9/11 Playwright?

Complete Article ---> http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27722&hd=0&size=1&l=e

In researching the Bush administration’s manipulation of public perceptions,
I came across an interesting summary of the State Department’s Philip
Zelikow, who was Executive Director on the 9-11 Commission, that greatest of
all charades. According to Wikipedia:

"Prof. Zelikow’s area of academic expertise is the creation and
maintenance of, in his words, 'public myths’ or 'public presumptions’ which
he defines as 'beliefs (1) thought to be true ( although not necessarily
known with certainty) and (2) shared in common within the relevant political
community.’ In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special
interest in what he has called 'searing’ or 'molding’ events (that) take on
transcendent’ importance and therefore retain their power even as the
experiencing generation passes from the scene
.He has noted that 'a
history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the
actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make the connection
to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all."
("Thinking about Political History" Miller center Report, winter 1999, p

Isn’t that the same as saying there is neither history nor truth; that what
is really important is the manipulation of epochal events so they serve the
interests of society’s managers? Thus, it follows that if the government can
create their own "galvanizing events", then they can write history any way
they choose.

If that’s the case, then perhaps the entire war on terror is cut from whole
cloth; a garish public relations maneuver devoid of meaning.

Wikipedia helps to clarify this point by adding:

"In the Nov-Dec 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs he (Zelikow) co-authored
(with the former head of the CIA) an article entitled "Catastrophic
Terrorism" in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World
Trade Center had succeeded 'the resulting horror and chaos would have
exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism
would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of
life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s
fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949.
Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before
and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling
back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of
suspects and use of deadly force."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow )

That was written in 1998!?!

Amazing. It is almost like Zelikow knew what was going to happen on 9-11 and
was drawing attention to the "draconian measures" (scaling back civil
liberties) which may seem attractive to ruling elites in the policy

Now, (coincidentally) everything has evolved almost exactly as Zelikow
predicted. Just like Pearl Harbor, 9-11 has "divided our past and future
into a before and after". The post-9-11 world relates to a world in which
personal liberty is no longer protected, and where surveillance, detention
and the use of deadly force are all permitted. It is a world in which
"America’s fundamental sense of security" has been shattered and will
continue to be shattered as a way of managing public opinion.

As Zelikow presciently implies, the post 9-11 world depends entirely on
"public myths"; fairy tales invented by society’s supervisors which
perpetuate the illusion of democracy, freedom and the rule of law.


"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and
hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it
costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain

Foreign Affairs

Have a look at an article he co-authored in 1998 in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. It's about "catastrophic terrorism," and he invokes Pearl Harbor and talks about the first WTC bombing. He says a catastrophic terrorist event would divide American history into a before and after that event. Curiously prescient.

I also noticed that he sponsored an academic conference around that time, and one of the attendees was Judith Miller of the NYT, who, as you know, would later be one of the principal cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq.

Seems like everywhere one turns...

Oh, duh. I just realized you

Oh, duh. I just realized you posted the portion of the Foreign Affairs article I was referring to. Oops. I didn't "read the rest" of your post before posting my comment.