“What did the president know, and when did he know it?” For an older generation, this Watergate-era question encapsulated how America stopped trusting its leadership. But as President George W. Bush now claims he had no warnings of a terrorist attack before 9/11, our generation is facing a similar crisis of confidence and has a similar question: “What didn’t the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (28)Page 1 of 1 pagesPut aside your GW hatred for a second and consider the following for a moment:
You have probably heard of the dirty-bomb scenario / plot. Have you been in Hong Kong and seen all the shipping containers leaving he harbor? Itís quite amazing! Anyway, there are thousands of these containers that enter our ports daily… Which one would you choose to inspect for a dirty-bomb?
Aside from this being a valid analogy of intelligence data verses actionable security data, consider what the economic burden to inspect just 1% of all containers entering the US. Not just the cost of inspection, but more so the cost in delays that are passed on to the retail sector and then to the consumer as the end user. Consider the bonded warehouse fees for shipments pending inspection and the paperwork nightmare for such efforts.
Itís easier said than done. Security efforts must remain within a realistic margin to yield any value. We are a thriving economy because we are a ìfreeî capitalist system. It ceases to be effective if you place road-blocks in the marketís infrastructure and we must accept the risks of being a free markets Nation.
In short, prior to 9/11 how many Americans would have tolerated the current post 9/11 security screening at airports?
Posted by Justo Perez on Apr 21, 2004 at 12:25 PM I don’t see much difference in whether the president knew about the possibility of an attack using planes or not before 9/11 but of course I am not american, and I am not used to thinking about my country as the navel of the world. The rest of the world is a very unsafe place, you know, where you can find your economy ruined in no time, where the armed forces you pay for can, with Mr. Kissinger’s approval, “disappear “ a lot of people for their “incorrect” political views. In the rest of the world you learn that although you may be living upon a fortune in oil, you will have to get used to live in poverty, you also learn that most of the now considered terrorists were trained and armed by the CIA to fight countries which at one time or another were considered as enemies by USA’s standards.
The title of your article suits the purpose of my letter superbly. Don’t you think the American people should for a change at least try to understand the origin of the situation we all are in, instead of considering themselves as “free of sin” as children crying for safety with no analysis of the facts which
they have contributed to create. While still moaning for the Twin Towers they seem to ignore all the destruction and uncertainty plus the killing of innocent people they have been performing in retaliation. Grow up, will you?
Posted by Maria L. Etchart on Apr 21, 2004 at 1:12 PM Doubting the Official Narrative
Interceptor jets were not scrambled in the hours, HOURS, after the first plane is off course; no detailed accounting of the failure between FAA, NORAD, or higher-ups is part of the official narrative..
There have been other preposterous and shady ìfactsî, like finding a hijackerís passport in the rubble of WTC. Not teeth, mind you, but a flimsy passport. Remember, the fire is so hot, it supposedly melts asbestos covered steel resulting in the unusual collapse of the buildings. Indeed no forensic evidence has yet been found that identifies a SINGLE hijacker to the remains of any of the crashes.
After reviewing the information on WTC-7, Iíve come to the conclusion that it is unprecedented that a steel structure built in 1985 could have come down, particularly in the way it did, by fire alone. http://www.wtc7.net/
Other suspicious, uninvestigated matters: UAL stock put options. The man to focus on is CIA executive director ìBuzzyî Krongard. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html Absolutely devastating piece of information.
Express visas are granted to Saudi nationals prior to 9-11, after warnings about a possible attack. After the attack, the US government is involved in a secretive mission to fly Saudi friends of Bush, high rollers, out of the country, even though some of them should be under investigation. Who were they?
The Patriot Act, as a massive text, was written before 9-11.
Bush is a terrible liar: http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/liar.htm
Even if 9-11 events are a case of ìnegligenceî, then why isnít someone prosecuted for negligence?
Ted Olson, a Bush insider who testified to the Supreme Court in favor of Bushís appointment to the presidency, now US Solicitor General, against astronomical odds, loses his wife on flight 77; also against all odds, he claims to have had a phone conversation with his wife on flight 77, the one that reportedly hit the pentagon. NO OTHER CALLS come from that flight. Below is a compilation of the preposterous conflicting accounts which Olson gives about his supposed conversation:
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent-data-77.html
Posted by Doubting the Official Narrative on Apr 21, 2004 at 3:28 PM It would be preferable if the two scenarios cited by David Sirota about the administration’s culpability were the only ones that existed. Unfortunately, it’s all too possible that they knew plenty and allowed 9/11 to happen to advance their agenda(s). I’ve NEVER believed that Bush looked surprised in that Florida schoolroom. As Sirota himself points out, “Why in 2001 did he insist on taking one of the longest summer vacations in White House history”? Could there be a darker explanation, like staying out of the target zone? It’s not far-fetched in the least. And where was the Air Force, for G-d’s sake?? The ‘investigation’ is barely skin deep. I won’t even go into the fourth, and darkest of all possibilities…
Posted by Will Rigby on Apr 21, 2004 at 9:12 PM It’s much as Mr. Sirota says. The administration was either lying about knowing nothing of the threat, or were too dumb to comprehend the data that pointed to it. I know I’m leaving out the plausibility of admin officials actually permitting 9/11 as a way of creating a climate of fear in America which they could exploit, but I shudder to suggest it. If by any hideous chance it might be true (I pray not!), then the rulers of America are in fact the enemies of the American people, enemies of freedom. Hey, where have I heard that one before...? Regime change, anyone?
Posted by Kuya on Apr 22, 2004 at 1:26 AM In regards to “Itís the Stupidity, Stupid.” I would propose another possibility: In the “Project for the New American Century.” the neocons put forth the need to invade Iraq. They also put forth the need for something like Perl Harbour to occur in order to have a cover for invading Iraq. Is it possible that the Bush Administration ignored the warnings because they needed something like 9/11 to happen in order to invade Iraq?
Posted by Dr. Doug Kelly on Apr 22, 2004 at 6:35 AM we’ve got to do something. words no longer seem enough, especially with this administration, which seems unable to grasp many sentences formed. or, like this article, they flat out deny what they want and live in a bubble.
so what are we going to do?
john kerry’s not enough, kucinich would be a start, nader too. but, for seriously, what are we to do?
set up a permanent protest on the whitehouse?
deny that nothing is wrong?
or join in the adventure of complete self annihilation.
but, for seriously, what should we do?
Posted by j. on Apr 22, 2004 at 1:14 PM Many of this group of neocons are followers of Strauss. I think that Strauss was at the Univeristy of Chicago if memory serves. Strauss suggested that the majority of people are so dumb that democracy canít really work. (I have trouble with this because the polls show that Bush still has 50% approval rating?????? ñ Reagan was re-elected??? ñ the Bush / Gore election was even close???? ñ My apologies to David Sinorta, but Itís getting pretty hard to refute this part.). Straus suggested rule by an elite and in a very Macavellian way. One of the problems with this (besides the philosophy) is that these neocons mistakenly believe that they are the elite, when in fact they are for the most part a ways down the evolutionary latter. It is said that intellect is invisible to those who do not possess it. This is, I think, an example of it. Accumulation of wealth is not (despite how much these guys try to push the idea) a measure of elitism. It may even be inversely related. Think of the values put forth by the great philosophers. Do these neocons reflect ANY of those values? The real elite would not follow ideology blindly. The elite would follow reason and ethics, not ideology and greed. A great many of the elite can be found in Universities, but are also scattered throughout the population in numerous occupations and across the entire income spectrum. Many of them, I think, are so turned off by the crassness of the current political climate that they have turned away from politics.
Posted by Kelly on Apr 22, 2004 at 5:34 PM Dr. Kelly is right when he points out that the PNAC has described the necessity of overthrowing Saddam for years. They’ve been promoting the idea among their supporters since long before most Americans (including the Bush team, apparently) ever heard of al-Qaeda. Check www.newamericancentury.org, particularly their Statement of Principles and the list of backers at the bottom of that page. Spooky, but not surprising.
Posted by Kuya on Apr 23, 2004 at 12:54 AM Thereís no problem with the Bush bashing or anti-war rhetoricÖ No problem at all with expressing your view and trying to carry the flag for your corner; for your humanitarian concern of the casualties of war and its destructionÖ
However, itís no coincidence that most who do voice the ìBush bashingî and anti-war rhetoric happen to have collectivist ideals. The foundation of their view is a clearly an opposition to Capitalism.
In short, I propose that you dispense with the mask of humanitarian cause and state your anti-Capitalist agenda straight forward. Go ahead and tell us how evil we are, tell us how ìfree-marketsî are the seed of evil. Tell us how the markets cannot express the human will and how choice is better represented in a welfare state.
We the ignorant ìneocons,î we narrow mined, greedy, CapitalistsÖ Tells us whatís really on your mindÖ Dispense with the hypocrisies of hiding behind your ìhumanitarianî masks of concern and liberal righteousness.
In short, we (the neocons) refuse to become our brotherís keeper.
Posted by Justo Perez on Apr 23, 2004 at 1:05 PM Come Clean to Uncle Greasy!
Show your true colors and stop hiding behind that mask.
Bring on the arguments in favor of a welfare stateÖ
Posted by Justo Perez on Apr 23, 2004 at 1:29 PM David,
It’s not so much a case of stupidity
as one of preserving deniability. Of
course Bush knew, as did several others.
hey knew roughly when, hence the long
vacation in Texas, Ashcroft using DOJ’s
propjet. The stupidity hypothesis requires
too much of it in too many high places.Wolfowitz stated years ago that the grand
plan would probably require a “Pearl Harbor”
type incident. He should have said
“Reichstag” but that might have lead
even us to catch on.All of which was obvious on 9/12, but I’m
still waiting for you all to catch up.
A few have done so; when will the rest
of you start listening?Bush et al aren’t as stupid as they
are willing to have us think so long
as it keeps us from getting it. We’re
the stupid ones.
Posted by Fred White on Apr 24, 2004 at 9:07 PM This story tells nothing that I don’t already know. I just have a real problem understanding why so many do in this country do not see this, and why our media are so easy on him, and why, for God’s sake, he hasn’t been impeached.
Bill Clinton screwed around with one aide, Monica, and there was this self-righteous rush to impeach him.
George W. Bush is screwing with the middle-class and the poor, the economy, the environment, an illegal war, the U.N., the world populace. He lies, lies, lies… and he is still president because...? I don’t get it.
Posted by Sally Bookwalter on Apr 24, 2004 at 11:54 PM There are so many intelligent and thoughtful comments here.
Here is a statement I read that might sum it all up.
“My name is George Bush and God has approved this message.” (from the Calgary Sun, by Bill Kaufman 04-19-04.Their mantra is deny,deny,deny, then pull the God card. I want to think that the public is not stupid. Just lazy or in denial about how dangerous this regime is. There are enough folks out there that know in their hearts how dangerous these ego maniacs are. If that were not true they would not have had to send operatives to steal the election. They are gearing up now with Diebold voting machines, the president of Diebold was quoted as saying “they would bring this election home to Bush” Tell me what could that mean?
Mr. Sirota you and your collegues have the means to have your voices heard. We need to know the ‘nuts and bolts’ of what to do besides just voting...ways to protect the votes at critical voting stations.
These guys are shoring up for fear that the truth will be known and they have to somehow control the voting results. With a President who thinks God talks to him alone....scary right? and a regime that is at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder (as stated in a comment) what else can we do??? !!!!!!
One more thing...as to protecting our shores...there was 87 billion we could have used but that went to a fake war with real deaths....
What goes on in the mind of anyone who could vote for Dubya! What!
Posted by Barbara on Apr 25, 2004 at 8:44 AM CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION;
I would like to clarify an earlier statement on Diebold and what the CEO (I said president) of it said here is the correct information that I had originally had placed at another website, www.unknownnews.net
_______________________________
“ “Fixing the Election” by Steven Hill and Bob Richie.” ... Another red flag was raised when staunch Republican Walden O’Dell, CEO of voting equipment manufacturer Diebold, said in a private fund- raising letter “we are going to deliver Ohio’s electoral votes to President Bush.” ... “ (I had said election)
Sorry for the misinformation.
________________________________
Posted by Barbara on Apr 25, 2004 at 12:34 PM I do believe a third and fourth scenario are aoso possible. Who benefited from the attacks on 9/11? Prior to 9/11, dubwa’s presidential legitimacy was questioned by every Gore voter. After 9/11 he had the highest approveal raqting in history. Who has benefited? Bush and Cheny with an excuse scare the population to death, take away our civil liberties, to invade Iraq and hire all their mercenaries/business colleagues to go in and pocket the $87 billion Congress approved to rebuild Iraq. Follow the polls, follow the money. It is unthinkable that they not only had prior knowledge, but were more involved than just knowing. And who but bush and Cheny just happened to be out of D.C. that morning? And Bush sat in a classroom in Florida with a group of second graders AFTER the towers were attacted, did not leave to give the command so the airforce could defend because he “did not want to scare the children”. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots!!! Ann
Posted by AnnSchneider on Apr 25, 2004 at 11:00 PM The fact that the President has his daily briefings summarised and then read to him by one of his aides highlights a real weakness.
The aide effectively controls what the President hears and can place emphasis on what he (the aide) feels are the key points.
It also demonstrates that the President is either an over-zealous delegator, plain lazy or lacking the intelligence to sort out the wheat from the chaff himself.
By contrast President Clinton preferred a very much more hands-on approach and apparently would read the briefings himself and write comments on the documents detailing actions to be taken.
It is hard to believe that any US President would knowingly allow such a thing as 9/11 to happen on his watch but there are plenty of “grey men” in the White House and the Pentagon who would see the potential for reprisals and so perhaps down-play any such intelligence.
A President who is a simple man, devoutly religious, intellectually-challenged, sees the world in black and white, prone to delegation and who takes long and frequent vacations is the ideal front man for neo-cons with a secret agenda of their own.America you are infected with a virus.
To remove it you must replace the President with a more competent, intelligent, hard-working and statesmanlike individual as soon as possible.
This will prevent further deterioration and will allow recovery to begin.
To prevent re-infection you must look closely at the role of special interest groups, lobbies and pressure groups in dictating Government policy (especially foreign policy.)
An area of particular concern is the funding of Presidential campaigns.
Another area to look at is the control of the media.
In the UK we have to replace our PM who is intelligent but dangerously out of step with public opinion which is fed a more balanced world view by an independent BBC.
Posted by Anthony on Apr 26, 2004 at 6:32 AM Man, this entire post session looks like love fest.
Once again…
Come clean to Uncle Greasy! : )
Posted by Justo Perez on Apr 26, 2004 at 6:44 AM One should credit the neocons for accomplishing something impressive. They have taken an ideology that, at its core, is based on giving all power to the one percent of the population that is wealthy and have convinced about half of the population into supporting it. How has this group of neocons managed to influence half of the population into voting against their own best interests? One method is to define for the rest of us who liberals are (dishonestly). Most Republicans seem to think that all or most liberals are closet socialists or communists (not even remotely true). Liberals would not recognize themselves as described by neocons. Neocons also own the majority of the media so that it is only THEIR view that is communicated. Just as most Republicans are not KKK or nazi, the vast majority of liberals are just mainstream average people. But the job of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Clear Channel and others is to distort that reality. To see what neocons want for America simply look at the types of government they have imposed on other countries. Marcos of the Philippines, the Generals in Argentina, the Shaw of Iran, Guatemala, Chile under Pinochet, the Dominican Republic, Columbia are all examples of the right wing repressive dictatorships that these neocons have created. Most liberals are capitalists, but we do not want to be dominated by a hand full of right wing rich people who disdain democracy - and make not mistake - they have no respect for democracy. Neocon ideology is not even good for business. Business needs a solid middle class to be viable. Neocon ideology destroys the middle class. Ask yourself, who brought us women’s right to vote, Social Security, the forty hour work week, overtime pay, the week-end, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, minority rights, worker’s compensation, the minimum wage, and on and on - it was not Republicans. They fought each of these things, and still do.
Posted by Kelly on Apr 26, 2004 at 11:53 AM Kelly:
The best part of your post was how you claimed neocons spun democrats as and then you went and completely spun Republican views. Some of those things that you said Republicans fight were things established in the Progressive Era from 1904-1918. Two of the three presidents in the progressive era were republican (Taft and TR) most of the stuff you said was put in place to save the country after the depression by FDR (a democrat). The idea that Republicans fight things like the weekend and woman’s voting rights is laughable. And republicans favor democracy, that is an insane charge. Don’t criticize a party for somethign an dthen do the same thing they do.
Posted by brad on Apr 27, 2004 at 10:07 AM brad,
You make ONE correct point. I should NOT have used the word Republicans when I said, “ Ask yourself, who brought us . . . . and on and on - it was not Republicans.” I should have said it was not conservatives. You are correct on that. My apologies. There were Democrats at the time just as, and perhaps even more right wing than Republicans (Dixiecrats). The conservatives ABSOLUTELY fought against women’s’ rights and continue to do so today (Rush Limbaugh’s FEMA - NAZIS; Phyllis Schlafly leading the assault on the women’s’ equal rights). Liberals ABSOLUTELY was instrumental in bringing us the weekend through their fight for a minimum wage. Today, the conservatives are attempting to do away with the minimum wage, and the minimum wage is a very big part of why we have the weekend. Before that folks were working far more hours, and at least six days per week. And again, the leadership of the Republican Party have NO respect for democracy. Republicans (as well as many democrats) have fought getting money out of elections. Until we do, we have plutocracy, not democracy, and they have made clear that that is their preference.
Posted by Kelly on Apr 30, 2004 at 1:08 PM “...an administration that has become the Michelangelo of dishonesty” i love it.
Posted by joe on May 2, 2004 at 7:31 PM Great work, Dave. Care for an Australian perspective?
And what of that tail-wagging U.S. lapdog Downunder, where the mean and tricky Australian Mini-Me-too neo-con Prime Minister Germ Howard has totally politicised the federal public service, the Defence Forces, and intelligence services?
Australia’s crippled democracy is floundering like a chook in a shithouse cesspit.
With the virulent little Johnny Germ in the lead, our nobbled nation has wandered even further down that very dark, very narrow, and very, very nasty back road the nation stumbled upon back in 1996 when Johnny Germ got elected Prime Minister. It sure is going to be a long trek back to civilisation.
But it could be worse: imagine being one of those 20,000 poor bastard G.I.’s in Iraq who thought they were going home but have been ordered by deranged Defence Sickretary Rummy to hang around for another “ninety days” of joyful appreciation by liberated Iraqis.
See you at xenoxnews.com, for more of the same!
Posted by Max Gross on May 3, 2004 at 5:24 AM Great work, Dave. Care for an Australian perspective?
And what of that tail-wagging U.S. lapdog Downunder, where our mean and tricky Mini-Me-too neo-con Prime Minister Germ Howard has totally politicised the federal public service, the Defence Forces, and intelligence services?
Australia’s crippled democracy is floundering like a chook in a shithouse cesspit.
With the virulent little Johnny Germ in the lead, our nobbled nation has wandered even further down that very dark, very narrow, and very, very nasty back road it stumbled upon back in 1996 when Johnny Germ got elected Prime Minister.
It sure is going to be a long trek back to civilisation.
But it could be worse: imagine being one of those 20,000 poor bastard G.I.’s in Iraq who thought they were going home but have been ordered by deranged Defence Sickretary Rummy to hang around for another “ninety days” of joyful appreciation by liberated Iraqis.
See you at xenoxnews.com, for more of the same!
Posted by Max Gross on May 3, 2004 at 5:25 AM Hello Uncle Greasy, great moniker! How the welfare state became the focus of your post I can’t explain, but in response, it seems clear that when employers and investors in a market economy are guided by a few basic ethical imperatives (like decent working conditions, fair promotion guidelines, and wages that people can actually live off of), the results for workers outclass central planning by a mile. This isn’t much in dispute. However, as long as we’re digressing from Sirota’s article, the real problem of the so-called “neocons” is that they won’t allow people to pursue happiness in their own way. They have a penchant for shoving their customs and values down our throats, constantly trying to seize the law to make sure we all conform to their narrow vision. Ferocious commentaries and policies against everything from gay marriage to medical marijuana come straight from the neocon playbook. If I have the right to pursue and accumulate wealth to my heart’s content, should I not also have the right to marry whoever I love and to shape my own consciousness as I see fit? If I can “own” a factory that employs 1000 people, or a piece of land that will still be there when my bones are dust, should I not also be assumed to “own” my body and mind? Seems like there’s only one kind of “freedom” that the neocons uphold, plus (the real point of my tirade) they continually phrase complicated social and political issues in the most simplistic “with us or against us” fashion. Criticizing GWB for his handling of security threats is not the same as promoting a welfare state, any more than permitting the accumulation of wealth is the same as upholding freedom.
Posted by Kuya on May 4, 2004 at 1:48 AM I simply can’t believe the lack of coverage in the mainstream media. Watergate was nothing compare to this. Clinton was impeached for a very minor issue, this administration is destroying america. But the point I think needs to be emphasized is that changing the President from Bush to Kerry will not fix the problems, the big picture is that we need major changes in our government and one solution is a viable 3rd party movement.
Posted by Michael Feeney on May 4, 2004 at 7:57 AM Great story....its comforting to know that other people out there think Bush and his gang are evil and corrupt, not to mention out-right ingnorant!! The most frustrating thing for me is how dangerous and WRONG this adminstration is.......and that a large percentage of the American people still support it! HOW...WHY...I have a very hard time understanding the reasoning of these people.
Posted by mike anfuso on May 5, 2004 at 11:34 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Sirota
- Tuning Out the Braindead Megaphone
- Mandate for Change
Voters' message to Obama: think big - Knowing When To Walk Away
- McCain Banking on a Confederacy of Dunces
- Signs of an Earthquake in Oregon
- Remembering Those Other American Dreams
Democrats struggle to win blue-collar voters
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
