Bush is a goner, Part VI:
Five Questions
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | May 8, 2002
I often fantasize about having one hour alone with George W. Bush,
armchair to armchair as it were, so I might put five questions to him.
The questions change from week to week; this busy administration
hardly passes a day without saying or doing something that, twenty
years ago, would have obsessed the national media for weeks. It would
be nice to hear him speak on these things, to listen to the insider's
view.
After all, Bush is privy to virtually every decision made by Dick
Cheney. It stands to reason, therefore, that George would know better
than most what motivating factors move the White House. Cheney
would never deign to sit with me; power like that has no time for the
truth. Bush, on the other hand, could easily spare me an hour down in
Crawford. He's there all the time, inspecting the patch of desert he calls
a 'ranch.'
Below are the questions I'd ask if he called me down there tonight.
They'll probably change twice before Monday, but only if we're lucky.
1. What is the true nature of the Saudi Arabian
connection to 9/11, and why has this connection not been
a priority for Bush's State Department?
Just today, American Undersecretary of State John
Bolton gave a speech to the conservative think tankers at
the Heritage Foundation entitled, "Beyond the Axis of
Evil." In it, he leveled a military finger at Lybia, Syria and
Cuba, accusing them of pursuing development programs
for the creation of weapons of mass destruction.
In essence, Lybia, Syria and Cuba have joined the
long line of potential targets along with Iran, North Korea,
Iraq, Yemen, the Republic of Georgia, the Philippines, and
Colombia. For some of these nations, it is the suspicion
of the presence of the aforementioned weapons program
that draws the ire of the State Department. For others, it
is the shadowy accusation of fealty to the Al Qaida cause
that brings forth our attention. Afghanistan has already
been obliterated.
In all of this, there is scant mention of Saudi Arabia.
The vast majority of the September 11th hijackers called
Saudi Arabia home. Many Saudi Arabians fought with the
Taliban in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. One of
those was named Osama bin Laden. The Bin Laden
Group, a massive construction firm with deep business
ties to America that was created by bin Laden's father, is
based in Saudi Arabia. The extreme fundamentalist
Wahabbi sect of Islam is rooted in Saudi Arabia, and it is
from this movement that scores of would-be terrorists have
grown.
The silence surrounding Saudi Arabia has been huge.
How can we fail to pursue Saudi Arabia with the Bush
Doctrine guiding our way? Nations that sponsor terrorism,
or have terrorists operating freely within their borders, are
in grave danger of invasion and destruction. This Doctrine
was established in Afghanistan, and it appears many
other countries face a similar fate. Yet Saudi Arabia, a
veritable birthing bed for international terrorism, escapes
taint.
Is this silence due entirely to Saudi Arabia's supply of
oil? If so, please explain the details behind this necessity.
Thousands of Americans have died, and the world has
been plunged into war. If the prime suspect behind the
9/11 crime has been given a free pass, it is essential that
we understand exactly why. Names and numbers, please.
2. Why has the Bush administration not been the
loudest, most strident advocate for a far-reaching
investigation into 9/11?
On the eve of Bush's State of the Union address, it
was reported that he and Cheney issued a request to
Senate Majority Leader Daschle that many interpreted as
a veiled threat. Soft-pedal the 9/11 investigation, Bush and
Daschle said. Don't interfere.
In the time between, the Bush administration has
changed its tack somewhat, claiming to welcome an
investigation. Yet there is silence, and silence, and
silence on this front.
How can this administration fail to be the most ardent,
vociferous advocate for an investigation into September
11th? How is it possible that the glaring security
loopholes that allowed the attack to take place are not
publicly dunned in the vigorous fashion that is required?
These missed signals must be investigated and
deconstructed, so that the security gaps they slipped
through can be closed.
Why did the government's lead investigator into 9/11
quit?
What role did a planned natural gas pipeline through
the subcontinent play in 9/11? What role does it play in
the post-9/11 international relations situation?
The American people deserve to know exactly what
happened on that day, and why. "The attackers hated our
freedom and our way of life" is unconscionably insufficient.
As this happened on this administration's watch, how is it
they have failed to push relentlessly for answers that will
undoubtedly enhance our security?
3. What, precisely, is the legal basis for a war with
Iraq?
The resolution agreed to by Congress and the White
House on September 14th gave Bush wide latitude to "use
all and necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations or persons he determines planned,
authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks."
The resolution further allowed Bush to use military
action "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism
against the United States" by those who perpetrated the
September 11th attacks.
Iraq falls under neither heading. No proof whatsoever
has linked Saddam Hussein or his government to the 9/11
terrorists. No proof exists that he intends to help any
entity or nation to perpetrate future attacks. The state of
his weapons program exists in a state of innuendo, as
there have been no inspectors over there for some time.
Why do we threaten Iraq with war while leaving Saudi
Arabia unmolested and unthreatened? Which aspect of
the Bush Doctrine applies to this apparent
double-standard?
Speaking tactically, how do military threats levied
against Syria, Jordan, Iran, Lybia and Yemen strengthen
our fighting capabilities in the region surrounding Iraq?
We'll need those countries to keep their powder dry, as
they did during the Gulf War, to avoid a region-wide
conflagration. Moreover, we'll need neighboring allies
(Saudi Arabia again) unmiffed enough to allow us to base
troops and fighters for jump-offs towards Baghdad.
It looks as though we are cruising towards a conflict
with Iraq that has little to do with the September 14th
resolution, and in the process we seem to be alienating
and infuriating other nations in that region in a manner that
will make a war with Iraq far more dangerous and
destabilizing. Please explain the wisdom of these
policies.
4. Where is the anthrax killer?
There is not much to add after the initial query. There's
a killer with deadly poison in hand wandering free in this
country. The evidence points directly to home-grown
terrorism. What is the status of this investigation, and how
is it that such a dangerous killer has escaped detention?
5. What role did America play in the recent failed coup
in Venezuela?
When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was ousted
from office in a coup perpetrated by Venezuelan military
officers and businessmen early in April, the Bush
administration fell over itself in a rush to welcome the new
government into the family of nations. Never mind that
Chavez won two popular elections in that democratic
nation. As administration officials admitted, winning an
election does not necessarily convey legitimacy.
The collapse of the coup and the reinstatement of
Chavez left a large wad of egg on the face of the Bush
White House. As the story behind the failed coup has
begun to coalesce, several prominent American officials
have been named by the foreign media, and by Chavez
himself, as having had a hand in the overthrow. Among
them are:
Eliot Abrams, member of the White House National
Security Council, once convicted for lying to Congress
about the Reagan administration's role in the Iran/Contra
scandal, is reported to have given American approval for
the coup;
Otto Reich, senior White House policy advisor on Latin
America, once the American ambassador to Venezuela
under Reagan, met several times with Pedro Carmona,
the erstwhile coup leader ousted after 24 hours of rule.
Reich, after the coup began, gathered the Latin American
ambassadors to him and stated bluntly that democracy
had not been violated in Venezuela, and that America
would support Carmona;
John Negroponte, American ambassador to the United
Nations, former ambassador to Honduras under Reagan
who held that post during the worst atrocities of the
Iran/Contra affair, was reportedly warned of the coup as
early as last January;
Lt. Colonel James Rodgers, assistant military attaché
to Venezuela, who was spotted with the coup plotters
right up to the moment the plot unfolded.
What is the truth behind all of this? Where are
America's hands, and are they as dirty as they seem? As
Venezuela leads OPEC, and is a major petroleum source
for the United States, are we dealing with yet another
foreign policy fiasco based upon oil? How can the Bush
administration condone the overthrow of a
democratically-elected government?
So...those are the questions for today. I will have more tomorrow.
Hopefully, someone in the mainstream press with access to Bush will
read these and choose to ask them, tape recorder in hand. I'm still
waiting for my call from Crawford.
William Rivers Pitt is freelance writer and a regular contributor to t r
u t h o u t. You can visit Will at : www.willpitt.com
Print This Story E-mail This Story
© : t r u t h o u t 2002
| t r u t h o u t | forum | issues | editorial | letters | donate | contact |
| voting rights | environment | budget | children | politics | indigenous survival | energy |
| defense | health | economy | human rights | labor | trade | women | reform | global |
truthout.org
truthout.org |
