http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/10/17/18410.html
19:43 2001-10-17
THE SO-CALLED EVIDENCE IS A FARCE: FORMER GREEN BERET SAYS BUSH IS LYING
Stan Goff: The So-Called Evidence Is
a Farce
I'm a retired Special Forces
Master Sergeant. That doesn't cut much for those who will only accept
the opinions of former officers on military matters, since we enlisted swine
are assumed to be incapable of grasping the nuances of doctrine.
But I wasn't just in the
army. I studied and
taught military science and doctrine. I was a tactics instructor at the Jungle
Operations Training Center in Panama, and I taught Military Science at West
Point. And contrary to the popular image of what Special Forces does, SF's mission is to teach. We offer advice and
assistance to foreign forces. That's everything from teaching marksmanship to a
private to instructing a Battalion staff on how to coordinate effective air
operations with a sister service.
Based on that experience, and operations in eight designated conflict areas
from Vietnam to Haiti, I have to say that the story we hear on the news and
read in the newspapers is simply not believable. The most cursory glance at the
verifiable facts, before, during, and after September 11th, does not support
the official line or conform to the current actions of the United States
government.
But the official line only
works if they can get everyone to accept its underlying premises. I'm
not at all surprised about the Republican and Democratic Parties repeating
these premises. They are simply two factions within a single dominant political
class, and both are financed by the same economic powerhouses. My biggest
disappointment, as someone who identifies himself with the left, has been the
tacit acceptance of those premises by others on the left, sometimes naively,
and sometimes to score some morality points. Those premises are twofold. One, there is the premise that what this de
facto administration is doing
now is a "response" to September 11th. Two, there is the premise that this attack on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon was
done by people based in Afghanistan. In my opinion, neither of these is
sound.
To put this in perspective we have to go back not to September 11th, but to
last year or further.
A man of limited intelligence, George W. Bush, with nothing more than his name and the
behind-the-scenes pressure of his powerful father-a former President,
ex-director of Central Intelligence, and an oil man-is systematically constructed as a candidate,
at tremendous cost. Across the country, subtle and not-so-subtle mechanisms are
put into place to disfranchise a significant fraction of the Democrat's
African-American voter base. This doesn't come out until Florida becomes a
battleground for Electoral College votes, and the magnitude of the story has
been suppressed by the corporate media to this day. In a decision so lacking in legitimacy,
the Supreme Court will neither by-line the author of the decision nor allow the
decision to ever be used as a precedent, Bush v. Gore awards the presidency of
the United States to a man who loses the popular vote in Florida and loses the
national popular vote by over 600,000.
This de facto regime then
organizes a very interesting cabinet. The Vice President is an oil executive and the
former Secretary of Defense. The National Security Advisor is a director on the
board of a transnational oil
corporation and a Russia
scholar. The Secretary of State is a man with no diplomatic experience
whatsoever, and the former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The other
interesting appointment is Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld is
the former CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals. He and Cheney were featured as
speakers at the May, 2000, Russian-American Business Leaders Forum. So the consistent currents in this
cabinet are petroleum, the former Soviet Union, and the military.
Based on the record of Daddy Bush, in all his guises, and the general
trajectory of US foreign policy as far back as the Carter Administration, I
feel I can reasonably conclude that Middle Eastern and South Asian fossil fuels are one of their major
preoccupations. Not just because this klavern has some very direct
financial interests in fossil fuel, but because they surely know that worldwide oil production
is peaking as we speak, and will soon begin a permanent and precipitous decline that will
completely change the character of civilization as we know it within 20 years.
Even the left seems to be in deep denial about this, but the math is available.
And, no, alternative
energies and energy technologies will not save us. All the alternatives
in the world can not begin to provide more than a tiny fraction of the energy
base now provided by oil. This makes it more than a resource, and the drive to
control what's left more than an economic competition.
I further conclude that the
economic colonization of the former Soviet Union is probably high on that agenda,
and in fact has a powerful synergy with the issue of petroleum. Russia
not only holds vast untapped resources that beckon to imperialism in crisis, it
remains a credible military and nuclear challenger in the region.
We have not one, but three
members of the Bush de facto cabinet with military credentials, which
makes the cabinet look quite a lot like a military General Staff. All this way before September
11th.
Then there's the subject of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO might have expected
consignment to the dustbin of the Cold War after the Eastern Bloc shattered
in 1991. Peace dividend and all that. But it didn't. It expanded directly into the
former states of the Eastern Bloc toward the former Soviet Union, and contributed significant
forces to the devastation of Iraq-a
key country in the world oil market, over which control translates into the
ability to manipulate oil prices.
NATO is a military formation, and the United States exerts the controlling
interest in it. It seemed like a form without a function, but it remedied that
pretty quickly.
Then when Yugoslavia
refused to play ball with the International Monetary Fund, the US and
Germany began a systematic campaign of destabilization there, even using some
of the veterans of Afghanistan in that campaign.
NATO became the military
arm of that agenda-the break-up of Yugoslavia into compliant statelets, the further
containment of the former Soviet Union, and the future pipeline easement for Caspain Sea oil to
Western European markets through Kosovo.
You see, this is important to understand, and people-even those against the war
talk-are tending to overlook the significance of it. NATO is not a guarantor of
international law, and it is not a humanitarian organization.
It is a military alliance
with one very dominant partner. And it can no longer claim to be a
defensive alliance against European socialists. It is an instrument of military
aggression.
NATO is the organization that is now going to thrust further along the 40th
parallel from the Balkans through the Southern Asian Republics of the former
Soviet Union. The US military has already taken control of a base in Uzbekistan. No one is talking
about how what we are doing seems to be a very logical extension of a strategy that was already in motion,
and has been in motion for two
decades. Once we recognize the pattern of activity designed to
simultaneously consolidate control over Middle Eastern and South Asian oil, and
contain and colonize the former Soviet Union, Afghanistan is exactly where they
need to go to pursue that agenda.
Afghanistan borders
Iran, India, and even China but, more importantly, the Central Asian Republics
of the former Soviet Union, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. These
border Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan borders Russia. Turkmenistan sits on the
Southeastern quadrant of the Caspian Sea, whose oil the Bush Administration
dearly covets.
Afghanistan is necessary
for two things: as a base of operations to begin the process of
destabilizing, breaking off, and establishing control over the South Asian Republics, which will
begin within the next 18-24 months in my opinion, and constructing a pipeline through
Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to deliver petroleum to the Asian
market.
The BBC was recently told by Niaz Naik, a Pakistani Foreign Secretary, that
senior American officials
were warning them as early as mid-July that military
action for mid-October was being planned for Afghanistan. In 1996, the Department of Energy was issuing
reports on the desirability
of a pipeline through Afghanistan, and in 1998, Unocal testified before
the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that this pipeline was crucial
to transport Caspian Basin oil to the Indian Ocean.
Given this evidence that a military
operation to secure at least a portion of Afghanistan has been on the table, possibly as early
as five years ago, I can't help but conclude that the actions we are seeing put
into motion now are part of a pre-September 11th agenda. I'm absolutely
sure of that, in fact. The planning
alone for operations, of this scale, that are now taking shape, would take many months. And we
are seeing them take shape in mere weeks.
It defies common sense. This administration
is lying about this whole thing being a "reaction" to
September 11th. That leads me, in short order, to be very suspicious of their yet-to-be-provided
evidence that someone in Afghanistan is responsible. It's just too damn
convenient. Which also leads
me to wonder-just for the sake of knowing-what actually did happen on
September 11th, and who actually is responsible.
The so-called evidence is a
farce. The US presented Tony Blair's puppet government with the
evidence, and of the 70
so-called points of evidence, only nine even referred to the attacks on the World Trade
Center, and those points
were conjectural. This is a bullshit story from beginning to end.
Presented with the available facts, any 16-year old with a liking for courtroom
dramas could tear this story apart like a two-dollar shirt. But our corporate
press regurgitates it uncritically. But then, as we should know by now, their role is to legitimize.
This cartoon heavy they've turned bin Laden into makes no sense, when you begin
to appreciate the complexity and synchronicity of the attacks. As a former
military person who's been involved in the development of countless operations
orders over the years, I can tell you that this was a very sophisticated and costly enterprise that
would have left what we call a huge "signature".
In other words, it would
be very hard to effectively conceal.
So there's a real question about why there was no warning of this. That can be a question about the efficacy of the
government's intelligence apparatus. That can be a question about various
policies in the various agencies that had to be duped to orchestrate this
action. And it can also be a question about whether or not there was
foreknowledge of the event, and that foreknowledge is being covered up. To dismiss this concern out
of hand as the rantings of conspiracy nuts is premature. And there is a history
of this kind of thing being done by national political bosses, including the
darling of liberals, Franklin Roosevelt. The evidence is very compelling that the Roosevelt Administration deliberately failed to act to
stop Pearl Harbor in order to mobilize enough national anger to enter
the World War II.
I have no idea why people
aren't asking some very specific questions about the actions of Bush and
company on the day of the attacks.
Follow along:
Four planes get hijacked
and deviate from their flight plans, all the while on FAA radar. The planes
are all hijacked between 7:45
and 8:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time.
Who is notified?
This is an event already that is unprecedented. But the President is not
notified and going to a Florida elementary school to hear children read.
By around 8:15 AM, it should be very apparent that something is terribly wrong.
The President is glad-handing teachers.
By 8:45, when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the World Trade Center, Bush
is settling in with children for his photo ops at Booker Elementary. Four planes have
obviously been hijacked
simultaneously, an event never before seen in history, and one has just
dived into the worlds best know twin towers, and still no one notifies the nominal Commander in Chief.
No one has apparently
scrambled any Air Force interceptors either.
At 9:03, United
Flight 175 crashes
into the remaining World Trade Center building. At 9:05, Andrew Card, the Presidential Chief
of Staff whispers to
George W. Bush. Bush "briefly turns somber" according to
reporters.
Does he cancel the school visit and convene an emergency meeting? No.
He resumes listening
to second graders read about a little girl's pet fucking goat, and continues
this banality even as American Airlines Flight 77 conducts an unscheduled point
turn over Ohio and heads in the direction of Washington DC.
Has he instructed Chief of
Staff Card to scramble the Air Force? No.
An excruciating 25 minutes
later, he finally deigns to give a public statement telling the United
States what they already have figured out; that there's been an attack by
hijacked planes on the World Trade Center.
There's a hijacked plane bee-lining to Washington, but has the Air Force been
scrambled to defend anything yet? No.
At 9:30, when he
makes his announcement,
American Flight 77 is still ten minutes from its target, the Pentagon.
The Administration will later claim they had no way of knowing that the
Pentagon might be a target, and that they thought Flight 77 was headed to the
White House, but the fact is that the plane has already flown South and past
the White House no-fly zone, and is in fact tearing through the sky at over 400
nauts.
At 9:35, this plane
conducts another turn, 360 degrees over the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar,
and the Pentagon is not evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air Force in the sky
over Alexandria and DC.
Now, the real kicker:
A pilot they want us to
believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and
Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled
downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half
minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires
across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this
building at 460 nauts.
When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school
began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator.
This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on I-40 at
rush hour by buying her a video driving game. It's horse shit!
There is a story being
constructed about these events. My crystal ball is not working today, so
I can't say why.
But at the least, this so-called Commander-in-Chief and his staff that we are all supposed to follow
blindly into some ill-defined war on terrorism is criminally negligent
or unspeakably stupid. And at the worst, if more is known or was known, and
there is an effort to conceal the facts, there is a criminal conspiracy going
on.
Certainly, the Bush de facto administration was facing a confluence of crises
from which they were temporarily rescued by this event. Whether they played a sinister role or not,
there is little doubt that they have at the very least opportunistically
pounced on this attack to overcome their lack of legitimacy, to shift the blame for the encroaching
recession from
capitalism to the September 11th terror attack, to legitimize their pre-existing foreign policy agenda,
and to establish and consolidate repressive measures domestically and silence
dissent.
In many ways, September
11th pulled the Bush cookies out of the fire.
And given them the green light to begin constructing a long-term scenario
within which to establish
fascistic control measures at home and abroad as a citadel for the
ruling class in the catastrophic conjuncture that we are entering based on the
end of oil.
This elephant in the
living room is being studiously ignored. In fact, the domestic repression
has already begun, officially and unofficially. It's kind of a latter day McCarthyism. I
participated in a teach-in at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, on the 17th of
September, and though not a single person on the panel excused or justified the
attacks, and every person there offered either condolences and prayers for the
victims, we were excoriated within two days as "enemies of America."
Yesterday an op-ed called for my deportation (to where, one can only guess).
Now Herr Ashcroft is fast
tracking the biggest abrogation of US civil liberties since the
so-called anti-terrorism legislation after the Oklahoma City bombing - which by
the way hasn't resulted in anti-terrorism but in the acceleration of the
application of the racist death penalty. The FBI has defined terrorist groups not by whether
any given group has ever acted as terrorists, but by their beliefs. Some socialists and anti-globalization
groups have already been identified by name as terrorist groups, even though
there is not a single shred of evidence that they have ever participated in any
criminal activity. It reminds
me of the Smith Act that was finally declared unconstitutional, but only
after a hell of a lot of people served a hell of a long time in jail for the
crime of thinking.
I think this also points to yet another huge problems that the Bush regime was facing. Worldwide resistance
to the whole so-called neoliberal
agenda, which is a prettied up term for debt-leverage imperialism. While debt and
the threat of sanctions has been used to coerce nations in the periphery, we
have to understand that the final guarantor of compliance remains military
action. For a global economic agenda, there is always a corresponding political
and military agenda.
The focal point of these
actions in the short term is Southern Asia, but they have already scripted this
as a worldwide and protracted fight against terrorism.
It's far better than drug
wars as a rationalization, and the drug war thing was being discredited
in any case. Leftists are regaining power and popularity in Venezuela, El
Salvador, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Brazil,
and Argentina. Cuba has gained immense prestige over the last few years. The
empire is beginning to unravel. We can hardly justify intervention in these
places by saying they are not towing the economic line by allowing the absolute
domination of their societies by transnational corporations. That exposes the
agenda. So we simply claim they are supporting terrorism.
It's for all these reasons I say the left has missed the boat on this one, by allowing them to
get away with rushing past the question of who did what on September 11th.
If the official story is a
lie, and I think the circumstantial case is strong enough to stay with
this question, then we really do need to know what happened. And we need to understand concretely
what the motives of this administration are.
And we need to understand more
than just their immediate motives, but where the larger social forces
that underwrite our situation right now are headed. I do not think this
administration is engaged in the deliberative process of a political grouping
that is on top of their game. They are putting together some very deliberative
technical solutions in
response to a larger situation that it slipping rapidly out of their control.
Like clear cutting. There's a very smart technology being employed to do a very
dumb thing.
What they are responding
to is not September 11th, but the beginning of a permanent and
precipitous decline in worldwide oil production, the beginning of a deep and
protracted worldwide recession,
and the unraveling of the empire.
This brings me to a point about what all this means for Americans' security,
which they are perfectly justified to worry about.
The actions being prepared by this administration will not only not enhance our
security, it will significantly degrade it. Military action against many groups
across the globe, which is what the administration is telling us quite openly
they are planning to do, will put a lot of backs against the wall. That can't
be very secure.
The concept of war being
touted here is a violation of the principles of war on several counts, and will
inevitably lead to military catastrophes, if you're inclined to view
this from a position of moral and political neutrality.
And the people who are now
in possession of half the world's remaining oil reserves are subject to
destabilization for which we can't even pretend to predict the
consequences-but loss of access to critical energy supplies is certainly within
the realm of possibility. Worst
of all, we will be destabilizing Pakistan, a nuclear power in an active
conflict with its neighbor, and we will be provoking Russia, another nuclear power. The
security stakes don't get any
higher, and Americans can ill afford to ignore nukes.
And I think that this domestic agenda is a tremendous threat to the security of
anyone who is critical of the government or their corporate financiers, and we
already know that the real threats are against populations that can easily be
scapegoated as the domestic
crisis deepens.
There is a very real threat right now of creeping fascism in this country, and that phenomenon requires its
domestic enemies. Historically those enemies have included leftists,
trade unionists, and racially and nationally oppressed sectors. This whole
"state of
emergency" mentality is already being used to quiet the public
discourses of anti-racism, of feminism, of environmentalism, and of both
socialism and anarchism. And while there is token resistance by officials to
anti-Muslim xenophobia, the stereotypical images have saturated the media, and
the government is already beginning to openly re-instate racial profiling. It
is only a short step from there to go after other groups. We have long been
prepared by the ideologies of overt and covert racism, and racism as both
institution and corresponding psychology in the United States is nearly
intractable.
It's for all these reasons that I say emphatically that we can not accept
anything from this administration; not their policies nor their bullshit
stories. What they are doing is very, very dangerous, and the time to fight
back against them, openly, is right now, before they can consolidate their
power and their agenda. Once they have done that, our job becomes much more
difficult.
The left, if it has the capacity to self-organize out of its oblivion, needs to
understand its critical roles here. We have to play the role of credible,
hard-working, and non-sectarian partners in a broader peace-movement. We have
to study, synthesize, and describe our current historical conjuncture. And we
have to prepare leadership for the decisive conflict that will emerge to first
defeat fascism then take political power.
Rosa Luxemburg's words are truer than ever right now. We are not faced with a
choice between socialism and capitalism, but socialism or barbarism.
And what we can least afford are denial and timidity.