by Philip Greenspan
(Swans - January 30, 2006) With rare exceptions I am vehemently rebuked whenever I state that FDR enticed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. From the numerous responses I've received over time I imagine that even an elderly, well educated, rock-ribbed anti-war protester, who served prison time and paid fines for defying the government, and who vividly recalls the events of WWII, will criticize my perverse statement. He will refuse to examine the declassified documents and other evidence in Day of Deceit, a well researched book that led me, and I'm sure would lead any objective, reasonable, and open-minded person, to that distressing conclusion.
Why is there such resistance? Are most Americans so brainwashed and gullible that they have closed their minds to certain deplorable and heretical thoughts? Like images of their leaders -- a president no less -- deliberately allowing an enemy to attack the country and kill its citizens!
Yet, the public has learned over the years that their leaders are duplicitous, corrupt, and dishonest. Currently the public is getting a bellyful of lies, lies, and more lies from Dubya and his gang. And they are just the latest episode of mendacity in the nation's capital. Bush's predecessor was impeached for lying. And who can forget old "I'm not a crook" Tricky Dick. Papa Bush lost an election because he reneged on his most significant -- "read my lips" -- promise. Ronnie Reagan's term featured the infamous Iran-Contra scandal. The Pentagon Papers exposed the Tonkin Gulf fraud perpetrated by Lyndon and his crew. Let's not forget corruption in the legislative branch. The Abramoff scandal should reel in a big catch of notable figures from both political parties. Most of the payoffs, deemed political contributions, are so open and responsive to the quid pro quo that they are now considered business as usual. Earlier administrations -- Grant's, Harding's -- were permeated with corruptions and scandals. All those supposedly fine, upstanding, and honorable gentlemen were really a bunch of lowlifes.
In spite of all that past dirty linen, the public refuses to believe that any one of those bums might be implicated in a scandal that capitalized on the violent death of American citizens! Yet every decision for war means that an untold number of young, strong, and healthy men and women will be killed or maimed. And those presidents are oh-so-eager for war that they'll conspire for a war? Was there ever a US Congress that voted down a request for war?
Roosevelt was anxious to get the U.S. into WWII and knew the public was overwhelmingly opposed. The casualties at Pearl Harbor were a pittance compared to the ultimate toll for the U.S. in the entire war -- 2,403 to 418,500 killed -- a small price to pay to swing the public into line.
A similar situation, another Pearl Harbor, occurred on September 11, 2001. It accomplished for the Bush war hawks what Pearl Harbor did for FDR. One year earlier, in September 2000, they issued a report: "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century." It specified the changes required of the military for its anticipated future operations. One sentence stood out: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
Of course, this statement and the 9/11 attack could, if one believes the generally accepted interpretation of events, just be a coincidence. That coincidence, however, is only one of many coincidences that occurred at that time. All came about, so it seems, through the gross incompetence on the part of an administration that benefited enormously as a result.
What a bonanza it was! Their continually falling approval ratings shot up into the stratosphere; the plans, spelled out in that report, could now be implemented; Congressional opposition disappeared; and they grabbed near-dictatorial powers.
For the multi-billion dollar intelligence services to be taken by surprise, for so many unusual and concurrent events to occur during the attack, for material evidence to be discarded so quickly, for such inadequate inquiries to be held, was unprecedented and should have forced an immediate and thorough investigation.
Several books and films have delved into the possibility that the administration was complicit. David Ray Griffin, the author The New Pearl Harbor, one of the best, lists thirty-eight anomalies that have never been explained. He cites other authors who advance additional arguments that should be considered. A film, 911 in Plane Site, has video footage of the planes striking the twin towers and of the damages caused to the twin towers and the Pentagon. Slow motion and close-up shots raise doubts about the accepted version of those events.
A timely, intensive, and objective investigation was never in the cards. The initial joint US Senate-House intelligence committee's inquiry presumed, as did subsequent ones, that 9/11 was essentially an intelligence failure. However, that limited inquiry did produce enough damaging evidence to compel the creation of an independent investigation commission.
That commission was hamstrung from the start. Knowing how opposed Mr. Bush was to an inquiry -- throwing in every possible roadblock to derail it -- what sort of results could one expect? The composition of government commissions consists of establishment figures who, honest though they may be, will never ever find felonious conduct amongst top government officials. A fair, competent, and thorough inquiry was thwarted by several obstacles. Conflicts of interest existed amongst members of the committee. The committee was granted inadequate funding and allotted time. Its mandate was so limited that many relevant and significant areas were outside its purview, and thus remained unexplored. Damaging testimonies of whistle blowers were barred.
Griffin wrote another book after thoroughly analyzing the Committee's supposed accomplishments. The book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, lists over one hundred omissions and distortions, which he considers lies, used to justify the generally accepted version, which is actually the establishment and major media version.
Why has the public, with so many incredulous circumstances surrounding that new Pearl Harbor, the 9/11 attack, been acquiescent for over four years? Why hasn't there been a hue and cry for a REAL inquiry as to why the system failed? An inquiry with all the stops pulled and all suspicious acts explored?
Did their initial concerns for the victims and their anger at the hijackers divert such thoughts? Did the then rapidly unfolding events override prior concerns? Do they now unequivocally buy the commission report?
Their passive response seems to indicate that they have been so brainwashed they'd accept a dictatorial warmonger leader, even another Hitler! Impossible? Not if that Hitler is compared to the petty tyrants that the US government has labeled with that moniker over the years. This US president could give them a run for their dirty money.
Activists need sustenance too. If you find our work valuable, please considerfinancially.