Conspiracy Theories and Reality

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

I will admit to being the kind of person who is generally susceptible to conspiracy theories. My basic distrust of governments, my disdain for authority, and the ever present trail of breadcrumbs often predispose me to believe that a chain of events was not merely the result of happenstance. I must admit that, once again, I find myself leaning towards an acceptance of a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Yes…I know that there have been many attempts to debunk the prevailing opinion. I have seen “Loose Change”, as well as the arguments against it. I am aware of the “Popular Mechanics” analysis, as well as those of others who have questioned the premises of the “Loose Change” hypothesis. I know there are sill many questions, on both sides of the issue that have gone unanswered.

Two sources provide food for thought in the case of conspiracy allegations. An article by Sander Hicks, entitled “9/11: The Case Isn't Closed”, utilizes reasoning that is VERY persuasive. Even though he does NOT affirm the necessity of accepting each and every assertion made by the conspiracy theorists, he certainly DOES make the case that our government has been duplicitous, at the very least, in the events that transpired on September 11, 2001. One might suspect, perhaps, that this administration’s complicity extends much further than duplicity. The second source is the recent presentation I saw by former federal prosecutor Elizabeth De Las Vega. De Las Vega’s new book, “United States. v George W. Bush, et al”, certainly makes the case for the Bush administration’s perpetration of fraud. These two sources take alternative paths that lead us to the same conclusion, namely that events cast a shadow over the Bush Administration and it’s prosecution of the so called War on Terror and the war in Iraq.

Mr. Hicks’ article sheds light on pre 9/11 connections between the Bush Administration and a host of characters related to terrorists, proto terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. He enumerates many overt and covert connections and relationships, not the least which were those connecting Mohammed Atta with Pakistani funding under U.S. auspices. Able Danger, much discredited, was right on the money, according to Hicks and presumably had established Atta as an alleged terrorist in 2000. Both the CIA and the FBI were aware of this man. Perhaps even more noteworthy, according to Sander Hicks, was an unmistakable and marked relationship between U.S. officials and alleged terrorists and/or sponsors of terrorists. He first mentions Zbigniew Brzezinski and his involvement in Mujahadeen funding and then goes on to describe concerted efforts by the U.S. to foment jihad and jihadists…first in Afghanistan to undermine Soviet war efforts and subsequently with our arming of both Iran and Iraq in the 1980’s.

Sander Hicks then moves his focus to GW Bush, the neocon agenda, PNAC and the connections between the Bush family and Middle Eastern oil. These relationships have historic significance in addition to their contemporary interpretation. There have been business arrangements between Dubya and the Saudis…specifically with his Arbusto Energy andSaudi heavyweight Khalid bin Mahfouz. Mahfouz has been named as one of the largest financiers of jihad, including Bin Laden. Of course, we cannot forget that those Saudis who were in the U.S. at the time of 9/11 received a special dispensation when they were immediately and quietly flown home in planes under the U.S. aegis.

Elizabeth De Las Vega focuses her argument on the domestic connection between PNAC and the Bush Middle East agenda. She does not assert that there have been conspiracies regarding 9/11, but she does make a good case for proving that there has been a pattern of deceit. It might be contended that obfuscation and subterfuge lend credence to thoughts of conspiracy. According to De Las Vega, it is all too obvious that the Bush administration has set into motion those plans detailed in the Project for a New American Century. These consist of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, the securing of strategic oil reserves in Iraq and elsewhere, and an expansion of executive powers under a President who subscribes to PNAC doctrine. What is more…she makes it abundantly clear that the Bush Administration has knowingly and willingly subverted intelligence…so called cherry picking…in order to make a case for the war in Iraq, despite both CIA and DOF evidence to the contrary. The famous 16 words in the State of the Union speech regarding uranium and Niger comprised nothing less than an attempt to strike fear into the hearts of Americans. And, that has been a consistent theme with this administration…fight the enemy abroad, or we will have to fight them on our shores…stop Sadaam or the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud…Iraq is the main front in the war on terror, and this war defines the 21st century. Of course, they have made sure to expand executive powers, as outlined in PNAC, and justified that as a mandate set forth in the Constitution and further provided for by the War Powers Act. A pattern had definitely been set and scrupulously perpetuated.

Hicks and De Las Vega are just the two latest in a long line of authors who have penned writings that expose this administration for what it is; namely, the agenda as constructed by those signatories to the PNAC and carried out by Bush, Cheney, et al. Obviously, the Bush Administration is struggling in its attempts to win Americans over to the neocon agenda. Were it possible, I am sure they would like to see more press regarding conspiracy theories because they temporarily change our focus. In fact…I am sure they long for any event that will change the 24 hour news cycle, even if it is just for one cycle. Pressure is mounting; failures are multiplying, and time is running out on this administration. One must assume that Dubya is fighting desperately for a legacy that will not paint him as the worst president in U.S. history. The chances for salvaging his legacy appear dubious at best, impossible when viewed realistically.

trickster108