A Bogus New 9-11

[Carvill John]

Whether this makes much of a splash in the mainstream media naturally
depends on how events unfold, particularly with regard to when/if the
arrested suspects are charged. There is understandable scepticism of course.

We've had the invasion of Iraq which confirmed everyone's worst fears by
settling beyond doubt (reasonable or otherwise) the question 'can we trust
the Government?', then the shooting and posthumous smearing of Jean Charles
de Menezes, Forest Gate, etc. And these are only the really high profile 
cases.

I didn't get the paper today, so had a quick look on the Guardian website 
but the first relevant story I saw had was this:

Iraq war not linked to terror plot, says Clinton

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1851255,00.html

At a glance, this seems to be the same shit they were peddling on Sunday, 
only this time with Bill on board for extra gravitas and a dash of Hollywood 
glamour. One of the more disturbing aspects of all this is press complicity, 
and it's sad to see the Guardian playing such a role. Of course they do 
still publish plenty of articles which dissent from the Govt line but their 
overall slant is unwaveringly pro-Blair.

Oddly, so far there seems to be more scepticism about the latest plot/scare 
in the US than in the UK but that may well change. Maybe the most startling 
allegation made in Craig Murray's article is that many of the arrested don't 
have passports, so the obvious question is how were they planning to get on 
planes in 'the next few days'?

Murray himself could maybe pass for a character out of a scene from V. - the 
former Ambassador to Uzbekistan, centre of a controversy involving political 
intrigue, imperialism, etc. who found his career
inploding, and suffred a possible poisoning attack, when he chose to make 
waves. His former employers have been a pains to paint him not as a 
principled whistleblower, but an alcoholic, compulsively womanising crank.

In the recent (richly detailed, and entertaining) Guardian review of 
Murray's book 'Murder in Samarkand I enjoyed this telling passage:

"One of a new unstuffy breed in the Foreign Office, from Dundee University 
rather than Oxford, he says he protested at being told to wear a grey 
tailcoat and topper for a duty call on the royals before departure. He was 
informed the dress code was sternly insisted on by the Palace, since an
ambassador had recently committed the solecism of arriving in a linen suit.

"Good God! A linen suit?" writes Murray cockily. "No wonder we lost the 
Empire!""

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1842445,00.html


On the other hand, even if you start from the assumption that Murray was 
right to speak out, as someone said 'mud sticks' and it's not hard for the 
Govt to undermine someone's credibility. Also, there are some curious 
aspects, notably the gaps in Murray's awareness of the current world
political scene at the time. The review makes clear that he didn't know how 
closely in step Blair was with Bush (say what?), and even "that he did not 
realise his unhappy marriage and penchant for long-legged pole-dancers were 
capable of blowing up in his face."

Interesting times....

Cheers
JC