9/11 And The Left

[Wokeman]

9/11 Blogger
Saturday, February 24, 2007

Several prominent liberal writers are arguing that 9/11 is a distraction from the fight for liberal causes. Are they right?

Riddle Me This

Before I address that question, let me ask another one:

Q: What do Daniel Ellsberg, Howard Zinn, Medea Benjamin, Robert McChesney, Gore Vidal, Thom Hartmann, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Doris "Granny D" Haddock, Ray McGovern, Paul Hawken, David Cobb, Randy Hayes, Ernest Callenbach, Dennis Bernstein, Paul H. Ray, Michael Franti, Janeane Garafalo and Ed Asner all have in Common?

A: All of these leading liberal voices believe that 9/11 may have been an inside job.

See http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

http://www.interlinkbooks.com/BooksW/war_on_truth_text.html

and

http://911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=
News&file=article&sid=585&mo de=thread&order=0&thold=0

Moreover, Noam Chomsky is calling for the declassification of 9/11-related documents. And Former ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson is dissatisfied with the government's explanation for 9/11.

And Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy has said:

And, of course, the two questions that the Congress would not ask, because the Republicans won’t allow it, is, why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?

So before you go "representing" the liberal position on 9/11, take a look at what these prominent progressives have said.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Okay, now let's get down to substance.

The administration's false claims linking Iraq and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that, at the time, the Iraq-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.

Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close ranks in time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since 9/11, the American people have been terrified -- and thus irrational -- based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues -- including withdrawal from Iraq -- until "we get the bad guys".

Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th. And the government policy of torture would not have been tolerated if we weren't misled into thinking that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had formed an unholy, all-powerful alliance on 9/11, and had to be stopped at any costs. Thus, the Saddam-911 deception was necessarily a precursor to the administration's WMD lies and torture policies.

Iran

How about war with Iran? That's an important issue for liberals, isn't it? Well, Americans are still terrified about Arabs with weapons. Moreover, since Americans are still largely ignorant about the use of "false flag operations" by governments to justify wars, Americans will fall for a faked provocation. What am I talking about? Well, a former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation. Similarly, a current Republican Congressman has said "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran". And a member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

In other words, if 9/11 was, in fact, a false flag operation, and that fact is not exposed by the left, then that will enable the neoconservatives to use another faked terror incident in order to justify a war against Iran.

Thus, 9/11 is central for those interested in peace.

I Spy

The Bush administration is also using 9/11 as an excuse for domestic spying without warrant, and will use 9/11 as an excuse for every other unconstitutional, undemocratic, unAmerican destruction of civil liberties which it takes.

The Reality Based Community?

Liberals proudly proclaim the superiority of rationality over propaganda, blind passion and illogic. Right?

If you spend even 5 minutes looking at how completely the government investigations into 9/11 have failed to meet even basic tests of rationality, you will realize that liberals must demand a new, impartial investigation.

Other Liberal Causes

What about other traditional liberal causes? What about global warming? Women's rights? Gay rights? Helping the poor? Other liberal causes? Well, as a blogger from the University of Winnipeg in Canada says:

"[failing to fully address what really happened on 9/11] will only serve to undermine all they would otherwise hope to accomplish -- in terms of the environment and social equity -- and for one fundamental reason: ... it is the war on terror that is the primary "displacement activity" burying progressive causes, not 911 skepticism.

The war on terror is such a potent metanarrative that it is driving a host of policy decisions -- even in an otherwise progressive nation as Canada -- that are sucking resources away from human needs, ecological conservation, climate change prevention and adaptation, poverty alleviation and peacemaking. Until this metanarrative is dismantled and revealed for the lethal and cynical fraud it is and always has been, causes supported by progressives will never be properly addressed.

9/11 may not have changed everything, but until this controversy can be openly addressed in the media and through a more objective investigation, we may be unable to change anything."

Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after the Reichstag fire had occurred. As you might know, the Reichstag fire was the burning down of the German parliament building by Hitler's men, which was then blamed on the communists in order to justify wars against neighboring countries. Do you believe you could have stopped the government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by convincing people that Germans were a generous and good people who do not torture others? Do you think that you could have prevented the spread of disinformation about the hostile intentions and military capabilities of other countries by reminding Germans that war is bad and peace is good? Do you imagine you could have stopped the brownshirts and loss of domestic rights by writing about the desirability of civil liberties?

Of course not! The German people were whipped up into a state of hysteria and fear, because they thought they were under attack by communists, and Poles, and "bad guys" in general. The German's were in shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader. Without first exposing that the Reichstag fire and Operation Himmler - the two things which were the source and root cause of the German people's fears, and which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power -- the sweeping away of liberal causes by the wave of fear could not be stopped.

Similarly, Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist and Polish terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to their leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.

The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time. The German people could have been spared from the horrors inflicted on their nation and the world by the Nazis. And sanity and liberal values could have been saved in 1940's-era Germany.

As stated by a well-known liberal, George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[Stefan]

The fact is, although the majority of 9/11 Alternative View Campaigners are left wingers- this isn't a left wing movement.

The truth doesn't have a political bias.

Simple facts are simple facts whether you are left wing, centrist or right wing.

To be a left wing movement there has to be a particular agenda, a particular interperetation- this movement is about evidence and facts and above all that history should present events as they really happened and not allow politicians and the media to write their stories into the narrative.

I am a left winger and proud of it, but I do not consider this part of my life as part of my politics- it is a matter or morality, and morality outstrips all political bias.

"The Left" such as monibot and STWM, SWP, CND etc who publicly oppose us look at 9/11 in terms of whether it will bring them political currency or not, in other words they take a stance of a moral issue as one of self interest.

To call a spade a spade; they are immoral.

[Emmanuel]

I agree it would be great if we could get those who call themselves left wing on board however the term left wing and right wing are part of the same bird.
"When the right wing Freemason is finished, his left wing brother takes over"
- Yuri Lina (Architects of Deception)

This was also pointed out more eloquently by Michael Tsarion in
www.taroscopes.com

Or listen to Alex Jones' wonderful speech on "liberal, conservative -two sides of the same coin" from "Waking Life"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEf4uGKgeXU

[ian neal]

I know what you are saying Jacob with regards to the left/right paradigm

However I'm really pleased to see this issue was brought up and addressed so well by the original article.

Where Monbiot's article irritated me most was in his assumption that 'these conspiracy idiots' are some how separate from 'the movements some of us have spent years building'. I have spent my whole working life working in the same movements Mr Monbiot claims to have built. Not that it is some sort of contest, but my credentials in the peace, green, alter-globalisation / social justice movement are every bit as long and sincere as Mr Monbiot's but somewhere along the line I missed the point where Mr Monbiot was selected to speak on behalf of this movement.

Of course ultimately the reason why the (9/11) truth movement is potentially so potent and why is worries the likes of Mr Monbiot so much is because it transcends the traditional left/right political divisions and his cosy assumptions and can unite humanity against the fascists that run both 'sides' of the military-industrial-media-political complex.

What this does show is that the 9/11 truth movement does need to describe better why it is important to other social movements and show how we have common cause with others.

Where I see we have common ground with many on the 'left' is calling for

economic and social justice and a radical redistribution of power and wealth in the world
greater accountability and transparency of those in positions of power
environmental sanity
effective regulation of business and money

Where I see I have common ground with many on the 'right' is calling for

smaller government
lower taxes
resepct for the rule of law

Indeed if you were to take the party manifestos (any manifesto, since they are practically identical these days), there is much to agree with in there. The problem arises from the reality gap: the gap between our leaders fine words and reality. They are serial bullshitters and cowards and 9/11 exposes them to be such.

The trouble in my opinion with mainstream 'left'/progressive politics (as personaified by the leadership of the STWC or the make poverty history coaltion) is that its leaders are constantly concerned with not appearing 'too' radical, not rocking the boat too much for fear of loosing their position of power and authority or derailing their own gravy train.

Their analysis and proposed solutions are based on a set of assumptions that world is largely as they have been taught it is

But what if these assumptions are wrong. What if democracy was a sham? What if the mainstream media is routinely portrays a false worldview whilst maintaining the illusion of impartiality? What if important truths are deliberately hidden from the public, the knowing of which would change everything?

It's time the 'leaders' of the movement that Mr Monbiot (and others such as Chomsky) claim to represent were called to account. Who appointed you as leaders? On what authority do you claim to speak for others within progressive politics? On what grounds do you claim legitimacy?