News and Document archive source
copyrighted material disclaimer at bottom of page
NewsMine — deceptions — assassinations — paul-wellstone — Viewing Item |
M word From: "Stephen Brown"
To: "Alliance"
Subject: [alliance] WELLSTONE & THE "M-WORD" THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 14:37:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundaryM--->extPart_000_0291_01C27DC6.4F6AEF80"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Subscribe:
List-Owner:
X-URL:
X-List-Host:
Reply-To: "Stephen Brown"
X-Message-Id: <029401c27df0$387c79e0$c1c26c42@nyc.rr.com>
Sender: bounce-alliance-400@lists.freespeechnow.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------>extPart_000_0291_01C27DC6.4F6AEF80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset‰so-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear All: --
I do not claim to have any special information about the death of Paul Wellstone. So when I ask the following question, it is only a question. Which is:
How come I haven't seen any speculations, at least in left-progressive media, about Paul Wellstone's death not being an accident, but outright murder -- a political assassination engineered by a right-wing cabal?
The radical left has never been shy about accusing right-wing interests of far bigger crimes, with far fewer reasons. And by "right-wing interests" I do not mean gun-nuts, racist loonies, or "Black Helicopter" crazies. Wellstone was not "cliché-large" enough to inspire that kind of attention. He was a leader, but not a "Leader. "
On the other hand, he was plenty large enough to inspire that kind of attention from those who (really) run this country. He was, after all, the only senator to vote against George Bush's war resolution. Which made him a dangerous vote and a dangerous inspiration to others who might follow his example by flouting our Commander-in-Chief and going Soft on Terrorism.
Also, as a Democratic vote in an evenly split Senate, he was a barrier to complete Republican control of Congress. If some other Democratic senator had suddenly "disappeared," he/she might well be replaced by another Democratic senator, doing nothing to upset the Senate balance. But Wellstone was in a close race. Probably no one but him could have been expected to win against his well-financed opponent -- except, perhaps, as happened with Ashcroft's last unsuccessful run for Congress, Wellstone's wife, as a shoo-in "sympathy appointment" by the governor, except that she, too, had (coincidentally?) perished in the very same plane crash.
How far-fetched are such speculations?
We know that our government leaders and/or high officials, had no qualms about assassinating Patrice Lumumba (coincidentally by arranging to sabotage his plane);or arranging for the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam by his own generals in 1963; or encouraging and probably paying for the assassination of General Contreras in Chile and, soon after, of President Salvador Allende; or attempting to murder outright Muammar Khadaffi of Libya in a midnight sneak attack that failed but killed his infant daughter; or trying to assassinate Fidel Castro more times than he has hairs in his beard, and so on.
And didn't our government willingly offer -- and then promptly provide -- the Indonesian government with the names and locations of hundreds of thousands of "communists" so that they could be rounded up and shot, as indeed nearly 500,000 were? Or encourage, support, arm, train, finance and otherwise abet any number of dictators and tyrants who committed murder and assassination in our name and for our purposes -- so long as we continued to arm, train and finance them?
This is murder by proxy, or murder by abetment, both of which are capital crimes (unless committed by Lyndon Johnson, Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush or Bill Clinton).
You might pose the objection that We don't murder "our own" -- that the above-named were all "foreigners." Very true -- except that they weren't killed because they were foreigners. they were killed because they were guilty of the century's greatest crime: Blocking America's Path, as it was understood by (or revealed to) whoever held high office at the time.
Therefore, if it were not nationality, but rather how much of a "danger" one was to America, that determined whether you were "eligible" to be murdered or assassinated -- what would happen if one of our own citizens was adjudged to be "dangerous" to America (or to America's right to do whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted, to whomever it wanted)? In that case, it wouldn't be a crime -- but an act of High Patriotism, a mitzvah, as it were -- to remove such a dangerous person from the scene.
As JFK (bless him) always thought, and might have said: "Ask not in what country a murder victim may live, ask only what his murder may do for your country."
And indeed, as memos and telegrams now reveal, Franklin Roosevelt made it quite clear in his own words that he was quite willing to lose one or two ships and sacrifice (murder?) a few hundred U.S. sailors at Pearl Harbor if that's what it took to Wake Up America and get it into the war against Germany and Japan. (Of course, he rather miscalculated the power and damage of the Japanese response to his series of deliberate provocations, since he obviously never planned on losing 3/4 of our Pacific fleet, which actually put the U.S. in real danger of losing the war.)
But those were earlier, more innocent times. From the late 19th century to the mid-20th century, our leaders (only) practiced a type of "controlled" murder. Either they killed abroad, by assassinating foreign leaders, or encouraging those leaders to kill their own people. Or, if our leaders actually found it necessary to murder some of our own citizens, they (only) did it "from the top down" -- that is, "higher" officials, like presidents or cabinet officials, sacrificed (murdered) "lower" level persons, such as sailors or citizens, in order to manufacture an incident sufficient to goad the general populace into accepting, or even demanding, war. As, for example, when the Maine mysteriously blew up in Havana Harbor, killing (murdering) hundreds of U.S. sailors, and finally provoking the public (after years of unsuccessful war-mongering by our ruling elite) into welcoming a war against Spain in order to "liberate" Cuba.
Or as in the sinking of the Lusitania (under different but equally odd circumstances, which new scholarship indicates may actually have been engineered by then-Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill) to drag us into declaring war on the Hated Bosch .
Or as in the fraudulent Tonkin Gulf incident fabricated by Lyndon Johnson to win approval of his Congressional blank check for war against North Vietnam, which uncannily mirrors the blank check just obtained by George Bush, under the no less questionable circumstances set in motion by the World Trade Tower attack, in which evidence suggests he or his administration may have been at least as complicit (vide Dennis Bernstein, Michael Parenti, Mike Ruppert, Ralph Schoenman, et al) as Franklin Roosevelt was in the attack on Pearl Harbor, and at least as wrong in the pre-event calculation of possible damage to life and property.
You may also recall that, in a recently publicized memo, circa 1957, from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (was it Radford?), he suggested that one of our crack underwater teams blow up a U.S. merchant ship in New York Harbor (incidentally killing a few dozen sailors) and blame it on the Cubans, thus giving us a pretext to declare war on them. (The plan was finally shelved, not for moral reasons but for issues of practicality.)
As the century progressed, however, we saw a slippage in the unofficial taboo on how "high" a personage was eligible to be assassinated in order to Protect America (from foreign enemies or from itself). From the 60's on, virtually anyone had become fair game -- church leaders, senators, even presidents. So -- bye-bye John F Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King. And now -- why not Paul Wellstone?
Why not indeed?
Our leaders thought it was OK to sentence 500,000 Iraqi children to death by disease and starvation to fulfill The National Purpose ("We think the price was worth it," our government proclaimed as it ventriloquated through the loose lips of its spokeswoman Jeanne Kirkpatrick.)? Why then would our ruling elite balk at bumping off a single measly and uncooperative (and probably treasonous) senator?
If they felt that The Soul of America Was at Stake -- mightn't they order it done? Or at least inspire it, suggest it, or subtly make their "wishes" known to underlings the way Nixon made his wishes known to Attorney General John Mitchell, who dutifully sent the plumbers to the Watergate, or the way Ronald Reagan made his wishes known to Ollie North, who dutifully armed the Contras with money from Iranian arms sales?
Can't you visualize people like Ashcroft, Rumsford, and Cheyney feeling it was virtually their patriotic duty to Do Something -- saying that they don't see why we need to stand by and watch Congress slip from Republican control into defeatism and treason because of the irresponsibility of one of our own senators?
Do those last words ring a bell?
Remember Henry Kissinger's 1970 statement, leaked from a supposedly closed session of the National Security Council, in which he proclaimed that
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people"?
It seems Kissinger's people in the CIA knew exactly what he meant, and proceeded to arrange for the assassination of Contreras and Allende shortly thereafter. Is it a big leap from Kissinger's statement to similar musings on the part of our Vice President, or Secretary of Defense, or Attorney General, one of whom might very well conclude that:
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch Congress slip from Republican control into defeatism and treason because of the irresponsibility of one of our own senators."
Would not underlings in the CIA or FBI or even the Mafia understand those words quite well, and perhaps have made a phone call last Wednesday to a compliant mechanic at a snowy little airport in Minnesota ... ?
As in any murder investigation, the first question is always, Qui bono -- Who benefits? And then one works backwards. We already know who will benefit (big time!) from the death of Paul Wellstone. So we don't have to work very far backwards to find them. Therefore how come (and I hate to use this term, because it is derogatory, and I don't mean to be) -- how come our conspiracy theorists aren't all over this?
Maybe they're still smarting from the sticks and stones thrown at them, from the left as well as the right, because of their 9/11 speculations. Once burnt, twice shy? I hope not. It would be a real shame.
Steve Brown
Stephen M. Brown
sbrown13@nyc.rr.com
Stephen M. Brown
sbrown13@nyc.rr.com
|
| Files Listed: 19 |
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information,
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
