This article has been chosen as a Making Sense of These Times
FIVE STAR PIECE
A great piece for progressives to recalibrate, so we all can stay on the
same page. This cuts through the fascination with what Bush knew when,
which moves incompetence centerstage, and takes the spotlight off the real
crimes of commission, not omission. "Of course these agencies lack
competence. Moreover, what good does demonstrating the incompetence of U.S.
intelligence agencies do peace and justice?...The irony is that the question
'what did Bush know before 9/11?' may be the only 'what did he know'
question that Bush can answer without revealing a grotesque value system."
-Suzanne-
May 22, 2002
What Did Bush Know?
Michael Albert
The above question screams from mainstream newspapers. It froths from
liberals' lips. What troubles me more, however, is that some leftists also
find it important.
Prevalent Question: What did Bush know and when did he know it regarding
possible terrorism threats preceding 9/11 and what did Bush do in light of
his knowledge?
Absent Question 1: What did Bush know and when did he know it regarding the
likely effects of bombing Afghanistan after 9/11 and why did Bush go ahead
and bomb in light of his knowledge?
Absent Question 2: What did Bush know and when did he know it regarding the
impact of the Iraq Embargo and why does Bush persist with the embargo in
light of his knowledge?
Absent Question 3: What did Bush know and when did he know it regarding the
impact of his globalization policies, his arms shipments and production, his
repressive civil legislation, his economic and cultural policies, his UN
vetoes and ecological isolationism, and so on and so forth and why does
Bush persist with these policies in light of his knowledge?
Supposing we had the means to answer the question about Bush's foreknowledge
of 9/11, it would at most reveal that U.S. intelligence services lack
competence. But these are the U.S. same intelligence agencies that can't
find the perpetrator of the recent anthrax attacks, even though the anthrax
came from Fort Detrick, Maryland, and even though, given the skills
required, the number of possible culprits is a handful.
Of course these agencies lack competence. Moreover, what good does
demonstrating the incompetence of U.S. intelligence agencies do peace and
justice? Should bolstering surveillance budget allotments be a new
progressive program plank?
In contrast to the difficulty of knowing Bush's foreknowledge of terrorist
tactics, it's easy to know what Bush knew and when he knew it about bombing
Afghanistan, about the Kyoto Accords, about Mideast policy, about
implications of embargoes on Iraq and Cuba, about globalization, and so on.
And knowing this would reveal important truths profoundly relevant to peace
and justice concerns.
So why is any leftist caught up in the hypocritical democratic party and
media maven hoopla? When TV news allots massive time to a story vaguely
correlated to progressive concerns, must we immediately hop on board?
The irony is that the question "what did Bush know before 9/11?" may be the
only "what did he know" question that Bush can answer without revealing a
grotesque value system.
Bush can say, for example, "I knew that our intelligence services reported
numerous threats, just as they have reported at all other times. I did not,
in response, shut down transportation and communication because if I did,
the next day I would have heard ten times as many threats, and thereafter I
would have had to permanently shut down all communications and
transportation, if I accepted that approach."
This is also the answer Democrats would give, were Democrats in the White
House for the event. And it is the answer the media mavens would give, were
the media not concerned to put some brakes on the Bush juggernaut.
Okay, if the government knew that planes might soon be flown into the sides
of skyscrapers, then instructions to pilots and even to passengers should
have been different, sure. And maybe some politicians are sincerely
concerned to correct these failings it's possible. But none of that makes
expanding CIA spending a leftist agenda.
Hold on. The media want to restrain the Bush juggernaut?
Yes, the Bushite maniacs in Washington have sufficiently worried sectors of
our ruling elites so that elements of the media have begun seeking self-serving
ways to slow down the madness. Why don't the media just call it immoral,
call it imperial, call it warmongering, repressive, vile? They don't do that
because they like those features, and they don't want to draw attention to
them, much less ridicule them.
They worry that the Bush approach has gone a little over the top but not
that it is immoral or imperial. They want to curb the excesses, but they
don't want to point the populace toward system-defying insights.
Not surprisingly, therefore, democrats and media commentators ask what Bush
knew regarding 9/11, rather than asking how markets, private ownership
relations, and government bureaucracy compel horrible outcomes regardless of
what Bush or anyone else knows.
The left should not climb aboard as a barely audible echo to a crescendo of
hypocrisy.
The left should direct public attention back on the plight of Palestinians,
on the Iraq embargo and impending invasion of Iraq, on the enlarging war in
Colombia, and on the horrors of globalization, racism, sexism, and wage
slavery.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-05/22albert.cfm
[Please support ZMAG a great source for the best pieces of the day. Commentaries are a premium sent to
Sustainer Donors of ZMag/ZNet. To learn more, consult ZNet at
www.zmag.org.]
Use your browser's BACK button to return to your previous page.
Visit our other FIVE STAR PIECES.