European Tribune

A personal reaction to 9/11

by Jerome a Paris
Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 11:15:16 AM EST

The text below was sent to me by a regular reader, who is unable to post himself for professional reasons. I am not endorsing it (see my reaction as the first comment below) but i found it an interesting an enlighening story.

At his request, a few real names have been redacted.

(Everything below by private).


I was never someone you could label and certainly never one to hold to a party line if I felt the party was wrong. Always a registered Democrat I vote based on conscience and not always Democrat. But I did vote for Bill Clinton twice and never regretted those votes - at least not until September 11. That day changed me irreversibly and had a profound impact on how I view politics.

September 11 was a beautiful sunny day right after our end-of-summer Labor Day holiday. I had a neighborhood reunion 2 weeks prior which we have every five years. I renewed old ties with people including [childhood friend] who remembered that I taught him to swim the butterfly stroke. My office was on 57th Street and Third Avenue and across the hall from a major public relation firm. My son had just started his senior year at Duke University in economics and was looking forward to the litany of investment banking firm interviews in the Fall. Just before the holiday weekend I had to cancel a west coast trip because of a sudden meeting I had in New York that was more important. I was supposed to be on the American Airlines 9:00 AM flight out of JFK to Los Angeles.

The first notice I got was from my wife who said that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center but the initial news report seemed to indicate that it was a private jet. I walked across the hall to the P.R. firm because they had a television in their conference room.
When I walked in the entire firm was in front of the TV and crying. It was not a small plane and the reason for their crying was that they were the public relations firm for Cantor Fitzgerald whose offices were at the top of the World Trade Center north tower. They knew their clients were probably dead. Then came the second jet into the South tower. After that everything else seemed to happen in flash.

My wife had already been on the phone with the wives of two of my friends who worked in the South tower. The last their wives heard was that they were leaving which was before the plane hit the south tower and they wanted me to meet them and make sure they were okay. Then came the plane crashing into the Pentagon, and then another somewhere in Pennsylvania.

Before I could leave my office both towers came crashing down and Arab Muslims were literally celebrating and dancing in the streets of Paterson, New Jersey when the towers collapsed. There was a report about some Arab looking passengers escaping from grounded aircraft that had been set to depart New York including the American Airlines flight I was originally booked on. So we knew that there were more intended flights to be used by these terrorists.

The streets of Manhattan were empty of all vehicles except emergency and military vehicles. Guiliani had shut down all means of transportation in and out of Manhattan and had directed people to evacuate certain landmark skyscrapers. He also made sure that all bridges and tunnels were evacuated. He also directed Governor Pataki to have armed military personnel at every corner and in every major building. People were wandering in stunned silence. Guiliani had forewarned of maybe up to 10,000 dead.

As I was rushing downtown to meet my two friends who I had hoped got out of the World Trade Center I kept muttering (referring to Bill Clinton), "You SOB, you really did it now" over and over again. I was also thankful that my son was not a year older, because he could have been working for one of the investment banking firms in the WTC and would have been incinerated with others.

I got down to about 14th Street and got cellphone calls that both Tim and Dave were okay. We made up a meeting point and did meet up. Both were covered in soot and were in shock. When the first plane hit the WTC north tower, Tim heard an explosion and falling debris. As he looked out his window that faced that North tower he actually saw people making the decision to jump from higher floors rather than probably be incinerated. He left before the second jet hit his tower, as did Dave.

We waited in an ad agency I knew down ther until the danger had subsided and we got on the Long Island Railroad.
In my neighborhood there were seven 4 year old children at Miss Sue's Nursery School who came home that day to find that they no longer had a daddy and in one case a daddy and mommy.
The following day I got a call from one of my friends that [childhood friend], who I had met at the reunion, was killed on the jet that was crashed into the Pentagon. His crime? He went to visit his daughter who had just started college in Washington DC before going off on his business trip to Los Angeles. I was to find out that one of my son's best friends in college lost his father that day.
About a month later I got a strange call from a woman in Massachusetts who called my phone inadvertently because she had gotten a call that informed her that they recovered the driver license of her 25 year old son who was killed that day in the WTC. She just started to pour everything out to me even when she knew it was the wrong number about how her son graduated Boston College and had a great career in finance with a new apartment in Manhattan.

These are indelible images and memories which is why I said that September 11 changed everything for me and for so many people.

-------------------------------
I am one of those people who are naturally curious and are always thirsting for more knowledge and for answers.

My initial reaction ended up being right as I learned more and more information over time. The key learning came about a year ago as we were coming to the five year anniversary of 9/11 and I was on the Editorial Board of an old public policy magazine. We agreed to cover 9/11 differently and look to see if we are winning or losing which required having in-depth understanding of the development of these radical Islam groups, their intentions, and whether they are or are not achieving them.

Wars are fought for political and ideological power and superiority. Wars are also defined by a series of battles that you would hope you lose some but win most as long as you achieve your desired objective.
We have been engaged in a war with a fascist form of Islam for decades. The "we" includes all forms of civilization other than this radical fundamentalist form of Islam. So it includes the USA, Europe (East and West), as well as all of Asia and the Pacific.

The enemy are all groups that have branched off the old Muslim Brotherhood from the 1920's which includes Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah. Some are Shia based and others are Sunni based. While they may hate each other, what they have in common is hatred for a common enemy which is us. Other than Iran, none are nation states and operate cross boundaries outside the bounds of conventional warfare and treaties. They use terror as their primary tactic to breakdown the will of the people and therefore the governments.
If you saw the movie Syriana it was a glimpse into the recruiting and indoctrination methods these groups have used for decades within the educational systems they created in all the Arab countries with the help of their host governments in exchange for the promise of allowing the host governments to continue their power.

Their goals are absolute rule in all Muslim countries and then the elimination of all modern western society. They are far more focused and committed to their cause than communists ever were. They are very smart, very resourceful, very well financed, and very, very patient. But they do believe their time is now.

It is a mistake for any political leader not to believe in what they write and preach. We have already learned that lesson.

The U.S. has made more mistakes regarding these people than any other country going back to the 1950's. We turned a blind eye to these groups and their beliefs and teachings. Carter became obsessed with human rights violations by the Shah which opened the flood gates for the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the fundamentalist revolution in Iran. Reagan turned his back on the threat when the Marines barracks was blown up by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Bush Sr. let Hussein maintain his power to sponsor terrorists. Clinton treated the first WTC attack as a police action and all the other attacks on U.S. personnel abroad as crimes and not as acts of war. Throughout this time we did not recognize the threat of radical Islam and were unprepared for what we were to confront. When Clinton finally did recognize it our intelligence capabilities were in a state of chaos, we had zero border and airline security, and he failed to take out bin Laden on multiple occasions for fear of political consequences. During the Clinton administration they even had the opportunity to rectify airport and airline security with measures recommended from a Commission, but were all dismissed by the Clinton administration and Republicans under pressure from the airline industry. They were measures that would have prevented those 19 hijackers from hijacking any jets, or even boarding those jets.

What should not been in doubt since 9/11 are that there is a war between all radical Muslim groups and us. It has been called a clash of cultures, but that dismisses the political aspects of this. As did the various fascists groups in the 1930's these Islamic fascist groups also want ultimate power and are fanatical enough to stop at nothing to achieve their goals. As with Hitler, they cannot be negotiated with or appeased. They actually view appeasement as a sign of weakness and will use it against their enemies. And as in the lead up to World War II the blame for everything centered in Jews.

When it comes to this War, President Bush's moves and adjustments were necessary, proper, and lawful. The U.S. had (and may still have) Al Qaeda and Hezbollah sleeper cells within our boundaries. They were cells that were still being financed through international means. And there were countries and leaders that harboring them, training them, and supporting them. Bush was dealing with a dismantled CIA and FBI as well as a greatly reduced military because we thought the war (Cold War) was over and were in a false sense of security.

The Patriot Act was necessary in order to infiltrate all of the Muslims groups in this country and determine who were threats. In spite of all the protests there is not a single shred of evidence of someone's civil right being violated with the Patriot Act. The NSA program of listening in on overseas telephone conversations from known terror suspects was also necessary. Again, in spite of charges being made there is not a single shred of evidence that this program was abused and violated anyone's civil rights. The Swift program was necessary to track down the money trail leading to these terror groups. And again, in spite of charges of invading people's bank records there is not a shred of evidence that anyone's rights were violated. The net result was the U.S. was able to rapidly round up terror suspects in the U.S. (and hopefully those bastards that were dancing in celebration in Paterson) and ship them down to Gitmo. There has also been successful worldwide coordination of intelligence to break other potential attacks, particularly after Madrid and London.

Was it a mistake to invade Iraq? As I said the Middle East was the nest for this fascist Islam and its propagation. It was a self-feeding system that had to be broken. I agreed, as did nearly everyone in this country, that the invasion to take out Hussein was correct. But the war was fought on a shoe-string and accomplished nothing more than deposing Hussein. There should have been forces to immediately close off the borders to Syria and Iran and through saber rattling threatened to go further if they interfered. That was not done. In addition, they disbanded Hussein's military and police rather than give them the chance to switch sides and thereby secure the country immediately. Those were two enormous mistakes that have cost thousands of American lives.

For those that criticize the Bush administration for usurping the Constitution and our laws with their efforts to secure this country I would say, "Prove it" because other than hyperbole and insinuations thee has been no credible evidence of so-called "lying."
For those, like Hillary Clinton, that have conveniently switched sides on the Iraq issue by revealing, "If I knew then what I know now," they should understand that a President does not get do-overs. A President must have the clarity to make a decision, the conviction of that decision, and the courage to see that decision through. That disqualifies Hillary Clinton as a qualified candidate for President.
Edwards idiot pronouncement that "the war on terror is just a bumper sticker slogan" is further proof of his superficial used-car sales mentality when it comes to politics. Obama is just not qualified enough yet.

When you listen to the Republican debates your heard a number of their candidates clearly define this war against radical Islam, while not a single Democrat could (or would) define it.  
Frankly the only qualified candidate the Democrats have is not running and that would be former Senator Bob Kerrey who is a highly decorated former Navy Seal and was on the 9/11 Commission.
When the founding fathers finally created the form of federal government we have now, they envisioned the primarily role of the President as the commander-in-chief to lead the army against outside enemies. In that role Bill Clinton was a failure and G.W. Bush has done his job. And that is why whenever the American people choose a President during a time of war they never elect an anti-war candidate.

September 11 was a wake-up call. While some Americans have fallen back to sleep into some sort of state of denial, fortunately most Americans do understand that we are in danger and at war beyond Iraq.

I think that will give you a perspective of what really happened that day and what most Americans truly believe.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
While there is little I can comment on the personal experience of 9/11, I'd like to react to the second part, i.e. the political reaction, which places 9/11 in the context of a total war supposedly waged against the rest of the world by extremist islamists.

  • there a number of major omissions in that narrative: the fact that the US armed and supported the Afghan Mujahidin against the Soviets, before they turned against America, the historical context in Iran whereby the US engineered a coup against the democratically elected government of Mossadegh, the fact that Saddam Hussein was a (ferociously) secular dictator;

  • to a large extent, Islamism was born as a reaction against the dictatorial and corrupt regimes of the region, and has included anti-Americanism and/or anti-Westenr sentiments because the West supported (and supports) the hated regimes they are fighting. In many of these countries, religion has been the only political acceptable (and tolerated) outlet for political frustration, thanks to its social (help to the poor) and spiritual role and its ability to lead multitudes; that it turned against West, and has become associated in local populations' minds with freedom has come from our brainless support for the dictators whom we felt would be more favorable to us and th our access to oil. (It is of course ironic that a country like Iran is more open today to Western investment than Saudi Arabia). Seeing islamism as an all-encompassing movement neglects the local roots, and local grievances of most of its members. Maybe it's too late for non-meddling by the West to be sufficient to cure that ill, but it will ultimately be necessary - and we certainly haven't tried it yet;

  • the only successes in the fight against Islamist terrorism have come from good old fashioned police and intelligence work. So mocking Clinton for taking the police route to the first WTC bombing is wrong , in my view: it was the correct way to respond, and it was successful. That it was not sufficient to prevent other attacks says more about the persistent nature of the underlying grievances than about the failure of the law enforcement route;

  • as to the claim that no civil rights have been breached, it is clearly disingenuous. The evidence pointing the other way is overwhelming, and the several recent court decisions about Guantanamo, the inability of the US government to sentence any of the supposed terrorists in that base, and the examples of people like Maher Ahar (the Canadian guy sent to Syria to be tortured) all point ot grievious violations that show that we are giving up all that we're supposed to stand for in a misguided (and doomed to fail) attempt to sink to the level of the terrorists to fight them.


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 11:15:45 AM EST
Well, I suppose this is included as being "controversial" and likely to promote discussion - even as some of the main usual contributors are recovering/returning from the great meet-up in Paris (thanks again Jerome).

But it's just sad rubbish and Jerome's points against it are obviously valid to anyone who has really read a bit of informed writing on the subject. It's sad that someone evidently not totally stupid believes such junk and it helps explain to non-Americans why Bush got elected a SECOND time (wasn't the first time an obvious enough gross error?!).

 Normally I'd try to back up such a dismissal with chapter and verse, but Jerome has aleady given some very good reasons - and I'm one of those recovering from the meet-up, and from having eaten and drunk too much at M's parents.

 I suspect someone who writes stuff like this is already pretty far beyond the each of rational argument. But here are a few links anyway, with an informed rational approach (as usual) from Fisk and Chomsky:

http://www.zmag.org/fiskawecalam.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyintv.html

http://www.zmag.org/terrorwar/nineeleven.htm

 

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 12:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There have also been a number of retractions by columnists who misguidedly supported Bush's lunacy, e.g. Johann Hari, who went against his own paper's (The Independent) general opposition to the attack on Iraq:


"...So after three years and at least 150,000 Iraqi corpses, can those of us who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein for the Iraqis' sake still claim it was worth it? (I am assuming the people who bought the obviously fictitious arguments about WMD are already hanging their heads in shame). George Packer, a recalcitrant Iraq-based journalist who tentatively supported the invasion, summarises the situation in the country today: "Most people aren't free to speak their minds, belong to a certain group, wear what they want, or even walk down the street without risking their lives." In many regions - including the British controlled South - power has been effectively ceded to fascist militias who "take over schools and hospitals, intimidate the staffs, assaulted unveiled women, set up kangaroo sharia courts that issue death sentences, repeatedly try to seize control of the holy shrines, run criminal gangs, firebomb liquor stores, and are often drunk themselves. Their tactics are those of fascist bullies."

So when people ask if I think I was wrong, I think about the Iraqi friend - hiding, terrified, in his own house - who said to me this week, "Every day you delete another name from your mobile, because they've been killed. By the Americans or the jihadists or the militias - usually you never find out which." I think of the people trapped in the siege of a civilian city, Fallujah, where amidst homes and schools the Americans indiscriminately used a banned chemical weapon - white phosphorous - that burns through skin and bone. (The Americans say they told civilians to leave the city, so anybody left behind was a suspected jihadi - an evacuation procedure so successful they later used it in New Orleans.). I think of the raw numbers: on the largest estimate - from the Human Rights Centre in Khadimiya - Saddam was killing 70,000 people a year. The occupation and the jihadists have topped that, and the violence is getting worse. And I think - yes, I was wrong. Terribly wrong..."

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=831




Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 12:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for posting this, I always wondered what happened to that guy('s opinion).
by Almanax on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 09:23:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(sent to me by email and posted with his permission)


I agree with your first two comments and said that we and the West are at fault for basically stupidity in that regard.

On the third comment. NO and the Clinton administration knew it. They did not recognize the first WTC threat as an act of war but did after over seas attacks on U.S. interests. Clinton wanted to engage in a war but was held back bay his advisors and his lack of political capital at the time. He did not have the courage to kill bin Laden and take the heat for the deaths of innocents. That is a matter of record.

As far as civil rights, you mentioned one in Gitmo. But you failed to mention a single normal American citizen who had their right violated as a result of any U.S. domestic terror fighting measures. I would certainly like to hear of anyone who had their rights violated.

My own response:

One American cirizen who has been suffering from various  violations of his rights is José Padilla.

But even breaches for non-Americans undermine the value you're fighting to defend.

private responds:


Padilla is connected to al qaeda and is currently a test case on the viability of this domestic policy. As far as most of us are concerned he has no rights other than what are afforded a traitor to the United States.

I am interested in knowing about innocent, avergae Americans who have had their rights violated. An example is "me." During the Vietnam war protests, Nixon and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover collected information on all known war protestors - particularly college students like me. All I ever did was exercise my right to freedom of speech and protest. But a former president of my college sued the government to get those files released and there was mine. Scarey. Padilla is not in that category and I would be interested in knowing if the Patriot Act, the NSA intercept programs, or the Swift account tracking policies did affect an average American citizen.  



In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 01:31:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
José Padilla is a normal American. Remember "Innocent until proven guilty"? He has not been proven anything, and the fact that he was tortured actually prevents him to be ever convicted now, if if ever was guilty.

That's the whole point of follow legal procedure: that there be no doubt that those convicted are guilty. It does not work perfectly in normal circumstances, but if you activley corrupt the process, there's no way of knowing.

And as to normal Americans, just look at all the homonyms that get stuck on the no-fly list and cannot get out of it, whetever their good faith. And what happens if you're unlucky to be the neighbor of someone who turns out to be a terrorist (or a designated terrorist, as we don't know), and had a barbecue with him, and are forever tainted as a terrorist associate because he was your neighbor and you were sociable? You think that doesn't happen?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 01:36:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For those that criticize the Bush administration for usurping the Constitution and our laws with their efforts to secure this country I would say, "Prove it" because other than hyperbole and insinuations thee has been no credible evidence of so-called "lying."

That's laughable. The Bush administration has clearly breached the law and only corrected it ex-post with the NSA wiretapping. It has de-facto abolished the central elements of Habeas corpus, allowing the president to hold even American citizens indefinitely and without trial. It has legalised torture. Most of all, it has invaded and completely destroyed a whole country that had nothing at all to do with 9/11.

As for the "lies": The Bush administration lies constantly as a matter of habit. For the very latest example, just watch this:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/18415/1/TDS-TonySnow-lying.wmv

by Almanax on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 11:24:12 AM EST
The first paragraph in my above post should be in blockquote, it's from the original poster.
by Almanax on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 11:24:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The question that is not addressed in this diary is 'What drives Islamic Fundamentalism?'. It does not come out of nowhere, and it certainly isn't part of the religion.

The Crusades - The Jihads. Are they mirrors, or is the latter a time-lagged reaction to the former?

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 11:47:18 AM EST
I agree that Islamic Fundamentalism did not appear out of thin air. However I would want to be specific. There is nothing wrong with Islamic Fundamentalism or fundamantalist principles in any religion. The following of a religion based on a very orthodox tenets is acceptable and should not interfere with the rights of other people.

This perverse form of Islam that we all connect with "terror" crosses beyond religious boundaries and into political power. It has been called fascism derived out of religion (Islam) or just a radical form of Islam.

I would agree that the growth of this movement began in the early 20th century and not in 2001.

I have not studied the Crusades in quite some time but it would be a worthwhile study in comparisons, although I would imagine it would upset certain groups.

But what drives it? There are underlying issues that have been there for many decades and were, and still are not, addressed.

To be blunt, we (Europe and the US) took Arabs for granted for too many years. We supported whomever were their leaders primarily for reason of oil. But we never sought to develop that part of the world and bring greater prosperity and opportunity to its people as we did in other parts of the world. In the absence of alternatives, these people turned to these local radical mosques who promised them basic necessities, provide them with people to blame (USA, Europe and Jews), and taught their children this radical form of Islam.

The solution to this requires more than bullets, spies, border security, and prisons. The full answer is much more complex and I have yet to hear any of the candidates articulate it.

by Private on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 08:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is nothing wrong with Islamic Fundamentalism or fundamantalist principles in any religion.

I disagree. Implicit in such fundamentalism is the dismissal of law and natural moral.

It has been called fascism derived out of religion (Islam)

Called by whom?

I would agree that the growth of this movement began in the early 20th century and not in 2001.

Do you still mean the Muslim Brotherhood as single origin of a monolythic movement? By that logic, you could go back to the first Wahhabites, or even the first Salafists.

took Arabs for granted

What about non-Arab Muslims? Khomeinist Shi'a fundamentalism and Pakistani-origin Sunni fundamentalism aren't Arab-based, nor is Ferghana valley fundamentalism or the tribal madness of Afghan fundies.

we never sought to develop that part of the world

'Develop that part of the world'? We? What about their democratic will and self-control? So who wants to rule it all?

bring greater prosperity and opportunity to its people as we did in other parts of the world

Your logic fails. Our oil money already brought great prosperity into the parts where there is oil, there is misery in the Muslim world where there is no oil, plus Iraq where the US invaded with claims of bringing freedom. As for greater prosperity and opportunity brought to other parts of the world, list them... (And today anyway, it's the rest of the world that brings prosperity to the US, by feeding its credit binge.)

In the absence of alternatives

...including alternatives destroyed with the active help of the CIA,

The solution to this requires more than bullets, spies, border security, and prisons.

It requires none of those, or at least not in the way currently applied.

I have yet to hear any of the candidates articulate it.

What about the incumbent?

And why do you think your country has a mandate to 'solve' these questions, especially with its present record of success at solving other people's problems?

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Implicit in such fundamentalism is the dismissal of law and natural moral." - fundamentalism is a strict adherence to religious practices. I am not sure what you mean by "dismissal of law and natural moral?" Please explain.

"fascist form of religion." - there have been many political commentators who have used this term. It depends on whose definition of fascism you use.

"you could go back to the first Wahhabites, or even the first Salafists." - you could but these modern movements took their inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood after the creation of Israel and the presence of western oil interests in the region.

'Develop that part of the world'? -  economic development and investment.

"Our oil money already brought great prosperity into the parts where there is oil." - great prosperity for who exactly?

"What about the incumbent?" - Bush is not going to be President in 2009 and I would not expect coherent insight on this matter from him other than "it's hard work."

"solving other people's problems?" - no but they became our problem on 9/11/01 and the root cause of that needs to be addressed.

by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:20:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"you could go back to the first Wahhabites, or even the first Salafists." - you could but these modern movements took their inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood after the creation of Israel and the presence of western oil interests in the region.

Wahhabism, goes back to the eighteenth century. Although Wahhabites usually call themselves Salafists, modern salafism started at the beginning of the twentieth century, before the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood by Hassan al-Banna, who called himself a salafist and a soufi. And long before the creation of Israel.

You should do some research and reading before posting...

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 07:50:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are not reading what I wrote.
by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 09:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I see I missed this, and despite your announcement to go and my good-bye, I answer.

I am not sure what you mean by "dismissal of law and natural moral?" Please explain.

Strict adherence to religious practices means you follow them above all, i.e. if there is conflict with law, you prefer the religious rules. By natural moral I basically mean the Goldden Rule and basic human compassion: strict adherence to religious law overrules that, too. (See Abraham on the mountain.)

there have been many political commentators who have used this term

Yes, there have been. That doesn't establish why you feel justified to use it, anonymous reference doesn't establish authoritative use. Almost everyone in the world has been called fascist by someone.

these modern movements took their inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood after the creation of Israel and the presence of western oil interests in the region.

Neither Wahhabism nor Salafism is modern. If you mean that modern followers of Wahhabism and Salafism have been cross-pollinated by Muslim Brotherhood thinking, that's a rather weaker point than your original, and one could say just as well that the cross-pollination went both ways (and many other ways).

economic development and investment

Do you think specifying that makes the intrusiveness of your policy different?

great prosperity for who exactly?

Saudis, Kuweitis, Bahrainis, Kataris, citizens of the UAE, Oman, and to some extent even Lybia. You seem to lack any knowledge about standards of living there.

I would not expect coherent insight on this matter from him other than "it's hard work."

You have praised him before for being on the ball where Clinton wasn't. Coherence seems to lack here.

they became our problem on 9/11/01 and the root cause of that needs to be addressed.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, not even with what you suppose to be its root cause, there was no Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in Iraq before 9/11. There is now, and it is on a scale never seen before in other countries. And part of them are the death squads of US allies in government.

And on a theoretical level, no, it didn't became 'your problem' on 9/11, it became when the US took over the Middle East from the British Empire, and no, your problem still doesn't justify attempts to rule people instead of letting them self-rule.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 21st, 2007 at 11:16:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"What should not been in doubt since 9/11 are that there is a war between all radical Muslim groups and us"

two questions.

1) Who is this homogenous group "us"?

I'd say people so insecure of themselves that they easily scar.

2) Have you been watching the news in the last week? Fatah against Hamas? aren't these two radical islamic groups? Where is "us" in that fight? The war is as much internally in Islam as with "us" and "them".

by PeWi on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 12:08:28 PM EST
Actually, no: Fatah is not an Islamic group. It is Arab nationalist in origin.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 04:28:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks DoDo, I stand corrected on the facts...

head in shame, proofing my own ignorance... again.

by PeWi on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 08:08:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The "us" I refer to is what we would call western civilization (U.S., East and West Europe, and the Far East). The "us" also includes all forms of Islam that conflict with this perverse radical form of Islam.

The fight between Hamas and Fatah is interesting. As already stated, Fatah is a secular organization that never promoted itself on religious principles. Hamas has. It is an organization supported by Iran as is Hezbollah. Both are acting as armies for Iran's interest in the region. "Us" in this fight is with the secular Fatah.

by Private on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 08:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fatah is a secular organization that never promoted itself on religious principles

False. When their popularity faltered as Israel shitted on them during the death of the peace process, some of them tried to promote themselves by forming the Al Aksa Martyr Brigades.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:44:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The 'western world' I would count myself as part of believes in democracy. Supporting Fatah in an armed insurrection against an elected Hamas government, for no better reason than a turf war, has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with fundamentalist and tribal thinking, however.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:46:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As did the various fascists groups in the 1930's these Islamic fascist groups also want ultimate power and are fanatical enough to stop at nothing to achieve their goals

Well that appears to run entirely contrary to their quoted words, probably runs more along thethe lines of the quoted words of the PNAC.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 12:35:26 PM EST
If you feel that runs contrary to their quoted words, please provide some of their quoted words.
by Private on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 08:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Please. You provide a quote from
  1. Hassan Nasrallah
  2. a top Hamas leader
  3. Iran's current President and current top ayatollah
  4. or for fun indeed Bin Laden himself that prove that "want ultimate power and are fanatical enough to stop at nothing to achieve their goals".


*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:51:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Murdoch's Times:


Why we must break with the American crazies

Anatole Kaletsky

When Gordon Brown returned from his fact-finding tour of Iraq on Monday, he proclaimed the importance of learning from our mistakes but also of looking forward instead of backward. Did this admission hint at a shift in Britain's foreign policy when Mr Brown takes over in ten days' time? To judge by the announcement he made in the next sentence - a restructuring of the British security apparatus to guard against future intelligence failures such as the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction - the answer is "no". Mr Brown's foreign policy will remain as backward-looking and self-deluding as Tony Blair's.

I say this with growing despair, because I too have returned from a fact-finding tour, to America. Viewed from across the Atlantic it is clear that the parochial British obsession with WMD and "sexed-up dossiers" bears no relationship to the catastrophes now unfolding in the Middle East and beyond - not only in Iraq, but also in Gaza, Lebanon and Afghanistan, and soon maybe Syria, Iran and Pakistan. What people are talking about in America is not whether the invasion of Iraq was legally or morally justified but why it went so disastrously wrong and whether the same blundering fanatics will launch another catastrophic military adventure, most likely a bombing campaign against Iran, to distract attention from failure in Iraq. After all, the neoconservative ideologues who still run the Bush Administration have nothing left to lose politically - and in their fevered imaginations they still think they could inflict military defeat on the "Islamofascists" in what they now see as an even greater historical confrontation than the Cold War.

(...)

The list of misjudgments and mistakes could go on and on, but my point should by now be obvious. The question Mr Brown must now ask himself is whether he can still allow himself to remain publicly allied to a US Administration that is so recklessly belligerent in its diplomatic conduct, so demonstrably incompetent in warfare and so irresponsibly dangerous to the peace of the world.

As the anarchy in Iraq goes from bad to worse and Washington's only answer is to expand the circle of its aggression, clichés about the special relationship are no longer sufficient. Mr Brown must decide whether to remain a silent but active partner in this madness, whether to retreat quietly like the Italians, Poles and Spaniards or to develop a third and genuinely courageous option. This is to positively forestall further disasters by breaking publicly with the Bush Administration and trying to develop a genuine European alternative to the suicidal American-led policies, not only in Iraq, but also in Israel, Palestine and Iran.

In today's Observer/Guardian


Blair knew US had no post-war plan for Iraq

Tony Blair agreed to commit British troops to battle in Iraq in the full knowledge that Washington had failed to make adequate preparations for the postwar reconstruction of the country.

In a devastating account of the chaotic preparations for the war, which comes as Blair enters his final full week in Downing Street, key No 10 aides and friends of Blair have revealed the Prime Minister repeatedly and unsuccessfully raised his concerns with the White House.

He also agreed to commit troops to the conflict even though President George Bush had personally said Britain could help 'some other way'.

(...)

Sir David Manning, now Britain's ambassador to Washington  (...) reveals that Blair was so concerned that he sent him to Washington in March 2002, a full year before the invasion. Manning recalls: 'The difficulties the Prime Minister had in mind were particularly, how difficult was this operation going to be? If they did decide to intervene, what would it be like on the ground? How would you do it? What would the reaction be if you did it, what would happen on the morning after?

(...)

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's envoy to the postwar administration in Baghdad, confirms that Blair was in despair. 'There were moments of throwing his hands in the air: "What can we do?" He was tearing his hair over some of the deficiencies.' The failure to prepare meant that Iraq quickly fell apart. Greenstock adds: 'I just felt it was slipping away from us really, from the beginning. There was no security force controlling the streets. There was no police force to speak of.'

The revelation that Blair was 'exercised' in private will raise questions about his public assurances. The former Labour leader, Neil Kinnock, told the programme he was given a personal assurance by Blair that he was satisfied by the preparations. 'I said to Tony, are you certain?' Kinnock told the programme. 'And when he said: "I'm sure," that was a good enough reassurance.'

What is taking place in Iraq is an occupation and a genocide. I genuinely wonder how, even if you considered it necessary totopple Saddam Hussein, how the current situation can be of any help in fighting radical islamism.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 12:45:25 PM EST
they never had any intention of fighting radical Islamism.  they created radical Islamism, or at least nurtured and tended it.  militarised states need a bogeyman.  how else can they justify diverting the national wealth away from the needs of the people and into the pockets of arms dealers?

time to re-visit "The Power of Nightmares."

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 05:53:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I felt very embarrassed while reading this article. The person who wrote this seems educated. If that's the case, I feel even more embarrassed and there seems little point in trying to argue with him. I have a cousin in Los Angeles, a lawyer who could have written this but he was sounding like this long before 9/11.
To me, this is a right wing rant, which gives no facts or analysis and properly belongs on Red State or Powerline.

I told Bush; don't play chess with the freakin' Russians.
by LEP (rafifoon@yahoo.com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 03:39:32 PM EST
I'm with you LEP - obviously (see comments above).

 

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 04:38:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The NSA program of listening in on overseas telephone conversations from known terror suspects was also necessary.

The problem is that the group of possible terrorist subjects has been drawn incredibly widely, so that a large number of people have had their rights interfered with.

For those that criticize the Bush administration for usurping the Constitution and our laws with their efforts to secure this country I would say, "Prove it" because other than hyperbole and insinuations thee has been no credible evidence of so-called "lying."

Well the existence of Guantanamo bay sort of proves you wrong there, It was a site that was specifically chosen to attempt to sidestep the constitution. By positioning the site there it was theorised that legal authorities would not have juristiction. It was also announced that Geneva convention rights did not apply to people captuerd. either of these events would be enough to prove that the Bush administration was Usurping the constitution.

When the founding fathers finally created the form of federal government we have now, they envisioned the primarily role of the President as the commander-in-chief to lead the army against outside enemies. In that role Bill Clinton was a failure and G.W. Bush has done his job. And that is why whenever the American people choose a President during a time of war they never elect an anti-war candidate.

I think you have that backwards, Any good general has to know when not to use military force, (as someone said the problem is that if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.) President clinton kept Saddam bottled up and under him  Al quaida was kept relatively well under control. However under Bush we can see that although a couple of impressive looking battles have appeared to have been won, Strategically he has been a complete and total failure. by withdrawing forces from Afghanistan before the situation had been thoroughly resolved he made Afghanistan more of a mess than it should now be. By putting  a large part of the US army into an unnecessary war in Iraq has managed to damage in a large part the US army, with the only result being that he has managed to vastly increase the pool of capable terrorists opposing the US.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 03:49:06 PM EST
". . . the group of possible terrorist subjects has been drawn incredibly widely, so that a large number of people have had their rights interfered with."

Understandable conclusion, although we have seen no facts that suggest anyone's rights were violated in this program. Considering that on 9/2/01 our intelligence capabilities were limited and we had to assume we were going to be attacked again immediately, you must cast a wide net just to safeguard people. Anyone suggesting otherwise did not do so at that time and to suggest it in retrospect is disingenuous.

"Gitmo and prisoners"
This enemy has waged a conventional war. Without going into rules of warfare, it is easy enough to pick up. The enemy combatants were also not typical POWs under the Geneva Convention and the U.S. military had to create new rules in real time. I would agree that it has been five years and these prisoners need to be dealt with soon. As far as the Geneva Convention, please name one American POW in this war that our enemy has right now.

"Clinton"
Clinton bottled up Hussein how? He was shooting at our surveillance planes. He was cheating on the oil-for-food program. He was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He was refusing to comply with any U.N. resolution. So how exactly was he bottled up?

Al Qaeda was kept relatively well under control? Of course that does not count the rash of Al Qaeda attacks on U.S. interests going as far back as the '93 WTC bombing. Bin Laden was convinced as a result of Clinton's lack of response that the U.S. was a paper tiger and authorized the 9/11 attacks. From reducing our intelligence capabilities to agreeing with the airline industry NOT to move forward with the Gore Commission recommendations, he placed us in harms way. When Clinton left office the Middle East was a mess, with almost daily suicide bombings in Israel. If you are going to support this man please come with material facts rather than Clinton talking points.

by Private on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 09:21:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Coming it at a tangent here...

Bin Laden was convinced as a result of Clinton's lack of response that the U.S. was a paper tiger and authorized the 9/11 attacks

What I heard is that Bin Laden was not privy to the 9/11 attacks.  The evidence pointed to a Saudi/Egypt plot whereas Bin Laden was working on other things elswhere.

So I wonder what people make of this?

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden's Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11.  The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.  When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden's Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."  

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, "How this was possible?"  Tomb continued, "Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11."  I asked, "How does that work?"  Tomb continued, "The FBI gathers evidence.  Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice.  The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury.  In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury.  He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11."

It shouldn't take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure.  If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered.  First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to "smoke him out of his cave?"  The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to "root out" Bin Laden and the Taliban.  Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001.  Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.  

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060610&articleId=2623

Further info here; http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html

And, seeing as how "911" is doing its regular trip round, does anyone have any useful info. or suggestions regarding the "We found the hijacker's passport in the rubble" news story?  I remember hearing this one (it's one of those memories I hold, like the one where Tony Blair was asked on air, "So, if Saddam Hussein was to demonstrate that he had no weapons of mass destruction, you would not be in favour of invastion?"  His reply: "No.  Our aim is not to remove Saddam; only the weapons."--I'm paraphrasing, but that was his line--it was a day time news programme...which I watched)...back to the passport story (which I heard.)  Where did it come from?  The planes' black boxes were destroyed, so the passport is clearly...what?  A hoax--but set up by whom and to what end?

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1546927.stm

Hey, I've gone sideways.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:00:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Before I respond to this... interesting article, I need to ask this:  Jerome, are you sure this guy is for real? He's not just some stranger who e-mailed a manifesto to you out of the blue?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 04:29:30 PM EST
I have been receiving his emails for a while - usually in the form of comments/reactions on my diaries. There's a very clear disagreement between us on many things, but he's always been civil and dialogue has been maintained.

The text I used for this diary struck me as interesting, and representative of a very real strain of opinion in the US. While we disagree, it's provided in good faith and thus I felt it was worthy of a serious discussion. If we're confident we have the arguments to fight the points made (which I think we do), this is a case where there's a chance that they may be listened to if they are made without invective.

Call me naive, or otpimistic., if you will!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 06:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I think you're right that it does represent a particular strain of opinion in the US.  Unfortunately.

I have dealt with this before, in real life, and I always have to sort of catch my breath and think about how to approach it -- whether this is really an opportunity for a little gentle education, or a comlete waste of time.  I have encountered both.

This is sort of a long story, but a few years ago, I ended up in the same remote hunting lodge (don't ask, it was an accident, I don't hunt) as a group of hunters and their wives from Fresno.  The staff mentioned to them that I'd just returned from Iraq, and so over breakfast the father and one of the sons asked me about it.

But they didn't ask many questions.  Dad jumped right in with his opinion:  You know why they're fighting us over there, right?  Because we went there to free their women.

What?!  Honestly, it would have astonished me if I hadn't already heard that particular talking point coming out of the mouth of a US soldier in Baghdad, who really should have known better.

Stop.  Breathe.  Do I engage with this man?  Does he really want to know the truth?

Well actually, I told him, you know, Iraq's not really like Afghanistan was.  The women were doing OK there before, for a Middle Eastern country.  There were female university professors, there were businesswomen, female civil servants, female scientists, female neurosurgeons.  Now they're having a problem.  Now they're being killed because they dare to work.  Now they're being forced to wear the hijab when they leave home, even if they're Christians.  But they never faced anything like that before.

They just sort of looked at me.  They didn't argue, just got quiet.  I really don't know if it sank in.  I had to go, I couldn't stick around for much of a chat.

But anyway, I know how you feel.  So I'll give it a shot.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 06:25:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, and Afghanistan was not like that either before the Muyahideen. But, of course, Carter and Brzesinski had to support the Muyahideen against the secularists, because the latter were - gasp - socialist.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 06:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the new (non-Hamas) Palestinian PM is a communist. Should be fun.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 06:38:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bah, Abbas is complicit with foreign powers in keeping the winners of the last election out of power, and having been effectively ousted by the said winners, he now has overstepped his constitutional powers by appointing a cabinet without parliamentary approval.

So, in effect, the Palestinian Authority is in a state of constitutional meltdown and Abbas and his new PM are Western puppets with as much legitimacy as Karzai and   Allawi.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 07:28:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To the Stormy Present:

Yes I am for real, although it depends on your definition of what real is? The purpose of what I wrote Jerome was a "snapshot" of what happened to me that day and how it affected me. I will be honest that by the time Clinton left I was no longer a fan. I felt he let us down by not doing anything in healthcare and alternative energy and was basically coopting Republican initiatives to salvage his legacy. That is not why I voted for him twice.

"Because we went there to free their women."

How could you not have lost it? I would have come up with a few one-liners. This is a very civil blog so I will restrain myself.

by Private on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 09:31:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I shall have to go for "naive", I'm afraid. This seems like "discussing" with a creationist.

My reaction would be (to misquote Dale Carnegie) to put a stop-loss order on it.
Wish I had your optimism.


-----
sapere aude

by Number 6 on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 05:30:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"So we knew that there were more intended flights to be used by these terrorists."
Ya, you KNEW all of this hours after the towers fell, what from watching the "what to think TV networks?

"We have been engaged in a war with a fascist form of Islam for decades."
Oh really.  Before 911 radical Islam had zero effect on the vast majority of Americans.  The muslims were doing fine until our CIA had to step in and mess things up.(Afghanistan and Mossadegh)

"I am one of those people who are naturally curious and are always thirsting for more knowledge and for answers."
Ya but you are not curious about the volumes of contradicting evidence about 911 and the decent of the United States into outright Nazism during the five years after 911.
http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/4562
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF4wmDwVLkc#GU5U2spHI_4

Hey, even our grandmothers know!
http://www.grannywarriors.com/

Like I said, Europe gets a pass on this one.  This piece reads like a bad Popular Mechanics hit piece with the author pontificating the usual right wing ASSumptions like they were Gospel truth.

"For those that criticize the Bush administration for usurping the Constitution and our laws with their efforts to secure this country I would say, "Prove it" because other than hyperbole and insinuations thee has been no credible evidence of so-called "lying."

Yes and now even Jay Severin, the heir apparent to the throne of Sean Hannity or Bill ORielly is smart enough(or been paid enough) to call for his impeachment.

I would close now with one of Henry Kissinger's best New World Order quotes but all of that stuff is still on the hard drive the NSA fried on me.

by Lasthorseman (Lasthorseman@comcast.net) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 05:13:59 PM EST
"So we knew that there were more intended flights to be used by these terrorists."
Ya, you KNEW all of this hours after the towers fell, what from watching the "what to think TV networks?

There was indeed at least one flight from Canada which was stopped when the planes were grounded. The information on it was first reported in the media then not reported. I'm not going to try to find an actual reference to it because it would be quite difficult given the media blackout, and because I don't see what difference it makes one way or the other in this discussion. One additional plane means nothing.


We are for Justice and Mercy, and Truth and Peace, and true Freedom. Edward Burroughs 1659

by edwin on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 06:39:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
These are all American right wing talk radio (Rush Limbaugh) talking points.  So either he isn't what he says he is or, after 9/11 he stopped getting his news from anywhere else and he is one of the brainwashed many.  Who, thank goodness, are becoming fewer.
by Maryb2004 on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 05:18:09 PM EST
I'd even question the assumption that his news sources were rightwing AFTER 9/11.  Why on earth would he be running down the street thinking "that damned Bill Clinton?"  That's just nuts.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 05:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It has been pretty well established that the Clinton administration tried to get Bush interested in Al Qaeda [remember the USS Cole at the end of 2000] but they couldn't care less, hasn't it? And the take on Clinton's reaction to the first 9/11 bombing is all backwards. Clinton bombed Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the African embassy bombings, he did take flak for killing civilians and it did seem like he was trying to create a diversion from the Lewinski case.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 05:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" lays it all out pretty well, I think, particularly the Bush administrations complete and utter disinterest in Al-Qaeda.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 02:59:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
memory is a funny thing.  I'm reading "Stumbling on Happiness" and part of it is how we make memories.  We never remember exactly what we were really thinking or doing.  That's not how our brains work.  Our brain stores snippets and then when called upon to remember our brain re-weaves the story.  Part of the re-weaving often involves things that didn't happen that day but happened later.

I wish I could remember where I read it, but someone did a story along this vein recently specifically about memories of 9/11 and showed how people's memories aren't completely accurate and how people remembered things as happening that day that they couldn't have actually known until later.  It might have been diaried at Orange but I don't know how I'd find it.

But you're exactly right.  It seems unbelievable that someone actually would have been thinking that on that day unless they were already part of the Rush brainwashed group.  So either he isn't what he says he was or his memory is faulty and he's let later Rush infitrate his memory.

by Maryb2004 on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 05:50:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe I was thinking about the information in this article although I'm sure I didn't read it in this publication and I thought I read it more recently.  

A study conducted weeks after the terrorist attacks found large numbers of participants had rearranged the order of the day's events in their minds and had forgotten some of its key moments, said the study's author, Kathy Pezdek, a psychology professor at Claremont Graduate University.

Although the study did find that the memories of people watching TV in New York were more accurate than the memories of people watching on TV in Hawaii.  So proximity to the traumatic event did make a difference.

by Maryb2004 on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 06:06:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's why I asked if Jerome knew for sure that this guy was whoever he claims to be.  There are just too many rightwing talking points, too much misinformation, half-truths and outright untruths, too much attempted emotional manipulation.  It just doesn't read genuine to me.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 05:57:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To be honest it reads like a composite.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 06:08:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree
by Maryb2004 on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 06:28:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Zombie-speak... depressing, but also there's (to my ear) a tone of desperation in it which I think reflects the wingnut echo chamber's fear of losing control of the media and majority opinion.  Kinda like a guy lying about an affair that he thinks his partner is beginning to suspect:  the lies get more and more elaborate and circumstantial, trying to compel belief out of the listener.

But I am interested in this persistent meme of "Arabs dancing in the streets for joy as the towers fell."  The first time I heard this it was supposed to be Palestinians in the OT dancing for joy [which under the circs doesn't seem entirely incomprehensible], and I heard it from hardline Zionists --  it was supposed to indicate how inhuman and barbaric the P's really are and thus justify the Wall and the Occupation.  And then there was controversy over the photo/video that allegedly showed this dancing-for-joy scene, that it was perhaps old video from some different event entirely... did this alleged dance for joy ever happen?

And now we have this very specific reference to Arab-Americans (Muslims, of course) "dancing in the streets in Paterson New Jersey" -- where does this come from and how is it attested?  Is this another wholly manufactured rightwing meme like the "hippie protester chick spat on me as I got off the plane at San Francisco" Viet Nam urban legend [ably and wittily deconstructed in the documentary 'Sir No Sir' by Jerry Lembcke, who spent a chunk of his life chasing this myth through old microfiche and public records and oral histories and could not find even one credible attestation]?  The specificity of the reference is very typical of urban legends;  OTOH Paterson is home to a thriving Arab immigrant community and would be targeted for defamation by anti-Arab propaganda much as "Harlem" or "Watts" would be targeted by anti-Black propaganda.

How is this meme related to the "dancing Israelis with the white van" meme that ran around the internet in about the same time frame?  Was that story attested in any credible way or was it an antisemitic meme coined by the other wing of the wingnut meme-bomber?

This "dancing for joy because a bunch of people got killed" seems like one of those "and they kill babies and poison wells" accusations -- used to demonise the hated Other by "proving" that they are deficient in all human feeling.  And yet, tickertape parades for returning "heroes" who have killed thousands or tens/hundreds of thousands are perfectly civilised occasions and a matter of national pride.  Go figure.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 05:50:46 PM EST
I was curious about that too, and I checked it out.  It's rumors, nothing more, based on the fact that there's a large Muslim community in South Paterson, and Paterson is a very bleak place to live at best.

There is no solid evidence of any sort that this happened; no video, no photos, just second- and third-hand accounts by someone who's cousin's next-door-neighbor says he saw it.

But you notice how "seamlessly" this person worked that alleged fact into his narrative, as if it was somehow a part of his actual memory of that day?  As if he was personally confronted by dancing Muslims before he could even wipe the dust off?

Of the Muslims that I know, and it's a fair number of them in a variety of countries, just about everyone was doing exactly the same thing -- watching their TV screens in abject horror, and hoping and praying that whoever did this wasn't a Muslim.  Because they knew what would be next, and it's what came next -- the man who pulls up next to your car, looks through the window at you with your brown face and half-covered hair, and draws his finger across his throat, a slice-mime threat that nobody could possibly misunderstand.

Because if the attackers wanted a culture war, as I suspect they did, there are sure folks who are willing enough to give it to 'em.  And somehow they think that giving the terrorists what they want is "fighting back."

The schoolboy logic of that response is just mind-boggling.  You want to tear the world apart?  Not if I get to it first, bub.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 06:10:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Stormy:

Do you just sit there and fabricate stuff? Your reading comprehension needs work.

The point about Arabs dancing in the streets of Paterson, New Jersey was extensively reported by local television, newspaper and radio stations. There have been and still are radical groups in that area, so it should have been no surprise.

Regarding a previous comment concerning "right wing talking points" which points are you talking about? The nursery school kids whose fathers were killed? Or Tim watching people jump out of the north tower? Or is it the woman who poured her heart out after loisng her young son? Which one was it you referred to? What I had initally sent to Jerome included some real names and I asked him to leave them out to protect the privacy of the families.

by Private on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 09:46:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The point about Arabs dancing in the streets of Paterson, New Jersey was extensively reported by local television, newspaper and radio stations.

It was also extensively reported that there were car bombs exploding and helicopters crashing into buildings.  None of it was true.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 01:38:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your reading comprehension needs work.

No, your writing and your logical reasoning need work.

You made an unsubstantiated claim, and I challenged it.  You've done nothing to back it up other than make more unsubstantiated claims.  As Izzy points out, lots of things were reported on that day that turned out to be incorrect.  So either provide some solid evidence that what you're describing actually happened, or drop it.

Regarding a previous comment concerning "right wing talking points" which points are you talking about? The nursery school kids whose fathers were killed?

You know exactly what I'm talking about, and yet you resort to the same trick, which didn't work the first time -- appeal to emotion.  You could spend hours recounting the stories of widows and orphans, but those stories do not strengthen any of your subsequent arguments.  I mean, so you know people who died on 9/11.  Does that mean we're not allowed to question your assertions about US foreign policy and leadership?  If that's the way it works, then fine:  I bet I know more people who've died in Iraq than you do people who died on 9/11.  It's not a contest.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 09:08:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually no I don't know what you mean by "right wing talking points." Be specific.

Your problem is that you view the world political arena in very superficial terms which need to coincide with standard right or left views. That usually coincides with receiving information exclusively through blogs rather than through primary information sources and being able to draw your own conclusions. In otherwords your comments reflect a left wing mouthpiece rather than thoughtful reflection of facts.

Let me ask you to role play. You are elected President of the U.S. to succeed Bill Clinton. September 11 takes place. As President what actions and strategy would you take?

by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 09:28:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you want some mainstream media?

CBS News: Clarke's Take On Terror: What Bush's Ex-Adviser Says About Efforts to Stop War On Terror (March 21, 2004)

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

...

Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.



Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 09:36:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Clarke was very pissed-off for being passed over, rightly or wrongly, by Bush. However, if you read his book he paints a very bleak picture of how Clinton handled this.

The point is that if Clinton did his job and did no cower, more than once, in confronting bin Laden it would not have been an issue for his successor and there is no denying that set facts.

by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 09:46:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was of course expecting you to say that Clarke had sour grapes. So, if we discount all the insiders that have criticised Bush after stepping down, what "evidence" is left? Bush's own claims that he's doing everything right?

There's also no denying Bush sat on his ass for 7 1/2 months.

What was Clinton supposed to have done about Bin Laden? He already took a lot of flak for the missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan after the embassy bombings.

What do you suggest should have been done about the USS Cole? Can a president in his last 60 days in office do anything with substantial foreign policy implications? Why did Bush do nothing about it when he took office?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 09:55:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The first six months of a new Presidency is primarily the hiring and approval of all executive branch jobs. Once done the new hires establish policy and begin executing. The Senate did not approve all Bush's cabinet appointments promptly and the head of the FBI was not approved until August, 2001.

At the time he took office he did it after a bitter contest over the Florida count which left a lot of bitterness on both sides for some time.

He also had two major issues to deal with right away. He had started his Presidency during a recession which had included a series of corporate scandals. North Korea was also threatening to detonate a nuclear weapon. He was aggressively addressing those issues as well as proposing a major education policy which was endorsed by Ted Kennedy. To say that he "sat on his ass for 7 1/2 months" is inaccurate.

What was Clinton supposed to do with bin Laden? Michael Scheuer was in charge of the CIA bin Laden unit during Clinton's Administration. He said that the Clinton administration had 8 - 10 chances to kill or capture bin Laden that the decision-makers in the Administration refused to take. After initially admitting to it, Clinton and his folks embarked on an aggressive campaign of disinformation to salvage his legacy. Unfortunately his wife will have to answer some serious questions if she gets the nomination.

by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:54:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He sat on his ass on Al Qaeda.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 01:39:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Michael Scheuer was in charge of the Bin Laden unit into the Bush administration. What does Scheuer have to say about Bush and his policies?

Harper's: Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security (August 23, 2006)

1. We're coming up on the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Is the country safer or more vulnerable to terrorism?

On balance, more vulnerable.

This contradicts your assertion elsewhere in the thread that the US is safer because of Bush's policies.
But for the most part our victories have been tactical and not strategic. ... There are too many of them, and more now than before September 11. In official Western rhetoric these are finite organizations, but _every time we interfere in Muslim countries they get more support.
(my emphasis)

So, failed counter-insurgency policies.

In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world.
Where did I hear that thing about America being hated because of its freedom before? Bush said it first. I could say Bush was lying, deliberately telling Americans something they would like to hear, but instead I'll be charitable and assume not malice but that Bush had no idea what he was saying after 9/11, and still doesn't nearly 6 years later.
From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than Iran.
No comment.
We don't have a strategy because we don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies.
You, private don't have a clue either, as has become crystal clear in this pointless "debate". And it is pointless because apparently we're reading the same sources and understanding completely different things. Clinton is so last century. Get over him, and take a long, hard look at the guy in the white house now, and at the state of your nation.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 02:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Michael Scheuer was in charge of the Bin Laden unit into the Bush administration." -  actually Scheuer was not in charge of the bin Laden unit during Bush or at the end of Clinton. He was causing too many waves within the CIA because of the missed chances and Tenet replaced him.

 "What does Scheuer have to say about Bush and his policies?" -  the only thing he did say was that Bush had only one chance at Tora Bora to get bin Laden but blew it. Of course had Clinton not cowered on any of his 8-10 chances than it would never had been Bush's problem.

As Hillary Clinton said we are safer today than we were on 9/11 but we are not safe. But radical Islam has grown in numbers and strength which still makes us vulnerable.

The strategy of this administration has been one dimensional which as they say is to stay on offence.
That's like putting out a wildfire with a garden hose. There has been no effort to understand and address the underlining reasons why young people are vulnerable for indoctrination into these organizations.

The response of spreading democracy is naive at best. There are many people in this world that do not want all of our freedoms and in fact it scares them. Their needs are more basic and involve the security of a job, an income, food on the table, and healthcare.

The long term strategy should have been to focus on stopping the indoctrination into these groups and in some cases deal politically with these groups.

My take on Clinton will of course not change and as history filters out political spin and the facts remain it will be become more evident.

Bush is not my guy. I did not vote for him. But I find Democrats who are playing Monday-morning quarterback on the actions they fully endorsed from the outset to be weak and dishonest. They also have offered zero alternatives.

by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 04:58:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Of a certain type...  I'm not sure what type.  The type that thinks "targetted assassinations" are, on balance, better than "major military incurstions", beacuse you kill your enemy and replace him or her with your protege--you hope!--without too much bloodshed.

I'll be basic and say, "These people need to have good sex, often and slowly."  They are TOO WOUND UP!

All of 'em.

The ultimate orgasm will occur when...

Bin Laden is killed.

Saddam is killed.

Fundamentalism is killed.

Kill kilkilk ilk ilk!

The abstract is our enemy, perhaps, in that it allows such ridiculous violent proposals between people who, the mafia know, are redundant.  Ineffectual.

When Private finds his phone tapped, he won't mind.  He isn't saying anything wrong, is he?  After all, he's parroting the company line.  What could be wrong in that?

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17564prs20050404.html

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 07:01:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Didn't Bin Laden die of kidney failure at the end of 2001, anyway?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (