Hope the fence doesn't snap on me!
Published on May 5, 2004 By O G San In International
I find I have an ingrained deference to authority. It's a terible thing for a leftie to admit but, generally, I do what I'm told. If a man in a uniform tells me to do something, I do it. I may seethe at the injustice of the order but years of experience have taught me that following that order is the path of least resistance. So if someone with a cap and a badge says: "Get off the grass!", I will get off the grass. Not everyone is like me, some people are naturally rebellious. Instead of meekly moving over to the path they demand: "Why can't I walk on the grass?" Good for them, but it's just not me.

This deference extends to political leaders. When I hear a senior politician talking, there's a part of me which really, really wants to believe what they're saying. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, to believe that they actually believe in something more than themselves.

So when Tony Blair goes all "lip-quivering", as Michael Howard would say, about the great mission of democratisation in Iraq, there's a part of me, the deferent part, which wants to believe him. Part of me wants to believe that Blair acts from higher and nobler motives, that he wants to give democracy to Iraqis rather than take their oil. After all, Tony Blair is an authority figure. Thankfully, there's another part of me, a bigger part of me, which knows that Blair is as disingenuous as they come. This is the part of me that enjoys politics, that reads about politics, that gets angry. This is the part of me which tells my deferent part to get a grip.

Still, it can sometimes be a close run thing. The British Prime Minister is a master at manipulating emotions. The lip quivers, the eyes moisten and the voice cracks; it's quite a performance. All of this conveys the message that "hey, you know" he really cares about X and you should too. You can tell he used to be a lawyer.

However, Blair's best buddy across the Atlantic presents me with no such complications. It's one thing to be seduced by some slick ex-lawyer's shtick. It's quite another to be taken in by the words of a man who struggles to construct sentences properly. In spite of my natural deference, I've never found Bush's protestations of acting in good faith the least bit convincing. Not once have I felt that he was motivated by anything other than malign intent. I've never found him to be a convincing liar.

So when it comes to conspiracy theories about September 11th, you're pushing at an open door in my mind. There are so many allegations out there: that the administration knew of the attacks and did nothing, that they covered up the truth behind the attacks to placate the Saudis, even that they carried out the attacks.

I really want to believe these theories. I want to believe that Bush looked the other way because he needed a "Pearl Harbor" to build support for his grandiose imperilist aims. But, as things stand, I don't believe this. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Nothing I've seen so far has convinced me that the Bush administration had some hand in the attacks. The conspiracy theories are just that - theories - not tested and not proven.

But I will say this. The behaviour of Rice, Bush and Cheney towards the commission investigating the attacks are hardly the actions of people who have nothing to hide. There are lots of unanswered questions about 9-11. Why were US fighter jets so slow to scramble? Why were several Saudi citizens evacuated from the US immediately after the attacks? Most of all, why is the US media ignoring these and other questions about 9-11?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions but I do know that I would like to live by the maxim "question everything", in spite of my inclination to deference. So I don't believe every conspiracy theory I read on the net but neither do I believe the spin from the White House press machine.




Comments
No one has commented on this article. Be the first!