Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Caves to 'Scaredy-Cat Nation'
A paradox of the modern United States is that it wields unprecedented military power in the world yet its people are constantly kept frightened about unlikely foreign dangers. Its politics, too, are dominated by fear.
The way this plays out most often is that Republicans (aided by the U.S. news media) exaggerate overseas threats and denounce the Democrats for being "soft" on whatever the current "threat" might be: the Reds, the yellow menace, Soviet "beachheads" in Central America, or now Islamic terrorism.
From the Vietnam War to today's "war on terror," Democrats have reacted out of fear of getting blamed for not doing enough to "protect" the nation, so they undertake misguided actions to look tough, as Lyndon Johnson did in escalating U.S. troop levels in Vietnam or as Democrats in Congress did in going along with George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq.
In the latest chapter, President Barack Obama is succumbing to the same dynamic as he retreats on his campaign promises to restore the rule of law and to put relations with the Islamic world on a more rational footing.
Fulfilling those promises would require political courage from Obama and the Democrats, a commodity that remains in short supply. And it appears to be beyond hope to expect that the Republicans and their right-wing media allies will ever behave responsibly - when there's a chance for political gain.
So, in the Age of Obama, the mighty United States again presents itself to the world as "Scaredy-Cat Nation," terrified about the danger posed by a small number of suspected terrorists who might be transferred, in shackles, from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to super-max prisons on U.S. soil.
All manner of terrifying tales have been imagined about inmates using their one hour a day outside their jail cells to organize breakouts or about terrorist comrades crossing the U.S. border to lay siege to a super-max prison and somehow busting the prisoners out.
Such fantasies, which sound like bad Hollywood movie scripts, have been circulated by prominent Republicans, including Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and FBI Director Robert Mueller, and have been echoed by key Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Fearing the Uighurs
The American people also are supposed to get very scared that some Guantanamo inmates who were locked up for no good reason - like the 17 Chinese Uighurs who have been imprisoned at Guantanamo for seven years though the Bush administration concluded that they are no threat to the United States - might get relocated to the "land of the free, home of the brave."
And then there's the panic over the slim possibility that after a trial, a few suspected terrorists might get acquitted, although in those cases the defendants would almost surely remain locked up pending deportation.
Whatever risks remain are so ephemeral that they are vastly outweighed by other dangers that the United States creates for itself by being perceived as a hypocritical nation that preaches human rights for others but not when Americans feel some remote danger.
If Americans really wanted to reduce the risk of a 9/11 repeat, they could undertake any number of policy changes, from reducing their dependence on Middle Eastern oil to demanding that the Israeli government grants meaningful statehood to the Palestinians.
Instead, the United States has opted for a behavioral pattern that veers from victimhood to bullying, from the tears that followed the 9/11 attacks and the lament "why do they hate us?" to the cheers for George W. Bush's "shock and awe" bombardment of Iraq and the tough-guy treatment of captives.
On May 21, former Vice President Dick Cheney defended this approach, which relies on force to eradicate perceived threats to the homeland:
"In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. ...
"When just a single clue that goes unlearned ... one lead that goes unpursued ... can bring on catastrophe - it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance."
A Logical Flaw
But there is a logical flaw to Cheney's so-called "one-percent doctrine," which holds that even if a potential terrorist threat presents only a one-percent possibility it must be treated as a certainty. The flaw is that reacting to unlikely dangers as certainties is almost guaranteed to create even more dangers.
For instance, invading Iraq to eliminate a tiny risk that Saddam Hussein might help al-Qaeda has killed 4,300 American soldiers, spared al-Qaeda's leadership in their hideouts along the Afghan border, strengthened Iran as a regional power, and spread anti-Americanism across the volatile region, including inside nuclear-armed Pakistan.
In other words, reacting to every hypothetical one-percent threat may sound reassuring to frightened Americans but the policy is almost certain to make the situation more dangerous.
Clearly, many Americans understand this. They know that risk is part of life and intrinsic to a Republic, especially one that operates under a system of laws and cherishes what the Founders called "certain unalienable rights."
Many such Americans voted for Barack Obama in hopes that this eloquent expert on constitutional law would break the cycle of Republican fear-mongering and Democratic cowering, that he would uphold the nation's principles and stop exaggerating the dangers.
However, Obama has disappointed many of these supporters. While rhetorically stepping back from some of Bush's excesses and releasing some important evidence on how the United States officially embraced torture for the first time in the nation's history, Obama has maintained much of the legal paradigm of Bush's "war on terror."
In his speech about terrorism on May 21 - right before Cheney's - Obama said some of the Guantanamo cases would have to go before revamped Military Commissions that would include a few more safeguards than the Bush/Cheney model but still fall far short of civilian courts.
‘Prolonged Detention'
Obama even proposed a new legal system that would allow for "prolonged detention" of terror suspects without trial. Obama said he wanted to involve Congress and the Judiciary in this process - seeking to distance himself from Bush's views of unilateral presidential powers.
"In our constitutional system," Obama said, "prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man."
However, in truth, prolonged detention has little place at all in the U.S. constitutional system, which includes habeas corpus guarantees against arbitrary imprisonment and the right to fair and open trials.
It's also unclear why an extreme step like prolonged detention is needed. For combatants captured on the battlefield, the law of war permits their detention as POWs for the duration of a conflict, thus negating the argument about how such situations don't lend themselves to the collection of evidence.
Rather, Obama's concept of preventive detention seems aimed at a suspected terrorist who, in Obama's example, has expertise in explosives and who may have been arrested far from a battlefield.
It's unclear why, in that situation, evidence couldn't be collected normally or why witnesses couldn't be developed to prove the case, even if that might require a plea bargain with one suspect to obtain testimony against another.
Given the absence of a compelling rationale, it appears more likely that Obama is bowing to the power of fear, political fear that he might be blamed by fearful Americans if a jury acquitted some allegedly dangerous terrorist because the evidence was insufficient or because the case was tainted by torture or other government misconduct.
Surely, if an acquittal occurred - even if the defendant was then deported to his country of origin - the Republicans and the right-wing media would stoke fears about this dangerous terrorist let loose to wreak havoc. Without doubt, some Americans would fall under the spell of that fear-mongering.
Stirring Fear
The New York Times played into that pattern last week by touting a dubious report prepared by Bush's Pentagon in December 2008, which claimed that one in seven detainees released from Guantanamo "returned" to militant activity. Cheney cited that figure in opposing Obama's promise to close the Guantanamo prison.
However, the evidence in the Pentagon report - details that were buried deep inside the Times article - identified only five released detainees (out of 534) who "have engaged in verifiable terrorist activity or have threatened terrorist acts," the Times reported. In other words, less than one in 100 of the freed prisoners, not one in seven. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Helps the Bushies, Again."]
The pressure on Obama to permit "prolonged detentions" also may reflect the Pentagon's blurring of the lines between militants and media workers. It has become trendy inside U.S. counterinsurgency to lump journalists who criticize American actions with combatants engaging in violent acts.
For example, the U.S. military in Iraq has detained Ibahim Jassam, a Reuters cameraman, since September 2008 despite an Iraqi court order calling for his release and the absence of any formal charges against him.
The U.S. military continues to justify his detention on the basis of undisclosed intelligence that Jassam is a "a high security threat," said Maj. Neal Fisher, a spokesman for detainee affairs.
Journalists for the Arab TV network al-Jazeera also have been targeted for detention as well as for military attack.
Al-Jazeera journalist Sami al-Hajj was held at Guantanamo from December 2001 to May 2008 as U.S. interrogators unsuccessfully pressed him to link al-Jazeera to al-Qaeda. [For more on U.S. double standards regarding journalists, see this article by Jeremy Scahill.]
Obama's proposal for "prolonged detentions" would seem to invite continuation of such prolonged abuses, when the intelligence data is vague or has little direct connection to terrorist acts.
It appears that Obama is signaling to frightened Americans that even if there is no usable evidence against detainees, he will protect the U.S. homeland by keeping the suspects locked up for the foreseeable future anyway.
That would be a victory for Scaredy-Cat Nation, but it would be a defeat for the honorable system that has guided Constitutional America for more than two centuries. Obama's plan looks to be a cave-in to the cycle of fear that has done so much damage to the Republic.
95 Comments so far
Show AllFormer president George W. Bush, who supports government funding of private faith-based charities, froze all the U.S. assets of 5 Hamas-linked charities in Europe. Some European nations claimed that Hamas had a legitimate charitable arm, but U.S. officials, said that all money for Hamas helps terror.Although this was done in Aug. of 2003 this Scaredy-Cat policy of blocking food and medicine from the truly needy civilians by accusing Muslim charities of having connections to terrorist organizations without proof and convicting the leaders of the charities of a connection to terrorism is still going on in America. It is a travesty of justice based on FEAR. I have the audacity of hope that Obama will see this as egregious over-reacting as Scaredy-Cats
Can a Muslim get a fair trial in America with most citizens Scaredy-Cats? Not from what I witnessed. The fact that most Muslim who raises money for destitute children of Iraq or Palestine are suspected, arrested and prosecuted for a connection to terrorist organizations because some Muslim terrorist groups also give aid to the poor children of their country is an example of how frightened Americans have become.George W. Bush went after Muslim Charities with a vengeance and insisted they support terrorist groups. It takes a lot of courage for a jury member to vote to acquit a Muslim in this Scaredy-cat Nation. Does Obama have the courage to uphold the constitution and end this cowardly fear?
9/11 is the defining event, so far, of the 21st century. It was precisely the "catastrophic and catalyzing event" that the neocons, specifically Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Project for the New American Century gang, had to have in order to implement their radical agenda. What's more, they were fully aware of this: that without such an event, and with the absolute lack of a political mandate with which they entered the White House, their one shot at their "transformation" would be still-born.
The idea that they, Cheney et al., COULDN'T have perpetrated, or at least ensured the success of, the 9/11 attacks, is ludicrous. They were both extremely experienced and well-connected in military and intelligence circles. And as we now know, they (and many in the highest levels of the military and intelligence communities) have little or no regard for American lives, at least when those lives are between them and their agenda. (I refer, of course, to the lie-based war in Iraq, with an American death toll of over 4,000 and counting.) And we also know that there has never been a real investigation of 9/11. No one can make a fact-based, reasonable argument that the so-called 9/11 Commission was such an investigation.
Here's the long version: http://9112010.com. It's both a review of history pertinent to 9/11 and a reasonable extrapolation of that history.
The first 9/11 gave Dick Cheney a big part of what he wanted, but not everything. Might he again decide that, in order to "meet threats before they become dire", he must sacrifice some so that many others may live?
(All terms in quotes were taken from PNAC documents, which can be found here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/)
MAN_IN_WARREN,
Very well stated, thank you.
I've made technical comments below ( this thread ) responding to JIM GLOVER, that further buttress your points, at time stamp
____ Luciplicity May 30th, 2009 4:00 pm ____
########## we need to cross reference more, ##########
########## so as to avoid re-stating again. ##########
ALSO, see earlier postings on other threads with much more details about "The Joy and Comfort of Conspiracy Denial", within :
"Unexceptional Americans: Why We Can't See the Trees or the Forest":
===== http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/19-7 =====
____ nan◎thermite May 25th, 2009 12:43 pm ____
and
____ nan◎thermite May 23rd, 2009 2:44 pm ____
and
____ radiant May 19th, 2009 5:17 pm ____
and
____ radiant May 19th, 2009 7:35 pm ____
Namaste
Maninwarren
Intelligently and persuasively stated. Though perhaps it was not the intention, your excellent comments serve as a well written rebuttal to yunz's inquiry at 05-28 at 9:43 p.m. as to why so many Americans justifiably have no faith in the Bush administration's dubious explanations regarding the events that took place on Sept. 11, 2001. PNAC did not attempt to hide their intentions as they clearly stated their desire for a "new Pearl Harbor" to occur. Like so many false-flag operations, 19 [alleged] crazed Arabs from the Middle East provided the perfect scapegoats for them to achieve their goal of waging war in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.
Robert Parry wrote, "From the Vietnam War to today's "war on terror," Democrats have reacted out of fear of getting blamed for not doing enough to "protect" the nation, so they undertake misguided actions to look tough, as Lyndon Johnson did in escalating U.S. troop levels in Vietnam or as Democrats in Congress did in going along with George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq".
PRES. LBJ acted or commanded as he did, including his Gulf of Tonkin LIE, out of fear?
You have to be f*cking joking, right?
Okay then, was his wholly criminal and treasonous as well as deliberate effort to cover up the Israeli attack, the deliberate Israeli attack, on the USS Liberty in 1967 also out of fear?
You think so, eh.
Well, I [disagree].
Since when has sanity been the driving force of politics? The exact opposite is true.
It seems that the opposite of politics is honest, integrity, and reason.
Obama (and I did vote for him in both the primary and general election) has caved in on a lot of things since taking office! He has backed down on his promise to end our participation in Iraq, on seeking justice regardless how high up in government a criminal is (he said "no one is above the law but he refuses to go after human rights violators from the Bush administration), ending the nonsense that is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"! He supports the notion of "seperate but equal" when it pertains to the rights of gay people! So far, he's behaving more like Bush-lite than the progressive leader I thought I was voting for! Politics and government as usual when it comes to the bold decisions!
The united states could go down in history as the biggest scaredy-cats ever. Also the biggest cry babies.
For a long time this country was famous for being able to wage war without getting hit. While much of Europe was nearly destroyed in World War I and again in World War II, no bombs fell on the U.S.. And so it has been. Other countries get in wars, they get bombed . They feel pain at home. They experience the war all around them. But never us. No that’s for other people in other countries.
So then came the day the airplanes got hijacked and crashed into the twin towers and 3,000 people were killed. The Americans could not stop crying and moaning about this horrible disaster. The same people who had fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo killing millions, the same people who vaporized Hiroshima and Nagasaki now believed they themselves were the all time primo victims. They had achieved a victimhood unmatched in human history. and that's how it has been ever since
it is true we've been manipulated by the people in washington, and their obedient media. but we did not need to be such patsies, so willing to believe anything they told us, no matter how feeble or preposterous
Abuelo,
Excellent (and obvious) observations.
What is your take on why so many USAns refuse to believe that it was airplanes hijacked by Arabs who were angry at US aggression, and instead believe in a crazy theory that the Bush administration did it with explosives planted in the building?
Oddly, the Pentagon has trotted out the argument that several released Gitmo detainees have gone "back to the battlefield". Do they just not notice that this is an argument AGAINST the Military Commissions/preventive detention/Gitmo system? By raising this threat (leaving aside whether it is valid), they are arguing that their system isn't even working on their own terms. If it was, the Uighurs would have gone home years ago and the "several who went back to the battlefield" would still be at Gitmo.
Had they any balls, the Dems would attack this idiocy from the right and call the current program what it is - a security risk.
Instead we get Obama promising to "tweak" the program back towards legality. Even if you can make this circus legal, you can't make it a good idea...
"the Pentagon has trotted out the argument that several released Gitmo detainees have gone 'back to the battlefield'."
and as the P'gon has declared this battlefield to cover the entire earth, they are right.
Democrats are motivated by "fear of getting blamed for not doing enough to "protect" the nation"? Come on...
To begin with, CLEARLY, democrats do not respond to public pressure or we would have had impeachment proceedings a long time ago.
What is the basis for the assumption that the Republicans are hopelessly self-interested and corrupt, but that when Democrats behave EXACTLY the same, it is because of their good intentions or powerlessness? (i.e. Obama wants to do the right things but the "powers that be" control him)
It's a fantasy. The good cop and the bad cop are playing different roles but for the same purpose.
We have one political party with one ideology: the Corporate/War Party.
Sioux Rose
HOPED UP: Well-said.
"unprecedented military power in the world yet its people are constantly kept frightened"
The paranoid frantically build their battlement ever higher while the only way to cure the paranoia is to tear the battlement down, what the far left advocates.
Oregoncharles
Scardey-Cat nation includes progressives who continue to prop up fascist policies with their votes. Not because they want more wars and no health care or that they want to give their money away to extremely wealthy individuals who virtually own them, it's that they are soooo filled with FEAR, they are easily convinced they have to go along or ELSE!
Speaking of fear, perhaps we should take a moment and show our gratitude to the ones who, in some small way, made all of this possible. Who made us all in some small way, "Scaredy Cats"
Thank you Big Finance. For making it all possible with the money you printed and stole --and continue to do both.
Thank you Big Healthcare. For keeping us confused with your 3-Card Monte billing, in debt and generally, in fear of you. And in horrible jobs & working conditions just to have (or not have) your life saving services.
Thank you Big Agro, for ruining our food supplies, feeding the general population unhealthy substances disguised as food while laying the earth to utter complete ruin with your factory farms of genetically morphed vegetables and pitiful animals living nightmarish and tortured lives.
Thank you Madison Avenue and Hollywood. For your never ending and always escalating violence in your videos, movies, and video games. For your absolute brilliant repackaging of of the same products over and over again. (Just how many "Tides" have graced our grocery shelves, anyway?) For the latest and longest running style/motif: The Convict Look. Thanks to you everyone can now look like they just rolled floated off of Rikers or strode out of some distant Mayan jungle. Your "look and feel" of the times made everyone feel a part of it all.
Thank you Defense Industry. (Your work defending us on 9-11 was simply stunning.)
And finally, thank you NAB and Publishers everywhere for making it all possible, for generating & selling us the stories of fear--of communists--swine flu--of terrorists--killer ants--killer bees-- and the never ending line "the two party system is good for America" every four years by censoring any real debate about anything of relevance to the average American.
Thank you one and thank you all.
Gee, I hope I didn't leave anyone out.
Sioux Rose
MOONPIE: I thought there should be an event where these types of industries are cited on television and the award is a bronze TUSH to represent their assinine policies. You named those I'd give the great tush to. Remember that TV host Bill Tush? He would be the right person to present the award.
TUSH - does that stand for The United States of Hopeland?
moonpie, well you did leave out one who is the product of all the Bigs whom you thanked. I won't mention the name but I think the initials are BHO.
Obama's statement about one man deciding on prolonged containment reminds me of the same logical structure in an old Peter Arno cartoon in the New Yorker. It shows a middle-aged lady saying to the stewardess in an airliner, "No thanks, dear, I don't think God intended us to drink while flying."
During the Cold War people in Europe, and elsewhere, got on with their lives while the Kremlin and the White House were playing their MAD-games, both sides seemingly willing to scrafice European lives on a European battle-field so they wouldn't have to start invading each other countries. We could live with that idea, so what's keeping Americans from doing so? Some people live on the slope of a vulcano, others live below sea-level; get over it!!!
I've always thought of this as well, only in the case the euro-doom era the threat was very real.
But, in the US, how can any rational person think some small bands of people with AK-47's present ANY kind of threat to their lives???
As far as "foreign threats" I am much more fearful of CERN's LHC producing a planet-destroying black hole or a universe-destroying quantum vacuum bubble than any frigging terrorist. Lets get some perspective here.
"I am much more fearful of CERN's LHC producing a planet-destroying black hole"
Don't joke, I've seen it happen!
Yeah, didn't Brookhaven Relativistic Heavy-ion Collider possibly produce a micro black hole a couple years ago? (Really)
Dear Chicken Little:
The Ministry of Truth tells us that the Sky is Falling,
the Sky has always been Falling, the Sky will always be Falling.
War is Peace, Vice is Virtue and Poverty is Wealth.
Some people enjoy going to horror movies so they can be scared. Being scared is fashionable. They should be really scared.
They have nothing that can't be taken away with one major illness. That is a lot more likely than a terrorist attack.
Why worry about it? That just creates stress which just gets you closer to the inevitable. We all die sooner or later and you can't take it with you.
Why are people so surprised when Barack Obama keeps his promises?
When he ran in the primaries he said that he would compromise on issues, well know he is compromising and the people who voted for him are outraged. Voters should learn from their mistakes and research the positions of their candidate before they vote. When someone does not have a long political record, it's very hard to know what their political positions are. Unfortunately, people vote for reasons that have nothing to do with policies. They prefer to vote for personalities and great speeches, or party loyalty. Until this idiocy becomes ancient history, and people vote for the candidate that will promote policies that are in the best interest of the American people, things will not change. I'm a green, but I voted for Ralph Nader in the last election because he was right on ALL the issues, and he had a very long public history of defending the issues that are important to the majority of the American people. I have little love for the Democrats Or the Republicans, they represent a wealthy minority on the American public, and care nothing for the working people of this Country. Wake up and smell the corruption America, its time to turn the page on the Democratic and Republican party. It's time for new leadership. The Democrats have failed repeatedly. The Republicans have failed repeatedly. Its time for other parties to lead, or better still is time to do away with the parties.
Oregoncharles
It seems weird, doesn't it. People, even ostensibly smart, educated progressives fall for the same scam every single time. Not all, there's always the 1% who seem to get it: When only two corporate parties are in control of elections, what we have is a fascist electoral system. A vote for Nader or McKinney, is an anti-fascist vote. What is especially troubling is that many progressives would (and did) try to disrupt my right to vote for whomever I pleased. These people scare me almost as much as the corporate two-party shills. They want to take away my rights so that their candidate wins. FEAR drove them to it.
Oregoncharles, I have been involved with the Green party for five years, and you would not believe the arguments over stupid issues(i.e. should we have an animal mascot or not)that we have wasted our time arguing over, instead of concentrating on running greens for office or passing IRV or any of the other billion issues that need our urgent attention. Zealots from the booth ends of the spectrum are dangerous.
We need tolerance, more love and respect for one another and we need to be less set in our ways. I'm glad to you stuck to your convictions and voted for the candidate of your choice. America needs people who get it, and are willing to listen and then to make the right choice in office. You should considered running for office, even if you don't win shedding light on pertinent issues is a worthy goal.
" Land of the FREE and home of the BRAVE "
________________ changes to ________________
" Land of the FEARED and home of the BRAINWASHED "
.
We can learn to choose better !
Namaste
Robert Parry commits the error, in an otherwise well written article, of stating that the U.S. should implement policy changes "if Americans really wanted to reduce the risk of a 9/11 repeat..." The problem with Parry's statement is that he ignores the fact that the [alleged] perpetrator of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, was never placed on the FBI's Most Wanted List. That is because the FBI has said that they have no evidence linking bin Laden to the terrorists' attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The Bush administration succeeded in using 19 [alleged] crazed Arabs from the Middle East as scapegoats for what occurred on 9/11 even though it has been shown in the very well made Italian documentary Zero: An Investigation into 9/11 that at least 6 of the hijackers are still alive. There are far too many unanswered questions regarding the events of 9/11 for someone like Parry to assume [or at least give the appearance of assuming] that the hijackings on that day were carried out by 19 Muslims from the Middle East. One seriously doubts, for example, that bin Laden was able to somehow figure out while sitting in a cave in Afghanistan that the country with the most sophisticated defense systems on the planet would mysteriously go into a state of paralysis, and being somehow able to outwit NORAD, the FAA and the United States Air Force while also somehow knowing that no jets would scramble until the drama of 9/11 had finally played out. And all the while the mainstream media continues to remain mute concerning the government's weak explanations of what occurred on that fateful day.
Sioux Rose
ERROLL: Good post. Parry's blind acceptance of "the party line" as per 911 bothers me, too, and in my view diminishes the veracity of anything else he utters.
So, lets see...Bin Laden was not connected to Sept. 11 attacks means it was an inside job by the Bush Administration?
Actually, of course, neither is the case. The Sept. 11 attacks were organized by an independent cell led by Mohammad Atta in Hamburg, Germany, with funding by a number of sources - but not from Bin Laden directly. Bin Laden applauded the action when it happened, but his role in it's planning was probably minimal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Atta
Also, I always find it odd how conspiracy theorists always latch onto a completely tangential omission or oversight in a government document as proof of the conspiracy. If there really was a conspiracy, wouldn't the FBI have made sure Bin Laden WAS connected to Sept 11 on the "most wanted" bulletin?
And finally, I assume that this "inside job" conspiracy theory starts with a belief in the implausibility of the attacks being done by Arabs who angered by US/Zionist aggession, economic hegemony and impoverishment of the Middle East.
Is this correct?
If so, what part of it do you find implausible? Is it:
1. The US /Zionist aggression, economic hegemony and impoverishment, and the crushing of pan-Arab socialist (Nasserist) alternatives - leading to extreme Islamic movements as the only "allowed" alternative (they were useful against "godless communists") in it's place???
2. Or, is it that you don't believe that at least some Arabs weren't pissed off enough at the USA to do it???
3. Or is it that Arabs were too incompetent to carry out such a simple plan?
It seem to me that to believe the "conspiracy theories" is only possible if a person is extremely ignorant of the history of US foreign policy in the region, because if you know what has gone over there, the attacks were not only plausable, but (particularly in light of the earlier unsuccessful attempt), a near certainty!
So before they start on about their completely wrong notions regarding the physical aspects of the event - they need to start with demonstrating that the motivations and hijacking scheme is not credible.
Meanwhile, they can also go here:
http://www.debunking911.com/
Yunz
Let us begin in some what reverse order. I strongly suggest that you read David Ray Griffin's well reasoned and logical book Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official conspiracy Theory which, as the title implies, easily swats away at the web site that you have posted.
You may also wish to be cognizant of the Latin motto-cui bono-who benefits? As Barrie Zwicker ably demonstrates in his well written book Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11, the neoconservatives, in their manifesto PNAC [Project for a New American Century] stated that it was it would be difficult to obtain their objectives, as they termed it, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor." As Barrie Zwicker notes, it does not get much clearer than that in seeing how far the neocons would go in order to meet their less than noble goals.
Ironically, you then state how " 'conspiracy theories' is [sic] only possible if extremely ignorant of the history of US foreign policy in the region..." If you were aware of the history of false flag operations throughout history, you would then, I think, be able to see the lengths that a country would go in engaging in subterfuge by blaming a group or country in order to hide their own malfeasance. A good example would be the Reichstag fire of 1933. That fire was blamed by the Nazis on one communist whom they subsequently decapitated. They then blamed ALL communists for what happened. It was eventually shown by william Shirer, writing in his classic work The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, how that claim was not only demonstrably false but originated with the higher level Nazis such as Goebbels and Goering. When we jump to the twenty first century we find a striking parallel to what very well may have occurred on 9/11 when after only waiting only literally hours after the terrorist attacks the White House proclaims, without a shred of proof, that the terrorists, a convenient scapegoat, were somehow responsible for the events of 9/11.
You mention, apparently tongue in cheek, that the Arabs may have been incompetent to carry out what happened on that day. What you fail to mention is that, looking at it objectively, the ones who would have had not only the motive but the best means, method and opportunity to carry out those attacks would have been people in the Bush administration as well as top military brass. As I believed I stated in an earlier comment, I hardly think that someone who was supposedly behind those attacks living in a cave thousands of miles away in Afghanistan would have been able to somehow realistically pull that off as compared to those who would have inside information such as being able to shut down NORAD, the FAA and, incredibly, the U.S. Air Force until the drama of 9/11 had been finally played out. Do you seriously believe that it is realistic to believe that 19 [alleged] crazed Muslims along with their leader were able to coordinate this better than someone like a Dick Cheney? I think not.
Again, as I mentioned earlier, cui bono?-who benefits? The neocons wanted a very big excuse-"a new Pearl Harbor"- to carry out their goals. As Hitler or Goering once said the bigger the lie the more likely it is that the people will believe it. This appear to have been the thinking in the Bush White House and the supine mainstream media fell for it hook, line and sinker.
The only way for the truth to eventually emerge is for, unlike the 9/11 Commission, a true and honest and open investigation to take place in order to discover what actually happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
Cui bono?
The Islamic anti-US resistance of course.
As Bin Laden pointed out in his incredible communique, they lured the US in and were bankrupting the US just as they bankrupted the old Soviet Union.
And no, the Bin Laden communique was not made up by the CIA - it was far too convincing and rational an appeal against US imperialism. Later one of them even quoted William Blum. If it had been made up by teh uS government - it would have been designed to make Bin Laden look like a nut.
As an activist in organizations that have been infiltrated by cops and the even the FBI, I can assure you that they are incapable of "faking" real anti-imperialist rhetoric
The "attacks" - actually suicide hijackings - were absurdly simple, what kind of sophistication does overpowering a airline crew and flying a plane into a building take? Recall that airline security procedure at the time was to always cooperate with hijackers. My hang gliding club could have pulled the thing off.
Xyy inquires as to "what kind of sophistication does overpowering a airline crew and flying a plane into a building take?" He then adds "My hang gliding club could have pulled the thing off." It is extremely doubtful if Xyy's hang gliding club could have pulled off a 270 degree maneuver by a 757 which then supposedly hit the most heavily guarded building on the planet, i.e. the Pentagon, while barely singeing a blade of grass next to the Pentagon. It then created a 16' foot hole in the Pentagon despite the fact that a 757 has a wing span of over 100'. As hundreds of veteran airplane pilots have pointed out, even the most experienced airplane pilots would have found it extremely difficult to have carried out that maneuver. So how does one explain the fact that the [alleged] terrorist who had piloted that plane had been labeled a "terrible pilot" by his flight instructor and had [supposedly] did a 270 degree turn that would have been extremely difficult for the most experienced pilot to do?
Also, kindly explain how 19 hijackers, all 5'5" to 5'7" and of slender builds, were somehow able to overpower the flight crew and the passengers, not with Uzi sub machine guns or pistols or machetes, but armed only with box cutters? Or is one actually allowed to dare to challenge the Bush administration's feeble explanations as to what took place on that day which so many liberals [of all people] seem to be so willing to embrace?
"armed only with box cutters" the fearless hijinxers jumped from the cockpits at impact, ran down the stairwells and, utilizing said boxcutters, severed the supporting columns of both WTC Towers.
who needs thermite when you've got BOX CUTTERS?
Vdb
Bingo. You nailed it. If it were not so tragic it would be hilarious as those who have the temerity to challenge the government's tissue thin story of what occurred on 9/11 are all too often labeled as being "conspiracy nuts" while it is tacitly accepted by so many Americans who are apparently unwilling to engage in critical thinking that the Bush government, for some unknown reason, should be trusted to tell them the truth despite the fact that their credibility in that area is practically non-existent. Unfortunately the opposition party is not exactly a seeker of truth as it has not shown any great enthusiasm, either by the executive or legislative branch, to call for, unlike the 9/11 Commission, an open an honest investigative body into what exactly occurred on Sept. 11, 2001 in the country of the United States of America when, inexplicably, no jets were scrambled until over an hour after four airplanes had been hijacked and those airplanes had somehow mysteriously penetrated the most sophisticated defenses of any country on the planet.
The sheer ignorance of the technical aspects of anything among the 011 wackos is stunning.
If running a plane into the side of a large office building is so challenging, how in the world are planes flown onto runways by the thousands of times a day?
Xyy
Talk about a whacko statement. Airplanes which are flown onto runways thousands of times a day do not, as the [alleged] 757 did on Sept. 11, 2001, make an extremely difficult 270 degree turn which then resulted in a 16' foot wide gash in the Pentagon even though a 757 has a wing span of about 125' feet. As an air traffic controller from Washington testified, "The speed the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we thought in the radar room... that that was a military plane."
Those who support the Bush administration's official conspiracy theory always fail to explain, as Barrie Zwicker points out in his book Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11, "how the central headquarters [the Pentagon] of the greatest military power in history could be caught both unaware and defended by an attack from the ground or from the air, whether by hijacked aircraft, warplane or missile, or any combination of those."
Over a hundred experienced airplane have said that it would be extremely difficult for even a veteran airplane pilot to execute a 270 degree maneuver in a 757 let alone an [alleged] hijacker who was labeled a "terrible pilot" by his flight instructor for not being able to fly a single engine Cessna let alone a 757.
If that is the proof you have, you are not going to get an investigation with that.
The Hijacker pilots did dangerous and reckless maneuvers that a pilot on the job would get fired for or never get licensed,
These guys were not trying to get work as pilots.
JIM GLOVER,
On a previous thread I provided two detailed responses, which you either never went back to, or had no response to; see "The Banality of Bush White House Evil" : http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/26-0
########### BEGIN OF FIRST POSTING #######
powerfully_true April 27th, 2009 5:12 pm
Responding to_ J I M _ G L O V E R _, April 26th, 2009 2:17 pm
NIST authorities and experts were 100% caught in a lie, while pre-viewing their flawed and extremely unscientific and limited description of the WTC 7 collapse. They then completely reversed themselves, on a key issue that could not be substantiated with the true facts and data:
Initially, NIST said that fire-causation was inconsistent ( impossible ) for the building to have fallen at free fall ( acceleration ) rates
They provided a reasonable basis for that conclusion, in that the structure itself would need extra time to deform and sequentially collapse, which would have caused much longer collapse durations than free fall alone
When challenged with actual scientific collapse data, proving that ~ 3.5 s of free fall did occur, they had to agree that it did happen that way
So they changed part of their paper, but ignored their previous point of item 2., which now supported demolition and not progressive collapse
The actual final NIST report, is significantly flawed even with it's minor adjustments, and carefully avoids its own contradictions, by errantly moving earlier the beginning of the collapse -- to attempt to justify that their computer model's elapsed time during collapse, was accurate ( long enough ). This is violation the reports premise of fire initiated collapse, which obviously takes more time ( than needed for free fall, after demolition eliminates all resistance to gravity's force ).
The physics plaintively cries out as proof of demolition, that any court of the land would abide with, and shows conclusively that NIST is obviously covering up -- as even a high school teacher can do the math correctly, and they are certainly some of the world's smartest scientists ( that would be flunking high school physics now )
Namaste
########### END OF FIRST POSTING #############
########### BEGIN OF SECOND POSTING ##########
powerfully_true April 27th, 2009 4:46 pm
J I M _ G L O V E R
You appear to be a reasonable person, but you've got stuck on old information, and are attempting to apply it to a new situation.
You are correct that normal thermite would not be capable of doing the overall task of WTC demolition, and is used industrially for some beam cutting situations, where linear shaped charges ( plastic explosive formed super heated copper easily cuts thick steel ) are not effective.
( A. ) There are two completely different types of thermite:
Long known MACROSCOPIC, a highly energetic (slow releasing) high temperature burning material ( some times used for cutting ) that when ignited does burn as you mention to completion of iron oxide powder, with magnesium and Aluminum materials.
THe secretive NANOSCOPTIC, highly explosive material ( tested out as more energetic & higher velocity than dynamite ) which is fabricated on the scale of 1/millionth of 1 mm [ 10 ^ (-9) m ], so that the iron oxide and other metallic powders have hundreds of thousands times more surface area -- which causes detonation and large explosive forces.
( B. ) The evidence of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe , has been published in a peer reviewed scientific article, here:
http://tinyurl.com/nano-thermite-Explosive-Residu
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
( C. ) As far as "Iron Spheres,"
All four independently collected WTC dust samples, contained active ( non-exploded ) nano-thermite material which is a reddish colored layer bonded to another grey layer
These nano-thermite pieces were separated, and analyzed ( see paper above ), including various imaging & chemical analysis and exothermic energy released
IN the later, the nano-thermite pieces were detonated and proved to be highly explosive material, and
created exactly those same iron spheres as were also found throughout the WTC demolition dusts.
So the" seasoning" has now been mixed into the dish, and it stinks as unquestionable conspiracy -- as the source of this type of product is extremely limited to just a few labs in the world, most in the USA.
This is not just a smoking gun, this is the " l o a d e d _ g u n " that not only pointed AND FIRED at the the WTC towers, but also FIRED the head of every American.
Namaste
########### END OF SECOND POSTING ##########
I try to reply to all posts to me but I miss lots.
I read the peer review was paid for.
also sulfur is commonly found but read more on the spheres here
http://www.debunking
911.com/jones.htm#
Iron%20Spheres
If you are sure you are right after reading the opposite photos and research I provided, That is OK with me.
JIM GLOVER,
OK, so you've now responded, and there is nothing responsive about your counter arguments, just a blanket misplaced denial. How immensely impressive your ability to wave your hands.
Yeah, I've read that URL -- and it's a fallacious ( " no SEs ", "paid peer review" etc ) error-encrusted pseudo-scientific rebuttal to an earlier paper about the iron spheres and other fraudulent impressive appearing issues, that doesn't convince me in the least ( the credibility is barely about zero ).
¿ Can you please get up-to-data
and read about nano-thermites ?
As far as I've seen, there is no "de-bunking" this, as it's pure science, independently verified.
It's pretty difficult to deny evidence of unexploded explosives being still active nearly 8 years later ( widely distributed across tones of WTC dust ), with power greater than dynamite.
Oh, and yeah it's alright and OK with me too, if you want to believe in NIST and other paid gov't shills, and act like that's being an intelligent and thorough skeptic.
Luciplicity
Just an excellent rebuttal to Jim Glover. As I stated in my comments to JG at May 30 at 7:16 p.m., David Ray Griffin does an extremely effective and persuasive job in refuting the claims put forth by Popular Mechanics and other defenders of the Bush government's Official Conspiracy Theory.
Jim Glover
It is unclear what you are attempting to say. The question that should be raised and which has been pretty much ignored by the mainstream media is how an [alleged] hijacker who was labeled a "terrible pilot" by his supervisor in flight school while attempting to fly a single engine Cessna was somehow able to complete a 270 degree turn while manning the controls of a 757 and then directing that 757 into the side of the most heavily guarded building in the world, i.e. the Pentagon. As I tried to point out in another comment, from 150 to 200 experienced airplane pilots have expressed deep skepticism that an inexperienced person who was unable to fly a Cessna would have been able to make an extremely difficult 270 degree turn with a 757 and then fly into the side of the Pentagon without disturbing any blades of grass and without knocking over light poles that were very near the Pentagon. What is disturbing is why the mainstream media has not raised these very valid and credible questions concerning the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
If I was not clear to you, let me be clear now.
I am sure they were "terrible pilots" and couldn't land but they could hijack and steer.
Most of the points you bring up have been researched... You believe them but that is not good enough for me.
Read something besides all the contradictory theories http://www.debunk
ing911.com/
then let me know what they are lying about.
On the Pentagon, read "Big Plane, Small Holes" with lots of photos:
http://www.popularmec
hanics.com/science/
defense/1227842.html
?page=6
Lots more photos you won't see from the truth 9/11 movement on the Pentagon here:
http://www.911myths.
com/html/757_wrecka
ge.html
I see that the margins here are too narrow to print the web addresses but they are in color with airliner debris all over the field while the pentagon burned.
Jim Glover
You state that the hijacked pilots "couldn't land but they could hijack and steer." That belief does nothing in addressing how that terrible pilot who was supposed to be flying the airplane that somehow flew into the Pentagon was able to maneuver a huge aircraft, i.e. a 757, into that building, a feat that over 200 plus experienced airline pilots have said would be extremely difficult even for them to attempt. What you fail to address is why the FBI and the Pentagon immediately confiscated all 84 or so cameras that were lined around the Pentagon and why, despite a Freedom of Information Act that was filed, the Pentagon only released selected video showing, as mainstream TV anchors would breathlessly note, "the plane that hit the Pentagon." But this video showed no such thing. What it did reveal was a nebulous light and billowing smoke that could be seen in the background.
The key question here which the defenders of the Bush administration's explanations as to what happened on that day never wish to address was how a supposed plane was even able to penetrate the most heavily guarded building on planet Earth. Why were surface-to-air missiles not fired at that aerial vehicle? It is also instructive to note that an air traffic controller testified that "The speed, the maneuverability, the way he turned, we all thought in the radar room... that that was a military plane." THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS A MILITARY PLANE. Did that piece of testimony end up in the Zelikow-Kane report? In all likelihood, it did not.
You urge me to "read something besides all the contradictory theories." Apparently we can not have anyone daring to question the government's official version of what happened that day, now can we Jim?, despite the fact that the U.S. has lied to the American people about the sinking of the US Maine, the cause of World War I [the sinking of the Lusitania], the Vietnam War[[The Gulf of Tonkin incident], Watergate, the Persian Gulf War [the bogus claim that Iraqi soldiers had come into hospitals with guns, took babies out of incubators, and left them to die on the cold floor], etc. It is very easy to read the accepted version of what supposedly happened on that day as opposed to digging beneath the surface and approaching what the Bush government had to say with an open mind.
You also suggest that I look at what Popular Mechanics has to say about what happened on 9/11. I would in turn urge you to read David Ray Griffin's book which tackles this subject head on: Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. If you were to actually approach this objectively by reading Griffin's book you would discover that he easily swat's away the claims made by PM. Griffin inquires in his book, for example, why the pilot, Hani Hanjour, "went out of his way to hit the Pentagon's west side given the fact that Rumsfeld and the top brass were in the east side." Regarding what PM has said regarding the "hijackers' flying skills', Griffin wonders, justifiably so, why they quote only one flight instructor while neglecting to interview any qualified Boeing 757-qualified pilots on this issue? One suspects that that is probalby because they would not have liked the answer that was given by former 757 pilot Ralph Omholt who has written: "The idea that an unskilled pilot could have flown this trajectory is simply too ridiculous to consider."
As fate would have it, David Ray Griffin has a section in his book which deals directly with what both you and PM cite as evidence entitled "Big Plane, Small Hole" [p.272, 273]. Griffin addresses PM's claim that "When Flight 77 hit the Pentagon it created a hole in the exterior wall of the building approximately 90 feet wide." As Griffin points out, PM "describes this 'hole' as a 'messy 90-foot gash' but even this suggests something more continuous than what we see in the photographs. The PM authors acknowledge this fact by quoting one expert as saying that 'a jet doesn't punch a cartoonlike outline into a concrete building upon impact.' Another problem is that some of the remaining structure appears to be bending outward, suggesting that the damage was caused by a blast from inside. Still another problem is the fact that this gash is at ground level, and it is hard to imagine how a Boeing 757, with its engines extending beneath its wings, could have struck the Pentagon so low without damaging the lawn and destroying the large spools in front of the damaged area on the ground floor."
In short, David Ray Griffin and others are able to effectively cast doubt on the official version of events put forth by the Bush administration. To paraphrase what you have written, writers like Griffin, Webster Tarpley, Barrie Zwicker, Michael Ruppert, Nafeez Ahmed and others will dare to challenge the establishment by doing that which the mainstream media avoid and that is by asking questions and seeking out that rare commodity called the truth.
ERROLL,
Thank you for your continuous responses here. I kept wanting to pipe in myself but found you had already covered most of the things I would have said each time.
Peace.
Then who _did_ fly the planes so well?
It clearly WAS a plane that crashed into the Pentagon and the WTC. Even those blurry frames of that security camera show it. So your Theory" must begin with this fact.
If the buidlings were taken down with explosives, what were the planes for??? Wouldn't the planted explosives alone (like the near-successful WTC bombing of 1993) be a sufficiently convincing fake terrorist attack? Answer this question, and only this question please.
But for now please go off somewhere and revel in your theorizing somewhere else. We have even had some of you 911 kooks tryt to take over meetings of "Save our transit, out anti-war demonstration planning meetings, and at the demonstrations thgemselves.
Go away. You are an embarrassment. You are not welcome.
The only sciry thing is that you defective thinkinmg may be infecting teh brians on most USAns
"Then who _did_ fly the planes so well?"
have you considered remote control?
Xyy
First you pose questions that you would like me to answer then you command me to go away. I realize that this may be difficult to comprehend but not everyone believes the explanations put forth by the Bush administration concerning what happened on 9/11/01. Unfortunately, like so many true believers in what The Bush gang has said about 9/11 you, like they, have your facts wrong. Despite your claim, there is absolutely no evidence at all that an airplane crashed into the Pentagon. There were about 84 cameras placed around the Pentagon. All of the cameras were immediately confiscated by the FBI and/or the Pentagon. After a Freedom of Information Act request was filed, the Pentagon finally released all of three frames in May of 2006 which they claimed to be of an airplane. As Barrie Zwicker points out in his book Towers of Deception, mainstream TV anchors insisted, just like you, that the "new video" would "show[ing] the plane that hit the Pentagon would surely lay to rest conspiracy theories that no plane hit the Pentagon."
In his book Zwicker shows stills from that video which shows nothing of the sort. Despite what you and other believers of the Bush administration would wish to think, the video does not show any plane at all but rather a nebulous white light and smoke in the distance. You are somewhat correct as those "blurry frames" only end up revealing blurry frames but no actual 757.
You ask "If the buidlings [sic]were taken down with explosives, what were the planes for." In all likelihood the planes attacking the WTC towers would be used and seen for the dramatic effect that it had not only on the American populace but on the supine American mainstream media as well who were expected to rally around the flag. As to be expected, they did meet the expectations of what the Bush administration had hoped to achieve. As Hitler or Goebbels pointed out, the bigger the lie the more likely it is that the people would accept what was done to them.
As for the rest of your comments it was basically indecipherable due to the poor grammar and spelling contained in your sentences. If you have any semblance of an open mind you might wish to consider reading the many well reasoned books written by David Ray Griffin as well as those of Barrie Zwicker and Webster Tarpley all of whom dare to question and challenge the official narrative of 9/11 put forth by the Bush administration. You can also think about viewing the extremely well made Italian documentary Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11 which was done with the collaboration of over 400 people.
Over 600 Architects and Engineers believe that controlled demolitions were used to bring down the WTC towers along with Bldg. 7. Many people, including firemen, have testified that they heard explosions occur in those buildings prior to them collapsing in their own footprints. Over 200 airplane pilots have stated that they do not believe a 757 could have crashed in the Pentagon and somehow cause a 16' hole to occur in that building. Are all these people supposed to be lying? Or perhaps you believe that they were made to say these thing by the "terrorists." I think not.
E.M.: "The problem with Parry's statement is that he ignores the fact that the [alleged] perpetrator of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, was never placed on the FBI's Most Wanted List."
That's simply not true and easily checked: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm
It beggars my belief how many Americans recite false "facts" by rote when they are online, on a computer, and facts like that are so easily checked. All I did was type "fbi.gov" and the link was clear as day at the top of the home page.
Rainborowe
You are correct, he is on there site; however, here's the text describing what he's wanted for:
"USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."
No mention of 9/11 anywhere on his page.
Maninwarren
Excellent point which confirms what I had also stated at May 28 at 7;17 p.m.
Rainborowe
If I may be permitted to say, it would be most helpful that before accusing someone of "recit[ing] false 'facts' by rote when they are online" that you take your own advice and use the computer in order to determine "facts... that are so easily checked." I took your advice which proved my point.
When you quoted me in your first sentence you conveniently neglected to include the next sentence which immediately followed what I had written. If you had, you would have written [I am quoting from memory] "That is because the FBI does not have enough evidence to connect bin Laden with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." If one goes on to the FBI's web site, one finds that bin Laden is indeed upon their Most Wanted List. But if you had actually bothered to click on their Most Wanted link you would have discovered that the FBI had written that:
"Usama bin Laden is wanted in connection with the Aug. 7, 1998, Bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya."
The point, of course, is that the FBI, as I attempted to state, apparently to no avail, "does not have enough evidence to connect bin Laden with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." If they had, they would have clearly written that bin Laden is wanted specifically in connection with the terrorist attacks. But, again, they did not and could not do that because they do not have the evidence to link him with those particular attacks. Again, if they had the evidence they would have done so. Even after almost eight years after that event they still have not put bin Laden on their Most Wanted List because the proof that he was involved in the attacks is, as they apparently know, not there. This not only verifies what I had written but it also substantiates what others far more knowledgeable than myself have said about this including such respected people as David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker and Webster Tarpley who have the temerity to back up their assertions and analyses and questions of 9/11 with facts, logic and reason.
To quote what you had written, "the link [and its information were] as clear as day."
As a postscript, if you were to also read my name very carefully you would discover that it reads Erroll. What you seem to have done in your comment was to address me by the initials E.M which you seem to have mistook for Erroll May. The May happens to refer to today's date of May 28, 2009.
It's my understanding that on 9/11/01, bin Laden was already named in a sealed federal indictment stemming from the truck bombing of the WTC that happened back on Clinton's watch. Bush/Cheney later sneered at this as an example of how the wimpy Dems tried to fight terrorism by "filing legal papers".
Assuming E.M. has a point here (perhaps bin Laden as Ten Most Wanted, rather than just "wanted" is the criteria), don't you think the FBI's demonstrably low profile, stunningly inept role in the summer and early fall of 2001 in keeping tabs on the high jackers was most likely because the Bushies were treating the whole thing as a priority for the CIA, NSA, DIA, and the other international spooks rather than J Edgar Hoover's old Fuddy Duddies?
I mean, one of the great expedient virtues of treating the whole surveillance/sting operation as a military/CIA paramilitary responsibility rather than a civilian law enforcement action (even though these guys were on American soil) was to not have to bother with silly things like getting search warrants for electronic eavesdropping (which create a paper trail, and which would involve contact with those damn lawyers over at the Department of Justice).
Check out my earlier post above on how I speculate a few steps short of being a full false flag conspiracy fan, but how the fear mongering of guys like Dick Cheney might be best spiked by throwing some much needed sunlight on the underlying facts of the 9/11 attacks.
Bill from Saginaw
"In our constitutional system", Obama said, "prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man."
Obama is a nightmare.
Whether we even have a "constitutional system" depends on whether we have a Supreme Court that actually upholds it on matters like "indefinite detention." That's why it's so extremely important that Sonia Sonomayor (or any other Court choice) be very closely questioned on this during her confirmation hearings. (Maybe Senator Spector will be a Jekyll rather a Hyde on the day he questions her) This is the very kind of "ideology" that cannot be ignored as Obama would like "ideological" matters to be ignored in favor of "biographical" ones. SS may be "what America looks like" in background and, given the scaredy-cat of America, "what America feels like," but will she represent the better angels of our nature as reflected in the Constitution?
-Whether we even have a "constitutional system" depends on whether we have a Supreme Court that actually upholds it on matters like "indefinite detention." That's why it's so extremely important that Sonia Sonomayor (or any other Court choice) be very closely questioned on this during her confirmation hearings
Too true!...unfortunately, in your system of confirmation, judges seem to get off without answering simple questions like "is waterboarding torture?"
...And Obama is hardly likely to put forward a candidate that will reverse his decisions on "prolonged (preventive) detention", why would he?
How will Sotomayor explain her previous antagonistic attitude toward the Second Amendment?
jlocke: "And Obama is hardly likely to put forward a candidate that will reverse his decisions on "prolonged (preventive) detention", why would he?"
In your nearly rhetorical question, there seems no realistic possibility that he would actually appoint someone to fulfill his oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution." But like the die-hard Obama supporters say, "give the guy a chance." Here is a chance for him to step beyond his usual manner of promoting his own career by doing something fundamentally "good for the country." I don't know, maybe he will be visited with three spirits who tell him he must mend his ways or he'll wind up forgotten in a pauper's grave. Maybe, as the Obamans insist, he's just still waiting for his "chance" to do what he has always wanted to do (or they have always wanted him to do, even as he said he wouldn't do it). The idiotic "subjunctive" mood (could, woulda, shoulda) in which our political life is living today "could" conceivably give birth to something authentic and helpful. Maybe you or I would give that likelihood a handicap rating of the life expectancy of a snowball in hell, but what else do we have until we get another President?
"Maybe you or I would give that likelihood a handicap rating of the life expectancy of a snowball in hell, but what else do we have until we get another President?"
Yup, makes sense....
I seem to still be "misunderestimating" the degree of, either cynacism or hopelessness, or red tape in America, because from my vantage point, it seems much simpler:
Majority wants X, Green party wants X, majority votes Green party(I'm sorry if I'm repetitive on the Green party, but I know America has one and I presume it is similar to its counterparts around the world)
X being: out of Iraq, torture investigations, universal healthcare,yadda-yadda-yadda.
My question to you is why is progress on the left"ern" front arriving slower than the arctic ice is melting?
Obama sez: "In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man."
***
Under the U.S. Constitution, "prolonged detention™" would not even be a consideration.
Obama sez: "In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man."
***
"Under the U.S. Constitution, "prolonged detention™" would not even be a consideration."
Not one man? How many did Bush get to sign off on violating the torture statute? six? eight? I'd say Obama may opt for ten or an even dozen, just for appearance's sake.
jlocke - the documentations indicates that at least 68 persons have been murdered during the "interogation process"
at least 68
Fulfilling those promises would require political courage from Obama and the Democrats, a commodity that remains in short supply.
If only "short supply" were the problem. At least there'd be some. Obysmal is a political pussy. A political pussy is a cross between a coward, an opportunist and a self-deluded fool. Out there, Herr Obysmal, is Reality. It is waiting for you as it has waited for all your recent predecessors. It will come to collect when you least expect it and sooner than expected. It has you by the short hairs, not the other way around. Obysmal, the boy scout, the Schmalzmeister, the Barry White of the Democratic party, is apparently without any embarrassment at all.
It reminds me of a song I had heard a while back and the situation can easily repeat itself
Lyndon Johnson told the nation,
"Have no fear of escalation.
I am trying everyone to please.
Though it isn't really war,
We're sending fifty thousand more,
To help save Viet nam from Viet Namese."
I jumped off the old troop ship,
And sank in mud up to my hips.
I cussed until the captain called me down.
Never mind how hard it's raining,
Think of all the ground we're gaining,
Just don't take one step outside of town.
Land of the free,home of the brave;a myth if even one person is in jail without a chance to defend him/herself.Of course we have to make more weapons to defend ourselves.Are there caves and underground bunkers for these fearless leaders yet?How can these people show their face anywhere without being embarassed?Tony
mustbe: Land of the free,home of the brave has been updated to land of the shackled and home of the chickenshits
Or, Land of the Greed, Home of the Slave
Don't know if this is relavant or not, but the US continues to descend into fear while doing it's best to make more enemies to fear. So, this statement by William Blum, came to mind:
"If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days.
Permanently.
I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism.
Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country.
I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion dollars [now well over 500 billion] is equal to more than $18,000 [now $31,000] an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.
That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House.
(He then wrote: "On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated.")
Instead of fear, why don't we give this a try. Even OBL, in one of his communique's quoted some of this passage and said that he would end any quarrel with the United States if the US would make such gestures. It was not our licencious morals - or "our freedom" that led to the attacks, or he would, as he said, have attacked Sweden, Netherlands or France.
thanks yunz- great quote from William Blum. had not seen it before. Amazing guy- see if third world traveler is still up, or try googling him. has a lot of great things to say.
but this one is priceless.
yunz is no more...
Sioux Rose
YUNZ: Thanks for the powerful post. I see the world through the lens of Mr. Blum, minus the assassination, although given the entrenched interests, that could be a totally right-on assessment.
yunz: that would be a good start
as far as osl is concerned - he died in 2001 and exists literally as an ogre in a fairy tale
here is a link to david ray griffin's new book about osl's being dead for 8 years:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13743
and an excerpt of the review:
In Chapter 1, “Evidence that Osama bin Laden is Dead”, Griffin surveys in detail the many different indications published in the major media in late 2001 and early 2002 that bin Laden had been very ill and had died. These included a December, 2001 video in which he appeared to be at death’s door (as admitted by a Bush administration spokesperson), analyses by medical experts of the grave state of his health, the sudden and total cessation in December, 2001 of any surveillance intercepts of communications from him, and even reports of his funeral. In this early period, various high-level officials in the US and Pakistani governments, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Pervez Musharraf, speculated that he was dead. By mid-2002 many experts had concluded that he was dead, including FBI counterterrorism official Dale Watson, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and Israeli intelligence officials. The conviction that he died in 2001 is held today by former intelligence operatives Robert Baer and Angelo Codevilla.
Before she was assassinated, Benazir Bhutto had also suggested that Bin Laden had died.
The boss class scumbags use fear as a social control device.
308 million USers need psychiatric therapy.
But that wouldn't be allowed unless there's a buck in it for the boss class.
Q: What is democracy?
A: An income stream
yeah and Obama's deep pockets are being filled by his corporate handlers on a daily basis.
The Republicans are masters of politics. They know all the political dirty tricks and wield them like a master artist wields a paintbrush.
Think about it. The largest terrorist attack in American history happened on Bush's watch. So how do they spin it? They re-frame the argument simply by saying that Bush kept us safe after that attack. Most of the sheeple in this country completely fall for it.
Lets use a simple analogy. Someone owns a large daycare center that burns down on September 11, 2001. A large number of the children die in the fire. Letters are found showing that the owners of the daycare were warned of fire dangers at their facility but did nothing about it.
The owners quickly rebuild the daycare center and reopen it. Their lawyers manage to postpone the trial for 8 years. The Defense then uses the argument that the owners should not be held accountable for the 2001 fire because the new daycare center had not burned down since then. Would that argument hold any water? Apparently it would if the owners were Republicans.
It really shouldn't be that easy to fool the American public, but unfortunately we now live in a country no longer occupied by citizens, but masses of mindless consumers, incapable of even the slightest bit critical thinking.
NC Tom -
Very nice day care center analogy.
My take still is that the fastest way for team Obama to shut up Cheney and the fear monger boys might well be to go straight for the Achilles heel - all those classified materials withheld from the 911 Commission about the run up to the WTC attack itself. What legitimate national security interest of the United States today would be jeopardized by declassifying the working relationships that existed throughout the summer and early fall of 2001 between American spooks and their counterparts in the Pakistani ISI, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and/or other nations about bin Laden's determined plans to hit the United States eight years ago?
Specifically with reference to the Pakistani ISI, who the hell do you think NSA was relying upon for timely translation of all that electronic chatter they were intercepting? What about the evidence that money was transferred to Mohammed Atta right before 9/11 from a double agent working with the ISI?
No, you don't have to go full bore with a Reichstag fire conspiracy scenario.
All you need to show is that something in the nature of a sting operation was underway, a CIA/DIA sting on American soil in league with other cooperating intelligence agencies - a surveillance/bust plan that unexpectedly blew up in the Bushies' faces on that beautiful September morning to the great chagrin of all concerned, including the top Pentagon brass who let the nation's command headquarters get attacked from the air in broad daylight. Prove just that much about 9/11 itself, and all those later deceptions and manipulation of intelligence about Iraq's WMD, anthrax, the Saddam/Osama connection, and so forth will pale in comparison.
Wouldn't it be great if Barack held a fireside chat some evening that declassified the information about 9/11 that's been so long withheld from Congress, the 911 Commission, and from the public? A fireside chat maybe with Leon Panetta and Robert Gates gravely nodding in the background..... then simply let the partisan chips fall wherever they may? Presidents can do this, you know, as Molly Ivins would say.
In any event, I like your example of the day care center fire, and Robert Parry's discourse on how Cheney's 1% risk rhetoric, if acted upon as national security policy, actually ends up breeding more terrorism as blowback than it deters.
Bill from Saginaw
Sioux Rose
NC- Great post, great analogy (so easy to follow). And by the way, welcome to the CD forum.
The best thing about Parry's fine article is the phrase in its title "scaredy-cat nation." This puts Obama's "caving" behavior in the sociological context of the type of "nation" we have become: where people succumb to every frightening rumor of lurking danger, and where those with differing political agendas exploit their fears for their own purposes. "Right wing nuts" have thus an open field of play to promote their various projects of opposition to progressive change, and the would-be defenders of that change are immobilized by a "secondary" fear of the backlash against themselves if they do not "address" the fears that have been so manipulated.
The town I live in (Gainesville FL), probably the most "liberal" town in Florida, recently went through an episode of a text-book case in fear-mongering. The City Council has maintained a policy of non-discrimination (in housing, employment, etc.) against gays and lesbians and last year voted to extend that protection to the transgendered. The local opponents of gay rights manipulated into a fear campaign a clumsy effort by the Council to determine how a transgendered is to be classified (man or woman?) when it comes to such matters as their use of public rest rooms: the Council decided that one's gender is essentially a matter of one's "inner feeling." A certified national right wing nut outfit called Citizens for Good Policy took up the Gainesville situation (as it apparently has in other U.S. cities), and conflated this clumsiness into a petition-and-referendum campaign to rescind the city's civil rights protections for any people not covered by the state of Florida's Civil Rights law which does not include (surprise!) gay persons. The ensuring fear campaign was based on nothing more credible that the 1% (or much less) likelihood that a male sexual pervert might enter a women's restroom to molest girls or women and, if caught, excuse himself by saying he had the "inner feeling" of a woman. And that, folks, was the TOTALITY of their campaign: Want to Keep Men Out of Women's Restrooms? Vote Yes on Amendment One. Fortunately, in this case, Gainesville was immune enough from the scarcedly-cat syndrome that a huge consortium of liberal and conservative forces---from the local newspaper and Chamber of Commerce to the state ACLU and a very active local gay rights organization---were able to secure a 58-42% defeat of that amendment.
Before getting too self-congratulatory about the matter, I'll relate an exchange I had with a Yes sign-holder as I was holding a No one: that, the Yes-man said, were this election to be held in the larger Alachua County of which Gainesville is a part (not to mention the whole state of Florida), it probably would pass. To this political assessment I agreed, re-asserting a point we made in the campaign that a city is entitled to make its own laws about the people whom it wants to protect. Beyond that, though, the idea that 42% of a citizenry in this "most liberal" city could be turned out to vote for a pure and simple fear-mongered position is bracing medicine for assessing the overall capacity of our political system to address the "scaredy-cat" tendencies in our culture; and maybe re-inforces Parry's point that we are terribly dependent in our national political life on a Democratic Party leadership which shows lamentably little tendency to "stand up" to these forces of fear. We were able to muster these "stand up" forces in Gainesville, but elsewhere...?
Sioux Rose
JERRY: With all due respect I lived in Gainesville from l995-2000 and to me it was the heart of the Bible belt. When I moved there "Money Magazine" had rated it the # 1 place to live and I felt like pesonally suing them for that designation. With a Baptist church on EVERY block, and a "Gator Christian" aggressive mentality, I am unsure how you come to the conclusion it's a "liberal" place.
When Michael Moore spoke at the U.F. campus, every single editorial in the college paper, "The Alligator" said disparaging things about him. The Gainesville Sun is a very conservative paper, and the city commission seems to have never met a developer (and related plans) that it did not approve. The poor fellow was tasered at the university and I met another who was tasered for placing a tape recorder on the table when he was interviewed by the police. (I forget what the charges against him were construed as.)
I remember one year not that long after the murders of the students when I had to return a rental car and walked through campus right before their notorious "Gator Growl" football spectacle. There were HUGE effigies made out to the captains of their football team and they were shaped like giant alligators. These reptilian symbols seemed like a pagan form of idol worship, and indeed Gainesville became the # 1 college football team in the nation. In my mind there is a link between the prior blood sacrifices of the students, the focus on this gator symbolism as related to a very aggressive ball game, and the total lack of tolerance by the mainstream community for anything that is not authoritarian/Christian. The town is like an eerie swamp trying to be a small suburban mecca.
I realize there is a separate community filled with lots of gays and kids with all kinds of colored hair and body piercings, almost acting out a direct rebellion to their conservative neighbors. It is the ODDEST place I ever lived and I felt like a social pariah. One night I went to the Thomas Center to hear jazz and wore the wig I bought as a kind of joke when I turned 40. There was a fairly attractive guy seated near me and I had a feeling he would talk to me. He did. He said "he loved my hair." Two years later I ran into him at Leonardo's (sans the wig) and he said, "Don't I know you?" It took me a while to warm up enough to state flatly, "You symbolized my entire social life in Gainesville. The thing you liked about me was the only thing NOT me." And then I related the embarassing incident. Being a pariah allowed me to focus on my children's education (both got into college), and write numerous scripts. I wonder if you and I shared two separate realities, but then you are not a youngish single woman, and probably not from New York.
Sioux Rose, I won't really dispute anything you say about Gainesville, it has many of the features you describe, which maybe helps account for that 42% vote on the Amendment; but it votes more consistently for Democrats and gave Dennis Kucinich by far the largest vote he got in any Florida city in 04. (when I was managing his local campaign, u hum). Of course it has a bunch of faux-progressive "professionals" of the type that went ga-ga for Obama, in again unusually high proportions; so it's a mixed bag of progressivism to say the least.
The only thing with which I could take serious exception is characterizing me as "probably not from New York." In fact, in a way I'm "from" New York, having taught sociology in SUNY Fredonia (western) New Yorkffor 28 years before migrating to Gainesville in 01 (though I'm a native of Oklahoma). Cheers anyway, I hope we meet soon. Jerry
Sioux Rose
Hi, JERRY: I attended SUNY Albany and a friend of mine went to Fredonia. I will try to set up a talk at a bookstore in Gainesville when I have the physical copies of the new book and invite you. How's that? And there are several coffee spots I like, such as Maude's... I'm glad you weren't offended by my take on Gainesville. Until the lawyer I began dating in l994 took me north, I'd never been past Orlando, nor seen the amazing springs and state parks of this region. Having lived in the Florida Keys and prior to that Puerto Rico, and traveled throughout the Caribbean, Mexico and other zones, I NEED nature energy around me to be inspired enough to write. Of course that leaves a major social gap.
Great post, Jerry. You explain the situation in Gainesville very well and make good connecting points with Parry's piece. Scardey-cat nation examples abound everywhere, and Obama is doing all he can to cultivate more of them.