Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Giuliani's 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Center for American Progress. Posted June 28, 2007.


During a speech Monday at Pat Robertson's Regent University, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani indirectly blamed President Clinton for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

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

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna and Matt Corley contributed to this report.


During a speech Monday at Pat Robertson's Regent University, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani indirectly blamed President Clinton for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Echoing arguments offered frequently by Bush administration officials, Giuliani claimed that Clinton treated the 1993 World Trade Center bombing "as a criminal act instead of a terrorist attack," which "emboldened other strikes" on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, and Tanzania, and later on the USS Cole. "The United States government, then President Clinton, did not respond," Giuliani said. "Bin Laden declared war on us. We didn't hear it." The claim that Clinton "did not respond" to global terrorism during his administration is demonstrably and flagrantly false. (Giuliani himself knows this. Just last year, before he became a presidential candidate, he said, "The idea of trying to cast blame on Clinton [for the 9/11 attacks] is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it.") Giuliani's fundamentally misguided approach to counterterrorism is evidenced not only by his dishonest smears of President Clinton, but by his embrace of the same national security strategy as President Bush, under whom global terrorism is rising, Osama bin Laden is resurgent, the Middle East is deeper in violent unrest, and the U.S. military is in the midst of a readiness crisis.




CLINTON'S TERRORISM RECORD: The Clinton administration's efforts to "thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on." Richard Clarke, who served as counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, detailed Clinton's counterterrorism record after Vice President Cheney claimed in 2004 that the United States had "no great success in dealing with terrorists" during the 1990s: "It's possible that the vice president has spent so little time studying the terrorist phenomenon that he doesn't know about the successes in the 1990s," Clarke said. "There were many. The Clinton administration stopped Iraqi terrorism against the United States, through military intervention. It stopped Iranian terrorism against the United States, through covert action. It stopped the al-Qaida attempt to have a dominant influence in Bosnia. It stopped the terrorist attacks at the millennium. It stopped many other terrorist attacks, including on the U.S. embassy in Albania. And it began a lethal covert action program against al-Qaida," including military strikes against al Qaeda targets. Giuliani claims Clinton "did not respond" to bin Laden. In fact, Roger Cressy, former National Security Council director for counterterrorism, has written, "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda."


TERRORISM AS A CRIMINAL ACT:
Giuliani's criticism that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was considered "a criminal act instead of a terrorist attack" shows a deeply flawed understanding of counterterrorism. In fact, the United States "has long regarded [terrorist] acts as criminal," according to the 9/11 Commission Staff Report. This practice continues under Bush; last year, for example, Bush introduced a plan to "improve national legal and regulatory frameworks to ensure appropriate criminal and civil liability" for nuclear terrorists. However, it was under Clinton that terrorism was first treated as a national security threat. The 1993 World Trade Center attack, which occurred one month after Clinton took office, "called attention to a new kind of terrorist danger." Not until July 1995 did the U.S. intelligence community identify this "new terrorist phenomenon" characterized by "loose affiliations of Islamist extremists" who were "more fluid and multinational than the older organizations." Clinton had already taken action. A June 1995 Presidential Decision Directive issued by Clinton for the first time emphasized concern about terrorism "as a national security issue," not just a matter of law enforcement. Clinton's directive declared that the United States saw "terrorism as a potential threat to national security as well as a criminal act and will apply all appropriate means to combat it." By 1997, U.S. intelligence confirmed "the existence of al Qaeda as a worldwide terrorist organization," and for the last three years of his presidency, Clinton "raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave."




THE USS COLE MYTH: Giuliani has frequently repeated the claim that Clinton did not respond to the bombing of the USS Cole. "You know, we get attacked on the Cole. We don't do anything about it," he told Fox News earlier this month. In fact, President Clinton was eager -- at the recommendation of top counterterrorism aides -- to retaliate against al Qaeda for the USS Cole. But that attack took place in October 2000. As Clinton explained in a 2006 interview, both the CIA and FBI "refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible" for the attack on the Cole until early 2001, which foreclosed the possibility of a full response during the Clinton administration.


THE BUSH/GIULIANI COUNTERTERRORISM STRATEGY -- INVADE IRAQ:
When President Bush came into office, his administration was warned that no foe but al Qaeda posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." Yet in May 2001, Bush declared that "today's most urgent threat" was not terrorism but "ballistic missiles" in the hands of rogue states, specifically Iraq. In June 2001, Bush "outlined the five top defense issues" to NATO allies, and the "only reference to extremists was in Macedonia." Even as 9/11 occured, the focus remained on Iraq. On the day of the attacks, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told aides he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." -- meaning Saddam Hussein. One day later, Bush "testily" told Richard Clarke and other aides, "Go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this." Within three months, Bush began drawing up plans for the Iraq invasion. This singular, ideological focus culminated in a policy that has consumed countless resources that could have been used to eliminate global terrorist networks and bolster homeland security. Yet to this day, Giuliani remains supportive of Bush's approach. He said recently that invading Iraq was "absolutely the right thing to do," and claimed the war would "help reduce the risk for this country."





Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: 9/11, guiliani, conspiracy theory

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
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:
Terrorist attacks as crime scenes
Posted by: hankgeorge on Jun 28, 2007 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, guys...but if there is ONE THING the FBI et al do NOT do, it is treat terrorist attack venues as crime scenes. Witness the outrageous way the "crime scenes" in Oklahoma City, at the WTC, at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, PA were handled. Nothing there could be confused with even elementary school caliber crime investigation. Indeed, there is more to suggest tampering, evidence removal and, at the Pentagon, evidence planting, than there is to justify making the flatulent statement about how terrorist attacks are handled.

As far as accountability for 9/11, well, I think we can rule Bill Clinton out as the prime mover! The sad part is whom else we can rule out. But the saddest part of all is the evidence for whom we can rule in.

Of course, a talking head who knows nothing about 9/11 that he didn't read in a government-sponsored undertaking, will be rolled out to denounce this or any other statement that dares to suggest it wasn't a gaggle of Arabs with box cutters and attitudes who pulled off the crime of the millenium (so far, anyway).

My advice to anyone who has swallowed the official conspiracy theory is to just shut up long enough to review a handful of other works that debunk the debunkers (as David Ray Griffin so eloquently says) and I can assure them that when they have undertaken this exercise - and assuming they have average intelligence and any modicum of intellectual honesty - they will emerge to find themselves on side with the fastest growing movement in American.

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

» RE: just evidence Posted by: channing
» RE: just evidence Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: just evidence Posted by: hankgeorge
» RE: just evidence Posted by: channing
One wonders....
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jun 28, 2007 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... how Rudy can dare criticize anyone else. Unlike Clinton, Rudy was in charge in NY during BOTH WTC attacks. Yet the first didn't teach him much about not bungling the second. Thats why you STILL had huge problems with communications, etc... on 9/11.

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

» RE: One wonders.... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» How am I doing!!! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» You're doing extremely poorly, Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: You're doing extremely poorly, Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: You're doing extremely poorly, Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Deutsche Bank bldg Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: Deutsche Bank bldg Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Yes, and why Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Yes, and why Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: You're doing extremely poorly, Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: You're doing extremely poorly, Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: You're doing extremely poorly, Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Bodies Posted by: kellysgarden
» Hey Conservasaurus Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» check your rating Posted by: jwg
» ONLY a 1 Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: How am I doing!!! lasers Posted by: sasquuatch55
» Well... Posted by: suprmark
» Rudy a great mayor? Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: udy a great mayor? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» No, dipshit... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: One wonders.... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Head on straight
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Jun 28, 2007 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it’s easy to lay blame on Clinton considering he was in office for 8 years prior to and leading up to the attacks.. But the reality is that Clinton does not bear total blame – but more could have been done..

The reality is that a country can prepare all they want - at some point if someone want’s to attack, they will. That said, Clinton could have done more, not by personally ordering retaliatory attacks, but ensuring an infrastructure in place that would gather and share information that could be acted upon. We had and have the organizations but they seemed to have a major disconnect when it came to information. For that I blame not only Clinton but Presidents past for allowing a atmosphere to exist that fostered such disconnect. Bush, while in office for only 9 months should have seen the disconnect

While Clinton may have acted during his administration, that alone doesn’t absolve him from blame as the author suggest.. Lobbing a few cruise missiles isn’t sufficient, fighting terrorism is a total approach and mindset – one has to be proactive, not reactive!

It’s easy to see though how the country response to such proactive measures. Internal security measures which thus far have seemed to help combat terrorism are met with enormous resistance by many (loss of freedoms) – Clinton may have known this..Bush may have felt he had sufficient “political capital” to install these measures ( an inflammatory statement if I ever heard one) – in this respect (internal security)I believe Bush is right on and it’s something Clinton should have done during his 8 years in office! Clinton did have his head on straight about waltzing into other countries though – for that restraint he deserves a lot of credit!

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

» Remember "Wag the Dog"? Posted by: SteveO
» RE: emember "Wag the Dog"? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Then why are you always attacking Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Ron Paul is not quite right. Posted by: kellysgarden
crime scene vs. act of war
Posted by: porgygirl on Jun 28, 2007 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Basically, Giuliani is saying that Clinton should have killed more civilians in his response to terrorism. The bumper sticker that "war is terrorism" is absolutely correct. By declaring a "war on terrrr," we have demonstrated our willingness to respond to terrorism with terrorism.

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

» Well said! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: crime scene vs. act of war Posted by: D. Julian Terry
uh oh
Posted by: schnoggi on Jun 28, 2007 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if this greedy monster successfully panders to the religious nuts then it's all over. he has no moral center whatsoever, he'll tell any lie it takes to gain more power, he doesn't care about anything else.

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

Giuliani = 911
Posted by: WhuThe?!? on Jun 28, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is this man not in prison with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and Powell?
Answer: Unitedstatesians are lazy-minded cowards who refuse to accept reality. Hey, why should they care as long as SUV fuel prices remain within reach?!?
These terrorists could not have pulled off 911 without the full consent and cooperation of Giuliani.
Every time this traitor gets up and publicly speaks, he spits on this country, and no doubt walks away laughing about what a naive bunch of fools we are!

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

» RE: Giuliani = 911 Posted by: kellysgarden
» Could you elaborate? Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Could you elaborate? Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: Could you elaborate? Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Clinton looked at all Terrorism Acts as nothing but a police matter
Posted by: kbest on Jun 28, 2007 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We suffered the attack of 9-11 solely because nobody in the 90's had the balls to attack and slap down the Islamo-Facists when they had the chance.

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

» No! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
NOT A CAMPAIGN STRATEGY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 28, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guiliani has nothing to offer the country as President except to bash other people. We can do that ourselves. As for the '93 attack on the WTC, the country would not have tolerated or understood the need to 'go to war'. Bush didn't care what we thought, with or without 9/11 the plan was to attack Iraq even though they had nothing to do with anything. We've had 6 yrs. of sleaze. Can we raise the bar just a little? Thanks, ANNA

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

» RE: NOT A CAMPAIGN STRATEGY Posted by: CatDad
Rude Rudi -- what IS he up to ???
Posted by: BenCaxton12 on Jun 28, 2007 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All on his own, Mayor Gee is perhaps the man least suited by character and ability to be president of much of anything ....

(Though "Tobacco Fred" Thompson might be a close second.)

And then there's the record Herr Thugliani's policies and achievments, which are no help -- not to HIM anyway.

(So, tell us what happened in Mexico City, Rudy ... snicker snicker How about Bernie Kerrie in Bagdad, Rudy? Heard from any NYFD widows recently? Chased any squeegee men, lately ?? How about suspending the term limits for your benefit, Gee ? How'd that play out?)

But THEN he goes and hitches his wagon to George W's falling star and the tatteered rags of Christie Whitman EPA credibility. Unless he cares to be indicted for some heinious sexual crime before Jan 2008, there really isn't much more he can do to become unelectable -- except show up for a presidential debate with Democrats, of course.

So, why is he raising money and making speeches ??

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

Rudy
Posted by: bcain on Jun 28, 2007 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please roll that wonderful piece of footage right around the time the 9-11 Commission Report was about to be announced, where Rudy is shown saying that no one should be "playing the blame game" with respect to who was ultimately responsible for 9-11.

This guy is a 9-11 insider, who most likely has been picked by those in control as Bush's logical successor.

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

» RE: Rudy Posted by: freethink7
» RE: udy Posted by: famouspipeliner
A Complete Fraud....
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Jun 28, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what Giuliani is. He claims that Clinton was at fault. He claims HE is a great 9-11 hero...

But, what he says couldn't be further from the truth.

I'll take the words of the REAL 9-11 heroes - the firefighters - over that of Rudy, or any other politicians, for that matter....

More and more people are finding out what a great fraud this man is. I hope that trend continues.

Some follow up reading:

"Giuliani vs. the Firefighters" - click here

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

» RE: A Complete Fraud.... Posted by: Bozly
Bush team negligence leading up to 911
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 28, 2007 9:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Ignores Israeli-Palestinian conflict and refuses to take steps to broker any peace deal in early 2001.

2) Tells FBI to 'back off' on investigations of Saudis. Has John O'Neil, lead FBI investigator on Mideast terrorism, kicked out of the FBI. This may have been simply due to Bush's close ties to the Saudi Royals.

3) Ignores multiple warnings about impending hijackings - doesn't warn the airlines, doesn't take any steps at all, even after getting an Aug 6th PDB stating that 'preparations consistent with hijackings' had been reported to the FBI.

4) FBI refuses to take action on warnings and requests for FISA searches from field offices relating to suspicious activities at flight schools. There are many other warnings from foreign intelligence services

So, despite all these warnings and tips, Bush&Co. do absolutely nothing to stop this! There's no record of them taking any action whatsoever - not even a note sent to all the airlines telling them to beef up security. Nothing, nada, zip.

Either Bush & Co. were incredibly incompetent, or they wanted to see some kind of terrorist attack take place on US soil. They could also have been distracted by the looming Enron collapse, the looming anti-WTO protests in Washington, or the looming proof of the stolen 2000 election. Thanks to 9/11, all these problems were conveniently buried, and plans for war in the Mideast were suddenly made possible.

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

Giuliani Warns of "New 9/11" if Dems Win
Posted by: freethink7 on Jun 28, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is Giuliani trying to prove by making this outlandish-bizarre statement? 9/11 occurred on Bu$h Cheney clock. Does ex-NYC Mayor Giuliani share culpability in 9/11? Is Giuliani trying to deflect 9/11 criticism by warning of a new 9/11? I don’t trust any of these neocon thugs – Giuliani included.

Guilani911

Google Schmoogle: Guilani and 9/11

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

What Clinton really did wrong...
Posted by: WhuThe?!? on Jun 28, 2007 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was supporting the embargo against Iraq which didn't harm Saddam, however resulted in the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dying, one of the reasons for the alleged attack by Al Qaida. (Yes, Iraqis are human beings also). Another thing Clinton did wrong was allowing our military bases to remain on Saudi soil, another reason for the alleged attack by Al Qaida. Another thing Clinton did wrong was continuing the funding of the Israeli state despite their human-rights abuses against the Palestinian people, the third main gripe and reason for the alleged attack on 9/11.
However, the alleged Clinton failures cited by Giuliani are off-based. Clinton's true errors are listed above, however, Giuliani wouldn't bring those up because they are all the things that he, and every other false-pride-filled Unitedstatesian proudly supported. Anything but looking in the mirror or talking truth.

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

» I agree, and I don't think Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» I differ with you Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: I differ with you too... Posted by: channing
All spin all the time around here.
Posted by: johndoraemi on Jun 28, 2007 12:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You will not get the straight story about terrorism from Alternet.

"In fact, Roger Cressy, former National Security Council director for counterterrorism, has written, "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda."

That's an absolute lie. Michael Scheuer, head of CIA's bin Laden unit complained quite vocally that Clinton would not go after bin Laden on 10 seperate occasions.

I don't particularly trust a CIA man, so there's corroboration on Clinton's record. Notably:

Resentful west spurned Sudan's key terror files

"OSAMAGATE"

This website buys into the either/or Dem vs. Republican nonsense that has crippled the nation and brought it to imminent ruin.

In fact protecting radical terrorists is a bipartisan project that continues to this day (see Seymour Hersh).

Now that communism no longer justifies outrageous military budgets and assaults on freedom, Osama and Co. have done what 7,000 Soviet nuclear bombs couldn't do.

This inflated terror threat is a strategy favored by Israel, which practically writes US foreign policy in the middle east. None of this is particularly new.

Crimes of the State Blog

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

9/11 Revisited: Part 1.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 28, 2007 12:50 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before accepting as fact Rudy Giuliani’s assertion that the Clinton administration is partly responsible for our national catastrophe, reasonable Americans should ask themselves, “If Al Gore had been commander-in-chief in 2001, would the September 11 terrorist attacks have succeeded?”

I don’t think so.

Follow my reasoning and see if you agree. In Clinton’s second term, Osama bin Laden had been a high priority target, important enough to launch cruise missiles against Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. It is reasonable to assume that President Gore would have pursued the same aggressive policy using our full intelligence capability.

During his tenure as vice president, a number of significant clues emerged from the militant Islamic underground, ranging from foiled plots to FBI field interviews that suggested Al Qaeda-connected operatives were intending to use planes as missiles and U.S. flight schools for pilot training grounds.

The ominous signs included a terrorist plan in 1996 to crash a light aircraft into CIA headquarters at Langley, VA, after blowing up 11 American jetliners over the Pacific Ocean.

The solo suicide mission involved a Pakistani pilot trained at flight schools in North Carolina, Texas and New York. After the terrorist plan was uncovered, FBI investigators visited two of the schools. In 1998 and 1999, intelligence analysts warned federal officials that terrorists might crash hijacked aircraft into prominent U.S. landmarks, including the Pentagon and World Trade Center.

The Bush administration claimed it had no pre-9/11 information indicating terrorists intended to employ hijacked airplanes as bombs. But on August 16, 2001, 35 days before the World Tower attacks, Zachariah Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker, was under arrest and in jail after telling a suspicious simulator flight instructor he wanted to learn to fly a Boeing 747 at cruise altitude but not take off or land.

Supposedly 27 Al Qaeda members had attempted to enter the United States and take part in the September 11 attacks. In the end, as we know, only 19 participated. Other would-be members are often referred collectively as the “20th hijacker.”

One suspect, Ramzi Binalshibh, had been repeatedly denied a visa for entry into the United States. Another Al Qaeda member, Muhammed Al Kahtani, may also have been planning to join the skyjacking team but U.S. Immigration authorities in Florida refused his entry in August 2001. He was later captured in Afghanistan and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.

Because Binalshibh and Al Kahtani were not available to Al Qaeda on 9/11, some conspiracy theorists believe Moussaou actually was the 20th hijacker, the reason for his last-minute B747 simulator training.

The problem with that idea is, it would be impossible for one person to commandeer a jetliner operated by three crewmembers, such as the 747 which I flew in the 1970s as a Continental Airlines pilot. Also, its cockpit layout is different from the two-pilot 757s targeted by Al Qaeda, making Moussaou’s simulator flights a waste of time.

Even so, Moussaou claimed during his trial that he was supposed to crash an airplane into the White House. If true, that meant United Flight 93, the 757 that went down in Pennsylvania, was supposed to hit the Capitol Building, which had been filled with representatives and senators that awful September morning.

Obviously Al Qaeda planners had never heard of the USAF tactical term, “Target of Opportunity.” Otherwise, the hijackers of AA Flight 77, after overflying the Pentagon because of excess airspeed and altitude, could have easily crashed into the Capitol dome and destroyed the cherished, 200-year-old structure.

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

9/11 Revisited: Part 2.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 28, 2007 12:59 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another 9/11 mystery I definitely know the answer to, like all airline crewmembers including flight attendants, is how the Al Qaeda terrorists armed with box cutters managed to take control of jetliner cockpits manned mostly by ex-military aviators. I don’t even want to think about those horrifying bloody events.

Moussaoui gave a hint in his confession by describing training he had received in knife fighting -- lessons that also apply to razor-sharp box cutters. Had U.S. airline crews been warned about the Al Qaeda threat, a simple change in cockpit crew procedures would have thwarted the takeovers.

Instead of cooperating with the hijackers, the standardized FAA-approved response, the 9/11 captains would’ve kept their cockpit doors locked and landed at the nearest suitable airport ASAP.

The crews’ refusal to obey terrorist demands might have caused threatened flight attendants to be killed, but box cutters are not equal to a much deadlier weapon carried in all jetliner cockpits: a red-handled steel crash ax.

Tragically for 3,000 souls on September 11, the eight 757 pilots never had a chance to defend themselves and the fault lies squarely with the Bush administration.

That shameful fact was verified by Condoleezza Rice’s inept performance as George W.’s first term National Security Advisor. Testifying before the 9/11 commission, she claimed to have had no knowledge of an Al Qaeda threat before September 11, despite the abundance of clues.

Dr. Rice repeated her self-serving assertion on March 22, 2004, in a Washington Post column titled, “No Al Qaeda Threat Turned Over to the New Administration.” She apparently forgot receiving a briefing paper before 9/11 with the long but noteworthy title, “Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihads Networks of Al Qaeda: Status and Prospects.”

The 13-page document, which included a detailed description of bin Laden’s organization, said Al Qaeda was well financed, had trained thousands of international terrorists and was actively seeking to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction. Either Condi ignored the warning or she can’t read.

There’s another reason I can think of that’s more plausible. She shaded the truth to protect Bush. But that’s just the tip of her iceberg obstructionism.

In May 2003, Dr. Rice asserted, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”

Laying waste to that claim, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, President Bush personally received on August 6, 2001, a one-and-a-half page briefing document advising him that Al Qaeda was capable of a major strike against the U.S., and that the plot could include “the hijacking of an American airplane.”

The Times article also said Bush had been told in July 2001 that terrorists were exploring the use of planes as missiles.

In May 2002, Dr. Rice contradicted herself during a press conference about assertions that the White House had been warned before 9/11 about a future skyjacking plot. With a convenient “lapse” of memory, Condi suggested that George W. had requested an airline threat briefing from the CIA because of his “keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer.”

However, 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Venice disclosed the CIA briefing author had testified he did “did not recall such a request” from President Bush. Furthermore, as reported by the Washington Post on 3/25/04, the idea to compile terrorist information started with the CIA, not Shrub.

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

9/11 Revisited: Part 3
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 28, 2007 1:08 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On March 3, 2004, Condi Rice said in defense of the White House’s actions prior to 9/11, “In June and July [2001] when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations.”

Not according to the Justice Department.

Documents obtained by the 9/11 commission show that before well before the September 11 attacks, then Attorney General Ashcroft failed to give Al Qaeda top billing to future organization actions, including those by the FBI. A draft of his August 9, 2001, “Strategic Plan,” made fighting terrorism a sub-goal under gun violence and drugs and ranked it below the Justice Department’s seven chief objectives.

Conversely, in 2000, Ashcroft’s Clinton predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism “the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.” Even so, despite her warning, prior to 9/11 the Bush administration terminated a highly classified program that monitored Al Qaeda suspects in the United States [Washington Post, 03/22/04].

Another indicator of George W.’s indifference to terrorism can be found in his 2001 State of the Union message delivered shortly after being inaugurated.

Previously, in 2000, President Clinton talked about the threat in his last address to the nation, as follows:

“A third challenge we have is to keep this inexorable march of technology from giving terrorists and potentially hostile nations the means to undermine our defenses. Keep in mind, the same technological advances that have shrunk cell phones to fit in the palms of our hands can also make weapons of terror easier to conceal and easier to use.”

“We must meet this threat by making effective agreements to restrain nuclear and missile programs in North Korea, curbing the flow of lethal technology to Iran, preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbors, increasing our preparedness against chemical and biological attack, protecting our vital computer systems from hackers and criminals, and developing a system to defend against new missile threats, while working to preserve our ABM missile treaty with Russia. We must do all these things.”

“I predict to you, when most of us are long gone but some time in the next 10 to 20 years, the major security threat this country will face will come from the enemies of the nation state: the narcotraffickers and the terrorists and the organized criminals, who will be organized together, working together, with increasing access to ever-more sophisticated chemical and biological weapons. And I want to thank the Pentagon and others for doing what they're doing right now to try to help protect us and plan for that, so that our defenses will be strong. I ask for your support to ensure they can succeed.”

Here’s what Bush said about terrorism in his 2001 State of the Union speech:

“Our nation also needs a clear strategy to confront the threats of the 21st century—threats that are more widespread and less certain. They range from terrorists who threaten with bombs to tyrants in rogue nations intent upon developing weapons of mass destruction. To protect our own people, our allies and friends, we must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses.”

Remarkably, where as Clinton devoted 241 words to homeland security, Bush used just 63 in his lame address and only mentioned “terror” once. And then, his primary defense against international terrorism was the old Star Wars ICBM intercept system, still in the planning stage.

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

» RE: 9/11 Revisited: Part 3 Posted by: kelly.nickell
I never heard clinton blame george sr. for the 2/26/93 attack.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jun 28, 2007 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I despised clinton. I still don't like him and don't think he was a good president, but he was no where near as bad as what we've have the past 6.5 years.

If bill was as much of a lowlife as the current thug he would have constantly blamed king george the first for the first attack on the WTC, but if he did, I never heard or read of a single thing about it.

As soon as the current thug blamed the clinton administration for a lack of preparedness, my first thought was, "I guess bill should have blamed george the first for the 93 attack." I thought anybody with at least one functioning brain cell would have completely ignored bush II's claim that clinton caused the second WTC attack.

To me, this is a small example of how much superior human being clinton is compared to bush.

Ghouliani seems to want to say, "I am worse than bush!" Maybe, if he is appointed president he will do one thing just like bush. He will do almost exactly opposite of everything he's said during the campaign.

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

» Good point. Posted by: JMorse
9/11 Revisited: Part 4 (Final comment).
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 28, 2007 1:24 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the Twin Towers fell, President Bush has failed to protect the American people from terrorism.

Consider, for example, allegations made in 2004 by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) in its monthly magazine, Air Line Pilot.

Despite what happened on 9/11, Bush willfully obstructed full implementation of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (TSA) by refusing to invoke provisions related to arming airline pilots in the cockpit.

Here's what the ALPA article said:

"Both measures of the House and Senate applied to all airline pilots. The House passed H.R. 5710, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, by a 299-121 vote. The Senate followed suit, passing the House bill by a votes of 90 - 9. However, a last minute, backroom maneuver of House Republican leadership eliminated pilots of cargo carriers from the program. This action was done in concert with the White House, at the urging of several cargo carriers, despite overwhelming bipartisan congressional votes that previously approved the program. "

To exempt cargo carriers is insane, for the following three reasons:

1. Without passengers present, only two Al Qaeda members are needed to hijack a cargo plane.
2. Cargo flights generally operate at night, giving cover to terrorists on dimly lit tarmacs.
3. Cargo aircraft are often parked in less secure areas with fewer employees around.

In light of those weaknesses, it would be easy to hijack a loaded FedEx 747 at Dulles and repeat 9/11 in Washington, D.C., with even more catastrophic consequences by crashing the 700,000-lb jumbo jet into the Capitol Building.

I flew the B747 at Continental as a first and second officer. Commandeering the cargo version would be a simple matter. Without passengers and flight attendants to hinder them, Al Qaeda operatives could easily force their way into the airplane on the ramp. Isolated in the upper deck, the flight crew would never know about the intrusion until too late―unless, if course, the cockpit door was secure. Even then, a brute force entry is always possible, leaving a weapons-carrying pilot as the only line of defense.

Imagine being in New York City at Yankee Stadium during a night game, standing up for the seventh-inning stretch, and seeing a fully loaded FedEx 747 that just taken off from Kennedy suddenly plunge out of the gloom, engines roaring, into the stands. Can anyone say that horrific act of terrorism could not happen after what occurred on September 11, 2001?

There is a fundamental truth we can’t ignore. The only reason why a hijacked cargo plane hasn’t crashed into a packed major league baseball park is because Al Qaeda hasn’t gotten around to it. Yet, President Bush was willing to gamble the lives of innocent Americans simply to please freight operators who didn’t want to pay for TSA weapons training for pilots.

Case closed on Rudy Giuliani's politically motivated bullshit about 9/11. He should be ashamed.

NOTE: The above four "9/11 Revisited" comments are from my second nonfiction book about Bush titled, “Liar-in-Chief” -- a forthcoming sequel to George Dub-ya Bush, THE PHONY FIGHTER PILOT, published in 2004. To read a synopsis and sample chapter, visit www.PhonyFighterPilot.com.

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

Terrorist Attacks?
Posted by: fifthworld on Jun 28, 2007 5:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe I am still hearing/reading about 9/11 as terrorist attacks. Unless you mean the secret gov't (and/or not so secret) as the terrorists.

Innocence!! Moral cowardice!! Gullibility!!!!! Sickening.

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

» RE: Terrorist Attacks? Posted by: kellysgarden
and...
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Jun 28, 2007 6:36 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mecury insurance really is run by aliens.

i think alternet posts these stories just to see how many loose changers will pause in their mutual masturbation and post here.

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

» RE: and... AND HERE YOU ARE! Posted by: sasquuatch55
» RE: and... AND HERE YOU ARE!--Hunh? Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: and... AND HERE YOU ARE!--Hunh? Posted by: sasquuatch55
Who benefits from terrorist attacks committed by Muslims?
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Jun 28, 2007 6:53 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Other than the US Republican party, and, since that Party has been taken over by Likudnik pod people, the Israeli right?

No one.

That is why there were only 2 places on planet Earth where the champaigne glasses were raised in celebration the night of Sept 11, 2001. In Jerusalem and in Cheney's bunker (Osama does not drink).

Last summer, at a Republican meeting, the party chairman openly speculated that the only chance the Repubs had to hold onto Congress in the 2006 elections was if there was another big Muslim terrorist attack. (That little slip-up was, of course, quietly suppressed in the mainstream press, the folks so intimidated by the right's accusation of "liberal bias" that they continue to allow right-wing criminality to go unchallenged.)

The 9/11 attacks were a godsend to Bush and the Republicans and right-wing neocons. It led to winning elections in 2002 and 2004, and gave them a green-light to a war of aggression against a weak but resource-rich little country.

The Right continues to pray for another big terrorist attack. Maybe the first one was no Mossad conspiracy, but I am not so sure about the next one. Mr. Guiliani, for one, is coiled like a snake, hoping to benefit!!

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

Are we safer under Bush or Clinton?
Posted by: EagleMB on Jun 28, 2007 7:47 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep reading arguments by liberal commentators saying that we are less safe under Bush than Clinton, but I can’t help to wonder how anyone concludes this. Let's look at the facts:

Under Clinton there were at least 10 successful terrorist conspiracy attacks during his presidency. Under Bush there was one, and that was 9/11. Since then not a single terrorist conspiracy attack has been successfully completed.

We do know that dozens of potential terrorist attacks were avoided during the Bush presidency. Although, this tells us little because we don't know how many terrorist attacks were avoided under Clinton.

So other than propaganda saying that America is less safe, where is the evidence to support that statement?

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

» RE: The liberal ignorance... Posted by: EagleMB
No conspiracy, we were all asleep at the wheel prior to 9/11
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Jun 28, 2007 8:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Independent thinking and objectives Americans need to stop the blame game.

If Clinton or anyone in his cabinet sincerely believed that a 9/11 type attack was imminent, no doubt he would have acted with vigor to stop it.

In addition, only leftwing kooks believe that Bush "knew" about the impending attack prior to 9/11.

In truth, America was complacent. Very few had the foresight to see what was happening.

Most importantly,

united we stand, divided we fall.

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

Rudy was more interested in busting beggars and prostitutes.
Posted by: brotherjonah on Jun 28, 2007 8:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was his Mayoral administration that not once but REPEATEDLY declared the WTC to be a safe building even after the hugely important structural damage caused by the original attack.

"Oh goodness no, we can't tear down a super expensive building like that just because it might collapse if something wildly improbable like an airplane crashing into it were to happen"

Of course that part is buried along with the unrecovered remains under the New,Improved "Freedom Tower" which looks so much like a giant hand pointing middle finger skyward.

Those Bushiites who deny that it's a phallic symbol ought to look again.

Those who think seriously that Flight 93 was seriously aimed at the White House ought to consider: Bush's schedule was published in those days, the terrorists knew damned well that he was going to be in an elementary school pretending to read My Pet Goat to first graders.

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

9-11 Redeux
Posted by: katybelle on Jun 28, 2007 11:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Giuliani's claim that Clinton did not adaquately respond to the possibility of terrorist attacks after the bombing in '93 shows how low these guys will go to collect the ultimate prize, that of becoming the president of our failed states. While we could continue to argue whether or not Clinton responded with sufficient force, the reality overlooked by many in this country remains, Iraq, which we now occupy, had nothing to do with the destruction in New York in 2001. Are we so naive as to believe anything spewing from the mouth of our current leadership in government?

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

Shanksville debris and BODIES ? What about Silverstein?
Posted by: sasquuatch55 on Jun 29, 2007 2:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell me there's no conspiracy.

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

» There's No Conspiracy Posted by: apophenia_monkey
WARNING: AlterNet user “EagleMB” is a dishonest stealth Bushie.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 30, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After visiting my nonprofit investigative website, King-George.biz, EagleMB made the following criticism on this thread:

Furthermore, if we believe Hugh Scott, terrorist attacks should be more common because Bush has been “fanning the flames of Islamic radicalism.”

Here is what my website REALLY said:

More recently, on Sept. 24, 2006, the New York Times disclosed portions of a classified federal report known as a "National Intelligence Estimate," or NIE. In response, two days later, the White House released a redacted version of the document.

The NIE extract concluded in April 2006 that Gulf War 2 has made global terrorism worse by fanning the flames of Islamic radicalism and providing a training ground in Iraq for lethal methods that are increasingly being exported to other countries.


End of King-George.biz website extract.

Notice my source for “fanning the flames” was the NIE report. Also, I didn’t say Bush was the “fanner.”

In the next King-George paragraph, I offered more evidence explaining why we aren’t safer now than before 9/11 by quoting a terrorism expert, as follows:

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on September 26, 2006, that the Iraq occupation has made the world a "more dangerous place."

Even so, despite Musharraf's warning, the alarming NIE assessment and other ominous
Indicators… President Bush insists without offering any imperical proof that his administration has done a good job protecting the United States against Al Qaeda attacks.


End of extract.

The proof for my argument was posted on King-George.biz in the third-person narrative as a warning to jetliner passengers about an unsafe post-9/11 aviation environment.

Here's what the narrator said:

Hugh Scott's research and evaluation of America's air transportation system indicates just the opposite -- that under George W.'s watch, Homeland Security has not fully and faithfully addressed the following safety issues:

• Jetliner cargo not being inspected for explosives
• No airport employee screening
• No radiation detectors
• No passenger profiling
• Useless "no-fly" lists
• Dangerous carry-on items
• Porous national borders
• Unguarded airport ramps
• Unarmed airline pilots

The vulnerability puts the U.S. economy at great risk of being crippled by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Yet, President Bush asserted in August 2006 that America's air transportation system was safer now than before the Twin Towers fell.

He also said gaps in airline security exposed by 9/11 had been closed.

Additionally, on September 10, 2006, Vice President Cheney claimed on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the Bush administration had "done everything possible" to protect U.S. airlines from terrorism.

All three assertions are untrue, as shown by concrete facts, federal documents and other information uncovered by Hugh Scott. His research deserves public attention because he's an aviation safety expert with a combined 40-year career in the Air Force and airline industry as a classroom teacher, flight engineer, pilot and FAA-certified single engine & multiengine flight instructor.

Besides numerous private planes and training aircraft, Scott has flown the USAF KC135 tanker, B707, B720, B727, B737, B747 and DC10. He also developed airline crew CBT (computer-based training) for the DC9, L1011, B737, B757, B767 and MD11 aircraft.


End of extract and case closed on EagleMB's GOP-motivated mudslinging.

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

Unfriendly advice to American 9/11 conspiracy theory nuts: Move to Canada.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 30, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first comment in this tread praised David Ray Griffin, a proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories that implicate members of the U.S. government in the attacks.

I suspect the idiot believes in UFO’s as well.

Here’s the bottom line. Americans who spread conspiracy rumors about 9/11 are traitors bent on undermining our nation and the confidence people have in government and the Constitution. There is no way on God’s green earth that thousands of decent citizens -- from cops, firefighters and NYC building inspectors to ATC controllers, ADC interceptor pilots and military commanders -- could have conspired to bring down the Twin Towers.

And don’t give me that bullshit about “compartmentalization.” Either shut up about your whacko 9/11 theories or get the fuck out of my country.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam veteran, ex-USAF pilot and retired Continental Airlines captain with a family history of honorable military service going back to 1776.

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

» RE: Clue for Mr. Kool-Aid... Posted by: EncinoM
  • 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