THE GREAT AMERICAN TREASON

[Guest guest]

Say what you want! PRAVDA.Ru will hear you! ==

 

 

 

Front page / Opinion / Columnists / Others

The great American treason

12/20/2004 15:54

In 1963, when asked for his thoughts about the death of President

John F. Kennedy, civil rights activist Malcolm X replied that

Kennedy's assassination was simply an example of " the chickens coming

home to roost. "

 

Naturally, in a nation infected with terminal myopia, Malcolm X's

words generated both controversy and outrage. But more than a decade

later, after hearings in the United States Congress revealed that

governmental agencies, on both the local and national levels, had

participated in or encouraged the assassinations of both

foreign " enemies, " and American citizens (the Central Intelligence

Agency [CIA] had even dubbed one of its assassination squads

a " Health Alteration Committee " ), the prophetic nature of Malcolm X's

words became evident: A nation that uses assassination as a

political tool against others should not be surprised when the same

tool is directed against it.

 

But in the wake of the Bush dictatorship's coup of 2000 and the

corruption-ridden " election " of 2004, the chickens have again come

home to roost in America. A nation that has incessantly imposed

and/or propped up fraudulent democracies throughout the world has

finally become a fraudulent democracy itself, controlled by the

machinations of a cabal of corrupt oligarchs who satiate Americans

with the illusion of " voting, " while ensuring their preordained

puppets are installed into office.

 

Those who doubt that " democracy " is moribund in the United States

need only look at the antithetical reactions regarding allegations of

fraud in America's presidential elections, and allegations of fraud

in the presidential elections held in the Ukraine.

 

Many western pundits, during their denunciations of the Ukrainian

elections, routinely stressed that the alleged winner, Viktor

Yanukovych, has a criminal record. Yet forgotten in these

denunciations is the fact that George W. Bush is the

first " president " to enter the White House with a criminal record,

after pleading guilty to a drunken driving charge in 1976. Prior to

this, he had also been arrested for disorderly conduct on two

occasions. And, in the eyes of many throughout the world, he is a war

criminal, responsible for the deaths of over one thousand Americans

and tens of thousands of Iraqis in an illegal war waged on nothing

but lies.

 

In addition, while that alleged bastion of " justice, " the United

States Supreme Court, corruptly and unethically endorsed the

electoral fraud that placed Bush into office during the coup of 2000,

and while a primary architect of that fraud, Katherine Harris, was

elected to the United States Congress, the Ukrainian Supreme Court

had the integrity to invalidate the results of that nation " s

presidential election.

 

Also in America, as Michael Moore illustrated in his documentary

FAHRENHEIT 9/11, not a single United States Senator possessed the

courage to challenge the coup of 2000, instead leaving that task to

the hastily silenced voices of a few members of the Congressional

Black Caucus. By contrast, the Ukrainian Parliament not only

symbolically invalidated the results of its presidential election, it

ultimately approved reforms that would prevent or reduce the

prospects of such fraud in the future. In America, the Bush

dictatorship expressed concern about the fairness of the Ukrainian

democratic process, but demonstrated no compunction about profiting

from fraudulent elections at home. But perhaps most notably, people

in the Ukraine bravely held around-the-clock vigils in inclement

weather, demanding that the honor of their democracy be respected and

restored. In the United States, a nation supposedly comprised of

freedom-loving, fair-minded people, the overwhelming majority of

Americans (with the exception of a few scattered protests)

apathetically ignored allegations of electoral fraud in states such

as Florida and Ohio.

 

So what does this " tale of two elections " prove?: That the Ukraine

is a democracy in its birth-pangs, where integrity in the democratic

process is not only expected but demanded, while America is a

democracy in its death-throes, where corruption and fraud have become

an entrenched and accepted part of the political landscape. In fact,

United States lawmakers are so unconcerned about the decline of

democracy that one of their first acts after Bush stole his second

election in 2004 was to alter procedural rules so Tom Delay, one of

the biggest hypocrites in the United States Congress, could retain

his influential position as House Majority Leader, even though a

grand jury had charged three of his associates with illegally

contributing to his Political Action Committee (PAC).

 

But how did America arrive at this sordid state, where fraud

masquerades as democracy, where so-called " morality " apparently does

not condemn the " bearing of false witness " to wage illegal wars, and

where a man as venal, megalomaniacal, ignorant, dishonest and

hypocritical as George W. Bush is viewed by many as a paradigm of

virtue?

 

The answer resides in the Bush dictatorship " s ability to exploit and

manipulate America " s reaction to the catastrophic events of September

11, 2001 (also known as 9/11), when the World Trade Center in New

York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. were attacked and

thousands of people were killed.

 

But this exploitation and manipulation ignores one crucial reality.

At the end of the day, when all the " official " commissions have

ended, when all the blame is attributed to " intelligence failures, "

and when all the " reorganization " of intelligence agencies

transpires, a single truth remains: The people who profited most from

the 9/11 attacks were George W. Bush and his handlers.

 

Prior to the 9/11 attacks, Bush was a despised individual, viewed by

many as having stole the presidency, and without a mandate from the

majority of Americans. Historically those in his position have been

largely ineffectual, and have often done more harm than good,

particularly since their lust for power reveals a character more

concerned with selfish ambition than with the good of the nation.

 

Bush and his handlers desperately needed something to make the

majority of Americans forget the coup of 2000. This has led to

widespread speculation that Bush and/or those in his inner circle, by

deliberate act or omission, encouraged or permitted the 9/11 attacks

to occur. This speculation can be broken down into three theories.

 

THE PEARL HARBOR THEORY

 

Analogies between the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor and the

September 11th, 2001 attacks revolve around long-held beliefs that

President Franklin D. Roosevelt ignored warnings of a planned attack

on American soil in order to inspire the necessary outrage that would

convince Americans to join the Allied forces in their battle against

the Axis powers during World War II.

 

Although Americans, as demonstrated by their zealotry over the Iraqi

war, have historically been more than willing to rush into warfare

for dubious reasons, the aftershocks of World War One, with its

immense casualties, devastating impact on the economy and detrimental

effect on civil rights and liberties, had tempered this bellicosity

to the point where warnings about the threat posed by growing

fascism, uttered by groups like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade during

the Spanish Civil War, were largely ignored, even though Hitler used

this war to test his military weaponry and strategy. Popular aviator

Charles Lindbergh formed the " America First Committee, " which vocally

opposed entry into World War Two. Against this backdrop, Roosevelt

faced an uphill battle in his efforts to convince a war-weary nation

to support America " s entry into World War Two. The attack on Pearl

Harbor changed all that.

 

Flash-forward to the year 2001 and a similar scenario arises.

Although Americans had demonstrated a willingness to return to their

jingoistic ways during the First Gulf War, the ghosts of the war in

Vietnam still lingered, and it was unclear whether a majority of

Americans would be willing to commit troops to a foreign land for a

prolonged period of time, to endure significant American casualties,

or to inflict even greater casualties on the civilian population of

the nation they were purportedly " liberating. "

 

Yet during this same period, if intelligence reports are to be

believed, Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda organization,

headquartered under the protection of the Taliban government in

Afghanistan, were endeavoring to create biological, chemical and/or

nuclear weapons that, when fully developed, could inflict tens-of-

thousands, if not millions, of casualties if released in an urban

area.

 

So to shed the specter of Vietnam, and to instill in Americans the

necessary fear that would compel them to obediently support any law,

any deed, and any war allegedly designed to " fight terrorism, "

members of the Bush dictatorship asked the ultimate cost-benefit

question: " Do we sacrifice the few to 'protect' the many? " The

answer resulted in the attacks on 9/11.

 

THE REICHSTAG THEORY

 

But the Pearl Harbor Theory alone does not explain why the focus of

the so-called " war on terrorism " suddenly shifted from Afghanistan to

Iraq.

 

News reports in America recently revealed that several members of the

Bush dictatorship, enamored with Iraq " s oil resources and the profits

war would bring to companies where they had financial interests, and

knowing how impulsively Americans would rally around their " commander-

in-chief " during wartime, were eager to attack Iraq even before the

events of 9/11 occurred. Also, as stated in previous PRAVDA articles,

THE DEATH OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, PARTS I AND II and EULOGY FOR

AMERICA, throughout American history there has been a quest for

circumstances or events that would give the corrupt oligarchs who

control America the opportunity to permanently destroy the freedoms

enshrined in the Bill of Rights, thus transforming America into a neo-

fascist nation. But, even though Americans complacently accepted the

coup of 2000, the corrupt manner in which these oligarchs stole the

presidency impeded their ability to disseminate to a skeptical

populace the fictitious " threats " posed by the Iraqi government.

 

So a page was borrowed from Adolph Hitler " s political strategy.

Hitler realized that in times of crisis if a leader repetitiously

tells " great lies " to the masses, they will eventually come to

believe them. In blaming the burning of Germany's parliament, known

as the Reichstag, on " communists, " Hitler was not only able to cement

his grip on power, he was also able to pass the " Reichstag Fire "

and " Enabling " acts, which severely curtailed civil rights and

liberties in Germany. This, in turn, permitted him to pursue his

warmongering agenda. The effect of this strategy was succinctly

explained in Professor Felix Gilbert " s book THE END OF THE EUROPEAN

ERA: " [E]ven after the dictatorial character of the Hitler regime

had revealed itself, almost 44 percent of the German people voted for

the Nazis. "

 

Hitler also unabashedly exploited religion to serve his selfish ends,

proclaiming that " [t]he national government will maintain and defend

the foundations on which the power of the nation rests. It will

offer protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective

morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We

want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to

burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the

theatre, and in the press . . . in short, we want to burn out the

poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and

culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years. "

 

Although comparisons between the evils of George W. Bush " s

dictatorship and Adolph Hitler's have been noted in three previous

PRAVDA articles, BUSH VS. HITLER, PARTS I and II and THE GREAT

ALLURE, the " Reichstag Theory " underscores them. By planning or

permitting the 9/11 attacks, the Bush dictatorship not only cemented

its grip on power, it also was able to pass the " Patriot Act, " which

destroyed the Bill of Rights. From there " great lies " were

disseminated about Saddam Hussein " s links to 9/11and his " weapons of

mass destruction, " thus allowing the Bush dictatorship to pursue its

warmongering agenda by invading, occupying and setting up a puppet

regime in Iraq.

 

And, if the election results of 2004 are to be believed, " even after

the dictatorial character of the Bush regime had revealed itself,

over 50 percent of the American people voted for the [neo-fascists], "

and many on the basis of the very distortions of Christianity that

Hitler so openly exploited--a deceptive, pseudo-Christianity that

substitutes hatred for love, that promotes arrogant self-

righteousness over tolerance, that conceals its abuses of fellow

human beings beneath ostentatious platitudes about morality, that

seeks to impose alleged " moral " values upon others that it feels

absolutely no obligation to impose upon itself, and that, as Hitler

said, seduces people into believing hell is heaven and heaven is

hell.

 

THE J.F.K THEORY

 

But the Reichstag theory does not explain why Osama bin Laden, the

alleged " mastermind " behind the 9/11 attacks, was mysteriously

removed from the Bush dictatorship " s most wanted list and replaced by

Saddam Hussein. The answer resides in the J.F.K. theory.

 

Many conspiracy theorists have argued that the assassination of John

F. Kennedy was the result of collusion between various governmental

agencies and organized crime figures. Although such collusion

remains speculative concerning the assassination itself, the belief

persists because the United States government has, on several

occasions, overtly or covertly conspired with criminal organizations

to assassinate political figures. The Central Intelligence Agency

(CIA), in the early 1960s, conspired with members of organized crime

syndicates to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro. The Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also tried to lure organized crime

figures into murdering comedian and civil rights activist Dick

Gregory.

 

The Bureau even encouraged members of a " Black Nationalist Group, "

known as " United Slaves (US), " to murder members of the Black Panther

Party (BPP), and, in January of 1969, the FBI sent an anonymous

letter, signed " A black brother you don " t know, " to the leader of one

of Chicago " s largest street gangs, attempting to persuade him to

murder Chicago BPP leader Fred Hampton. A portion of the letter

read, " The brothers that run the Panthers blame you for blocking

their thing and there " s supposed to be a hit out for you. . . . I

know what I " d do if I was you. "

 

After this letter failed to produce the desired results, Hampton and

fellow Panther Mark Clark were killed in December of 1969 during a

police " raid " on Hampton's apartment.

 

While this list is not exhaustive, it does suffice to illustrate that

some powerful agencies in the United States government to a

philosophy where the " ends justify the means, " and thus have little

compunction about utilizing the services of unsavory people and

organizations to achieve these ends. Given this sordid history, how

far-fetched is it to hypothesize that George W. Bush and/or his

handlers, given the Bush family " s links to the bin Laden family, used

the services of Osama bin Laden to aggrandize Bush " s political

stature and career?

 

In exchange for these services, Bush and/or his handlers agreed to

redirect attention and resources away from the hunt for bin Laden,

and toward the overthrow and capture of Hussein. As a bonus, the

various warlords of Afghanistan gained relative autonomy to ply their

drug trade. Meanwhile bin Laden agreed to continue releasing

messages designed to keep the fear of terrorism foremost in the

American public " s mind, thereby assisting the 2004 campaign of George

W. Bush.

 

Of course, many will argue that if bin Laden is captured or killed,

it will disprove the J.F.K. theory. But that is not necessarily

true. The United States government has frequently disposed

of " allies " who are no longer needed, or who fail or refuse to do

its bidding. Former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega learned this

reality during the corrupt regime of Bush " s father, who diverted

attention from a burgeoning " savings and loan scandal " by invading

Panama. Saddam Hussein was also once an American ally, and his use

of torture and murder was welcomed when the victims were considered

to be enemies of the United States.

 

Those who scoff at the possibility of collusion between the Bush

dictatorship and Osama bin Laden need only recall what occurred in

the aftermath of the Hampton/Clark murders. While most of the so-

called " news " media spinelessly accepted the " official " version of

events describing a " shoot-out " between the Panthers and the police,

one intrepid reporter decided to visit Hampton " s apartment himself.

His investigation led to the revelations that the police had entered

the apartment shooting, that Mark Clark had responded to the incoming

gunfire with a single shot before being killed, and that his lone

shot was the only one, of the more than ninety shots fired during the

raid, that had been discharged by the Panthers. The bedroom where

Hampton died from multiple gunshot wounds, including two to the head,

had sustained only incoming gunfire. As one scrupulous law

enforcement officer stated in the documentary, EYES ON THE PRIZE,

PART II, " Even law-and-order people realized there had been a trial,

a conviction and an execution in that house. "

 

However, since the so-called " criminal justice system " in the United

States is really designed to cover-up, excuse and rationalize

government malfeasance, little was done to seek justice in the

Hampton/Clark murders. State charges against law enforcement

officials involved in the raid were dropped in exchange for the

dismissal of the bogus charges filed against the surviving Panthers,

and a federal grand jury refused to indict these officials for

violating Hampton and Clark " s civil rights.

 

Still the discovery of truth has its own rewards. The lingering

aftermath of the Hampton/Clark murders proves that America " s criminal

justice system can no longer argue, with any degree of sincerity,

that nobody is above the law, that the legal system is concerned with

truth and fairness, that justice is blind, or that the government of

the United States does not murder, or endorse the murder, of its own

citizens.

 

In a recent poll over sixty-six percent of the residents of New York

City said they do not believe Americans are being told the truth

about the events of 9/11. But if the truth is to ever be known, the

United States needs courageous reporters who, as journalist I.F.

Stone once said, have not committed the cardinal sin of climbing into

the same bathwater with those they cover. Such reporters will never

be found as long as they are shackled and/or silenced by the profit-

motivated, propaganda-driven, superficiality-focused, corporate-

controlled media.

 

In his classic novel " 1984, " George Orwell stated that the motto of

the New Order was " War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is

Strength. " Although the dictatorship Orwell predicted arrived twenty

years late, it has arrived nonetheless, along with a few

more " edicts " : Lies are Truth; Regress is Progress; Hypocrisy is

Morality; Theocracy is Democracy.

 

Through the manipulation of the events of 9/11, the Bush dictatorship

has been given carte blanche by the myopic masses to send poorly

equipped troops into combat, to destroy the lives of American

soldiers and Iraqi civilians to satiate his own sadism, avarice and

megalomania, and to exploit the United States military, not for

purposes of defense or national security, but to line the pockets of

his cronies with wartime profits while enhancing his political

career.

 

Although those who oppose the Iraqi war are often accused of being

many things, from cowards to traitors, one must wonder who the real

traitors really are-those who believe that the resources of the

military and the sacrifice of young lives should only be made for the

good of the nation, or those who blindly and unquestioningly endorse

any war, regardless of its motives.

 

It is ironic that America has become a nation so hypocritical that

people will vehemently oppose the raising of taxes to provide better

education or health care to the less fortunate, but will permit the

wasting of billions of tax dollars and the loss of thousands of lives

to promote an illegal, poorly planned, and even more poorly managed

war. In calmer, more rational times such actions by an American

president would be considered impeachable offenses at best, and

treason at worst. But the exploitation of the tragic events of 9/11

has demonstrated the endurance of the following adage:

 

Treason never prospers.

What is the reason?

Because if it prospers

None dare call it treason.

 

It is time that someone dare call it treason.

 

David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of PRAVDA.Ru