|
"Bush issued the directive in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a way of ensuring that the nation's secrets would not be mishandled, made public, or improperly declassified." --L.A. Times (in the above article)
This is stated as fact--that Bush intended, by this "directive," to ensure "that the nation's secrets would not be mishandled, made public, or improperly declassified."
I seriously doubt the truth of this assertion. And it should be reported as an assertion by Bush, not as fact. Indeed, the evidence is that Bush and his junta have gravely MIS-handled "the nation's secrets," and the entire matter of government secrecy, using it to cover up crimes and theft, that they have grossly misclassified government documents, and have selectively leaked "the nation's secret" for political and criminal purposes.
Our war profiteering corporate news monopolies FREQUENTLY do this--state Bushite assertions as fact, and fail to question their misuse of the basic premises of democratic government--that the government is functioning normally, and not like a criminal gang.
Something Gen. Taguba said, in his recent disclosures about Abu Ghraib in the New Yorker--should give us pause, and should--in an atmosphere of honest and truth-seeking journalism--give every journalist pause, and it is this: When Taguba was prevented from investigating higher ups in the torture scandal (including Rumsfeld), he said he felt like the Pentagon had become the mafia.
Now go back and read this sentence again: "Bush issued the directive in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a way of ensuring that the nation's secrets would not be mishandled, made public, or improperly declassified."
How do we know he was not in on the "Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks"? There is considerable evidence that he may have been.
If, at the very least, Bush capitalized on the "Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" to drag us into the unjust, illegal, heinous war on Iraq, to get control of that country's oil, and further capitalized on fear and terror to shred the U.S. Constitution, and seriously erode civil and human rights, and to militarize and Nazify our country, and to drive up a $10 trillion deficit to fill the pockets of war profiteers and the super-rich--all of which have become patently obvious--then the starting premise of the sentence is completely wrong: that anything Bush did "in response" to this terrorist incident should be presumed to be beneficial, or aimed at "keeping us safe," or bears any good or lawful intention claimed by Bush.
The assumption that Bush has done anything for the reason he says he did needs to be challenged. There is too much evidence to the contrary--that he is a congenital liar, and has ulterior and very destructive motives ALL OF THE TIME.
This practice of presuming straightforward or well-intentioned motives in Bush's actions is similar to the practice of the "he/she said" article, when it is reporting egregious lies or utterly absurd legal or political arguments by Bushites, as if they were a reasonable position, about which reasonable people can disagree. The science of evolution, and global warming, come to mind as obvious examples. Also, the absurd Bushite position that, "if the President does it, it is not illegal," or that the President is invested with legislative powers to write his own laws, by some outlandish Gonzo "doctrine" call "the unitary executive," or, recently the position of Bushite legal eagles that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, or that Patrick Fitzgerald did not have the authority to prosecute Libby. All these crazy, twisted, ridiculous arguments of a tiny minority of rightwing fanatics, are reported with a straight face, and, while they may add a quote by someone who "disagrees" ("critics of this argument say..."), they INVEST this nonsense with dignity and the aura of reasonableness by the WAY THEY REPORT IT.
I am not kidding when I say that we need to question EVERY WORD in war profiteering corporate news monopoly articles. The fascist views of their owners and their fatcat billionaire CEOs are often inserted in this sneaky way. Beware of it!
Here's a way to re-write their story in your head, that may help clear your mind--just substitute the phrase "the crime boss who claims to be president" for Bush, wherever Bush's name appears, thus: "The crime boss who claims to be president issued the directive in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a way of ensuring that the nation's secrets would not be mishandled, made public, or improperly declassified."
Doesn't that make more sense?
And you might then want to add words like "alleged," thus: "The crime boss who claims to be president issued the directive in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks ALLEGEDLY as a way of ensuring that the nation's secrets would not be mishandled, made public, or improperly declassified."
Doesn't that get closer to the truth?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
