Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

9/11 should mean nothing

Posted by Joshua Holland at 11:33 AM on September 8, 2006.


Yeah, yeah blame Clinton
wtcattack911
wtc

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get The Mix in your
mailbox!

 

The War on Terror is a miserable failure. The problem it was supposed to address, according to the White House, was Islamofascist terrorism. The proximate cause of that terrorism was that "they hate us," and the root cause of that hatred was supposedly "our freedoms."

OK. Here we are, five years in, and last year there were three and a half times the number of terror attacks worldwide than in 2001. "They" -- the Islamic world at large -- didn't hate us before we launched the war (at least a majority didn't), but they sure do now. And, to top it off, we've had to accept fewer freedoms because of that "war." Most of all, we're losing because, with an assist from our Commander-in-Chief, we're still terrified -- Al Qaeda's mission is accomplished.

Intelligence, on the other hand, seems to work pretty well. I did a review of media reports for an article I'm writing and found that governments have claimed to have foiled at least 37 major attacks against Western targets since 1999.

But the best evidence that competent intelligence and law enforcement, handled by responsible adults, is the best defense against terrorism may have been the devastating attacks of 9/11 themselves. After all, they never should have happened.

Consider:

  • The President's now infamous August 6, 2001, intelligence briefing warned that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft. The White House at first claimed that there was no indication that the attacks would be on American soil. Later, it was revealed that the briefing was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.
  • According to the Sunday Herald, "Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks…" British intelligence had previously warned of attacks using aircraft in Washington DC and New York.
  • According to Newsweek, a classified report by a joint Congressional inquiry found that the CIA had warned the white House just over a month before the attacks that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike "in the coming weeks." Agency officials warned: "The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."
  • According to the British Independent, "Weeks before the terrorist attacks on 11 September, the United States and the United Nations ignored warnings from a secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil. The warnings were delivered by an aide of Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban Foreign Minister at the time, who was known to be deeply unhappy with the foreign militants in Afghanistan, including Arabs."
  • The New York Times reported ($$) that Egyptian intelligence had warned U.S. intelligence a week before the attack that Al Qaeda "was in advance stages of executing significant operation against American targets" based on intelligence from a secret agent in close contact with Bin Laden.
  • The Telegraph of London reported that "two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August [of 2001] to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence" of a terror cell inside the U.S. and warned "that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent."
  • James Ridgeway reported in the Village Voice that both Russian and Jordanian intelligence had warned of pending attacks in the U.S. during the summer of 2001; both warnings were specifically of "suicide pilots" training for attacks on U.S. soil.
  • Journalist William Rivers Pitt reported that during the summer of 2001: "The German intelligence service, BND, warned American and Israeli agencies that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack important American targets."
  • Military intelligence officials claim they had identified 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 hi-jackers well before the attack (others have disputed the claim).
  • James Ridgeway reported that U.S. intelligence officials had ignored French intelligence's warnings about Zacarias Moussaoui, an Algerian believed to have been planning to accompany the hi-jackings.
  • FBI agents in Minnesota had launched an investigation into Moussaoui, but their information was ignored by Washington.

Just think about that on Monday. Katrina is always held up as the best evidence of this administration's great, avoidable disaster, but the truth is that 9/11 should never have happened.

Digg!

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.


On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
A response to a colleague...
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.
Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
A whole new definition of Democracy.
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Religious right rally's first gaffe
Church opposes bigoted agenda
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Clinton did nothing...
Posted by: franknbeans on Sep 8, 2006 12:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Osama bin Laden issued a Fatwa in 1996 titled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

Ordering that 2 million americans must die.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You know nothing... Posted by: Joshua Holland
Gobsmacked again
Posted by: Knowmad on Sep 8, 2006 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Josh, pray tell: If all these seemingly reliable and unbiased sources you've quoted warned the apparent idiots running your country of the impending potential attacks, why (1) did they not not react, and (2) get away with not reacting?

As you know, I'm usually critically approving of your obvious awareness, research ethic, and ability to connect the threads and weave a quality editorial carpet. And if I'm not mistaken, you have basically shrugged off the 'controversial' and 'conspiratorical' body of opinion of the why's and how's of 911 in the past. So, how do we justapose the two views: they knew and didn't do anything but weren't involved, vs they knew well beforehand and purposely didn't do anything, and could have even participated to a wide range of degrees? Just a question in the interest of clarity.

By the way, up here we have an pathetic adolescent bush licker (Harper), who's starting to get a little uppity, trying to stretch his wings and solo fly on his own dismal conservative foray. The beauty is, his party is in minority, and under our system we can let him think he's the next incarnation of your Chushrovian ideology as long as we like, before we bitch-slap him back to reality.

As for Cenk's type of reaction, while it's certainly understandable, it'll probably only work once or twice before becoming self-defeating. You guys need all the cool you can muster if you're to get through the next two months intact.

Keep pumpin', but make sure to laugh as well. Hey, if all else fails you can always come up here and play with our administration, though it'd likely seem a little tame and, well, effective, compared to what you're used to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gobsmacked again Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Gobsmacked again Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» so, what would = 'evidence'? Posted by: aurora2484
» RE: Gobsmacked again Posted by: kenadrian
Bush DID LESS than nothing
Posted by: russianblue1 on Sep 8, 2006 2:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He read a child's book - no, wait, he wasn't even reading that. He just sat there with a stupid expression on his face.

PLEASE deny that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And therein lies the key... Posted by: FrEdMaSt
Blinded by the BAT
Posted by: dainin on Sep 8, 2006 4:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The official story of September 11th is comprised of two reports. The first of these, the 9/11 Commission Report, gives the government’s overall version of what happened that day and why. However, it is somewhat misleading to call this report the “official story” as the Commission’s executive director and de facto member of the Bush Administration, Philip Zelikow, controlled the entire investigation as well as the writing of the report. Most of the 9/11 Commission members were simply there to present an appearance of unanimity. Therefore the official story is not representative of work done by the US government as a whole, but is largely the view of the Bush Administration.

The Commission’s story has been shown to be entirely false due to lies of omission and distortion. One significant event their report omitted entirely was the collapse of WTC 7. They left explanation for this disaster, and the collapse of the towers, to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for publication as the second half of the official story, the NIST WTC report. This second report is a direct product of the Bush Administration, with cabinet member Carlos Gutierrez’ name emblazoned on page one. Of course NIST itself is a government agency whose directors are also Presidential appointees. Those relying on this report always fail to note the fact that the leaders of NIST’s WTC investigation were appointed directly by George W. Bush.

This fact should remind us that the Bush Administration has been criticized heavily for their disdain of science. The House Committee on Government Reform found “numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings.” A group of leading scientists, now including 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 175 members of the National Academies, has said that the Bush Administration engages in “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seeing that list in one place is a mind-blower.
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 8, 2006 6:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush is well-practised in the art of manipulating the public media to his best advantage. He wouldn't be where he is if he couldn't do it.

I wonder what caused me to even expect that he might have a smidgen of integrity; I guess because I gave his father that slack. For all the earlier presidents who 'spin' the news, I do not recall them being caught in lie after lie after lie like Bush. He bought himself a second term, and I expect that in the world of politics, that's all that matters.

I see Olberman addressing Bush with the famous phrase addressed to McCarthy at the hearings: Sir, have you no decency? One problem is that we have no prominent political leadership that is capable of directing that question to Bush. We have none who are decent enough to challenge Bush (not that it would make any difference to Bush, but it might have if prior to his re-election.)

We have no equivalent of the Senator who was able to chair the Nixon impeachment hearings.

I generally dismiss the posters who tar the Demos with the same brush as Bush. But when I can only get this list on AlterNet and not from any political player (Mr. Holland, you are running for office?) I realize how rotten US political life has become. Whadda revoltin' development!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

some more pieces of the picture
Posted by: aurora2484 on Sep 8, 2006 10:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How did Richard and George respond to all those warnings?
They both took vacations for most of August [AP, 7/30/01, Jackson Hole News and Guide, 7/15/01]

During that time, from Aug 4 to 30th 2001, "24-hour fighter cover was placed over the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas" during his vacation there. [Counterpunch, 9/18/02, in an article referring to Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney saying she was disturbed by the implications of that.]

What was Mr W actually doing during that time?
Actually, "Nothing much", according to ABC News, apart from his regular daily intelligence briefings. [ABC, 8/3/01, Washington Post, 8/7/01, Salon, 8/29/01]

On August 6 2001 he received the briefing, "Bin Laden to strike in US". His response was to take most of the rest of the day off, to go fishing: [New York Times, 5/25/02]

Such responses may appear innocent, or at least ignorant, and carefree, but if so, then why the high levels of personal security, to extent that when he visited Sarasota, Florida, the eve before the attacks, "surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort where he was staying." [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] (.. are 24 hour air fighters in August, and surface-to-air missiles placed on your roof, a normal part of security procedures?)

And then there's Mr Ashcroft. "July 26, 2001, CBS News reported that Ashcroft had stopped flying commercial aircraft due to a threat, but "neither the FBI nor the Justice Department ... would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it." [CBS, 7/26/01]

If there were really no awareness of what was about to happen, no "state of alert", then how to explain this following:

Two days after 9/11, Newsweek: "The state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill." [Newsweek, 9/13/01]

No "hot topic". Only a brief ref in the following Newsweek: "A group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." [Newsweek, 9/17/01]

Above refs via scoop, "Failure to defend the skies on 9/11", 5 June 03, Paul Thomson.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reichstag fire
Posted by: lessbread on Sep 9, 2006 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether or not there are parallels between the two events themselves, they've both been used in the same way - to focus more power in the executive branches of either nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ABC's "Path To Lies" ( a cartoon)
Posted by: what now cartoons on Sep 10, 2006 4:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pinocchio caught lying The ABC 9-11 pack of lies, and now the lies continue, oh yeah, we will edit the thing for America, but still put out the same crap for the rest of the world?!! Give me a break, they just want to get this out as a pure propaganda piece. What's next, the dvd offered as the un edited European version? Their real slimeballs.
Tonight we shall see how much editing ABC actually has done, however as a filmmaker I am well aware that story points woven into the story are hard to fully remove, and some stinky residue always seeps through, and in this case, the falsification of history, that seepage would be despicable.
History should not be rewritten to please the political party that holds power, this is the first step towards an Orwellian world.
I am very disappointed that the Disney Company, a unique American company would give up it's truly American values to support a partisan lie. The effect on the Disney brand could be devastating. To see my latest cartoon on this topic, go to my website and check it out.
http://www.whatnowtoons.com/#058

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blame
Posted by: Liger on Sep 11, 2006 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that 911 should not have happend, but not for the same reason that you do. It's not our fault or our government's fault that it happend. I believe that the blame sits squarely on those that planned and executed the attack. I I hope that you will keep that in mind during this terrible week.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

9/11--The day America Lost It's Freedom
Posted by: wizodd on Sep 14, 2006 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rather than nothing, 9/11 marks the first truly successful attempt by the Administration to create a long-term atmosphere of fear within the citizens of these United States of America.

There is little doubt upon examination of the data available regarding the 9/11 attacks, the 1st World Trade Center attack and the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing, that there was administration assistance in the creation and execution of all three attacks.

There is an old law enforcement maxim used by the FBI and others that should be remembered when investigating 'terrorist acts'--follow the money. Find out who benefits from the attacks, and you are likely to find the actual force behind them.

There are anomalies in all of these attacks (and in fact, in most large terrorist attacks.)

1) An assumption of terrorism is that the more civilian deaths/injuries which can be created, the more fear will be created. So why would a terrorist plan all three of these attacks at times which seem designed to minimize the human injuries and deaths? You don't attack a building before it is really open if you want to kill people--you wait until it is fully occupied. In addition, of course, the WTC was, in fact, supposed to withstand airplane impacts without collapse--a feature that would have further acted to reduce casualties.

2) The terrorists certainly didn't benefit much, as they became major targets that the US was willing to go after without regard to national boundaries.

But the Administration, ah, they benefited. Little or no oversight was placed over their 'emergency' anti-terror measures, and literally billions of dollars were spent without controls...how much of that money ended up in the hands of Bush's friends?

But all of that is as nothing compared with the great increases in control over the world population which Bush & Co. have acquired--control which, if it can be maintained for even a decade will consolidate an American tyranny which will make cold-war USSR look free.

Already young people do not consider having to be at an airport 3 hours before take-off for 'inspection' to be 'normal' and for the most part, they are o.k. with this...a degree of interference which would have caused rioting in the streets only 30 years ago.

It seems that if the US Gov't puts out an announcement of a new "War on ____" it is doomed to fail. The "Wars" on: Poverty, Drugs, etc. have all been miserable failures.

Perhaps they should declare a "Peace on ____" for a chance of success.

The official policy since the 70's on skyjacking has been to 'disarm the passengers’; this has been so successful, that through this period the skyjackings continued without pause.

The "official" tactic to take if you are aboard a skyjacked aircraft (whether as crew or passenger) throughout that period has been "cooperate with the terrorists" and let the authorities deal with the problem. It was this policy which made the ludicrous possible--taking control of a multi-million dollar aircraft, it's crew and passengers, with a razor blade!

Terrorist attacks kill an average of about 2,000 people annually, worldwide, with the majority in Israel and Malaysia.

Car accidents kill 25x that many in the US alone. So, are you afraid of terrorists, or motorists?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]