bush regime shamelessly exploits 9/11

Marc Rodrigues cuito61 at onebox.com
Mon Sep 9 09:37:27 MDT 2002


Of all the repressive governments in the world, many of which would not
be in power without U.S. support, none presents such a threat to the
people of the world as does the current rogue regime in DC.  If a "regime
change" is needed anywhere in the world, it is here in the U.S.  

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 niggers 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
 

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list