THE LAST FIG LEAF:
BUSH’S FAKE ANTITERRORIST PROPAGANDA
Many of the reasons the Bush administration gave for the invasion of
Iraq have long been discredited. But the last and final lynchpin, the
raison d’etre, so to speak, for not only the Iraq mission, but also the
entire homeland security agenda, is finally dissolving before our very
This is all due to a watershed article in the September/October issue
of Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal of the foreign policy
establishment. Written by John Mueller, an author and professor of
political science at Ohio State University, it takes the seemingly
radical position that the basis upon which the current administration
has crafted its “War on Terrorism” is no more than a chimera.
In “Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?: The Myth of the Omnipresent
Enemy,” Mueller asks why there have been no terrorist incidents in the
United States during the past several years since 9/11. “One reasonable
explanation,” Mueller says, “is that almost no terrorists exist in the
United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from
“A fully credible explanation for the fact that the United States has
suffered no terrorist attacks since 9/11,” Mueller continues,” is that
the threat posed by homegrown or imported terrorists . . . has been
Of course, Mueller is not the first to recognize that there is little
substance to the so-called terrorist threat. But revelations such as
these have until now been restricted to the alternative press,
off-the-beaten-track web sites or far-left-of-center radio programming.
I have to number my own web site (www.petersnewyork.com) among these.
In late February of this year, in reaction to the prosecution of
increasing numbers of Moslems on terrorism charges, I wrote:“There are
few terrorists outside of those created by the American government, so
to show that they are ‘doing their job,’ the prosecutors need to create
more. These government stooges would have been better off pursuing
careers at Disney Studios where their fertile imaginations would have
been deployed more productively, or less destructively, as the case may
be.. Not, mind you, that they could get a real job anywhere outside the
The other day, I was at a coffee bar in Old Greenwich, Connecticut, and
a distraught woman sat near me at the counter. I was introduced to her
by the barista, and she then unburdened herself about how distraught
she had become after hearing that there were plots to bring down
several airliners using liquid explosives sneaked onto airplanes in
carry-on baggage. I quickly calmed her down and explained that it was
all a sham, that there was no real terrorist threat, and that the
entire affair was staged by the government. She thanked me, wondered
why she had not thought of that herself, and went on her way a much
As another example of simmering discontent relating to the so-called
"War on Terror, I would like to cite a column I came across on a recent
visit to the Philippines.
“Many of us do not trust the government,” writes Ms. Johnna
Gillaviray-Giolagon in the October 4, 2006 edition of the Manila Times.
“We are relentlessly suspicious that the government will cheat and lie
to us. We are convinced it will name anyone a terrorist–the jihadist,
the communist, the secessionist, the activist, the military
adventurist, the manicurist, the receptionist–so long as it suits
government’s end. That’s why it’s doubly hard to protect us from the
terrorist threat. We often see some in government as terrorists
None of the above-cited examples are meant to upstage Mueller’s
remarkable article, but just to say that to many, his conclusions are
old news. His work is important, however, because he has deep roots
within the foreign policy establishment.
The government has been perpetrating this fraud for decades. Those of
us who are watchers of the way government has conducted its foreign
policy, from Bush I through Clinton down to Bush II, are not surprised.
The demonization of Osama bin Laden and his enlistment as the poster
child for terrorist activity, for example, occurred at least as far
back as the mid to late 1990s. In the mid 1990s, the jailing of the
blind Islamic cleric, Omar Abdul Rahman, supposedly for plotting to
blow up New York City landmarks, was laughable and fraudulent on its
face. As criminals often return to the scene of the crime, the
prosecutors of Rahmah did the same by charging Rahman's attorney, Lynne
Stewart, with conspiracy to aid terrorism, a bogus case indeed. But
with the 2001 destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center
in New York, government fakery took on a more ominous tone.
Mueller clearly laments some of the developments since 9-11.
“In addition to massive eavesdropping and detention programs, every
year some 30,000 ‘national security letters’ are issued without
judicial review, forcing businesses and other institutions to disclose
confidential information about their customers without telling anyone
they have done so. That process has generated thousands of leads that,
when pursued, have led nowhere.”
Mueller then touches upon the government’s massive interrogation and
detention of Arabs and Muslims in this country since 9/11. “This
activity, notes the Georgetown University law professor David Cole, has
not resulted in a single conviction for a terrorist crime.”
It was all made up folks. Sorry to say. You were duped, at least most
of you were. But were your senators and congressmen and women duped?
How can they be that stupid?
Mueller concludes his riveting analysis on a rather dismal note.
“Although it remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests
that fears of the omnipresent terrorist....may have been overblown, the
threat presented within the United States greatly exaggerated. The
massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11
may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and
taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely
Expensive indeed! In fact, in a letter to U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton in December of 2005, I recommended that "Homeland security and
all items of legislation added in reaction to the tragedy of 9-11
should be repealed. Let me make this clear. Additional layers of
bureaucracy are not a solution to bungling and irresponsibility."
Is it an accident that Mueller’s article gained top placement in a
journal that prides itself as being at the forefront of public foreign
policy discourse? Such may well be an
indication that Foreign Affairs editor James F. Hoge had substantial
for its contents within the tight-knit foreign policy community he
answers to. What is
likely is that a substantial segment of the foreign policy community
has finally committed itself to derailing the Bush Administration’s
reckless campaign of war and pillage against the distressed nations of
the Middle East.
There is more to be gleaned from this masterpiece. First of all, if we
admit the truth of Mueller’s contention, one must say that the entire
justification for Bush’s foreign and domestic policy relating to
terrorism falls apart. We must then ask, what are the real reasons for
mounting this fake “War on Terror”? Two come to mind. 1. Configure a
Middle East that is friendly to the interests of those who are calling
the shots on U.S. foreign policy. 2. Create a domestic program that
would give the government the power and ability to squash any
opposition to that program.
One more important point ought to be made, one Mueller seems unwilling
to draw but that is a natural one. In the absence of a terrorist
threat, how is one to suppose that 9-11 itself belongs to this
category? Mueller’s contention would appear to lend indirect support
the contention that the World Trade Center attacks were perpetrated,
not by Islamic radicals, but by persons intimately linked to the
defense and intelligence establishments. Perhaps his work will become a
seed to crystalize a new investigation that will unmask the actual
perpetrators of that fateful day.
POSTED 10/23/2006 by Peter Duveen