Responses to Ahmadinejad's UN Speech
By Bob Boldt
If I understand my friend Gideon Polya’s commentary, he has called for a “scientific” investigation of the allegation that the United States Government orchestrated the attacks on September 11, 2001. His argument is for a “Bush made it happen” conspiracy theory as the most probable cause of the devastation. The comment link to his essay is already filling up with 9/11 Truthers.
These poor people have no one to talk to that takes them seriously and are grateful for any site that will feed them the raw meat they thrive on. I can be partially blamed for this with my essay “Is a controlled demolition of the 9/11 Truth movement possible?” I shudder to think that MWC News may become another 9/11 Truth site. As a result of Gideon’s entry into this discussion of the Ahmadinejad’s speech before the UN on Thursday (9/23/10), we are returning to the old 9/11 demolition conspiracy theories instead of focusing upon what I think are the main issue: Obama’s systematic defaming of the Iranian President.
There is a consistent misrepresentation of nearly everything that Ahmadinejad has said—everything from his contention that Iran has no plans to develop a nuclear bomb to his misquoted assertion that Israel should be destroyed. I don’t think I have an unrealistic image of the man. Neither did I have one of Saddam Hussein. Both men have governed societies I would not care to live in. Yet, I feel Ahmadinejad, like his predecessor in Iraq, is being set up in a disturbingly similar way for yet another horrific war of aggression on our part. As if that weren’t bad enough, this conflict is sure to involve nuclear weapons. In service of this, there is an equally appalling massive, bipartisan propaganda campaign being waged against Iran, so that when Shock and Awe visits yet another hapless country, there will be less popular resistance in the US than there was against the Iraq War by George W. Bush.
The most disturbing thing about Ahmadinejad’s speech before the UN on Thursday was not his mention of the various conspiracy theories of 9/11, his denunciation of the US military actions against Muslim countries, his request for a UN free of the dominance of the Security Council’s veto power or even his articulate advocacy of a spiritual theocracy. The most disturbing thing was the immediate reaction by Ban Ki-moon, Barack Obama, and nearly every member of the mainstream media. His detractors, including the US delegates and others who stormed out, either had not bothered to listen to the speech beyond the mention of the words “9/11” or failed miserably to read with retention the transcript. Of course I’m being impertinent here.
The UN Secretary General and President Obama (or more likely their staffs) and the media digested the speech thoroughly. Their motivation was, as usual, to portray Ahmadinejad, in the mold of Saddam Hussein, as an evil, irrational, tyrannical despot who must be put out of his misery. The fact that both men had been under the false impression that their countries had proprietary rights to OUR oil, is, I suppose, to be regarded as a secondary consideration. Ban Ki-moon’s denunciations after the speech were understandable. In the final analysis, the Secretary General has to defer to the landlord, especially in matters where the US and Israel have decided there is no room for disagreement. The most discouraging and hypocritical comments were delivered by President Obama in a taped statement on Persian TV. He hoped to make his appeal directly to the Iranian people—shades of Bush’s appeals to the Iraqi people before Shock and Awe.
“It was offensive, it was hateful, and for him to make that statement here in Manhattan just a little north of Ground Zero where families lost their loved ones, people of all faith, all ethnicities perceive this as the seminal tragedy of this generation. For him to make a statement like that was inexcusable.” —Barack Obama
Unlike Obama’s little speech, there was nothing offensive or hateful in Ahmadinejad’s comments. I found the Iranian President’s entire address largely accurate and devoid of rancor. His comments, especially those that raised nearly universal headlines and howls of protest in the US press, were delivered quite dispassionately—even in places compassionately. At no time during the 9/11 portion of the speech did he allude to his personal opinion or make any charges. Please take a moment to read this excerpt and see if you agree.
“It was said that some three thousands people were killed on the II September for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.
In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.
1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack. This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.
2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.
3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents.”
These words had barely rebounded off the back walls of the General Assembly chamber than the headlines began blaring “Ahmadinejad blames US for 9/11!” I’m sorry to have to point out to the retardates that handle Presidential PR and type the teleprompter copy for the esteemed members of the Fourth Estate in this country, that Ahmadinejad said no such thing. The only statement that was not precisely factual was his assertion was that a majority of Americans and other nations agree on point #2. There have been a number of polls addressing people’s agreement with any of the three points Ahmadinejad addressed. I have not seen statistical evidence demonstrating that a Majority of Americans and other nations believe the US government orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 (point #2.) What nearly all polls have shown however that is a large number (in some cases a majority) of sampled groups in the US and abroad don’t buy the official version (point #1.) There is a detailed discussion of the various 9/11 polls (with attributions).
I am sure that the PR Sophists in Obama’s employ under Press Secretary, Gibbs’ direction, would hasten to add that, Ahmadinejad’s remarks were rhetorically disrespectful and hateful. In the final analysis, Obama’s over the top, inaccurate reaction to the speech bears out Hamlet’s observation, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Obama’s statement to the Iranian people fairly drips with insincerity, hypocrisy, contempt for their leader and a totally unfounded condemnation of Ahmadinejad’s alleged disrespect for the victims of 9/11.
Returning to Ahmadinejad’s speech:
“There remain, however, a few questions to be answered:
1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?
2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group? It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of the II September so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden.” – Mahmud Ahmadinejad
So, what has been almost universally characterized as the lunatic ravings of a madman turns out to be not irrational at all. (Does this sound uncomfortably familiar?) His only crime appears to be one of taste—of having the bad taste to make a truthful statement before the naked emperor. Obama should not be offended by Ahmadinejad, but should save his rage for Bush, Bush's present and past Republican supporters and their busy little band of liars, thieves and murders, many of whom presently fill the ranks of those calling for Obama's blood. Even the members of the committee who wrote the 9/11 Report has disavowed it as wholly inadequate and woefully incomplete. The 9/11 Report will never fly, because the main sources (some say, the chief suspects—Bush and Cheney) flatly refused to cooperate with the committee in any substantial way. The investigative conditions under which the 9/11 Committee members and staff were forced to operate failed to allow any convincing, conclusions outside of post-catastrophic forensic evidence gathered by site investigators independent of the Bush Administration.
“Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?”
This is what nearly everyone with his or her head above ground in this country continues to wonder. And our great-hope-for-change-guy, that I and my fellow progressives worked so hard to elect, has not the courage to even explore prosecutions of key members of the Bush Administration, even for their admitted crimes, let alone 9/11 that involves, at best, criminal negligence. This hypocritical cowardice on Obama’s part may explain why he is so touchy on the subject. The festering guilt of nearly all our “journalists” and corporate owners of “news” organizations (for the uncritical way they bought and promoted Bush’s lies about Iraq) is perhaps the reason for their frenzied raging against Ahmadinejad and his inopportune truth telling. This latest incident puts yet another nail in the credibility coffin of a failed president and our corporate lapdog media.