by Nick Cooper

May 20 '02

A front page headline in the Houston Chronicle "White House says President likely unaware of CIA report" presents the concept of likely unawareness -- a status two levels fuzzier than awareness, and an accurate term for our fuzzy minded so-called President. "Likely unaware" leadership recalls the media characterizations of President Reagan, the past master of unawareness. Unawareness was first used to Reagan's benefit during Iran / Contra. He could say "I do not recall," and we would believe him - he seemed out of it. Here are some excerpt from the history of Reagan on the PBS website :

"Reagan picked up a briefing memo he had been provided and read aloud: 'If the question comes up at the Tower Board meeting, you might want to say that you were surprised.'"

So, we can even see his speech-writer's intentions. However, the Tower Commission, apparently fell for it (also from the PBS website):

"The Tower Commission report... could not link Reagan to diversion of funds from Iran to the Contras. But it concluded that Reagan, confused and unaware, allowed himself to be misled by dishonest staff members who organized the trade of arms to Iran for hostages held in Lebanon and pursued a secret war against the Nicaraguan government."

Iran Contra provided a model in scandal management - the President just had to be dumb enough so that he could honestly say he didn't understand things he has been told. - that arms were sold to Iran to illegally raise money for the contras, which came out in the hearings.

- that drug dealing was a big part of the secret service and contra partnership, which came out, somewhat, years later when reporter Gary Webb put it all together, and which Alexander Cockburn wrote about in "Whiteout."

- and that there was a connection between the Iranian arms sales to the release of the hostages.

This last two scandals broke gradually over years. It is important to remember the sequence. After the hearings there was absolutely no connection in the mainstream media between the hostage crisis, the arms sales and the drug sales. But, there were crazy conspiracy theories like that the Reagan Administration asked the Iranians to hold onto the hostages until Carter lost the election. The Cover Up Iran Contra film by the Christic Institute tried to uncover this with a narrative underlined by the creepy syncronicity of the hostages flying home as Reagan was being sworn in.

Then, in the late 80s congressional democrats called on the Reagan administration for an investigation into this.

Later, in the context of history, it is generally agreed that Reagan probably corrupted the election by delaying the hostages return. The CIA drug dealing is still only partially acknowledged.

After another corrupt election, conspiracy theories abound - Bush's family were business partners with Bin Laden's family, Bush's reactions on the morning of September 11th make little sense -- including his claiming to have seen the first plane hit the first tower before reading to the students even though that was never on tv, two dozen members of bin Laden's family were allowed to fly out of the country in the week following 9-11 without being detained for questioning.

Now one little portion of these things independent media readers have been seeing ever since 9-11 comes out in the mainstream media -- Bush got some reports of warnings. Could a similar gradual proces play itself out with the Bush administration and the CIA connection to the attacks slowly shifting from unawareness to foreknowledge in such a gradual way that the public fails to notice?

And we, the ill-informed public, wonder about all the important scandals of our time -- who assasinated the Kennedy's and Martin Luther King, who knew what about 9-11, how did Enron and the S&L crisis happen. Cheney speaks out contemptuously that the public should not be told the details of the CIA report -- just like the Enron meetings. It is not only the President but all of us who are better off likely unaware.