What Did Bush Know, When?

Prevalent Question: What did Bush know and when did he know it regardingpossible terrorism threats preceding 9/11--and what did Bush do in light of his knowledge?

Absent Question 1: What did Bush know and when did he know it regarding the likely effectsof bombing Afghanistan after 9/11--and why did Bush go ahead and bomb in light of his knowledge?

Absent Question 2: What did Bush know and when did he know it regarding the impact of theIraq Embargo--and why does Bush persist with the embargo in light of his knowledge?

Absent Question 3: What did Bush know and when did he know it regarding the impact of hisglobalization policies, his arms shipments and production, his repressive civil legislation, his economic andcultural policies, his UN vetoes and ecological isolationism, and so on and so forth--and why does Bushpersist with these policies in light of his knowledge?

Supposing we had the means to answer the question about Bush's foreknowledge of 9/11, it would at mostreveal that U.S. intelligence services lack competence. But these are the U.S. same intelligence agencies thatcan't find the perpetrator of the recent anthrax attacks, even though the anthrax came from Fort Detrick,Maryland, and even though, given the skills required, the number of possible culprits is a handful.

Of course these agencies lack competence. Moreover, what good does demonstrating the incompetence of U.S.intelligence agencies do peace and justice? Should bolstering surveillance budget allotments be a newprogressive program plank?

In contrast to the difficulty of knowing Bush's foreknowledge of terrorist tactics, it's easy to know whatBush knew and when he knew it about bombing Afghanistan, about the Kyoto Accords, about Mideast policy, aboutimplications of embargoes on Iraq and Cuba, about globalization, and so on. And knowing this would revealimportant truths profoundly relevant to peace and justice concerns.

So why is any leftist caught up in the hypocritical democratic party and media maven hoopla? When TV newsallots massive time to a story vaguely correlated to progressive concerns, must we immediately hop on board?

The irony is that the question "what did Bush know before 9/11?" may be the only "what didhe know" question that Bush can answer without revealing a grotesque value system.

Bush can say, for example, "I knew that our intelligence services reported numerous threats, just asthey have reported at all other times. I did not, in response, shut down transportation and communicationbecause if I did, the next day I would have heard ten times as many threats, and thereafter I would have hadto permanently shut down all communications and transportation, if I accepted that approach."

This is also the answer Democrats would give, were Democrats in the White House for the event. And it isthe answer the media mavens would give, were the media not concerned to put some brakes on the Bushjuggernaut.

Okay, if the government knew that planes might soon be flown into the sides of skyscrapers, theninstructions to pilots and even to passengers should have been different, sure. And maybe some politicians aresincerely concerned to correct these failings--it's possible. But none of that makes expanding CIA spending aleftist agenda.

Hold on. The media want to restrain the Bush juggernaut?

Yes, the Bushite maniacs in Washington have sufficiently worried sectors of our ruling elites so thatelements of the media have begun seeking self-serving ways to slow down the madness. Why don't the media justcall it immoral, call it imperial, call it warmongering, repressive, vile? They don't do that because theylike those features, and they don't want to draw attention to them, much less ridicule them.

They worry that the Bush approach has gone a little over the top--but not that it is immoral or imperial.They want to curb the excesses, but they don't want to point the populace toward system-defying insights.

Not surprisingly, therefore, democrats and media commentators ask what Bush knew regarding 9/11, ratherthan asking how markets, private ownership relations, and government bureaucracy compel horrible outcomesregardless of what Bush or anyone else knows.

The left should not climb aboard as a barely audible echo to a crescendo of hypocrisy.

The left should direct public attention back on the plight of Palestinians, on the Iraq embargo andimpending invasion of Iraq, on the enlarging war in Colombia, and on the horrors of globalization, racism,sexism, and wage slavery.

(Znet)