September 11, the Morning After Pill, and Our State Department
by Benjamin Roberts, 2006

Five years ago, this past Monday, was no ordinary day. It still settles on me, you, and everyone else in America, like a pall of volcanic ash. For me it was late in the day at the beginning of my evening shift. I usually am not out and about much before its time to head for work, and usually do not park myself in front of my TV to listen to types like CNN sly-mongoose-looking Wolf Blitzer in some so called "Situation Room" selling me crap and misinformation that they call "news." As such I was unaware of what date it was and began my work as usual, part of which entails dating the testing materials I work with. Immediately, as I processed my first case and wrote "9/11" on the materials, it hit me like a sledgehammer that it was September 11, and a cloud of sadness, gloom, and melancholy descended all around me. Just like five years ago, it was a most unpleasant and distasteful experience.

But take heart. There is a morning after pill that we got to take to dispel some of this gloom. You see, the next morning was election day, when most of us got to head to our polling stations and elect the officials that we thought was best suited to represent us. For those voters who reinstalled the representatives they feel are doing a good job of staying the course and keeping them secure from danger, it was a good morning after. And for those who installed representatives who they feel think we are less secure and need to tack the ship and change course, it was also a good morning after. Someone has to win. Hopefully it was the majority of a thoughtful and well informed America. Which brings me right back to the Wolf Blitzers and his types. Types like Bill O"Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Katie Couric. These people tell us they are sharing "news" and " exclusives" with us. They also are fond of describing their work as "shaping public opinion." Beware America. The Chinese government refers to the same thing as being sent to "reeducation camps." A more common term for this phenomenon is "brainwashing." I will be convinced that these people are "newsmen" when they can grab a camera crew, go into the Jenin Palestinian refugee camp, and come back and share with me an "exclusive" of what the Israeli army really did when they went into that camp with tanks and bulldozers at the beginning of this intifada. But I am not alone in my desire. Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General, was so concerned at the time that he attempted to send an official investigative panel into the camp. Unfortunately, he was barred in his attempt. So I am in good company in that both Mr. Annan and I would welcome their "exclusive." Enough said.

Now onto our State Department. But what does our State Department have to do with September 11? The term State Department conjures up an image of an agency that is an extension of its government, with its functions having primarily to do with diplomacy, diplomatic missions, and stabilizing and facilitating relations with other nations. The United States State Department, as it exists today, is far removed from this image. The hostility, rhetoric, and threats that have been flowing from State for some time now makes it eligible to be renamed the State Department of Offense. The term "offense" is appropriate because at times they seem to rival and surpass our war making bodies of the Pentagon and Department of Defense. Let"s take former Undersecretary of State, Richard Armitage. The latest news flash is that Armitage was the one who leaked the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame to journalist Robert Novak, in what has been dubbed the "Plamegate" case. This is quite disturbing when we ponder that throwing this woman to the wolves was geared to neutralizing her husband, Joe Wilson, and his findings that there was no justification for war in Iraq. Now is it not odd that a top ranked State Department official such as Armitage, by his actions, aided and abetted an unwarranted war? One would think the likely suspect in this scenario to be possibly from war making agencies like the Department of Defense or the Pentagon, rather than from a diplomatic agency like State. What is startling about this revelation of Armitage as the person who dropped the dime on Valerie Plame is that both she and her husband Wilson had to have worked closely under the auspices of the State Department. He as a long time diplomat, and she as an agent who most assuredly used State Department assets such as embassy and mission postings to hide her undercover espionage work. This is certainly how Armitage knew who she was. Now one would suspect that Armitage would protect his own, in Plame and Wilson. Can it be that in the Bush Administration the mission of State Department has been so drastically changed from diplomacy to war that a senior official like Armitage would think nothing of exposing his own to secure a war.

But even prior to this Armitage, and other senior officials at State, have been sounding more like war hawks than diplomatic doves. When it was found that North Korea was well on its way in the production of nuclear weapons, it was Armitage who came out and informed the American media and the world that America had something on the order of thirty-five B-52 and B-1 bombers at the ready to launch an attack to wipe out that country"s nuclear program. Of course we know of Secretary of State Colin Powell"s bad-acting-debut address to the United Nations, making a case for war in Iraq. And most recently we have borne witness to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice threatening everyone, from Iran for its unyielding stance on nuclear weapons production, to Chavez in Venezuela for buying guns from Russia. These days there seems to be more having to do with war than having to do with diplomacy originating from State Department.

Sometime ago there was a major article about how Enron, in a south Asian country, embarked on a power plant project that would net them millions of dollars by building a dam across a river in that country. This is despite the fact that all studies showed that the project was not feasible and would not pan out. Knowing this, the government of that country was not in agreement with the project. Enron, high and mighty at the time, requested the aid of the State Department assets in that country to lean on the host government to make the project fly. State Department did just that. The dam was built but, to this day, reports are that it has not produced one volt of electricity. Imagine the financial plight of that nation and its people, as Enron laughed all the way to the bank. No wonder nations like that, and others we abuse, have many of their citizenry who despise us and aim to do us harm, as they did five years ago. George Bush told us they did what they did because they hated our way of life, and Katie Couric asked "Why do they hate us." Nonsense on both counts. If the State Department is the agency through which we project ourselves, and liaison with the rest of the world, then the one we have today is in dire need of overhaul, if we are to avoid crippling disasters like the one we endured just five years ago.