Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Wed

12

Sep

2007

9/11 — Conspiracy or Blowback?
Wednesday, 12 September 2007 01:24
by Rosemarie Jackowski

It is now time to look back and remember — well not exactly. That’s what we have been doing for what seems like forever. We are a nation that is stuck in grief and frightened of the future. GWB has used the words “nine eleven” more times than he has said, “Laura, where’s the remote.”


Now it is time for a reality check so we can finally end the denial. 9/11 was the result of blowback. They did it to us because of what we had been doing to them for decades. Sooner or later every school yard bully gets pay back. Serious and tragic as 9/11 was, the number of deaths does not even compare with the deaths that have resulted from U.S. interventions.

Author/historian William Blum states:
“Between 1945 and 2005 the United States has attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes… In the process, the U.S. caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.” (Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower).
“No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine” (ibid).
Many believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories — understandable, since it is so well known that this government is not above the killing of its own. Whether the government was the cause or not, it surely has taken full advantage of the tragedy. The main challenge to the conspiracy theorists comes from Osama Bin Laden. He explained why the attack occurred. Anybody remember his statement? He gave three reasons — the unfair treatment of the Israeli/Palestinian issue, the stationing of US troops in their holy land, and the sanctions which resulted in the deaths of a half million Iraqi children. Thank you for setting the record straight, Osama. Notice he did not say that they attacked us because of our “freedoms”. He did not say that they attacked us because of religious differences. Most of those who are informed about US foreign policy knew the reasons for the attack even before Osama made his statement.

The 9/11 Commission Report leaves a lot to be desired. It has raised the art of obfuscation to new heights. I confess — I have not read all 567 pages of the Report. After the first three pages, I ran out of NoDoz. I did watch the Congressional Hearings on C-Span. In her testimony before the Congressional Committee, Kristen Breitweiser said, “…The jigs up…” (C-Span2, Aug. 17, 2004, 10:45 a.m.). It would have been a move in the right direction if she had been referring to US actions around the world, but the context of her statement showed that she believes that the tragedy of 9/11 was a failure of Intelligence. The testimony of other family members of victims, Stephen Push and Mary Fetchet, indicated a greater willingness to recognize that 9/11 was a failure of US foreign policy and diplomacy. In Mary Fetchet’s testimony, she stated, “…Foreign policy is the core of the threat of terrorism…” Fetchet’s statement might be the single most important comment ever made about 9/11.

The most compassionate act, that any of us can do in support of the 9/11 families, is to inform others about the government’s international policies that led to 9/11. Has any member of Congress or any member of the commission mentioned the connection between US foreign policy and the 9/11 attacks? Yes, Ron Paul made the shocking 9/11-foreign policy connection during a recent Republican debate. Paul’s statement almost sent Giuliani into a seizure.

Ignoring the role that U.S. foreign policy played in causing the tragedy of 9/11 is like ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room. Authors have been predicting a 9/11 type of attack for many years. Chalmers Johnson wrote his book, Blowback, before the attack happened.

The CIA has been using the term “blowback” for decades because they knew that there would be a violent reaction to U.S. foreign policy. It was common knowledge. In view of this, how can it be that not one of our elected officials in Washington could foresee the event? There are two possibilities: none of our representatives was smart enough to think in terms of cause and effect. That is hard to believe. There is a better explanation. Some members of Congress did know. They did not know the time and place of the attack, but they had to know that an attack would be the inevitable result of U.S. foreign policy. If they didn’t know it before 9/11, they surely have to know it now, and that brings us up to today and the ongoing presidential campaign season.

Dennis Kucinich says that he is opposed to the US Mid-East policies and the war. Why are there no other candidates, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, suggesting that the time has come for a major change in U.S. foreign policy? Neither Kucinich or Paul stands much chance of winning the Primary. Both share a fatal flaw. They are members of the major political parties and that indicates an acceptance of what these two Parties have done in recent years. Any candidate who is not in agreement with the Party Platform, should run as an Independent. A vote for any Democrat or Republican signals an acceptance of the deadly policies that led to 9/11. It is time to think outside the box and look at candidates from alternative parties. It was during the Clinton administration that Madeleine Albright stated that the death of 500,000 children was worth it. It’s a toss-up when trying to decide which Party is more dangerous. Both Parties have betrayed the people in favor of the war profiteers who wander the halls of Congress.

The biggest flaw in the conspiracy theory is that it ignores the anger that has built up in the rest of the world — anger that is a direct result of U.S. actions. 9/11 was not acceptable but it was predictable and understandable — a simple application of the Law of Cause and Effect. Who caused 9/11? Well maybe it really was the government after all. Nineteen men hijacked the planes, but the ultimate cause was the policies of the government of the United States.

The provocative policies continue. The Pentagon has just released a list of 1200 targets to bomb in Iran. Was this announcement a well-planned, deliberate act designed to provoke another attack? A new 9/11 attack would further enrich the corporations that manufacture weapons. Just follow the money since the first 9/11. 9/11 is the goose that has laid the golden grenade.

Is there an ongoing conspiracy to create blowback? Maybe the conspiracy theorists have a point.

Rosemarie Jackowski is an advocacy journalist living in Vermont.
 
More from this author:
Poodle Skirts, Buzz Cuts, and Bombs (4177 Hits)
by Rosemary Jackowski This country is just not what it used to be. How many times have you heard that. This country is just not what it used to...
Closing Ranks Against the United States (3647 Hits)
by Rosemarie Jackowski Encirclement has begun. Encirclement is the policy of singling out a nation that has become a major international...
Meltdown at the US State Department (3838 Hits)
by Rosemarie Jackowski You almost have to feel sorry for Condoleezza Rice these days. Seems that the Secretary of State is under attack on all...
A Death on Valentine Street (3324 Hits)
by Rosemarie Jackowski Frank did not know many people in his small New England town. Frank was old - probably in his 80s. He lived alone in a...
Hi-tech Torture (3536 Hits)
by Rosemarie Jackowski "...Now the US military directorate charged with developing non-lethal weapons, which has invested more than a...
Related Articles:
Hoover Institution Hack from Ann Coulter's School of History Slimes "Left" for 9/11 (6281 Hits)
by Walter C. Uhler Incredibly, on January 18, 2007, the Lost Angeles Times (no typo) published Dinesh D'Souza's thoroughly biased Op-Ed,...
An interview with media professor Cees Hamelink on fear, terror, 9/11 and Iran (6467 Hits)
by Daan de Wit Former Media Advisor to Kofi Annan, Cees Hamelink — Professor of International Communications at the University of...
What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks? High-Fivers and Art Student Spies (14841 Hits)
by Christopher Ketcham On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, an FBI bulletin known as a BOLO ­— "be on lookout" ...
Fear Factor: Press Plays 9/11 Card to Justify Somalia Slaughter (5770 Hits)
by Chris Floyd A few days ago we were – how to put it? – uncivil to New York Times reporter Jeffrey Gettleman, taking him to task over his...
Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference - June 22-24, 2007 (5254 Hits)
The Vancouver 9/11 Truth Society will be hosting a multi-speaker, international conference to expose the realities, myths, omissions and...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (1)add comment

a guest said:

0
Two Party system and Ron Paul
You mention, "Both share a fatal flaw. They are members of the major political parties and that indicates an acceptance of what these two Parties have done in recent years. Any candidate who is not in agreement with the Party Platform, should run as an Independent. A vote for any Democrat or Republican signals an acceptance of the deadly policies that led to 9/11. It is time to think outside the box and look at candidates from alternative parties.

The reality is that you cannot get elected unless you belong to one of the main political parties. Ron Paul did run for President for the Libertarian Party in 1988 and realized the futility of that approach. Ron Paul is so much different than all other politicians in that he is fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, advocates non-intervention, and believes strongly in States rights as opposed to an overbearing federal government. www.ronpaul2008.com

Donate to his campaign and help spread his message of Liberty.
 
September 12, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top