This is an essay i recently wrote for english class, not anything too fancy but I'd appreciate your thoughts/criticisms.
I thought this was suited to general conspiracies forum, but by all means move it if required.
also, this is my first thread, go easy on me.
September 11th, 2001. A date that lives forever in the psyche of the western world, primarily as the date that the threat of terrorism became all too
real, but also as the day that American government changed forever. The purpose of this essay is to inform the reader as to the implications of the
measures sought by government post-911 and the reasons cited to explain them. Many people believe that the US government had no way to properly
respond to these attacks and little in the way of preventative measures. These assumptions lead people to believe that decisions taken afterwards were
in their best interests, and were not only justified but needed. I do not believe this to be the case and I offer my arguments to support the claim
that not only did the Bush administration over-zealously legislate in the aftermath of the incident, but continued to propagate ideals in rhetoric
that they were simultaneously denying in action.
If the bush administration learned anything from 9/11, it was the importance of homeland security; the importance of protecting your nations
infrastructure, population and ideals from agents of adverse influence. And who wouldn’t agree? If your country is under attack, then any course of
action to avoid further conflict is justified; right? Well the Bush administration seem to believe so, many people – including myself to a point –
will agree so. What is not justified however is over-reacting to a situation so badly that it surrenders the very ideals that the conflict is
supposedly being waged over. George bush himself stated after 9/11 that “Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend
freedom”. This taking place days before the implementation of the patriot act, a severely unconstitutional piece of legislation that allows searches
through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s permission or knowledge as just one of its provisions. Even the
United States Joint Army Colleges states that the act “invades our nation’s civil liberties”, “goes too far in its reach”, “includes
unnecessary provisions” and is “another example of legislative overcompensation, enacted in a time of crisis”. In fact, if the Patriot act had
been enacted during Apartheid, U.S. citizens would not have been able to support the African National Congress, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation
– a non-profit organization dedicated to defending freedom in a digital age - believe the ANC would have been classed as a terrorist organization.
On the face of it, it would appear that George bush had underestimated the scale of the problem and had to take away some liberties temporarily in aid
of the ‘war on terror’ (as I’m sure people keen to defend his actions would retort), but as another quote of his showcases this is not the case;
“You can't put democracy and freedom back into a box.” This clearly indicates an individual saying one thing and doing another, and that is never
a good thing as the citizens of the Third Reich in Germany will tell you after a certain Adolf Hitler diminished civil liberties in the name of –
coincidentally – ‘defence of the homeland’.
At this point it seems the over-compensation to 9/11 had been counter-productive to the aims set out by the Administration. But this conclusion is
based upon the assumption that the aims set out by the administration were their actual aims or the full extent of their aims, and not justifications
for political opportunism. Their apparent attitude is remarkably similar in nature to a quote by President Obama’s chief of staff “You don't ever
want a crisis to go to waste; it's an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” Critics would defend the Bush
Administration’s actions by citing their decisions as ‘reactionary’ and at the time understandable due to the enormous pressure caused by the
disaster; although this is inherently inaccurate. It is inaccurate – at the very least entirely implausible – because of a large number of George
Bush’s Administration being made up of members of an organisation named ‘The Project for a New American Century’ which published a report in
September 2000 named ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences’. This report stated clearly that the intention was for the military to go through a
“process of transformation” that could take an excessive amount of time, unless there was an “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new
Pearl Harbour”. To clarify, I am not saying that the Bush administration was aware but unwilling to effectively handle the situation, but that they
had the capacity to over-play elements of the crisis so as to forward agenda’s that were not in the citizens interest, but were in their own
Critics of my last point will say that a military problem requires a military solution and that it is natural for the armed forces to respond to
changing threats by adapting their approach. This would also naturally mean re-adjusting the forces. But then why would the Bush Administration
respond with conventional warfare with Iraq and Afghanistan as countries – which have probably done more to stir the pot of Islamic extremism than
anything – rather than, say... a counter-insurgency program whereby the US works with these countries to counter radicalisation within their own
borders? This surely would have done more for the US’s public image in the east and would cost a fraction of the $1.121 Trillion that the
Congressional Research Service reports has been spent on the conflicts.
In conclusion, the Bush Administration showed a desire to hijack genuine tragedy in the advancement of political goals that were to the detriment to
the American people; also the act of advocating an ideal whilst making speeches and at the same time legislating against the very same ideal. On a
final note, the real tragedy of 9/11 was the seizure of the event for political gain; but sadly in the words of the man himself "I'll be long gone
before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008.