September 24, 2006
by James Rothenberg

Here's a definition of "conspiracy" I particularly like: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot). There is a mountain of evidence to support the claim that this applies to our administration's invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Our leaders will strongly object to being termed conspirators, preferring that term to be designated to those on the outside looking in. But we know it was a plot, it was purely political, it was most harmful, and it was quite illegal. At least in the opinions of  international law scholars not in the service of the US Government.

The stalwarts in this plot had names like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Libby, Perle, Abrams, Feith, Shulsky, Bolton, Cambone, along with a dozen or two others who, by virtue of their superior intelligence and wisdom, feel they are entitled to protect the rabble from themselves, even if it means lying to them. The high-profile team players were Powell, Rice, and Tenet (he got a Freedom Medal, right?). And no, I didn't forget Bush, but weak and foolish as he is I can't see him coming up with much on his own. Recall the White House demand to the 9-11 Commission that Bush and Cheney not be forced to testify under oath and be allowed to testify together. He does occupy the seat, though, which gives him ultimate responsibility, with Cheney the de facto president.

Too bad about some of these guys. They're not there anymore. Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith.gone. I wish they were still in the limelight. Especially Wolfowitz, so cocky he actually told the truth twice (about WMD's and Saudi Arabia troop removal). They're out of sight, but not out of reach. Which brings us to the mid-term elections. These people are not unaware of the legal opinion against them, but up until now they enjoyed the same type of immunity that comforts dictators, the immunity of controlling the entire government. Should the Democrats take the House there will be pressure upon them to initiate legal action against the administration invoking Nuremberg and Geneva standards, which cry war crimes and crimes against humanity as far as the eye can see. Bush has been frantically ex post facto-ing away on Geneva but seems to have run into a wall (or waterboard). Nuremberg is much more serious for its scope.

This is not saying the Democrats would do a damn thing, but Bush/Cheney can't take that chance. It's crucial for them to stay in power. The forecast calls for more terror headlines, real or imagined. Imagined like that bogus mix-it-yourself liquid explosive UK-ten-airliner job, case cracked thanks to British and Pakistani intelligence. Saved again. Thanks Superman. Worse would be the desperate move of initiating the Iran action, but one might well be prepared for the worst because desperate times imply desperate moves.

(Article Continues Below)

Five years on from 9-11 and the conspiracy theories are heating up, expected given the level of secrecy inherent in this administration. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld & Co. were able to exploit the horror-scape of 9-11 - opportunistically providing the "catastrophic and catalyzing event" mentioned in the Project For The New American Century report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which could quicken the longed-for transformation to "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force".

We know the official 9-11 truth, but we also know a lot about the limitations of official truths in national security states. I'm not accusing the aforementioned gang of plotting the missions because there is no evidence for it but also because I don't think they would actually do that.

What would greatly surprise me (again with no direct evidence) is for ALL of the hijackers and those associated NOT to be on the payroll of the US Government. My reason? We know who the bad guys are because it is us. It is an open secret that our government deals with terrorists, international criminals, drug runners, money launderers, arms smugglers, thugs, and others on the "dark side". Using bad guys is a kind of shortcut, and who doesn't like a good shortcut? But sometimes things go wrong. This I feel at the least.

Here is my answer to the question, "Why are you always criticizing America?" Because it's here! We are steeped in a national myth and lore that embellishes our virtuous side while selectively deemphasizing facts that do not serve to further the goals of the republic. It was not "pioneers" who prepared the way for us, it was displacers. Their spirit was born out of the dispirit of the dispossessed. We killed, lied, and cheated to become the hero nation. The exploitation of that self-imposed heroic status is intended to keep our attitudes within the proper bonds of patriotism. Taking ourselves literally -  taking the myth literally -  teaches us to expect more from us than from "them". But heroes can disappoint. The hero is supposed to shoot last. When the Soviet Union invaded Hungary I was not "disappointed" in them. Neither was I party to it.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize America. If not for the criticism of individual citizens, our leaders might still be enslavers. If not for the criticism of citizens, ours might still be a patriarchal society. If not for the criticism of citizens, our darker-skinned might still be completely unprotected. I recall the puzzlement of a childhood experience in a movie lobby. Two water fountains.one labeled "colored". I went back and forth, each time tasting and carefully noting the color characteristics of the water, and afterward reporting to my parents that I couldn't tell the difference. I hope now to know the difference.

If you enjoyed this post Subscribe to the Free Populist Party Newsletter

     click here

James Rothenberg [send him email] is a writer and activist.