|
5/12/05
9/11 fact seekers are chuckling privately amongst themselves this week about the media coverage of the wayward Cessna that violated D.C. airspace on Wednesday. It would appear that the event has provided a timely opportunity for the Bush administration to counter a rising tide of media and public criticism regarding serious flaws in our national security that have not been adequately addressed since 9/11. For many who follow the administration closely, these perfectly timed PR events are far too frequent to be viewed any longer as merely coincidence.
The plane left Smoketown, PA in the afternoon with a pilot and trainee on a straight line flight path heading directly over D.C. on their way to an air show in Luberton, NC. Every pilot in the North East knows you can't fly over D.C, especially a flight instructor. Before they entered restricted airspace, the military attempted to contact them, however their radio was 'not operating properly'. Later they shot flares at them to redirect their path, but that was also unsuccessful. So the jets were scrambled.
"Two F-16 fighter jets joined by a Blackhawk helicopter and a Citation jet from the Department of Homeland Security, confronted the private plane in time to shoot it down..." - L.A. Times, John Hendren, 5/11/05
Before it reached the Capitol, that is. The pilots later claimed to have been flying intentionally without navigation, and that they became lost, despite having been traveling in their intended direction upon interception. The story doesn't hold water. Sounds a little too much like the type of gross incompetence used as an excuse for the failures on 9/11.
The response of our military appears to have been swift and effective. Very much as it had been on many previous occasions. With one clear exception. The military was able to ground the plane in Maryland, but not before they had started a full evacuation of government buildings in the Capitol. Evidently the bunch haven't had too many terror drills, because some of our legislators panicked, and went running wildly through the streets. Most news stories of the event make it clear that we intercepted the plane before it became a real threat to the Capitol. Most also make it clear that there were four aircraft deployed to handle one Cessna. Personally, I figure the Blackhawk could handle the situation by itself, and probably should have. The jets fly too fast to make good visual contact, which is the first priority in such an interception. Instead we hear news stories of an overwhelming response, and successful application of safety procedures. So the pilots lied, the military response was dramatic, and the story comes right on the heels of several news stories in the past couple weeks about the inadequacy of our "Homeland" defenses. We might ask ourselves if this is all just a coincidence. And we might also think we have the most probable answer to that question. Lets consider what is likely a related example.
The capture of Saddam Hussein has turned out to be as much a hoax as the rescue of Jessica Lynch. Both were produced by a secret Hollywood production team working closely with administration PR firms. Its like watching 'reality' warfare. Every fact is manicured for our reception.
"Sergeant Nadim Abou Rabeh, who participated in the operation that netted Saddam, was quoted in the Saudi newspaper "Al-Medina" saying that the Iraqi leader was actually captured the day before and that "the public version of his capture was fabricated." The entire event was apparently choreographed by a Pentagon public relations team." - Counterpunch.org, Mike Whitney, 3/11/05
It turns out that he's not telling the whole story either. A few sources turned up suggesting that the Kurds had captured him, and that our military had taken him from the Kurds, and then taken credit by producing yet another 'dramatic re-enactment' of events. The Kurds were vocally pissed for a couple of weeks, but no one ran the stories, and they were intimidated by someone(?) to cease their kvetching. Says the author, "We only hear one side. And this administration not only gives us just one side, but makes it up as they go. They exercise a blatant disregard for the principle of public oversight that is the foundation of journalism. The media are used as tools for manipulation rather than education to the extent that stories are created or molded to fit the desired interpretation."
Back to the Cessna, and my interpretation of all this. A front-page NY Times article on 5/7/05 stated that, "After spending more than $4.5 billion on screening devices to monitor the nation's ports, borders, airports, mail and air, the federal government is moving to replace or alter much of the anti-terrorism equipment, concluding that it is ineffective, unreliable or too expensive to operate." So what the government has implied, in the interest of spending more money, is that we have not been safe for the past four years. That's some really bad PR for Homeland Security and the Bush administration. Five days later its Homeland Security Jet to the rescue. And scaring a few of those legislators who just voted a half-billion dollar cut in the Homeland Security budget couldn't hurt the cause. Low cost, few witnesses, and a big payoff. Bingo. Either way, hoax or not, the administration is definitely getting a couple of miles out of this one, but also giving the fact seekers something to chew on. The whole event dramatizes the incredible lack of response encountered by the 'hijacked' airplanes on 9/11. Thankfully, they rarely get to have their cake and eat it too. - R.C.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
