The global conversation surrounding the slicing of Europe's jugular, energy-wise, wended its way through the United Nations today.
I somewhat agree it's OK to delay an investigation until we get clear about a key point: the USA as a nation is not obligated to take the blame for this terrorist act, no matter the citizenship or job titles of the people behind it.
Neither was the USA obligated to run cover for the secret operation to provide the Contras in Central America with funding from Iran. That was a rogue operation run by secretive operatives who just assumed the USA would be appreciative of their covert efforts. That's no more than an assumption, then or now.
Who gets to decide when Uncle Sam is culpable? Are we talking about in a democracy or what?
What if you're aware of a narrative wherein the USA might be considered bankrupt already, with a Medal of Freedom winner backing up that account. Not newly bankrupt, but since the 1980s, and not just financially, but morally.
In what sense might we blame Uncle Sam, if Uncle Sam is in fact dead and gone?
But even without such a radical-sounding story, it's still permissible to ask the question: where do we draw the line?
A lot of us think the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline was so outside the rules, that no state actor could possibly have been involved by definition. Such acts are just too beyond the pale. Nation states are not infinitely malleable.
The same logic might be applied to 911: whoever was in on it, the USG was not, by definition, because said act was too unconstitutional to be laid at the door of the USA. 911 was a job by outsiders (perhaps posing as insiders?).
It's more honest to say "the USA is dead and gone" (we knew that) than to say it was responsible for some desperate act of sabotage (feeling cornered are we?) such that we must now engage in some form of coverup.
Why? Why is your USA that weak? Mine isn't.
In my story line the USA is (a) innocent of wrongdoing and (b) actively pursuing the perpetrators, in part by making their cover stories ever less believable, ever more paper thin, to the point of transparent.
As of today, I could easily go with the Seymour Hersh version of what happened, minus the assumption that "we the people" (our government) have to consider ourselves an accomplice. Was Hersh himself in on the plan? No? So why say "we"?
On the contrary, my USA is apparently working closely with Seymour Hersh, and this wouldn't be the first time.
Think how little kids play with dolls.
Janet says our dolly just blew up Nord Stream.
As long as it's our dolly too (and we say it is), we maybe won't feel compelled to go along with Janet's proposal. Her story is not necessarily more credible than ours.
"Our dolly did no such thing" is our side of it.
It all comes down to which side gets to write the history books. Certainly my side has its version.
