the War Party revs up its propaganda machine the War
Street Journal, the New York Post, Andrew "Bareback"
Sullivan we are awash in such a flood of b*llsh*t that
the stench, let alone the sheer quantity, is enough to induce
spasms of retching. In these dark days, the job of any truth-seeker
is akin to cleaning the Augean
Stables on a daily basis, and, heck, I'm no Hercules,
but here goes….
all-time favorite wartime fib is the one told by the lawyers
for unnamed "victims of 9/11" who are suing
the Saudis and now
the Iraqis for $1 trillion in damages. The New
York Post, which infamously
ran the front-page headline "BUSH KNEW" after news
of some vague pre-9/11 warning came out, has apparently decided
to make this into a series: "IRAQ
KNEW" screams the Post headline:
$1 trillion lawsuit, filed here yesterday, claims Iraq knew
that Osama bin Laden was targeting New York prior to Sept.
11 and that Saddam Hussein encouraged terrorists because
he wanted revenge for losing the Gulf War…. Court documents
filed in the suit say Saddam knew at least six weeks before
the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and the presumed
attempt to hit the White House, that bin Laden was plotting
to strike high-profile U.S. targets."
Saudis, and a long list of Middle Eastern countries, are being
targeted by the War Party's legal division on the grounds
that a murky conspiracy of Saudi princes, Middle Eastern intelligence
agencies, oil interests, and others financed a terrorist plot
against the U.S. There was no mention of the Illuminati,
or the Knights of Malta this latter, I hear, was a
buncha guyz but we'll just have to see what the
discovery process reveals. This is going to be fun…
fun has already begun with the "evidence" put
out there by Kreindler
and Kreindler, a law firm that specializes in litigating
airline disasters and is now determined to cause and
cash in on a looming foreign policy disaster for the United
States. The whole phony suit is based on an off-the-cuff remark
by an Iraqi newspaper columnist, one Naeem Abd Muhalhal, who
supposedly wrote, on July 21, 2001, that Bin Laden was contemplating
"seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the
desert, about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after
he destroys the White House." The plaintiffs also claim
Muhalhal had inside information when he wrote that Bin Laden
was "insisting very convincingly that he will strike
America on the arm that is already hurting," which allegedly
means the twice-bombed WTC. An unnamed "associate"
of Muhalhal's avers that his former friend is indeed an Iraqi
intelligence agent, and the clincher is that this oracular
columnist was singled out by Saddam himself for special praise.
bluster—of which there is plenty, just waiting to be translated
a few vague sentences from an obscure Iraqi newspaper, plus
conspiracy theories of Laurie Mylroie, equals a bonanza
for the legal and political vultures who shamelessly feed
off the horror of 9/11. But two can play that game….
one variation on the "who knew?" theme that you'll
never read in the New York Post, although there's
a lot more evidence to back it up: what if Israeli intelligence
had foreknowledge of 9/11, as Carl Cameron of Fox News averred
famous series of broadcasts last year? What if all
the many news stories,
the careful investigative work done by Christopher Ketcham,
in Salon, the articles by John
Rodriguez of Insight magazine, and the
U.S. government's own posted warnings, have some basis
in fact? What if the Israelis knew, in advance, that a major
terrorist attack was in the offing, and failed to tell us
everything they knew? Can I mount a lawsuit of my own?
course, I wouldn't ask for anything close to $1 trillion.
Just the $90 billion-plus we've flushed down the Israeli toilet
since its founding (forget the interest), the economic costs
of 9/11, and a penalty for sheer chutzpah.
of which: Eric Alterman, MSNBC's left-liberal "blogger,"
had what he called "a late-summer
scuffle" with Nation columnist and occasional
Antiwar.com contributor Alex Cockburn over precisely this
issue. Alterman cites a smear of Cockburn by Franklin Foer,
in The New Republic, as "evidence" that Cockburn
is an anti-Semite: I dealt with hatchet-man Foer's smear here,
and once was enough. Alterman's feeble attempt at character
assassination is even less successful, citing a piece by Cockburn
in the New
York Press and
Counterpunch as follows:
there are a number of stories sloshing around the news now
that have raised discussions of Israel and of the posture
of American Jews to an acrid level. The purveyor of anthrax
may have been a former government scientist, Jewish, with
a record of baiting a colleague of Arab origins, and with
the intent to blame the anthrax on Muslim terrorists. Rocketing
around the web and spilling into the press are many stories
about Israeli spies in America at the time of 9/11. On various
accounts, they were trailing Atta and his associates, knew
what was going to happen but did nothing about it, or were
simply spying on US facilities…."
this relatively mild recounting of stories that have been
reported elsewhere the story of Dr.
Philip Zack and his anti-Arab cabal was thoroughly researched
and exposed in a series
in the Hartford Courant last year Alterman slimes
Cockburn with a completely unsupported charge of anti-Semitism.
Quite apart from the ugly personal tone, Alterman seems not
to care about facts or about the carelessness that
his more intelligent readers are sure to catch. He writes:
'anti-Semite' is not the best word for someone who moves from
musing on Jewish control of the media to entertaining the
possibility that the Mossad was behind the 9/11 attacks, or
of Jewish scientists plotting anthrax attacks in order to
blame them on Muslims. Perhaps 'nuts' would be a better word.
After all, one usually has to consult people who self-fertilize
their vegetables in backwoods Montana cabins to approach the
quality of such analysis."
is outrageous that Alterman would deliberately twist what
Cockburn was clearly saying, and right in front of our noses!
Cockburn never said that the Mossad was "behind
the 9/11 attacks," nor did he even entertain the possibility:
he merely cites "various accounts" that claim the
Israelis "knew what was going to happen but did nothing
about it." Quite a difference—and if Alterman thinks
we don't notice, then his contempt for his few readers must
be truly bottomless.
anthrax question is a lot more complicated, and involves information
that Alterman seems entirely ignorant of (perhaps willfully
so), and that Cockburn only hints at. In view of the
continued martyrdom of poor Steven Hatfill, who seems
to be getting it worse than Richard
Jewell, one would think that alternative theories would
garner some interest. Indeed, it seems logical for liberal
journalists like Alterman to eagerly take up this line of
inquiry, which involves a group of anti-Arab bigots working
at Ft. Detrick's bioterror lab, who mercilessly harassed an
Egyptian scientist, Dr.
Ayaad Assaad and later tried to set him up as the
author of the anthrax missives that killed 5 and terrorized
the nation. The first letters sent with the anthrax, clearly
and crudely meant to implicate Arabs, were in transit to their
targets as the authorities received an anonymous "tip"
implicating Dr. Assaad as planning bio-terrorism. Assaad was
cleared by the FBI just as the anthrax terror campaign commenced.
It hardly requires an imaginative leap of any length to surmise
that whomever tried to frame Assaad is connected to the anthrax
what a big-deal liberal he is, one would think that Alterman
would take an interest in such a case, and at least do a little
research before he opens his mouth. But, oh no, he's
much more interested in scoring points off his rival
Cockburn, and smearing him in exactly the same way America's
Likudniks defame each and every critic of Israel, even
the record, Cockburn's alleged "musing on Jewish control
of the media" was actually a side-comment noting that
so many of Hollywood's pioneers in the movie business all
came from the same village in (Polish) Galicia. So what? This
is "anti-Semitic" in the same way it is "Italo-phobic"
to say that all the best opera singers come from Italy, i.e.
not in the least. Al Sharpton doesn't get away with this kind
of victimological nonsense anymore and neither should
evidence of an extensive and hyperactive Israeli spy operation
in the U.S. prior to 9/11 is incontrovertible. Even Baba
Wawa's wecent white-wash of the 5 Israeli spooks caught
laughing and "celebrating" while the World Trade
Center burned a 20/20 report entitled "The
White Van"—had to admit the reality of the spy operation.
The only remaining question is: what were they up to?
Were they watching Al Qaeda in America, and, if so, what did
they know and when did they know it?
we approach the first anniversary of 9/11, the relentless
beat of war propaganda is reaching a raucous crescendo: Saddam
was behind 9/11, he has The Bomb—and he's going to detonate
it "in Long Beach," as Congressman Duncan Hunter
cluelessly opined the other day. But the War Party is unable
to take full advantage of what would otherwise be a golden
opportunity for warmongering, because this anniversary brings
up the ghosts of demons past, official un-persons such as
Osama bin Laden remember him?
want you to forget him. He's probably dead, government officials
claim: and, if not, he's in deep hiding, and irrelevant by
now. In any case, he's not really the mastermind behind all
the bad things that have happened to America in the past year.
As we were informed by Sixty Minutes the other night,
in the Arab "street, the verdict is practically unanimous:
a devout Muslim was not behind the 9/11 attacks. Isn't
it odd that the War Party agrees, pinning the blame on the
shmedivence the War Party doesn't give a damn about such
niceties. They'll use any pretext, no matter how transparent
or flat-out nonexistent, to launch the first war of conquest
in modern American history. If we were capable of being shocked
anymore, certainly the
news that Warlord Rumsfeld was ready to launch an attack on
Iraq hours after the 9/11 terrorists struck would be somewhat,
News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines
Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald
H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for
striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking
Saddam Hussein to the attacks."
to notes taken by aides and leaked to CBS, Rummy played down
the importance of an intercepted message that indicated Bin
Laden's hand in all this, because "it might not mean
something." Yet when it did turn out to mean something,
the Warlord's enmity was still not entirely redirected.:
the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered
the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40
p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted 'best info
fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.' meaning Saddam
Hussein 'at same time. Not only UBL' the initials used
to identify Osama bin Laden. Now, nearly one year later, there
is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept.
11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter
to Rumsfeld. 'Go massive,' the notes quote him as saying.
'Sweep it all up. Things related and not.'"
it all up, and mix it all together: the result is war propaganda
the hybrid of a half-truth and a lie. "Go massive"
with a Big Lie, the bigger the better. To those of you old
enough to remember Gulf War I, remember the incubator
babies who turned out not to exist and all the
Iraqi nukes of yesteryear that never materialized, and never
will? Every war has a founding myth in the case of
unjust wars, a founding lie. This is what the War Party is
asking for when they beg the President to "make his case"
and defend the policy of "pre-emptive" imperialism
against his own generals and his father's advisors. The President's
September 12 speech to the United Nations may be thought of
as a dress rehearsal. The out-of-town road-show is bound to
go on for weeks, but when it comes down to a vote in Congress
the outcome is going to be very close, in spite of
the War Party's confidence that victory is certain. To them
I say, don't underestimate the American people and
don't count your chickenhawks before they hatch.
A CONFERENCE YOU WON'T WANT TO MISS
sister site, LewRockwell.com,
is giving a Private Gold Conference, and the speakers list
makes this a must for anti-interventionists of all stripes
as well as conservatives, libertarians, and, of course, gold
bugs. To begin with, Lew Rockwell, the President of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute, a great friend of Murray Rothbard's,
and the moving force behind the rapid growth of the radical
free-market Austrian school of economics in America, is invariably
fascinating, and I would go just to hear him, except that
there's plenty of other reasons to go, too, namely Peter Brimelow,
a writer for Forbes and the brilliant and brave author
of Alien Nation, the always delightfully witty Joe
Sobran, and Dr. Thomas diLorenzo, whose book, The Real Lincoln,
is the definitive take-down of this statist icon.
particular interest to opponents of interventionism abroad
is the scheduled speech by Rep. Ron Paul (Republican, Texas),
one of the staunchest opponents of the war drive in Congress.
Libertarians will also want to hear what the best friend of
liberty in the hallowed halls of government will have to say.
To us here at Antiwar.com, Ron Paul is a hero, an ally, and
a top leader of the movement for peace and freedom nationwide.
your calendar: September 13-14, at the Villa Hotel the home
of liberty! in San Mateo. Go
here and scroll down for information and registration
Please Support Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
contributions are now tax-deductible