Instapunk has some useful thoughts on the deranged Bush haters.
Only one of the 300 million people who live in America wake up every day to a briefing from the nation’s intelligence agencies about what threats might become reality today. That’s a fact. The man’s name is George W. Bush.
I’m NOT saying this makes him immune from criticism. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Forget all the invective about his cowardice or shirking of military duty when he was a twenty-something. Five years of such briefings would be enough to give most of us Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It’s probably the case that the President of the United States has been damaged by what he’s been through. It’s the most obvious explanation conceivable for why the White House seems so slow to respond to the daily firestorms the mass media engender. My guess is, not too many of us would want to be living inside George W. Bush’s head right now. It’s too much. For anyone. He needs advice and constructive criticism and thoughtful opposition. But who — and I’m including all of you in this — is served by characterizing the advice, criticism, and opposition as the obvious response to a criminal idiot?
Though I myself am slow to anger, and relatively unemotional, I’m glad that I didn’t have to make the decisions for the past five years.
Sitting on the comfy couch, their cups of tea in hand, they try to convince me that the 11 September 2001 attacks were executed by elements in the west who wanted to launch wars and “make billions upon trillions of dollars”.
“We know for certain that the official story of 9/11 isn’t true,” says Shayler. “The twin towers did not collapse because of planes and fire; they were brought down in a controlled demolition. The Pentagon was most likely hit by an American missile, not an aeroplane.” Machon nods. In black trousers and black top, this sophisticated blonde in her late thirties comes across more like a schoolmarm than a 9/11 anorak. “The Pentagon’s anti-missile defence system would definitely have picked up and dealt with a commercial airliner. We can only assume that whatever hit the Pentagon was sending a friendly signal. A missile fired by a US military plane would have sent a friendly signal.” She says this in a kind of Anna Ford-style newsreader’s voice, as if she were speaking the truth and nothing but the truth. She takes another sip of tea.
Say the phrase “conspiracy theorist” (but don’t say it to Shayler and Machon if you can help it, because they angrily deny being conspiracy theorists) and most people will think of those nutty militiamen in redneck areas of America who hate Big Government, or of taxi drivers with possibly anti-Semitic leanings in some hot, dusty backwater of the Middle East who revel in telling western clients in particular: “America and the Jew did 9/11.” Yet, here in Highgate, I am talking to a man and woman who have worked in the British secret services and who, together with their landlady Belinda, a professional linguist, truly believe that American elements facilitated 9/11 in order to “justify their adventurism in oil-rich countries in the Middle East”, in Shayler’s words. Here we have a new kind of conspiracy theorist: the chattering conspiracist, respectable, well-read, articulate, but, I regret to report, no less cranky than those rednecks and misguided Kabul cabbies.
Meyssan’s purpose is to uncover a much deeper plot of the United States against the world. He reveals other interesting facts, like bin Laden was an agent of the U.S. who was used by President Bush to destroy secret CIA offices in the World Trade Towers. Seems like a lot of effort
While I don’t subscribe to so-called ass-brained theories that Bin Laden never existed, I am coming around to the view that he’s dead as Michael Ledeen has suggested. I mean why wouldn’t Bin Laden issue a video for the five year anniversary of 9/11?
While I don’t subscribe to so-called ass-brained theories that Bin Laden never existed, I am coming around to the view that he’s dead as Michael Ledeen has suggested. I mean why wouldn’t Bin Laden issue a video for the five year anniversary of 9/11?
While I don’t subscribe to so-called ass-brained theories that Bin Laden never existed, I am coming around to the view that he’s dead as Michael Ledeen has suggested. I mean why wouldn’t Bin Laden issue a video for the five year anniversary of 9/11?
Hitchens says that it will get worse before it gets better (particularly because we don’t seem to be able to unite before the enemy), and it’s too early for commemorations:
The time for commemoration lies very far in the future. War memorials are erected when the war is won. At the moment, anyone who insists on the primacy of September 11, 2001, is very likely to be accused–not just overseas but in this country also–of making or at least of implying a “partisan” point. I debate with the “antiwar” types almost every day, either in print or on the air or on the podium, and I can tell you that they have been “war-weary” ever since the sun first set on the wreckage of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and on the noble debris of United Airlines 93. These clever critics are waiting, some of them gleefully, for the moment that is not far off: the moment when the number of American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq will match or exceed the number of civilians of all nationalities who were slaughtered five years ago today. But to the bored, cynical neutrals, it also comes naturally to say that it is “the war” that has taken, and is taking, the lives of tens of thousands of other civilians. In other words, homicidal nihilism is produced only by the resistance to it! If these hacks were honest, and conceded the simple truth that it is the forces of the Taliban and of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia that are conducting a Saturnalia of murder and destruction, they would have to hide their faces and admit that they were not “antiwar” at all.
We can have a war on drugs (which is absolutely unwinnable) or a war against the Jihadis, but it’s nuts to think that we can have both.
Want a criticism of the Bush administration? Here’s one: the blindness of the drug warriors is appalling, and has set us back dramatically in the real war.
The lessons for us today, almost five centuries hence, are equally important. The same enemy exists today. Instead of galleys he uses airliners, and instead of Janissaries he uses suicide bombers. He hates and fears western civilization, and seeks to convert or enslave us. We have to meet him and engage him everywhere he is, just as the Knights did. What it will take to win against him is what it took to win at Malta: preparation, skill at arms, leadership, and above all faith and an iron will.
This has truly been a long war, and no immediate end is in sight.