Patriot Day 

The Rev. Ron Sala

Unitarian Universalist Society in Stamford

September 14, 2003 

 

 

I have a cartoon that shows a couple guys sitting at a bar. One of them is shown with eyes bugging out like a deer caught in the headlights. He’s shaking all over. A quick glance at his drink reveals the source of his fear. In front of him is a large mug that says “Orange Alert”—you know, one of those color-coded warnings the Homeland Security people are always changing. The guy next to him looks at the bartender and says, “On second thought, just give me a beer.”

How well that cartoon captures this time and this place! Recent polls reveal that Americans are more on edge this September 11^th anniversary than they were last year. Other measures of things that changed after September 11, 2001—religious participation, trust of government and media—have all gone back to previous levels, but the fear remains high.¹

We also continue to mourn. We remember all those whose lives were stolen that day, and all who gave their lives saving others. We remember the families and all those who volunteered their labor at the grim scenes of Lower Manhattan, including our fellow UUSIS members John Gagnon and Silvia Fernandez-Stein. Silvia constructed a very moving memorial in front of our building on Thursday at which many local people stopped to reflect.

We mourn those three thousand lost, and we fear for the future. Both of these are completely natural responses. And yet, in an age of endless media repetition, it’s important to our mental and spiritual health to regard the terrorist threat in a realistic way compared to other dangers. For instance, 5,000 Americans a year die after eating contaminated meat, in an era in which deregulation of the meat industry has led to a situation that must have Upton Sinclair spinning in his grave. Children are especially susceptible to such food poisoning.² Another example: 40,000 Americans die each year in auto collisions, yet people don’t seem particularly scared of this judging from the way too many of them drive.³ Almost 20,000 Americans are killed in a given year by fellow Americans—a record that dwarfs the homicide rate of other countries.⁴ And 65,000 Americans a year simply die from the health effects of breathing our polluted air.⁵ But when was the last time you heard a politician call for a “War on Air Pollution”? Don’t hold your breath….

I certainly don’t mean to take anything at all away from the victims of the September 11^th Attacks. I just want us to keep in mind that there are people dying all the time from causes that are often preventable that our society pays relatively little attention to.

Planet earth is a dangerous place. Always has been. We each need to take realistic measures to protect ourselves and others. But we mustn’t let fear dominate our lives.

The topic of my sermon today is Patriot Day, the new designation of September 11^th as a national holiday. I doubt I’m the only one here today who has had somewhat of an “interesting” relationship to this thing called “patriotism.” Let me tell you a little bit about my story. I was in kindergarten during the big bicentennial celebrations of 1976. We all dressed up in colonial costumes, including knee pants and three-cornered hats for us boys, and danced the minuet in the school assembly. I loved it. I had no greater hero than George Washington. I was into the president who was elected that year, too, even though I’d voted for Gerry Ford in the school mock election. When Jimmy Carter came on TV, I put on my baby blue business suit just to be in the right state of mind to hear The President of the United States of America! My Mennonite parents were dismayed my first grade year when I declared myself an atheist for a period of time after learning about the theory of evolution. My dad lamented that I didn’t believe in God but that I stood up proud and tall for the pledge of allegiance. Belief in the absolute goodness of the United States was stronger in me at that point than the religion I was raised in.

But, during high school, I got to know a man at church who would later become a pastor. He filled me in on some things our government was doing in Central America that weren’t very Christian, or even American in the sense that most average people understood that term. I began to look into things for myself and not believe everything I saw on TV. My new heroes were people who stood up to authority on behalf of truth and love, regardless of where they were from.

Let’s flash forward. September 11, 2001 brought in “a new era,” we’re often told. And in many ways it did. In those stunned months following the attacks, I had renewed hope in our government changing for the better. With such a dramatic, existentialist threat brought to our doorstep, I reasoned, surely government will change its priorities and practices. After all, we were all Americans from the president on down. I felt our unity in the candlelit vigils I attended and the American flags popping up everywhere.

Flash forward again to September 11, 2003. Thursday evening, I talked with a neighbor of mine. His brother worked in a building close to the Trade Center. His brother now has lymphoma. A number of his coworkers are wondering if it has anything to do with what was in the air following the attacks—and which one of them might be next.

My neighbor’s fear is compounded by the recent revelation that the White House directed the Environmental Protection Agency to lie regarding air quality in the days following the collapse, declaring it safe even though they had at that point done little or no testing.⁶

I realize that governments lie, and our government is no exception. All the same, lying about 9/11 seems beyond the pale. A moment that brought together not just the nation but the world in mourning. It seems sacrilegious.

I don’t preach partisan politics from this pulpit. I’ll never tell you who you should vote for. You’re all capable of choosing for yourselves. But I am called, as a minister, to speak to issues of public morality. The consciences of religious people should inform national debate. We are not just Unitarian Universalists, we’re Americans, and we must each be concerned for the future of this nation. Above all, we must be concerned with truth-telling, without which real debate is impossible.

Many presidents have lied about one thing or another, but I must say I’m dismayed at the apparent casualness with which this one does. The infamous “sixteen words” in Mr. Bush’s State of the Union about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger and other distortions of pre-war intelligence have gotten some play in our mainstream media, but not nearly as much as in Britain, where the government of Tony Blair is battling for its very survival. And yet, even those calculated untruths did not prepare me for the whopper Mr. Bush told in a news conference with Kofi Annan in July. Seeking to recast the purpose of the war now that an extensive post-war search has failed to reveal any weapons of mass destruction, Bush had this to say:

"The larger point is and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power ...” ⁷

Does something seem, uh, odd about that answer? Once again, Bush said, “And we gave him [that is, Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power ...”

I shouldn’t have to state the obvious that the UN did send weapons inspectors, who went around Iraq looking for banned weapons. They wanted more time, you’ll recall—time Mr. Bush was not willing to give.

What could prompt such a statement? Is he lying, thinking that we won’t remember events that filled the world’s TV screens only a few months ago? Or did he somehow forget the facts himself? Certainly not a question one wants to have to ask about “the leader of the free world.” Did you see this question covered in the news? Probably not. Media attention was muted to non-existent. One of the reporters who was there when he said it, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, co-authored an article which dealt with it this way:

"The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring:^* Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective."

Appeared to contradict? The statement was completely untrue! Either the president was lying (and badly “misunderestimating” our intelligence) or he’s has a bit of work to do on his current events lessons.

The fact that such a statement could go virtually without media challenge is only possible in an era in which the “mainstream” news is thoroughly domesticated by the half dozen major conglomerates that own most of our media and by an administration that punishes reporters for unfavorable coverage.

So, what happens when such a system is confronted with one of the most important murder cases in history? A murder case in which 3000 people, mostly Americans, but from over 90 countries from every corner of the world, disappeared one morning. Likely the most international act of mass murder in history.

The government was quick to call what had happened an act of war, rather than a crime. It demanded a military solution, not a police investigation, they said. But, when it comes right down to it, where is the line between crime and war? Certainly, not everyone who goes to war is a criminal. Many go to war either because they are concerned with defending their country or because they are sent, like it or not. But where is the line? I would imagine there are street gangs in this country larger and more lethally armed than a typical medieval army. And yet, we call what they do “crime” and not “war.”

At the same time, we all know that war contains many acts that can rightly be called crimes.

There’s a saying, “Kill one, and they call you a murderer; kill a million, and they call you a conqueror; kill them all, and they call you a god.” If anyone thinks that last part is a bit too strong, I would refer you to the Roman emperors, some of whom were worshiped as deities with burnt incense. Also, consider the late-but-not-great Adolph Schickelgruber of Austria, who under the name Adolph Hitler, found it wasn’t enough for him to run a large part of Europe via his cult of personality. He wanted every Jew dead, too.

To return to the question, I would suppose that the main difference between “crime” and “war” (at least before 9/11) is that crimes are committed by individuals, wars are waged between armed forces. Perhaps terrorism lies somewhere in between. But it had previously been handled as crime. After 9/11, that changed as the government fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under the banner of a War on Terror.

But what if 9/11 had been treated as a crime and not an act of war? Would we have been more concerned to ask, “Who did it? Why did they do it? And how did they do it?” if we had not been so quickly confronted with the question, “Where should we bomb?” The way things did happen, the FBI presented us with a complete list of the hijackers three days after the attacks, ⁸ which is a remarkable feat, considering the members of the administration repeatedly claimed to have no idea that planes could be used as weapons before September 11^th.⁹ Osama bin Laden was blamed within the first hours. So, apparently, was Saddam Hussein, according to retired General Wesley Clark, who said he received a call on September 11, 2001 from a member of the administration who asked for his help in pinning the attacks on Iraq. It does not seem that any other lead suspects were seriously considered.

But, surely, you say, “Whether it was called an act of crime or an act of war, it must have had the finest investigation money could buy.” Well, not exactly. In April, Joe Conason of The New York Observer wrote this about the 9/11 commission:

“For more than a year, the Bush White House resisted and sabotaged the work of the 9/11 commission, as it is more commonly known. Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have all warned members of Congress against an independent investigation, claiming that its work would interfere with the war on terrorism. When that argument crumbled, and Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman pushed a commission into existence, the President appointed Henry Kissinger, the dean of deception, as its chair. And ever since public outrage forced Mr. Kissinger to step aside last summer, the administration has sought to deprive the commission of the money needed to complete its mission.” ¹⁰

Conason goes on to point out that while the Whitewater investigation cost $30 million and the Space Shuttle investigation cost $50 million, the 9/11 commission the administration hadn’t wanted in the first place was only allocated $3 million. That’s from an administration that makes its war budget requests by the tens of billions!

Very, very, strange, hmmm?

But before we go any further with this line inquiry, it’s natural to ask, “Why should we ask disturbing questions?” After all, asking disturbing questions could result in any number of unpleasant things: increased anxiety, anger, unpopularity, marginalization, harassment, not to mention the time and effort. Why not just trust what the government tells us and be “patriotic Americans?” Well, first, what’s a “patriotic American.” Wouldn’t that mean someone who cares about our country and therefore wants to know, with as much accuracy as possible, what’s happening to her? Wouldn’t it not be a blind follower willing to see some facts while ignoring others? Wouldn’t a true patriot care about what contribution our country is making to the world, as our second reading this morning called us to do? I believe a serious reflection on these questions will show us that patriotism not only allows us, as lovers of this country, to ask difficult questions, it compels us! We must know the truth, for without that, intelligent action is impossible.

The Bible says, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” Twentieth century American writer Flannery O’Connor added her own twist to this verse. “You shall know the truth,” she said, “and the truth shall make you odd.^*

Which brings me to the subject of “conspiracy theories.” One of our greatest fears in asking questions those in power don’t want asked is that we will get stuck with the label, “conspiracy theorist.” Immediately images spring into our heads of pathetic individuals obsessed with proving some incredible story born of ignorance, paranoia, or bigotry. And we all know there are plenty of bad theories around—bad in the sense of ill-supported or not made in a spirit of true, open-minded inquiry. On the other hand, I think it was Marianne Moore, another great woman of American literature who said that about half of the poetry people write is bad, too. But we don’t abandon poetry. We don’t deny that it has something important to teach us about life and the world.

For instance, there was the baseless theory, more of a rumor, really, that spread in some Mid East countries, that all the Jewish workers at the World Trade Center had been warned not to go to work on 9/11. Al Jazeera has debunked and condemned this hollow fabrication.

But, in the larger sense, what’s a “conspiracy theory?” First off, the word “conspiracy” comes from Latin roots meaning “breathing together.” It does not need to be used with a negative connotation, though it usually is. I prefer a loose but easily understood definition: Conspiracy is simply “planning in secret.” By this definition, anyone who’s been involved with a surprise birthday party has been part of a conspiracy. You shared information with others but intentionally concealed it from the guest of honor.

The world being what it is, however, there are many conspiracies not so beneficent. To take another mundane example, every extramarital affair is a tiny conspiracy of two—though often other people are drawn in as well, for emotional support of the respective parties and enabling help. And if a significant percentage of the population is willing to enter a conspiracy that hurts a person they ostensibly care for, imagine what some people would do to total strangers if it served their purpose….

We’re taught by our society to ignore or disparage “conspiracy theories” and yet the news has brought us a constant stream for more than a hundred years. At the turn of the last century, we were told to fear an international anarchist conspiracy that would throw bombs at us. Then we were told to fear an international communist conspiracy that would give us socialized medicine and/or nuclear fallout. Then we were told to fear international drug conspiracies that would offer us officially disauthorized pharmaceuticals. And now, we’re presented with an international terrorist conspiracy that the government tells us has infiltrated the cities of the developed world but the way to destroy it is to take over large parts of the developing world, preferably parts that give the US more control over the world’s oil supply.

But if one starts asking whether conspiracies are not only tools of the enemies of the US government, but could, just possibly, be used by members of the government itself, either domestically or in dealings with foreign states, one is found to be “talking crazy” and dabbling in “conspiracy theories.”

World-renowned social critic and official unperson to the mainstream US media, Noam Chomsky, has an interesting spin on this dilemma when he says that when the government conspires, it’s not conspiracy but policy. Of course, if anyone could explain to me the difference between covert policy and official conspiracy, I would be amazed indeed!

This being said, a large number of questions remain unanswered about 9/11. (Or, at least, not adequately answered by mainstream media and government). Here are just a few:

Why were 28 pages blanked out of the recent 9/11 commission report? Do they deal, as so many commentators speculate, with the involvement of our supposed allies, the Saudi royal family?

Why were members of the bin Laden family picked up by order of the White House and flown out of the country before they could by questioned by the FBI about Osama?

How might it be relevant to the investigation that George W. Bush got started in business through an investment by the bin Laden family?

Why were fighter jets not scrambled within ten minutes, according to standard operating procedure for a hijacking, but instead took over half an hour? If it was incompetence, why was no one disciplined?

Why, if the government claim that a struggle between hijackers and passengers is what brought down Flight 93 in Pennsylvania is true, are there two debris fields six miles apart, consistent with a bomb or a military shoot-down? Why does the government deny the presence of military aircraft in the area when multiple eyewitnesses report seeing one?

Why did the Pakistani secret service, the ISI, transfer $100,000 to supposed Al Qaeda 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta shortly before the attacks and then send representatives to Washington to meet with US officials during the attacks?

Why did the administration seemingly ignore detailed warnings from several foreign intelligence agencies about a hijacked airplane attack to occur the week of September 9^th, 2001?

Why was Osama bin Laden reported to have been a patient at an American hospital in the Mid East where he is said to have met with the local CIA chief? Why was he reported to have received medical care in Pakistan, our purported ally, shortly before the attacks? 

What plans were in place prior to September 11^th for war in Afghanistan and Iraq and for sweeping legislation that would invalidate much of the Bill of Rights?

What did the president know, and when did he know it?

Such questions are dealt with extensively in such books as 9/11: The Big Lie by Thierry Meyssan and The War On Freedom by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. There’s also an excellent film called Aftermath: Unanswered Questions From 9/11. And there are no limit of websites that address these issues, like whatreallyhappened.com, 911pi.com, emperors-clothes.com. This last source contains perhaps the most convincing and best documented evidence of Bush’s foreknowledge of the attacks.

All these sources tend to rely on mainstream press accounts, academic experts, and government sources, just like the dominant media does. But they are committed to getting beneath the surface—as should we all. Don’t take my word for anything. Think for yourself. Research for yourself.

But before we research, let’s ask ourselves this question: Is it possible that high-ranking elements of a government, any government, might become involved in a state conspiracy, or if you will “covert policy” that brings death and destruction to its own citizens or might conceal facts that would distort the citizens’ view of the world? Let’s look at a few moments of history.

In the year 64, there was a great fire in Rome. Seventy percent of the city was destroyed, along with the loss of countless lives. Soon, rumors began to spread that the Emperor Nero had ordered the start of the fire and played his lyre as it burned. It was said that he wanted to rebuild the city in his own honor. Some credence was lent to the theory in that gangs of armed men claiming to be “under orders” roamed the city preventing anyone from fighting the fire. In order to deflect blame from himself, Nero blamed a small minority group in the city, known as Christians and began feeding them to lions and using their bodies as human torches.¹¹

Closer to our own time, near the turn of the last century, the American ship, the Maine, was blown up off Cuba. The far-flung but tottering Spanish Empire was immediately blamed and a media storm that would give its name to “yellow journalism” whipped the US public up for war. The fact that a panel investigating the incident reported that it could find no credible evidence of Spanish involvement would make no difference, and war was launched. In the 1970’s another investigation determined that the most likely cause of the tragedy was an accidental explosion of coal dust.¹²

The Lusitania was a great ocean liner in the early days of World War I before the US had entered. The British and American governments determined that they would use her to transport arms across the ocean. They, however, didn’t warn the passengers of any increased danger. The British Navy, under the command of Winston Churchill was aware every time a German U-boat was launched. As the Lusitania approached England, there were three U-boats in the area. But, for some reason, Churchill ordered the escort ship that was to bring her in to return to port. The liner, left alone, was, predictably, sunk, with the loss of 1,201 lives, and yet, American entry into the war, a goal of both governments, conveniently brought closer.¹³

In 1933, the German parliament, the Reichstag, was destroyed by fire. Though Hitler’s number two man, Hermann Goering was later accused at the Nuremberg trials of bragging about setting it himself, at the time it was blamed on Jews and Communists and used as an excuse for widespread repression.¹⁴

There is now overwhelming evidence that Franklin Roosevelt must have known in advance that Pearl Harbor would be attacked. The US was routinely intercepting Japanese transmissions including detailed information about the attacks.¹⁵

The Gulf of Tonkin incident that persuaded Congress to overwhelmingly support a resolution for military action against North Vietnam, has been shown to have been quite fake.¹⁶

Operation Northwoods, a proposed covert action from the Kennedy era, has come to light through the Freedom of Information Act. Supported by L.L. Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, it details various false or real terrorist acts could be performed by the US so it could blame Cuba and have justification for a war. Thankfully, John Kennedy declined the offer and that was one conspiracy that did not reach fruition.¹⁷

What all these events show is that powerful people will often go to great lengths, even murder, to put advance

We need to know history. Things are not always what they seem.

We are currently involved in a War on Terror that uses the tragedies of 9/11 like a mantra to justify military spending, mass deportation, infringements of civil liberties, cutbacks to domestic programs, and two invasions and counting. It’s a war Vice President Richard Cheney says will not end in our lifetimes.

These are times for tough questions, for real patriotism. These are times, to borrow from Tom Paine, that try men’s and women’s souls. These are times to look to the deep streams that sustain us individually and collectively.

And, we can do it. Together, we can do it!

^* Emphasis mine.

^* Emphasis mine.

¹ “Living in 'apocalyptic fear': 

Americans more scared than ever/Polls take pulse on anniversary” by TIM HARPER, Toronto Star, 9/11/03 (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=19aa564789e1e264&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1063231812753&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154).

² “MAKING CHILDREN SICK” by Jim Hightower, 11/12/2002 (http://www.jimhightower.com/air/read.asp?id=10961).

³ ASPIRA Parent News, July 2002 (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:6r2PxkMo4WMJ:www.aspira.org/NHSTA_Newsletters/JUly2002Parent.html+2002+%22united+states%22+%22automobile+fatalities%22+year&hl=en&ie=UTF-8).

⁴ “15 Leading Causes of Death in the U.S., 2001” (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html).

⁵ Ralph Nader, speech at Madison Square Garden, New York, NY, 10/13/00.

⁶ Long Island Newsday, 8/23/03.

⁷ “Bush's Nose is Growing; Nobody Cares” by Antonia Zerbisias, July 22, 2003, the Toronto Star (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0722-10.htm).

⁸ 9/11: The Big Lie by Thierry Meyssan (London: Carnot Publishing, 2002), 50.

⁹ “Six myths of 9/11: What you think you know about Sept. 11 but don’t” by David Plotz, MSNBC News, www.msnbc.com/news/963972.asp?0si=-#BODY (2003).

¹⁰ “Can Bush Handle Panel’s Questions?” by Joe Conason, The New York Observer, 4/7/03 (http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7179).

¹¹ “The Burning of Rome, 64 AD," EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (1999).

¹² Hyman G. Rickover, How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed (Washington: Dept. of the Navy, Naval History Division, 1976), 94–97, 104–106

¹³ “World War I,” Three World Wars, www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-1/ww1.htm.

¹⁴ “Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 9,” The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/03-18-46.htm.

¹⁵ “Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?: An Interview with Robert B. Stinnett” by Douglas Cirignano, The Independent Institute, www.independent.org/tii/news/020311Cirignano.html (2002).

¹⁶ “30-Year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War” by Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html (1994).

¹⁷ “Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense,” appendix to 9/11: The Big Lie by Thierry Meyssan (London: Carnot Publishing, 2002).