Trust

Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |

Trust has become a scarce commodity. In a world of spin, propoganda and disinformation, who do we believe? How do we sort out the wheat from the chaff? I wish that I could answer those questions, but it is at best difficult. Perhaps it comes down to selecting the most cogent story and asking who has what to gain from the story. The task of finding the truth (if such a thing exists) is aggravated by rhetorical claims and dogma. The bandied about accusations of "conspiracy theory," "unpatriotic," and "communist," greet even raising the question. But we live in a world of "spin" where the White House hires actors to sell the prescription drug plan, the Pentagon has an Office of Disinformation (renamed the Office of Strategic Plans), insiders become whistle-blowers and have their credibility attacked, the media selectively presents the "news" (as with Dean shouting in the microphone) and "embedded" reporters whose life depends on telling the "right" story.

The March 26,2004 edition of Foreign Policy in Focus has a good piece written Retired Colonel Daniel Smith - Secrecy: The Real Mother of Terror".:

Given other recent headlines, this one--and the accompanying story, which cites the spread of weapons of mass destruction as a close companion critical threat--begs an increasingly pertinent question about the core relationship between the people and their political leadership. The question and the relationship concern trust, trust that officials are interpreting data and trends properly and honestly reporting these to the public, who in a democracy are sovereign; trust that, given the prevailing conditions, appropriate precautions and plans are in hand; and trust that security procedures and processes are balanced by the strictest observance of and respect for the constitutional safeguards involving individual rights and protections.

Such considerations point to two levels of trust--between elected officials and the public and between sovereign nations--both of which seem to be fraying as the country moves further and further from September 11, 2001, and from the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Yes, it is important for people to trust their government, and for nations to trust each other. As we look around the world, we can indeed see that both are withering rapidly to the detriment of all. While neither of these are new things (at least globally), the current US regime has had dramatic negative impacts both fronts. In the drive to garner support for an invasion of Iraq, the US not only lied to the US public, but to the world. Some of us are cynical enough to not be surprised by that. What is a surprise - for me anyway - is how clumsy the backing of the lies are. Snith brings out two of these attempts to change the past for a purpose:

... "CIA chief George Tenet testified before the Senate Armed Services that his agency had never agreed with crucial pre-war “findings” about Iraq made by an ad hoc Pentagon “intelligence cell.” That organization reportedly told officials in Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's offices that an operational relationship existed between Iraq and al Qaeda, implying collaboration in the September 11 attacks on the U.S. and further implying future collaboration.

In response, senators noted that the July 18, 2003 publicly released portions of an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) cautioned that Iraq could employ its purported weapons of mass destruction against mainland U.S. targets, a judgment that Senator Carl Levin (MI) said was not in the classified version of the entire NIE. (The pertinent declassified NIE excerpt read: “Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks--more likely with biological than chemical agents--probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.”) This discrepancy was reinforced by an unclassified October 7, 2002, letter from Tenet to Senator Bob Graham (FL) that stated: “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States …. [But] Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”

Contrary to what one might expect in the release of classified documents -- namely sensitive portions blacked out -- these documents were actually changed. They were changed to enhance the perception of the immediate threat of Saddam Hussein and links to al Qaeda and therefore to the events of 9/11/01. Just because this became the public version of the truth, does not change the reality that was known by the principles at the time.

This is the insidiousness of the lies - one argues from the "public" version of the "facts." But even the "public version" of the facts has inconsistencies. One of these manipulations is brought up in The Daily Mislead of 3/26/04 - White House, 4/01: Focus on Bin Laden "A Mistake":

A previously forgotten report from April 2001 (four months before 9/11) shows that the Bush Administration officially declared it "a mistake" to focus "so much energy on Osama bin Laden." The report directly contradicts the White House's continued assertion that fighting terrorism was its "top priority" before the 9/11 attacks1.

Specifically, on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush Administration's release of the government's annual terrorism report contained a serious change: "there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden" as there had been in previous years. When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."2.

The move to downgrade the fight against Al Qaeda before 9/11 was not the only instance where the Administration ignored repeated warnings that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent3. Specifically, the Associated Press reported in 2002 that "President Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions"4. Meanwhile, Newsweek has reported that internal government documents show that the Bush Administration moved to "de-emphasize" counterterrorism prior to 9/11. When "FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents" to deal with the problem, "they got shot down" by the White House.

Certainly this is closer to Clarke's testimony then the White House story on the of where terrorism ranked in the range of issues.

However, the US is not alone in this technique of presenting an image. According to Al Jazeera (3/25/04), Israel 'fabricated' child-bomber story. Questions about the 14 year old alleged suicide bomber are linked to why the Israeli troops had requested TV cameras at the checkpoint, and to an earlier high profile case that was proven to be false. Why might the Israeli's use such a ploy? Perhaps to legitimate the killing of Palestinian children as possible suicide bombers. Perhaps to point to how "evil" the Palestinians are - they send their children to die.

The problem with lies, propaganda and spin goes beyond a simple issue of trust. Once the truth starts being twisted, then it becomes fertile ground for others to twist the truth. All the twisting spins out of control (where I think we are right now) where anyone can make a credible argument for almost any version of events. The doubt is there; credibility is lost; and we float in a sea of lies.

Which brings us to this week's 9/11 Commission public hearings and Richard Clarke. Clarke is hailed as a whistle-blower by some, an advertisiing hound, by others, and a vengeful unstable ex-employee by the White House. My guess is that Clarke, like O'Neill before him, are loyal politicos whose loyalty got stretched to the breaking point. That in itself says something about the current regime. However, what is telling (and raising questions in some areas) is "Is the Clarke story real?" Or perhaps, "What part of the Clarke story is real?"

I'm sure many will be upset by my raising this question, but even Clarke says that the White House controlled the timing of the release of his book "Against All Enemies." Clarke was no dove, he was for outright military action against Al Qaeda during the Clinton administration. This raises the credibility of his critique of the Bush Jr. Administration. My guess is that Clarke is a "partial truth teller," as is O'Neill. He is getting high marks on the left and among Dems for outing the Bush regime's lack of action around terrorism. His public testimony before the commission provided more insight into how the highest levels of government work, than "smoking guns" within the regime. In my opinion, that was perhaps the most valuable contribution. And as Cheney claimed, I would not be surprised that the kept Clarke (the anti-terrorism czar) "out of the loop" on many things. This administration has gained reknown for its insularity, isolation, and keeping important information to an insider group. I don't believe that Clarke was a "member." Does it make sense for the "czar" to be "out of the loop?" Of course not, which raises even larger conserns about the current regime.

What is clear, and brought up by the "widows of 9/11" as well, is that substantive questions are not being asked. They were not asked of Clarke, or of anyone else. Questions such as:
- How could the Pentagon have been hit by a plane that the military had an hour to prepare for?

- Why were the F16s scrambled and then recalled?

- Why did President Bush go on with his plans at Booker school when it was clear there were missing planes being used as weapons?

- Why did John Ashcroft quit flying commercially two months before 9/11/01?

- Why did CIA interview bin Laden in the summer of 2001 and not arrest him?

- What was the $43 million that Powell gave to the Taliban in the summer of 2001 for?

- What happened in the meetings between high ranking government officials and the head of Pakistan's ISI (CIA equivalent)? And, what about the $100,000 that he deposited to an account that was drawn on by the hijackers?

There are literally thousands of such questions, and I didn't hear one of them being asked.

So is the commission a sop as well? The Widows of 9/11 seem to think so. They do not believe that the truth will come out.

So we are back to it - the elusive truth - and the loss of it. The real question is how does it get rebuilt? I look to the recent events in Spain and the government releasing all documents on the investigation of the bombings there. As far as governments are concerned, it seems that transparency is key. However, the Bush administration is everything but transparent. Listening to Clarke, even with transparenccy the Machavellian twists of politics obscure much more than they reveal.

I agree with Daniel Smith that the loss of trust undermines our security. It also undermines our democracy and our lives.

Posted by rowan at March 27, 2004 08:01 AM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |