Is the Iraq War Part of the Cover-Up for 9/11?
UPDATED BELOW
This was the interesting idea of an acquaintance, who made the observation that the Vietnam war was very effective in distracting from the ugly reality of the Kennedy assassination.
Both the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 were effectively coups of the US government. The "powers that be" needed to shield the public from this reality at all costs, and in the case of both 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination, the horrible debacles of Vietnam and Iraq were an extremely useful distraction from these coups.
Yes, war is incredibly costly (though it is ordinary folks who have to pay the most). But think how much more costly it would be to the international monetary system if the US government ever had to admit what it did to Kennedy or what it did on 9/11/01.
I'm not saying that Iraq was set-up specifically as a distraction from 9/11-- there no doubt were a few different reasons for invading Iraq. But a cynical use of the chaos in Iraq is that it allows the media to focus on the politics of the Iraq war -- and avoid talking about 9/11 in any depth.
It is also clear that the media storyline, set by the powers-that-be, is that Iraq is getting worse and worse but we must stay there for now so things don't get even worse-- waiting for something magic to happen.
I'm not saying that things aren't horrible in Iraq, I'm sure things are very bad for many Iraqis and I don't mean to minimize the suffering of the Iraqis to any degree. But I am betting that the will media trumpet more and more how bad things are in Iraq, as time goes on.* This will have the effect of causing more anti-war protests, which will again push the idea of how bad Iraq is, without looking at the larger view of things-- how we never would have been in Iraq in the first place without 9/11.
And yes, this whole idea ties in very neatly with phony anti-war groups that ignore the fact that 9/11 was an inside job.
*Interestingly, to a large extent, this idea dovetails with the right-wing complaint that the media is exaggerating how bad Iraq is.
UPDATE, 11/30/06: Just to clarify my thoughts here-- by no means do I think Iraq was invaded to cover-up 9/11. However, I do think that protracting the war at this phase, with the ridiculous inability of the elites to call for withdrawal, very much helps to serve as a cover-up of 9/11. This whole phase of the war right now, with Iraq apparently degenerating and the US unable to do anything meaningful seems very much contrived. Part of it is Bush's psychology-- he does seem to think withdrawal is losing, but I think he's being brainwashed to a certain extent into this mode of thinking.
This was the interesting idea of an acquaintance, who made the observation that the Vietnam war was very effective in distracting from the ugly reality of the Kennedy assassination.
Both the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 were effectively coups of the US government. The "powers that be" needed to shield the public from this reality at all costs, and in the case of both 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination, the horrible debacles of Vietnam and Iraq were an extremely useful distraction from these coups.
Yes, war is incredibly costly (though it is ordinary folks who have to pay the most). But think how much more costly it would be to the international monetary system if the US government ever had to admit what it did to Kennedy or what it did on 9/11/01.
I'm not saying that Iraq was set-up specifically as a distraction from 9/11-- there no doubt were a few different reasons for invading Iraq. But a cynical use of the chaos in Iraq is that it allows the media to focus on the politics of the Iraq war -- and avoid talking about 9/11 in any depth.
It is also clear that the media storyline, set by the powers-that-be, is that Iraq is getting worse and worse but we must stay there for now so things don't get even worse-- waiting for something magic to happen.
I'm not saying that things aren't horrible in Iraq, I'm sure things are very bad for many Iraqis and I don't mean to minimize the suffering of the Iraqis to any degree. But I am betting that the will media trumpet more and more how bad things are in Iraq, as time goes on.* This will have the effect of causing more anti-war protests, which will again push the idea of how bad Iraq is, without looking at the larger view of things-- how we never would have been in Iraq in the first place without 9/11.
And yes, this whole idea ties in very neatly with phony anti-war groups that ignore the fact that 9/11 was an inside job.
*Interestingly, to a large extent, this idea dovetails with the right-wing complaint that the media is exaggerating how bad Iraq is.
UPDATE, 11/30/06: Just to clarify my thoughts here-- by no means do I think Iraq was invaded to cover-up 9/11. However, I do think that protracting the war at this phase, with the ridiculous inability of the elites to call for withdrawal, very much helps to serve as a cover-up of 9/11. This whole phase of the war right now, with Iraq apparently degenerating and the US unable to do anything meaningful seems very much contrived. Part of it is Bush's psychology-- he does seem to think withdrawal is losing, but I think he's being brainwashed to a certain extent into this mode of thinking.
posted by spooked at 11:14 AM
3 Comments:
Wow. They say there is a fine line between genius and insanity. Once again, you are on the genius side. :-)
Actually, since you recognize that diversion from 9/11 would be only one reason for Iraq, this is not at all crazy.
Another benefit for the perpetrators is that wartime makes dissent harder.
Interesting that CIA man Ray McGovern is writing about Cindy Sheehan:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern08202005.html
Sheehan does not talk about 9/11, and I think I read somewhere that this is at McGovern's counsel. I could see her not wanting to talk about 9/11, though, as she is crticized enough as it is. On the other had, why is she and she alone the voice of parents against the war? The Gold Star Families for Peace get almost no coverage in the mainstream press. I wonder if some of them might be questioning 9/11.
McGovern is LIHOP at best, and blames 9/11 on KSM's anger at Israel:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern07282004.html
McGovern also blames Iraq on Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_McGovern
I hope all this makes sense. You got me thinking about the anti-war movement, and it is interesting to find CIA man Ray McGovern involved in both.
he was trained to be a spook, it shouldn't surprise anyone if he still is, for the perps...
Agreed. It amazes me that people in the "truth movement" think McGovern is so wonderful. He was on a WBAI radio show in July and was asked about the FBI saying there was no evidence UBL did 9/11. His response? (1) Powell promised us evidence, but Iraq has diverted attention, and (2) we should have captured UBL, and the reason we haven't is that Pakistan doesn't want us to capture UBL because it will destablize their government. Total support for the official story.
Post a Comment
<< Home