [LINK]. But none of that seemed really real for most of us. As more reasons to distrust the president emerge, however, we're presented with solid evidence that something just isn't right. And it's become increasingly clear that this administration's loyalties don't lie with the American public -- but with foreign oil mavens and its own corporate cronies.

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths...?" Barbara Bush remarked on the eve of war. "Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" Some of us can't seem to help ourselves, however, and naturally empathize with the families who sacrifice and serve. We wonder why Bush lied, and how it must feel to have a child die in the shadow of that lie.

Though we desperately wanted to have faith in Bush two yeas ago, we now know that nearly everything he says is suspect. I, for one, miss long-harbored illusions that we'd never be lied to again, like we were during Vietnam. I miss the faith I once had in my newspaper and in my fellow citizens and in America's future. I miss the sense of trust and optimism that was once an American hallmark.

Most of all, I miss my country.

And so, I curse this president and those who brayed about cakewalks and flowers. I curse those who would attack our Constitution with warnings of phantoms of liberty lost. And I curse those who scheme to undermine elections and democracy and all that we hold dear.

So, yes, Sept. 11 was "one of the rare, transforming moments. . . when the unimaginable becomes real and everything that comes afterward is different." But who honestly expected this awful stench, two years on?