Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | News Flashes | Scoop Features | Scoop Video | Strange & Bizarre | Search

 


Mary Pitt: Who Is Responsible For 9/11?

Who Is Responsible For 9/11?


by Mary Pitt

In the wake of the release of the report of the 9/11 Commission, there is one question being asked over and over with many answers coming from all corners of society. ''It was Clinton's fault!'' ''It was Bush's fault!'' ''It was the fault of the FBI or the CIA!'' ''It was faulty intelligence!''

It was "all of the above" and more! In order to see the real answer, we must seek the answer to the other question which President George W. Bush attempted to answer in his simplistic way. That question is, "WHY DO THEY HATE US?", and requires us to delve deeply into the American psyche, based on our national behavior over the past half century.

Fifty years ago we had just come out of the most desperate struggle in which this nation had been involved for at least a century and we were then involved in the first of many United Nations "peacekeeping missions" which were to follow. The hope of the world was based upon the very existence of this international body which was to mediate between nations and to "enforce the peace", bringing the force of the peaceful world to bear upon "rogue states", to remove the newly-discovered danger of nuclear proliferation and to firmly establish the lond-sought "peace on earth".

However, it was not long before "nationalism" reared its ugly head. Individual alliances began to take precedence over the interest of the world at large, the more wealthy nations began to carp about the expense of maintaining the international body, provincialism raised objections to the citizens of individual nations serving in a military under the blue flag of the United Nations rather than under their own colors. The allowed vetoes in the Security Council began to be used as a way to protect allied countries from the disciplines of that body. The base upon which this noble endeavor was founded was chipped away by national interests until, today, the glorious and much-hailed United Nations is little more than a toothless tiger.

On our own national level, we began to forget the steely determination to maintain peace in the world "at any cost and paying any price". While these lofty goals were and are still spouted in electoral oratory, the public memory is short and the words no longer resound as they once did. We allowed our national attitudes to become contaminated with selfishness and arrogance. We are the strongest, the richest, the most wonderful country on earth and we have to consider nobody else in our actions, we cannot allow ouselves to become "the world's policeman", we cannot spend our national treasure in support of the United Nations. and we must limit our "foreign aid" to friendly nations who agree with us despite the fact that Third World people are being enslaved and starved to death. It is simply "not our problem".

We could set up tyrants to rule nations in order establish trade relationships and then abondon them when they were no longer needed. We could trade with the enemy in order to gain resources which were then funneled to rebels in other nations where we were forbidden by law to meddle. We could foster and train rebel soldiers to fight other nations in places where we did not want competing nations to gain influence and then, once the task was done, we could abandon them to their fate without concern. We could embark on programs to militarize space. and we could develop new and more effective nuclear weapons. Who was going to stop us?

Within the country, we watched apathetically while our own political structure deteriorated into an "us versus them" situation as the two major political parties took complete control of the electoral process, first financially throttling any fledgeling parties that might arise and, finally, gaining the power to prevent the people from ready access to their voices. "Access" became the sought-after product and American as well as foreign businesses were willing to pay enormous prices for it. The people may elect the Congress but, in some cases, the lobbyists are allowed to write the bills that they consider and, all too often, the congressmen vote in the interest of their political supporters.

The people, on the other hand, will continue to vote for those office-seekers who pander to the selfish interests of the individual making the choice. What is your problem? Taxes too high? This candidate will vote to lower them. Can't afford health insurance? That candidate will vote to assist you. Want to pass a Constitutional Amendment re-establishing religion by government regulation? Here is your man!

And we buy into it! Even after years of "service" in public office these people have done nothing to accomplish our personal goals, but we continue to make the same mistakes, hoping for a different result. Whether it be the welfare of the people or the security of the nation as a whole, these people will spout the "party line" and promise whatever is necessary to gain our votes and then deliver what is in the best interests of their campaign comtributers.

Why do they do it? Why are they not more aware of our safety and our needs? Because we allow it! Those of us who bother to go to the polls have, most often, a choice between the candidate of this party and the candidate of that party, regardless of whether we know anything about either of them. We depend on "our party" to weed them out and to make sure they are the best persons for the job only to find that "our party" is interested only in expanding their own power and influence on behalf of those who provide their financial support.

Once we have sent these under-achievers to Washington, we "trust" them to do their jobs, to maintain good relationships internationally in order to assure our security in the world, and to care for our domestic needs in an equitable manner. Even when they do not perform satisfactorily, we keep re-electing them with the hope that they will accomplish something "next year"!

Term limits? Don't be silly! Any office-holder will tell you that is a bad idea. Of course! Leadership in both house of Congress is established to be based entirely on party and seniority and their influence would be threatened if they were not allowed to serve as long as the voters can be persuaded to allow them to keep their jobs. Under the Constitution, the President's time of service is limited and most states have term limits for their governors. Why, then are congressmen immune? Because WE do not make them step down to make room for fresh ideas from people who are more intimately acquainted with the needs of the people!

The American people must wake up and change their mind-set. These people whom we send to the State Capitol, the Congress, or the White House are NOT our leaders. They are our EMPLOYEES and we have the right to choose them on that basis and to fire them for poor performance. The horrendous attacks we have suffered, before and after September 11, 2001, are not the fault of the bureaucrats or of the elected officials. They are the fault of the American people as a whole, those who vote and, especially of those who don't. They are the fault of those who vote based on their own selfishness and their own greed instead of basing their votes on the common good and the peace of the world.

Due to the combination of our complacency, our arrogance and our feckless wielding of absolute power we found ourselves at the mercy of a small band of international hoodlums. We :"shook off" their petty attacks on our embassy in Lebanon, the car bomb in the parking garage of the World Trade Center, and the near-sinking of the USS Cole. What could these ignorant radical Islamists do to the most powerful nation in the world that would cause us long and lasting harm?

When the horrid, televised disaster took place on 9/11 we were brought face-to-face with the fact that we COULD be hurt American lives COULD be lost in large number by this rag-tag underground army. We learned, too late, that, while we had prepared for all-out war against a similarly-armed nation, there was no defense and no offensive plan for such a group as this. Our first thought was that all the vaunted Special Forces and Black Ops that had been so wildly praised could go into the home base of this "splinter group" and take them out, only to find that these groups did not exist in sufficient numbers nor did they have sufficient training to accomplish the task. Therefore no had no choice but to invade the nation where they were hiding.

Then, before the miscreants were captured and with little warning, we were told that yet another enemy had appeared on the horizon, heavily armed with "weapons of mass destruction" and was prepared for imminent attack against our shores! Much of our military force was pulled out of the hunt for the rogues of Al Qaida in the mountains of Afghanistan for the purpose in invading Iraq. After almost a thousand more deaths have been added to the three thousands who died in the World Trade Center, the we find that we are no more secure than we were on September 10, 2001. Now we lift our eyes to Heaven and cry, "WHY?"

Stand up and bend over, America. This will hurt me worse than it does you!

************

Mary Pitt is a septuagenarian Kansan who is self-employed and active in the political arena. Having three generations of descendants, she feels obligated to leave them with the same rights and freedoms which she has so enjoyed.

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 

Werewolf: Living With Rio’s Olympic Ruins

Mariana Cavalcanti Critics of the Olympic project can point a discernible pattern in the delivery of Olympics-related urban interventions: the belated but rushed inaugurations of faulty and/or unfinished infrastructures... More>>

Live Blog On Now: Open Source//Open Society Conference

The second annual Open Source Open Society Conference is a 2 day event taking place on 22-23 August 2016 at Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington… Scoop is hosting a live blog summarising the key points of this exciting conference. More>>

ALSO:

Buildup:

Gordon Campbell: On The Politicising Of The War On Drugs In Sport

It hasn’t been much fun at all to see how “war on drugs in sport” has become a proxy version of the Cold War, fixated on Russia. This weekend’s banning of the Russian long jumper Darya Klishina took that fixation to fresh extremes. More>>

ALSO:

Binoy Kampmark: Kevin Rudd’s Failed UN Secretary General Bid

Few sights are sadder in international diplomacy than seeing an aging figure desperate for honours. In a desperate effort to net them, he scurries around, cultivating, prodding, wishing to be noted. Finally, such an honour is netted, in all likelihood just to shut that overly keen individual up. More>>

Open Source / Open Society: The Scoop Foundation - An Open Model For NZ Media

Access to accurate, relevant and timely information is a crucial aspect of an open and transparent society. However, in our digital society information is in a state of flux with every aspect of its creation, delivery and consumption undergoing profound redefinition... More>>

Keeping Out The Vote: Gordon Campbell On The US Elections

I’ll focus here on just two ways that dis-enfranchisement is currently occurring in the US: (a) by the rigging of the boundary lines for voter districts and (b) by demanding elaborate photo IDs before people are allowed to cast their vote. More>>

Ramzy Baroud: Being Black Palestinian - Solidarity As A Welcome Pathology

It should come as no surprise that the loudest international solidarity that accompanied the continued spate of the killing of Black Americans comes from Palestine; that books have already been written and published by Palestinians about the plight of their Black brethren. In fact, that solidarity is mutual. More>>

ALSO:


Get More From Scoop

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news