|
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.
|
