Democratic Underground  

Matter of Trust
January 23, 2002
by Whyzayker

Q: So you are saying, "trust us, it'll all be fine?"

MR. FLEISCHER: You are saying, "we don't trust you."

— White House Press Conference 11/1/01

This exchange has been playing over and over in my head since November. This was an exchange between the Press and White House Truth Avoider, Ari Fleischer over the deliberate hiding of the Reagan/Bush papers via "executive order" last November. Although Fleischer insisted that the order would bring about a more organized process of releasing information, everybody pretty much knew better.

The Reagan/Bush Sr. era - excuse me, error, was rife with corruption and questionable policies. Anybody who could think for themselves knew exactly why Bush Inc. was covering up recent history.

Ari's smug reply to Bill Plante's question back in November left me shaking my head. How could he possibly make such a statement? What was he thinking? Was he thinking?

You are saying, "we don't trust you."

This from a guy who speaks for an administration born of lies and deceit. An administration which exists only because the rights of voters a year ago were denied by Dubya's brother, his brother's Secretary of State and a scandalous Supreme Court. Fleischer's tenure with this illegal administration began with lying to the American people.

His ridiculous accusations of White House vandalism and the "trashing" of Air Force One by the Clinton folks became his first misstep. He was snagged right off the bat when he made the erroneous statement of how the American taxpayers had been cheated out of over $2000 to replace White House computer keyboards that had had the "W's" removed. The next day, the kind folks from Office Max released a statement showing that they had donated those keyboards. The issue mysteriously went away. Especially after investigations showed no "vandalism" took place in the White House or AF1.

Ari and Company had set the tone. They were going to distract the American public from realizing they had been cheated in 2000, no matter what. And the media was only too happy to help.

You are saying, "we don't trust you."

The events of the last year have spawned numerous speculations and accusations when it comes to the Bush II White House and they erupted passionately and, sometimes, irresponsibly in the days after September 11th. I've seen Democratic boards where people are accusing each other of being "conspiracy theorists" or, even more disgusting, "tin hat wearers." Four months ago, we were all on the same side. We had no problem attributing Third World political practices to Little Bush and Co. when it came to the theft of the presidency.

We knew he and Cheney were slaves to the energy companies. We knew they didn't give a rat's butt about working Americans. We knew this political toddler was going to wreck everything we as a party and a majority had worked for. We knew George the II was nothing more than an appointed "squatter" in the White House. We knew for a fact that a coup could happen in America. And it had.

Then came 9/11 and Sheriff Bush's "War on Terrorism" and the media informed us that, well, if Baby Bush wasn't president before he is now. Things were different now. Oh, really? Well, fine, after you swallow that one I have some Enron stock to sell you. Trust me, I'll give you a great price.

You are saying, "we don't trust you."

In the months since the attacks, information, which was available before September, has become topical on the Internet. Reports of U.S. knowledge concerning terrorist attacks of the type we suffered have been published by European and independent news web sites. There is information that proves we were going to Afghanistan with or without the WTC and the Pentagon attacks. There is information that Flight #93 was most likely shot down. The possible causes concerning the tragedy of Flight #587 are still unanswered, not to mention, out of the news. Then there are the tragic deaths of Ahmed Shah Massoud and John O'Neill.

There is little if anything on the mainstream media concerning the Caspian Coalition, Unocal Corporation or Haliburton in reference to the proposed oil pipeline through Afghanistan that's been in the planning stages for years. Basically, what it boils down to is, to put it simply, Bush Inc. threatened the Taliban government. They told them you can settle things down and let us build this thing or we're gonna make things very uncomfortable for you. Oh, I know there were many "incidentals" involved, but that was basically our stance. 9/11 just gave the Great Imposter an "excuse."

Ahmed Shah Massoud and John O'Neill had warned Bush II about the imminent danger of the kind of attacks we suffered in September. Both men were killed within days of each other. Both were men that could've appeared on CNN saying, "I told you so" in the aftermath of September 11th. Massoud was the former leader of the Northern Alliance who was murdered two days before 9/11 by two men posing as western journalists. O'Neill was a deputy director in the FBI assigned to the terrorist task force who ended up resigning because he felt his warnings of attacks fell on the deaf ears of Bush II Inc. He left the FBI and took a job with security at WTC.

Does this mean Bush intentionally allowed or helped cause the events of 9/11 to happen? Of course not. Does any of this pass the Dan Burton "smell test" so popular during the Clinton years? Of course not.

You are saying, "we don't trust you."

Conspiracy theories drive me up the wall. But there's a big difference between reaching for straws and connecting the dots and the history of obvious lies and manipulation of the media by this administration can make it difficult to tell the difference. Take Flight #93, which crashed on that day in September. Witnesses, including members of the Pennsylvania State Police, reported seeing everything from fighter planes in pursuit of a commercial airliner to pieces of flaming wreckage falling from the sky some 8 to 10 miles from the crash site.

Granted, it may be advantageous for Bush to have people think that brave passengers heroically overpowered the terrorists on that flight rather than know that we had shot it down. But with the FBI refusing to release the cockpit voice recorder findings can't help but make one think that we're being lied to - ..again. The FBI, god love 'em, feels it would be traumatic for the victims families to hear those recordings. That reasoning would be much more believable if it wasn't for the fact that it's the victim's families that want the recordings released.

In the case of Flight 587, which crashed, coincidentally the same day as the NORC Florida recount results were released, there are many eyewitnesses to the incident who have accused the NTSB of ignoring their accounts solely because they swear they witnessed two explosions before the tail piece sheared off. Maybe they're wrong. Maybe they're right but the NTSB wants no part of their accounts. Why not? And why was NTSB Chairwoman Marion Blakey so sure only mere hours after the crash that it was an accident instead of terrorism? Even before the recovery of the Flight Data Boxes?

You are saying, "we don't trust you."

How many unanswered questions are we supposed to accept? How is one supposed to avoid drifting into "Conspiracyland" when every time things look bad for Bush II something just seems to happen to take away the headlines? I mean, the original release date for the NORC recount results were the week of September 11th. Now, in the ominous awakening of Erongate, we have Ashcroft issuing the images of 5 more terrorists who are probably hiding in your garage. We have Rumsy sending troops to the Philippines because they can't find bin Laden and there's nothing left in Afghanistan to bomb anymore. And, in true Bush fashion, Little George is stealing headlines with his personal crusade against the evils of "not chewing your food" like Mom told you to.

In the aftermath of "PretzelGate" might I suggest that we transfer Tom Ridge from Homeland Security to Household Security? Maybe he might be more effective. And we're also expected to believe that, like his daddy during Iran/Contra, Little George is out of the loop when it comes to matters of Enron? Even though he started off by lying about his relationship with Ken Lay? Even though M.I.A. Dick was in close contact with Enron during the making of energy policies? I'm sorry but I don't believe Bush II anymore than I believed Bush I.

You are saying, "we don't trust you."

No, Ari, we don't. None of you made it easy from the word "go." Air Force One was never trashed nor was it ever a target but you said those things. Your boss said there were things we were never going to know and you're all doing your best to distract people so you don't get caught lying. The sordid pasts of so many in your little club make for fertile ground for many of us to get caught up in conspiracy theories. Some aren't too bad while some seem crazy.

But you know what? The more time that goes by and the more heated those press conferences become, the less crazy some people feel. As heartening as that may be, it's really sad as well. So much for "honesty and integrity" but, as I recall, most Americans didn't buy that lie either a little over a year ago.

Printer-friendly version
Tell a friend about this article Tell a friend about this article
Discuss this article
Democratic Underground Homepage