Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

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.

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 (etg@eurotrib.com) 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.

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.
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 (etg@eurotrib.com) 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 (etg@eurotrib.com) 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?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

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...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

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.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

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.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
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.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

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.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
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.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (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".


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
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 (etg@eurotrib.com) 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.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP 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.

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.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (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 (etg@eurotrib.com) 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 (etg@eurotrib.com) 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 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.


aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) 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 (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) 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 (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 07:05:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Johnny Depp called me from France on Sunday night and asked what I knew about Osama bin Laden.

"Nothing," I said. "Nothing at all. He is a ghost, for all I know. Why do you ask?"

"Because I'm terrified of him," he said. "All of France is terrified. ... I freaked out and rushed to the airport, but when I got there my flight was canceled. All flights to the U.S. were canceled. People went crazy with fear."

"Join the club," I told him, "Almost everybody went crazy over here."

"Never mind that," he said. "Who won the Jets-Colts game?"

"There was no game," I said. "All sports were canceled in this country -- even 'Monday Night Football.' "

"No!" he said, "That's impossible! I've never known a Monday night without a game on TV. What is the stock market doing?"

"Nothing yet," I said, "It's been closed for six days."

"Ye gods," he muttered. "No stock market, no football -- this is Serious."

Just then I heard the lock on my gas tank rattling, so I rushed outside with a shotgun and fired both barrels into the darkness. Poachers! I thought. Blow their heads off! This is War! So I fired another blast in the general direction of the gas pump, then I went inside to reload.

"Why are you shooting?" my assistant Anita screamed at me. "What are you shooting at?"

"The enemy," I said gruffly. "He is down there stealing our gasoline."

"Nonsense," she said. "That tank has been empty since June. You probably killed a peacock."

At dawn I went down to the tank and found the gas hose shredded by birdshot and two peacocks dead.

So what? I thought. What is more important right now -- my precious gasoline or the lives of some silly birds?

Indeed, but the New York Stock Exchange opened Monday morning, so I have to get a grip on something solid. The Other Shoe is about to drop, and it might be extremely heavy. The time has come to be strong. The fat is in the fire. Who knows what will happen now?

Not me, buster. That's why I live out here in the mountains with a flag on my porch and loud Wagner music blaring out of my speakers. I feel lucky, and I have plenty of ammunition. That is God's will, they say, and that is also why I shoot into the darkness at anything that moves. Sooner or later, I will hit something Evil, and feel no Guilt. It might be Osama Bin Laden. Who knows? And where is Adolf Hitler, now that we finally need him? It is bad business to go into War without a target.

In times like these, when the War-drums roll and the bugles howl for blood, I think of Vince Lombardi, and I wonder how he would handle it. ... Good old Vince. He was a zealot for Victory at all costs, and his hunger for it was pure -- or that's what he said and what his legend tells us, but it is worth noting that he is not even in the top 20 in career victories.

We are At War now, according to President Bush, and I take him at his word. He also says this War might last for "a very long time."

Generals and military scholars will tell you that eight or 10 years is actually not such a long time in the span of human history -- which is no doubt true -- but history also tells us that 10 years of martial law and a war-time economy are going to feel like a Lifetime to people who are in their twenties today. The poor bastards of what will forever be known as Generation Z are doomed to be the first generation of Americans who will grow up with a lower standard of living than their parents enjoyed.

That is extremely heavy news, and it will take a while for it to sink in. The 22 babies born in New York City while the World Trade Center burned will never know what they missed. The last half of the 20th century will seem like a wild party for rich kids, compared to what's coming now. The party's over, folks. The time has come for loyal Americans to Sacrifice. ... Sacrifice. ... Sacrifice. That is the new buzz-word in Washington. But what it means is not entirely clear.

Winston Churchill said "The first casualty of War is always Truth." Churchill also said "In wartime, the Truth is so precious that it should always be surrounded by a bodyguard of Lies."

That wisdom will not be much comfort to babies born last week. The first news they get in this world will be News subjected to Military Censorship. That is a given in wartime, along with massive campaigns of deliberately-planted "Dis-information." That is routine behavior in Wartime -- for all countries and all combatants -- and it makes life difficult for people who value real news. Count on it. That is what Churchill meant when he talked about Truth being the first casualty of War.

In this case, however, the next casualty was Football. All games were canceled last week. And that has Never happened to the NFL. Never. That gives us a hint about the Magnitude of this War. Terrorists don't wear uniforms, and they play by inscrutable rules -- The Rules of World War III, which has already begun.

So get ready for it, folks. Buckle up and watch your backs at all times. That is why they call it "Terrorism."

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/thompson/010918.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 07:43:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
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?

After being told "America is under attack" I would not have continued to listen to "My Pet Goat" for several minutes.

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 01:42:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't feel a need to be polite about this.

It's at least as detached from reality as the controlled demolition people are.

The fact that it was the official propaganda line for so long doesn't mean it's related in any way to what actually happened, why it happened, or who was responsible for it.

More than that, if someone wants to debate these talking points the least they can do is do is post out in the open so we can respond to them directly.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 06:29:43 PM EST
Regarding debating out in the open:

I would agree in general. There are sites that will allow you to select a random ip address. It may be possible to set up a ET account without a valid e-mail address - or using jerome's. I don't use my real name.

In particular, I am reluctant to condemn. Perhaps there really are reasons that I do not understand, that make this the only possible or reasonable method of communication. I've learned that some things are just plain more complicated that I could have imagined. Perhaps this would be one example.


aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 06:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That could be true. But I'm always suspicious of indirection, and the only reasons I can imagine why someone might not be able to post from home on a site like this under an anonymous user name, via an IP proxy if they need one, aren't good ones.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 06:58:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What more IP masking does one need than the fact that home internet service has dynamically assigned IP numbers that change with each connection? Also, the e-mail address used to create the ET account is not public, need not be traceable (or even exist after account creation), and it is not necessary to have another e-mail address attached to the account, let alone displayed.

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 07:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am saying that there is some doubt in my mind at this time. Perhaps other people who are more knowledgeable than I would be able to extinguish that doubt.

I know that my IP address seems to stick around, sometimes for days or even longer. I haven't actually tried to figure out exactly when it changes, though I do know it changes. I am willing to bet that I can be tracked to ET through even a temporary IP address if there was a desire to do so by my service provider, unless they are very careful to erase their logs or direct them to dev/null. Of course my service provider may refuse to release such information, but in the US I wouldn't bet very much on that.

I have noted that there are services that provide random ip addresses. Come to think of it, I believe that at least one person has been tracked through such a service and charged with a crime.


aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 07:27:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Come on, it's not like posting the kind of content in this diary is going to get anyone in trouble in the US.

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 07:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
:) Ok I can't think of a good response to that.

aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 07:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This kind of stuff is e-mailed around the US every day.  My right wing conservative uncle (who grew up in our family which is otherwise almost completely left-leaning Democrats) sends this kind of stuff all the time.  I (and most of the rest of the family) finally blocked him as spam so I didn't have to read it.

I can't imagine any reason why he would need anonymity to post this - at least from a US point of view.  It's what Rush Limbaugh spews from the radio on a daily basis.

In a way I'm glad Jerome posted it though so everyone can see what kind of crap inundates our e-mail boxes and radios over here.  Not to mention our eardrums.

Two years ago I went to a festival in a small rural town and sat next to a local couple at a fish fry.  While I waited for the person I was with to get us drinks, I eavesdropped on the local couple.  For the next fifteen minutes I heard about how the country was in a terrible mess and it was all because of Bill Clinton and how untrustworthy Bill Clinton was and did you know that Bill Clinton stole all the china off of Airforce One when he left office? That just goes to show how evil Bill Clinton is.  It was all I could do to not turn to them and say "turn off your radios, stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, google up some news reports and see how that story was debunked YEARS ago."  But I didn't because the person I was with would have been pissed at me for getting into (yet another) political argument.

by Maryb2004 on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 07:42:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
agreed, but, on the flipside, posting on the potentially commie 'eurotrib' blog just might!
by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Trust me on this one.
They know who I am.
by Lasthorseman on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 09:13:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh shit. And we don't.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 03:15:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"we should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Ann Coulter

This article reads as if one day islamofascists descended from outerspace and started attacking the United States. It's difficult to bridge such an incredible  emotional gap. It seems that there is not a common reference point.

There are technical things as well. Let's look at the word fascist. It has a meaning. In particular, Laurence Britt in his article Fascism Anyone? compared the following fascist states:

Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia


  1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
  2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
  3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
  4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
  5. Rampant sexism.
  6. A controlled mass media.
  7. Obsession with national security.
  8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
  9. Power of corporations protected.
  10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
  11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
  12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
  13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
  14. Fraudulent elections.

Outside the United States there is a belief that this list would apply to the US and Israel.

It is convenient that the war against Islam started a little after the cold war ended. Why did we not notice how evil the Muslims were before that? Why was (and is) Saudi Arabia so well funded? Why are there no surveys that show Muslims are any more violent than US citizens? (If you got one, please link I really would be interested.)

When dealing with the horrors of the World Trade Towers, what about the horrors of the equivalent of 1,400 9/11's that the US inflicted on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia? It was not just the lie that was the Gulf of Tonklin incident. It was the refusal to allow North and South Vietnam a democratic vote as mandated by the United Nations, because South Vietnam would almost certainly vote in a way the US did not want.

The US has always chosen violence as its main method of diplomacy. They have always backed despots in order to secure short-term gains. "He may be a bastard, but he is our bastard" summarises the heart of US foreign policy since WWII. There is a reason that the US spends more on military than the rest of the world combined. There is a reason that the US was the target of Bin Laden.

This is how the rest of the world views the US, including now, a large number of it's friends:



aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 07:55:35 PM EST
That list is doing the rounds, but I think there's a simpler definition - which is that fascism is what you get when those in power abuse those out of power, not just for profit (which is bad enough) but simply because they want to, and they can.

Fascism is the pathology of abuse for its own sake. There's always a smokescreen of justification and rationalisation based on how different and aggressive The Other is. But the core issue is a need to abuse and control other human beings, purely for the sake of abuse and control.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 08:21:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Shall I start with my own emotionally wrenching tale of my experience with 9/11?  In order to establish my bona fides, my right as a Traumatized American to opine about such things as my nation's domestic and foreign policies?  My may not be as dramatic as yours, since I wasn't actually in New York or DC, but that doesn't mean the whole thing was somehow miraculously fun for me.  For about four hours, my whole family thought one of my relatives was dead.  Not some second-cousin-twice-removed, either -- someone whose children call me Aunt Stormy.  Couldn't get through on any of the phone lines, no communication.

Moving enough?  I've got more.

My point, though, is not to one-up anybody.  It's to illustrate that this emotive appeal to the agony of that day, an agony we all felt and still feel when we think about those lives lost, in order to justify wrong policies -- an abrogation of our civil liberties, attacks on two other countries, torture and detention-without-trial of not just our enemies but of no small number of hapless innocents who even the CIA acknowledges were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and turned in by the wrong people -- to justify all of that in the name of our pain is a cheap exploitation of that pain, and a dishonor to the memories of those who died.

I could spend hours countering the various claims and half-truths and talking points contained in this diary.  It's after 2 a.m. here, and I'd like to get to bed soon, so I'll just do a few.

First of all, I mentioned this elsewhere in this thread, so I'll just mention it briefly here:

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 is no direct evidence that this actually happened.  No video, no photos, not even any first-hand accounts in New Jersey newspapers, and I do think they would have been all over it if they felt on Sept. 12 that they had jubilant terrorists living in their midsts.  Because pretty much everyone with olive skin was under scrutiny at that point.  Never mind that poor Sikh guy who got shot.

But what you have done here is weave this bit of hearsay and rumor into your narrative of that day, so it becomes part of your experience, as if you had an actual memory of it, as if the jubilant Muslims were physically present in your agonizing recollection.  Which they are clearly not, since you weren't in Paterson, and these alleged celebrators weren't ever broadcast on TV.

This is a rhetorical trick, similar to the one that our government leaders use when they twist our heartstrings and pluck our fear strings with memories of 9/11 and dire warnings of how We Are Not Safe.

Next:  I get really tired of the conflation of different groups with different ideologies and different methods and different everything.  It's clear to me that whoever wrote this doesn't really understand "the enemy" of which he speaks, which makes it much easier to lump things together into one convenient Axis Of Freedom-Hating Islamofascists.  Or is it Islamocommunists?  I'm confused, because both fascism and communism is mentioned in there.  Rightwing?  Leftwing?  Random button-pushing?  Make up your mind.

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.

OK, to start with, Hezbollah did not in any way, shape or form branch off from the Muslim Brotherhood.

I do believe that Al Qaida hates "us," meaning just about everyone on the planet who doesn't subscribe to their own narrow, puritanical version of Islam, and I do believe that citizens of the United States are right toward the top on their list of who-to-hate.  But Hamas and Hezbollah would likely put Israel considerably higher than "us" on their lists, and in fact the leader of Hezbollah is on record as saying that he opposed the attacks on the World Trade Center towers, and any other attacks on American civilians.

You will not find me defending Hamas or Hezbollah, and you would not find me particularly pleased if I had live under their rule.  But these groups are not the same as Al Qaida, not at all, and to gloss over the very real differences between them is shortsighted in the extreme.  Even if you persist in thinking of these groups as "the enemy," and insist on believing that they pose a direct threat to "our" way of life (and I personally believe that only one of them does), you are doing yourself no favors if you refuse to understand them for what they are.

The Patriot Act was necessary in order to infiltrate all of the Muslims groups in this country and determine who were threats.

Oh, OK.  I'm sure that worked.  Now we know who all the threats are.  Thank God for the Patriot Act.  Now if only we could get rid of that pesky Constitution, we'd be really safe.

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.

The Iraq war?  We're talking about the same war here?  Because if funding for "sleeper cells" is a real rationale for war, then the US should have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of her neighbor to the northeast.  Al Qaida got little if any funding from Iraq, and Hezbollah certainly got no funding from Saddam.

Actually, if you want to be perfectly honest, if funding for Hezbollah is really the issue, then I guess the United States needs to be invading itself, because a significant chunk of Hezbollah's funds come from the good old USA.  I do believe that Hezbollah has a significant presence in the USA, but those "sleeper cells" are not so much trained operatives lying in wait to attack as they are successful businesspeople lying in wait to invest.

But then we get into the whole Patriot Act thing again.  Given that I don't know of a single person in the US who's been charged with funding Hezbollah since the Patriot Act was passed, I have to conclude that it's not working.  So we've abrogated our civil liberties, allowed our government to listen to our phone conversations and open our mail and track our library cards, and what do we have to show for it?  The Lackawanna Six?  The Fort Dix Pizza Bombers?  Come on.

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.

By toppling one of the most secular governments in the region?  How exactly was that supposed to "help"?

Again, you won't find me defending Saddam Hussein.  But trying to link this aggressive war to "fighting terrorism" just doesn't hold up.

What I really don't get is this -- in Afghanistan, before the end of 2001, there was really a training ground and haven for terrorist groups.  That is true.  The United States and its "allies" did make it much harder for terrorists to train and shelter there, at least for a while.  (Although they're making quite a comeback now, eh?)  So what I don't understand is why, having gone a good ways toward eliminating one terrorist haven, the United States felt it needed to go create another one?  Because that's what we did.

Those were two enormous mistakes that have cost thousands of American lives.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqi ones.

I really need to get to sleep now.  It's after 3, and I have to work tomorrow.

But one last thing.  What's missing in all of this is any discussion of why.  So you think "they" hate "us."  Why?  For our freedoms?  Because that's just not true.  They don't hate our freedoms.  They resent our government's policies, specifically the ones that impact them.  We have supported corrupt, authoritarian governments.  We have stood as an obstacle to Arab-Israeli peace.

I am not one for blaming the victim, and our decades of misbegotten policies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) in no way justify the attacks on American civilians that we witnessed on 9/11, nor do they justify the attacks on our embassies in Africa.  But if you want to defeat your enemy, you must understand what motivates him.  Our enemies (a term I would define considerably more narrowly than you do) are not crazed madmen, as tempting as it is to believe that.  Their actions are calculated, and those actions on 9/11 aimed at provoking an extreme response -- a response that would radicalize those who had not previously been radicalized, a response that our leaders (and their supporters) were only to ready to offer.

Yes, Al Qaida hates "us," and probably would no matter what.  But Al Qaida would also have remained an unsympathetic fringe group with little popular support, were it not for our ill-advised misadventure in Iraq.  The truth is that most people in this part of the world (I live in the Middle East) care little for the kind of world that Al Qaida envisions, and would not like to live under an AQ-led caliphate any more than I would or you would.

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.

What G.W. Bush has done is create legions of new enemies, a legacy the entire world will be forced to cope with for generations to come.  He has become Al Qaida's single most powerful recruiting tool.  They will mourn the day he leaves office.

I don't know how to make this clear to you if you don't understand it already -- we are so much less safe today than we were on September 10, 2001, or on September 12.  And the fault for that is not our enemies', but our leaders' and our own.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 08:36:38 PM EST
Glad you stayed up till 3am.  Saved me a lot of writing.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 11:29:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I also want to know how this:

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.

...how this squares with this:

But the war was fought on a shoe-string and accomplished nothing more than deposing Hussein.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 05:23:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Regarding the "dancing in the streets" all I can say is that your position that there is no evidence is blatantly false. If you wish to contact the local news stations in the New York/New Jersey area that would probably have archives of tapes.

Regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, I would suggest you try going to a library and read some books on the subject. This organization exists in every middle east country and had provided the inspiration and arms to most of these groups.

Hezbollah and Hamas are missionary armies for Iran. Hezbollah in particular has attacked outside the Middle East and has cells in western countries including the U.S.

"When it comes to this War" - I did not mention Iraq - you did here. I am not referring to the Iraq War. Try and comprehend better.

"How exactly was that supposed to "help"?" - It certainly cut down on suicide bombings in Israel. Libya certainly gave up their WMD without so much as a fight. At the time, Arafat suddenly wanted to be a peace partner. The toppling of Hussein was necessary (even Clinton wanted to do it while he was in office). The problem was the incompetant strategy beyond his toppling which is why thousands of Americans have been killed there.

"We are less safe" -  tell that to the thousands who were killed on 9/11 or the hundreds killed in London  and Madrid. What was the last terror attack in Europe or the United States that you can remotely claim "we are less safe?"

However I fully agree with your assessment as to why these radical religious organizations have been able to propagate increasing numbers of people into their ranks since the 1960s. Bombs, bullets, spies, and border security is a stop gap. The solution is far more complex and requires a greater investment in the Middle East with the goal of benefiting more of the populace and not lining the pockets of its leaders. The radical groups come to them with food, clothing, and medical care. We come to them with threats. Guess who wins their hearts and minds?

by Private on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 10:26:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Regarding the "dancing in the streets" all I can say is that your position that there is no evidence is blatantly false. If you wish to contact the local news stations in the New York/New Jersey area that would probably have archives of tapes.

Look, it's not my job to support your argument for you.  As I said above, you have made a thus-unsubstantiated claim, which I have challenged.  It's your job to support it with evidence.  I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, I would suggest you try going to a library and read some books on the subject.

Is this a joke?

Mister, I don't need any library books to tell me about the Brotherhood.  I live with them, thanks.

Hezbollah and Hamas are missionary armies for Iran. Hezbollah in particular has attacked outside the Middle East and has cells in western countries including the U.S.

Your statement would have been relatively accurate 15 years ago, but shows a complete lack of awareness of the current situation.  Maybe you should go to the library and find a book on Hezbollah.  A recent one.  Here are three.

Hezbollah's ideology and tactics have shifted since then; they are today more of a domestic political organization (albeit one with weapons) than they are an instrument of Iran's foreign policy.  This is inconvenient for Iran-haters to acknowledge, but it is true.  Being a part of the domestic political process exerts pressure on groups like these that no outside force can hope to equal.

Hamas was in the process of a similar transformation, but that transformation has likely been aborted by the developments of the last few months.

It certainly cut down on suicide bombings in Israel.

Correlation is not causation.  If you can illustrate how the Iraq war directly and quantifiably reduced the number of suicide bombings in Israel, let's hear it.

which is why thousands of Americans have been killed there.

Again with this idea that only dead Americans matter.

"We are less safe" -  tell that to the thousands who were killed on 9/11 or the hundreds killed in London  and Madrid. What was the last terror attack in Europe or the United States that you can remotely claim "we are less safe?"

Huh?  Are you even paying attention?

You said it yourself -- the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the later ones in Madrid and London did not simply arise out of the Aether.  They were the product of decades of radicalization, which was in turn fueled by decades of malignant foreign policies -- our policies.  We were not attacked on 9/11 simply because of security failures alone, and security measures alone will never make us safe.

What was called for after 9/11 was a real and concerted effort to address the root causes of terrorism.  What happened instead was that our government handed the terrorists a whole new set of recruiting tools.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:00:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Again with this idea that only dead Americans matter.

"We are less safe" -  tell that to the thousands who were killed on 9/11 or the hundreds killed in London  and Madrid. What was the last terror attack in Europe or the United States that you can remotely claim "we are less safe?"

Huh?  Are you even paying attention?

I hate it when these civilisation warriors talk about Madrid as if they knew what they are talking about.

Maybe private would like to read these two diaries:



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 10:08:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wow, glad you pulled that back up.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Thu Jun 21st, 2007 at 03:36:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hamas was in the process of a similar transformation, but that transformation has likely been aborted by the developments of the last few months.

When was Hamas a missionary army for Iran? I'd say never, and if I am not mistaken, even relations in terms of funding are more recent.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:16:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a fair point.  I don't think Hamas was ever a missionary army for Iran, and I didn't mean to say that it was.  I was thinking more in terms of the transformation involved in becoming a part of the political process.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:29:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just collecting some crumps:

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.

Heh. So how is it that not a single trace of them was ever found, and they haven't attempted anything ever since? Especially if you believe this:

The Patriot Act was necessary in order to infiltrate all of the Muslims groups in this country and determine who were threats.

Now as for the lumping together stormy also addressed:

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.

No Shi'a group ever branched off the Muslim Brotherhood. Meanwhile, other Sunni Muslim militant fundamentalist groups, most notably groups with origins in Pakistan including the Taliban, have an independent source.

Meanwhile, a lot of Islamists with similar views are US allies: most the ex-Mujahedeen in the Northern Alliance that took over from the Taliban are no less woman-haters and strict observationists; the strongest parties in the current US-supported Iraqi government are a Shi'a fundamentalist party with Iraqi origins that used to have a long history of terrorism, including against the US embassy in kuweit (Daawa) and a Shi'a fundamentalist party established by Iran's Khomeini from Iraqi refugees, which had/has a large militia (SCIRI and its Badr Brigades). The Saudi state finances mosques with Wahhabite fundamentalist preachers around the world, from oil money.

I also note that in the eighties, an until then insignificant Hamas got big and strong against its secular PLA rivals with covert Israeli help, where the Israelis didn't think Hamas could grow into a problem hoped for divide-and-rule... while, as others mentioned, the US helped to eliminate a left-wing alternative in Iran when the CIA organised the overthrow of a democratically elected PM, and then helped the Shah's bloody dictatorship.

Those were two enormous mistakes that have cost thousands of American lives.

What about non-American lives, 700,000 of them? What about non-American eyewitnesses of war and terror, including by US forces? And what about non-American democratic will? (You seem to believe US public opinion support makes US actions in another country democratic...)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 05:11:23 AM EST
What about non-American lives, 700,000 of them?

I had an encounter with an old American [possibly a WWII veteran] while waiting in line at See's Candies in Riverside, CA with my Mother around Christmas of 2003. The encounter started with him congratulating me for Aznar and ended with him saying that it would be justified to kill half the world's population to make america safer.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 05:51:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
i think this site has finally reached the popularity point of being a target for the disinfo campaigners.

i guess we've been taken seriously, a compliment perhaps!

the two pincers of this are:

  1. supposedly rational attempts to justify dismantling of constitutional citizen protection measures set in place by wise leaders to avoid repetitions of tyranny, consisting mostly of application of selective memory concerning why so many people hoòd the usa in disfavour, due to the inhuman foreign policy choices since taking on the role of globocop...

  2. comments like the one about wanting to see washington go up on a nuclear explosion. ( a sentiment that should be reason enough for banning a poster, imo, for its obviously unhinged tone), and may well be a giveaway as to how this site can be 'set up' to later be defamed as a haven for treasonous opinions).

what i love about the posters here is their humour and desire to use reason and truth to counter the fascistic trends in many different governments...no other agenda but to see sane energy policies and to raise awareness about how politics and energy are siamese twins, and how both are about to have a major overhaul, long overdue.

i sense some excellent brains hiving here to think of ways to make a future softer landing, and it makes me proud to see the internet being used so well.

how we can arrive there without boosting the arms trade or embracing lunatic notions of revenge by death and destruction, is what we largely gather here to discuss....pancakes and shoes and trains notwithstanding!

so now we see the results...we are starting to make a little wave, and right on cue, enter stage right pseudo-rational justifications and extreme barking inflammatory bs as counterwave.

for us achieve true traction, we have to 'deal' with the strange attractor phenomenon...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 05:39:19 AM EST
As someone who was clearly for years into the lunatic notion that a single state is most desirable in Israel I am somewhat hesitant about your desire for banning. Fortunately that notion is no longer quite so lunatic, but I still seem to end up on the wrong side of sanity a significant number of times.

While I believe that the nuclear comment in this thread is worthy of being troll rated, I kind of feel that way about the entire diary. In a way the two very nicely, unintentionally, complement one another. In that sense, they both take on much more (unintentional) meaning than either separate. Call it synergy. Gringo's comment is a comment I will miss. We need to put a human face on the violence we propose, whether it be Iraq, Iran, or Washington DC.

The cycle of violence that I believe lasthorseman has bought into along with this diary is something that I believe does not hurt for us to see. It certainly helps to limit my own desire for extremism. This diary and lasthorseman clearly show exactly what trying to control violence with more extreme violence brings us - as his Nome de plum so eloquently states.

When it comes to how he presents his opinions I don't feel that he floods the site with them demanding that everyone buy into his opinions.

It is not my choice though, and it is reasonable to talk about what people want this site to look like. I do feel a bit like an honourary European, (or maybe that's a can we join the EU too wanna be) so perhaps it doubly isn't my call.


aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 09:08:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why ban the user when you can troll rate the comment into oblivion?

Hate the trolling and love the troll, until they get tired and leave.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 09:19:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are a better, more patient man than I. :)

-----
sapere aude
by Number 6 on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 05:50:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not always.

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 06:08:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why ban the user when you can troll rate the comment into oblivion?

Because violence is unacceptable, even in comments.  It is not opinion open to any kind of debate.  If we were all at a conference together and one of the attendees said about another that he wished someone would bash his head in with a chair, the reaction of the group would make a difference.  

There is an implicit threat there and the threat-maker should be asked to leave.  If instead, everyone just hushes him and pretends like it didn't happen, then it has a chilling effect on everyone there.   The person who was threatened would feel fearful, as would anyone who identifies with the proposed victim.

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 01:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bush on Islamocommunism:

President Bush, attending the dedication of a memorial to an estimated 100 million victims of communist regimes, yesterday compared the fight against radical Islam to the Cold War battle against totalitarian communism.

In warning Americans that "evil is real and must be confronted," Bush also equated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with the tyrannical rule imposed on residents of countries like China, North Korea and the former Soviet Union.

Frontpager Lawrence of Arabia over at Eteraz.org:

What's next?  I will grant that the comparison between the ideology of the revolutionary movements present in the Middle East to post-WW2 Communism is an improvement.  It is at least a better comparison than the poor comparison to fascism.  At least Communism was transnational in its own self-description.  And certainly, Mao and Stalin destroyed their countries in the mid-twentieth century, murdering freely, imprisoning arbitrarily and generally using fear and power to extend their rule.  Their programs of national reform destroyed the heritage of their people.  And Mao and Stalin had just about as much in common with Marx as the Taliban (for instance) does with most practitioners of Islam: each tyrant twisting the words of a prophet to justify the deaths of any and all who disagree with them.

But the fact that one day the Islamic terrorists can be fascists and the next day they are communists, one day the Nazis, the next day its a Red Islam (not that Shariati minds), makes clear the extent to which the rhetoric is just that: rhetoric.  Bush and company are no closer to understanding who and what they are fighting against today, than they were the day before or will be tomorrow.  As with all good Islamophobia, the rhetoric is not meant to identify the enemy so much as rally public opinion into a cohesive and deadly force.  Bush and company are grasping at straws, desparately comparing their enemy to enemies of old in an effort to contain them, comprehend them and make the American people understand why Islam is such a threat to America (not the "good Muslims" of course. * wink, wink *).  Its a major victory if government policy makers can tell you the difference between Sunni and Shia, let alone the differences between an Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

And finally, one must ask, will we allow our country, our governments to kill in the name of its own idols?  Has the fanaticism of Bush been less deadly?  The Goddess of Democracy has been the justification for the destruction of Iraq, and many within our government would to build a new Temple to her in Iran as well.  Her hands are red with blood and her priests are calling out for more victims.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 06:29:12 AM EST
Point of order:  although Eteraz.org is an Islam-oriented site, Lawrence of Arabia is not a Muslim himself, he's a Catholic theologian.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 07:17:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, this is sort of obvious, and it might have been pointed out already in here, but just in case:

WTC attacks occured on: September 11, 2001
George W. Bush was sworn in as president on: January 20, 2001
George W. Bush's term expires on: January 20, 2009

Based on the information above, I conclude that George W. Bush was president on 9/11 2001. "G.W. Bush has done his job?" If the man had done his bloody job, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with!


"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 06:30:20 AM EST
Also, Clinton's term expired in January 2001, but the first thing that crossed this person's mind on 11 September 2001 was (referring to Bill Clinton), "You SOB, you really did it now".

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 06:45:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Especially given that nobody knew who had actually carried out the attacks at that point, or for what reason.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 06:49:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Remember that he did stay in a classroom to finish reading My Pet Goat,his entourage of trained SS(Hmm,Secret Service/SS, is this a karmic message) guards did not haul him immediately out of there even when America was clearly under "attack".
www.augustreview.com
by Lasthorseman on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 09:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What was the specific timeline of events based on the 9/11 Commission? To expect a new President to come into office, have months go by before the Congress approves of his cabinet and NSA appointments (the last being the FBI in August), then try and figure out what threats are real or not and where they are, is ridiculous.

As I said before, Clinton did not have the courage to pull the trigger, not once, but many times to kill bin Laden. This should NOT have been Bush's or Gore's problem if Clinton did his job.

by Private on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 10:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obviously you're going to believe what you want to believe.  What I read was a Bush administration that ignored intelligence and openly scoffed pre-9/11 that terrorism was "a Clinton thing" that we didn't need to worry about.

Your claim about Clinton not pulling "the trigger" has been repeatedly debunked.

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 01:33:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And of course you get your information from biased blogs that filter information and promote bias viewpoints. Try looking at unvarnished facts and making your own conclusions.
by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 09:31:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My information was from mainstream news sources.  There were no blogs that I was aware of in 2001.  Perhaps you should take your own advice.

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 01:09:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"that ignored intelligence and openly scoffed pre-9/11 that terrorism was "a Clinton thing" that we didn't need to worry about." - show me in the 9/11 Commission document where that is stated as you claim.

"Your claim about Clinton not pulling "the trigger" has been repeatedly debunked." - -  yeh by Clinton. Scheuer who headed Clinton's bin Laden unit in the CIA has a different take. In fact he outright calls him a liar and of course we know lying and Clinton are synonymous. Clinton had no less than 8 - 10 opportunities to ether kill or capture bin Laden. I wonder what was in those documents that Sandy Berger stole from the national archives that was so incriminating?

Come at me with facts and not blog generated fiction.

by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 04:31:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You want facts?
Executive Order 12333, signed by President Reagan, says "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination," which confirmed and expanded the bans on assassination laid down by his two prior presidential predecessors.

Even if I accepted your figures-and without independent verification I certainly don't-maybe Clinton didn't have him killed because it was...er...against the law?

by Sassafras on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 05:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry-the quote should be attributed to
Metafilter

The confirming link to US government archives is my own. I like to check my facts.

by Sassafras on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 05:28:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bush has had not a few opportunities to kill Bin Laden too.

And lookit this. He not only hasn't done it, he's on the record as saying that it's not something he worries his beautiful mind over any more.

No - wait - yes he does.

No - wait again - he doesn't.

But look - scary and frightening!

And here again!

And then you go blaming Bill Clinton and telling us we read bad, biased things.

Feh.

I'm not sure which is more embarrassing - the possibility that you may be getting paid for this, or the possibility that you're not.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 05:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is embarrasing is your intellectual dishonesty. If Clinton did his job then all your rants over Bush this and that would be moot. Did Bush's administration screw up Tora Bora? Yes. Has Rumsfeld and Cheney screwed up Iraq? No doubt. But Bush would not have had to deal with bin Laden had Clinton authorized bin Laden's capture or killing. Why is Clinton's lack of actions so relevant today? Because his wife could be the next President and will she bring back the same feckless approach to dealing with terrorists as her husband had.
by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 09:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Um, no. Mack. Sorry. Bush is a fuck up even without 9/11. Point of fact, he'd be perceived as a much larger fuck up if he didn't have the horribly misnamed piece of propaganda shit you keep drooling on about to cover his sorry ass.

Here's a highly abbreviated list:


Fiscal Management: America is broke. No wait, we're worse than broke. In less than five years these borrow and spend-thrifts have nearly doubled our national debt, to a stunning $8.2 trillion. These are not your father's Republicans who treated public dollars as though they were an endangered species. These Republicans waste money in ways and in quantities that make those old tax and spend liberals of yore look like tight-fisted Scots.

This administration is so incompetent that you can just throw a dart at the front page of your morning paper and whatever story of importance it hits will prove my point.

Katrina relief: Eleven thousand spanking new mobile homes sinking into the Arkansas mud. Seems no one in the administration knew there were federal and state laws prohibiting trailers in flood zones. Oops. That little mistake cost you $850 million -- and counting.

Medicare Drug Program: This $50 billion white elephant debuted by trampling many of those it was supposed to save. The mess forced states to step in and try to save its own citizens from being killed by the administration's poorly planned and executed attempt to privatize huge hunks of the federal health safety net.

Afghanistan: Good managers know that in order to pocket the gains of a project, you have to finish it. This administration started out fine in Afghanistan. They had the Taliban and al Queda on the run and Osama bin Laden trapped in a box canyon. Then they were distracted by a nearby shiney object -- Iraq. We are now $75 billion out of pocket in Afghanistan and its sitting president still rules only within the confines of the nation's capital. Tribal warlords, the growing remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda call the shots in the rest of the county.

Iraq: This ill-begotten war was supposed to only cost us $65 billion. It has now cost us over $300 billion and continues to suck $6 billion a month out of our children's futures. Meanwhile the three warring tribes Bush "liberated" are using our money and soldiers' lives to partition the country. The Shiites and Kurds are carving out the prime cuts while treating the once-dominant Sunnis the same way the Israelis treat the Palestinians, forcing them onto Iraq's version of Death Valley. Meanwhile Iran is increasingly calling the shots in the Shiite region as mullahs loyal to Iran take charge. (More)

Iran: The administration not only jinxed its Afghanistan operations by attacking Iraq, but also provided Iran both the rationale for and time to move toward nuclear weapons. The Bush administration's neocons' threats to attack Syria next only provided more support for religious conservatives within Iran who argued U.S. intentions in the Middle East were clear, and that only the deterrent that comes with nuclear weapons could protect them.

North Korea: Ditto. Also add to all the above the example North Korea set for Iran. Clearly once a country possesses nukes, the U.S. drops the veiled threats and wants to talk.

Social Programs: It's easier to get affordable -- even free -- American-style medical care, paid for with American dollars, if you are injured in Iraq, Afghanistan or are victims of a Pakistani earthquake, than if you live and pay taxes in the good old U.S.A. Nearly 50 million Americans can't afford medical insurance. Nevertheless the administration has proposed a budget that will cut $40 billion from domestic social programs, including health care for the working poor. The administration is quick to say that those services will be replaced by its "faith-based" programs. Not so fast...

"Despite the Bush administration's rhetorical support for religious charities, the amount of direct federal grants to faith-based organizations declined from 2002 to 2004, according to a major new study released yesterday....The study released yesterday "is confirmation of the suspicion I've had all along, that what the faith-based initiative is really all about is de-funding social programs and dumping responsibility for the poor on the charitable sector," said Kay Guinane, director of the nonprofit advocacy program at OMB Watch.."

The Military: Overused and over-deployed.

Former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright warned in a 15-page report that the Army and Marine Corps cannot sustain the current operational tempo without "doing real damage to their forces." ... Speaking at a news conference to release the study, Albright said she is "very troubled" the military will not be able to meet demands abroad. Perry warned that the strain, "if not relieved, can have highly corrosive and long-term effects on the military.

With military budgets gutted by the spiraling costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration has requested funding for fewer National Guard troops in fiscal 2007 -- 17,000 fewer. Which boggles the sane mind since, if it weren't for reserve/National Guard, the administration would not have had enough troops to rotate forces in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 40 percent of the troops sent to those two countries were from the reserve and National Guard.

The Environment: Here's a little pop quiz: What happens if all the coral in the world's oceans dies? Answer: Coral is the first rung on the food-chain ladder; so when it goes, everything else in the ocean dies. And if the oceans die, we die.

The coral in the world's oceans are dying (called "bleaching") at an alarming and accelerating rate. Global warming is the culprit. Nevertheless, this administration continues as the world's leading global warming denier. Why? Because they seem to feel it's more cost effective to be dead than to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. How stupid is that? And time is running out.

Trade: We are approaching a $1 trillion annual trade deficit, most of it with Asia, $220 billion with just China -- just last year.

Energy: Record high energy prices. Record energy company profits. Dick Cheney's energy task force meetings remain secret. Need I say more?

Consumers: Americans finally did it last year -- they achieved a negative savings rate. (Folks in China save 10 percent, for contrast.) If the government can spend more than it makes and just say "charge it" when it runs out, so can we. The average American now owes $9,000 to credit card companies. Imagine that.

Human Rights: America now runs secret prisons and a secret judicial system that would give Kafka fits. And the U.S. has joined the list of nations that tortures prisioners of war. (Shut up George! We have pictures!)

But all you want to talk about is 9/11, you're silly and hideously misnamed GWOT. Here's a newsbrief: the 'global war on terror' is a pathetic joke, hyped and believed in by folks--particularly politicians-- who find it useful for various reasons. Generally speaking, morons gravitate to it like flies to shit because it covers their utter incompetence in other areas -- like dealing with hurricane disasters, say, or global warming.  In many ways, the profound 'transformation' that supposedly overtook American policy after 9/11 is like a religious epiphany in which any thought of practical realities of actually, you know, governing, is subjugated to the demands of commemorating that most searing initial experience. Some mystics believe in that kind of stuff, which is fine. But it's no way to run a country. You're apparently a part of that 33% of this country that still think it is.

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is unquestionably the most incoherent comment I have read yet. First of all this post is about 9/11 or do you need to read things more than seven times.

Second, show me where I supported the concept of a Global War on Terror? It was a wrongly labeled war from the outset.

Third what does anything you just posted have to do with the subject?

And finally, I would like to know if you believe we are or are not at war. Anyone who does not believe we are at war with radical Muslim groups who use terror as their primary tactic is either ignorant of events or choosing to play retail politics with people's lives.

by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:10:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Um no. My comment is specifically directed to this sentence which you wrote on this thread:


If Clinton did his job then all your rants over Bush this and that would be moot.

Is it the big words in my reply, or the really big sentences that you  find incoherent?

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:16:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The post has to do with 9/11 and not Katrina or the other issues you brought up. The point is basic. The day Bush took the oath of office, had Clinton done the most fundamental job of President (commander-in-chief) there would no longer be any need for a bin Laden unit in the CIA. And we are not talking about one lucky shot. We are talking about at least 8 certain chances of capture or kill. The issue is what would each of the current (or projected) list of Presidential candidates have done in the same situation? There will be one issue that will be paramount on people's minds in 2008 in the U.S. and before any discussion begins what will the candidate do to make sure there are no more 9/11's.
by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And you're missing other people's basic point -- that Bush, not Clinton, was at fault.  You are basically opining that Clinton did not break the law and assassinate someone.  It's been pointed out to you on this thread that people here don't support the notion that a president should break the law.  It's also been stated repeatedly that the Bush administration did not take terrorism seriously, something you keep denying in order to stay on your "blame Clinton" storyline.

Pre-9/11, the Bush administration was focused on funneling money to their cronies via "missle defense," a.k.a Star Wars, the largely discredited Reagan-era money-sink.  I'll provide another link, in addition to the previous ones you've ignored.

Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism

On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

(...)The speech was postponed in the chaos of the day, part of which Rice spent in a bunker. It mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States.

The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.

(...)The text of Rice's Sept. 11 speech, which was never delivered, broadly reflects Bush administration foreign policy pronouncements during the eight months leading to the attacks, according to a review of speeches, news conferences and media appearances.



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 11:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what you think the issue is. And I'm sorry, but you're just sadly deluded. The polls bear out that the main issue of concern for the US is getting the hell out of Iraq. Health care comes in next, then Illegal immigration. Finally, we get to 'terrorism'. Sorry you don't get that yet, keep watching the polls, especially that question "what's the most important issue to you?"

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). June 8-11, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"Let me list some issues that have been proposed for the federal government to address. Please tell me which one of these items you think should be the top priority for the federal government. [See below.]" If more than one: "Well, if you had to choose just one, which do you think should be the top priority?"

 The war in Iraq 34  
 Health care 15  
 Illegal immigration 12  
 Terrorism 12  
 Job creation and economic growth 8  
 Energy and the cost of gas 6  
 The environment and global warming 6  
 Reducing the federal budget deficit 4  
 All equally (vol.) 3

Here's another in case that first was too complicated:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 18-23, 2007. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended

 War in Iraq
 31  
 Economy/Jobs
 8  
 Gas/Heating oil crisis
 7  
 Immigration
 7  
 Health care
 5  
 Terrorism (general)
 3  
 President Bush
 3  
 Environment
 3  
 Moral values/Family values
 3  
 Poverty/Homelessness
 3  
 Foreign policy
 3  
 Other
 19  
 Unsure

Here's another:

Gallup Poll. April 23-26, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide, drawn from Gallup's household panel, which was originally recruited through random selection methods. MoE ± 4.

"In your view, what one or two issues should be the top priorities for the President and Congress to deal with at this time?" Open-ended. Multiple responses accepted.

 Situation in Iraq/War 66    
 Poor health care/Cost of health care 20    
 Economy in general 14    
 Immigration/Illegal aliens 14    
 Fuel/Oil prices/Energy crisis 7    
 Environment/Pollution 5    
 National security 4    
 Education/Poor education/Access to educ. 4    
 Terrorism 4    
 Federal deficit/Federal debt 3    
 Social Security 3    
 Other 22    
 Unsure 1    

Furthermore, I think the Bush's obvious failure to prepare for another terrorist attack is driving whatever concerns remain about terrorism. The problem, in short, isn't what's happened. That's done. That was fucked up while Bush was president. What you really should be worried about is how much MORE dangerous Bush's actions have actually made the world--from 9/11 onward. And how much MORE vulnerable the rest of the world is as a result of the disastrous occupation of Iraq (where we've created the world's first continously non-stop disintegrating nation state devoted almost entirely to intercine warfare and terrorists training)  and the screwed up adventure in Afghanistan (where I hear the poppy crop is most excellent this year).

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Thu Jun 21st, 2007 at 12:39:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I want to make this next answer succinct and simple:

We are an Illegal Occupying Military Presence In  Iraq. So, follow me now, we are not 'at war'. We are in an occupation. I don't know what you call Afghanistan, but it smells more like an failing occupation as well, day by day it seems more and more that way.

Click on the links if you want sourced and detailed information and arguments to back that sentiment up.

Okay, here goes sentence number two: We helped to create the 'radical muslim groups' you're worried about. You might have picked that up in the links I've offered to you twice so far or at least a half dozen comments on this thread. But just in case your mouse finger couldn't manage a click, previously, here's another link.


Often, extremist Islamic movements arise in direct response to U.S. policies. The 1953 overthrow by the CIA of the moderate constitutional government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, followed by years of support for the brutal regime of the shah, led directly to the rise of the Islamic revolution in that country. U.S. support for the regime of Jafaar Nimeiry during most of his repressive 16-year rule of Sudan led to the destruction of much of that country's civil society, resulting in the 1989 coup by hard-line Islamist military officers who overthrew that country's brief democratic experiment. During the 1970s and 1980s, the destruction of moderate Muslim-led factions in Lebanon by U.S.-backed invasions and occupations from Syria and Israel--and later military intervention by the U.S. itself--led to a vacuum filled by more sectarian groups such as Hezbollah, even as most of the other militias that once carved up the rest of the country were disarmed by a revived central government and its Syrian backers.

The roots of Islamic radicalism stem from economic inequality, military occupation, and authoritarianism. Given that U.S. policy in the Middle East and elsewhere has often perpetuated such injustices, responsibility for the rise of radical Islamic movements can often be traced to the U.S. itself.

Washington has used the threat of Islamic fundamentalism as a justification for keeping a high military, economic and political profile in the Middle East. Yet it has often supported Muslim hardliners when they were perceived to enhance U.S. interests, as they did in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. A background report from a professor of MidEast politics can be found here...

So to ask whether we are at war or not isn't even the right question. The right question is why have we been more or less constantly invading, occupying, manipulating or warring in that region since approximately 1953? Riddle me that, batboy, and you'll work out the answer to your own question (See, I don't believe in intellectual welfare cheats: give a man to fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for the rest of his life!). But you'll have to do some reading on your own to get there.

If you still don't quite get it (understandable vis a vis your comment upstream), please click on the links for further edification...um...sorry  .... 'learning'.

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, you missed a really big thing that Bush screwed up or allowed to happen. Have you been reading the latest news about those Saudi flights out of the US directly after 9/11?

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bin_Laden_may_have_arranged_family__06202007.html

This is lovely:


Osama bin Laden may have chartered a plane that carried his family members and Saudi nationals out of the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks, said FBI documents released Wednesday.

The papers, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, were made public by Judicial Watch, a Washington-based group that investigates government corruption.

One FBI document referred to a Ryan Air 727 airplane that departed Los Angeles International Airport on September 19, 2001, and was said to have carried Saudi nationals out of the United States.

"The plane was chartered either by the Saudi Arabian royal family or Osama bin Laden," according to the document, which was among 224 pages posted online.

[snip]

On the issue of flights of Saudi nationals leaving the United States, the 9-11 report said: "We found no evidence of political intervention" to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals.

The commission also said: "Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights."

Meredith Diliberto, an attorney with Judicial Watch, said that her group had seen a first version of the documents in 2005, although the FBI had heavily redacted the texts to black out names, including all references to bin Laden.

Nevertheless, unedited footnotes in the texts allowed lawyers to determine that bin Laden's name had been redacted. They pressed the issue in court and in November 2006, the FBI was ordered to re-release the documents.

Diliberto said mention that "either" bin Laden or Saudi royals had chartered the flight "really threw us for a loop."

Heh. But that was Clinton's fault too, right? I'm sure he was the one who instructed the FBI to let the Saudis leave without even being interviewed. He must in someway be culpable. Damn that man! My mind wanders as I remember that horrible moment...

...As I was rushing downtown to meet my two friends .... I spied a plane that was leaving with the Saudi bin Laden family safely esconced (without being interviewed or questioned so we might never know who caused this catastrophe) and I kept muttering (referring to Bill Clinton), "You SOB, you really did it now" over and over again.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Thu Jun 21st, 2007 at 01:27:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"that ignored intelligence and openly scoffed pre-9/11 that terrorism was "a Clinton thing" that we didn't need to worry about." - show me in the 9/11 Commission document where that is stated as you claim.

I never said it was a quote from the 9/11 Commission document.  

Yes, they ignored intelligence prior to 9/11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fsIdAYTh4o

Yes, they scoffed:

Salon:

The department's [of Homeland Security's] creation was first proposed in the report of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, commissioned by President Clinton and delivered to President Bush. "A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely," it warned. Like the pre-9/11 alarms by the CIA and the National Security Council's former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, this was studiously ignored by the Bush administration, which had dismissed terrorism as a "soft" issue, a "Clinton thing."


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 11:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, that and biased mainstream media news reports, from a biased press, spinning an extremely political event in a biased direction.

Luckily we only ever get truth and honesty from the Right. And especially from Bush, who's famous for his stern and uncompromising attitude to terminological immorality.

Honestly, I don't know what we'd do without him.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 04:41:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Aaah, so Bush wasn't incompetent, it's just that the US has a peculiar political system that effectively leaves the country without a functioning government nine months after the inauguration of the new president.
I'm not buying that.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Tue Jun 26th, 2007 at 06:02:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think I came home from a final exam, or was preparing for it. I was thinking about writing an article titled "The dark ages are back" or something, about Afghanistan after the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud. But first check the news. I switched on TV, and flipped to CNN.

What I saw was a burning WTC North, and then the impact into WTC South.

It was a replay, but only maybe twenty minutes later. It looked unreal, like the realism of a movie, yet my shock indicated I saw it for true. (Sounds silly, eh?) Then I watched numb as the disaster unfolded.

As the firest spread, I thought I see a bend in the towers, and soon I became sure that they will collapse. I cursed why they don't organise helicopter rescue. I cursed at CNN reporters for still doing standard media self-presentation, the isolation from the actual news was especially painfully visible now. Then when the South tower collapsed, the on-site CNN reporter, who was just now using the tone of over-faked impression I learned to hate in US news, simply couldn't believe his eyes, and confusedly muttered into his micro that the South tower experienced some blast and is completely engulfed in the smoke from the fire. Later on, I got fed up with waiting for new news through the endless replays, and found that German channels have a more informative coverage(!).

Meanwhile, there was the impact into the Pentagon. I had a relative in Washington, as it turned out, even close to it. False rumours of further bombings in DC (as false as the Patterson New Jersey story) kept tension up. However, personal feelings weren't what became strongest on me. There were the victims -- what horrified me most wasn't the impact, the building collapse, or falling people: it was the people clinging to the wall outside, people apparently safe with only the choice of mode of death before them. But in the end, it wasn't even feeling for the victims wasn't the strongest. As the magnitude of the attack became clear (or not clear -- at the time, casualty estimates ran up into the ten thousands), a knot grew in my stomach. A feeling that this event will have consequences, even worse consequences.

In the evening (CET), I got TV-intoxicated, and thought I have to communicate on this with people, including Americans (the majority in my then favourite international forum). I posted this:

I can't describe what I feel for the New Yorkers...

FUCK the Taliban, FUCK Bin Laden, FUCK Islam and its prophet, FUCK Saddam, FUCK Serb extremists, FUCK Palestinian extremists, FUCK the CIA, FUCK Dubya, FUCK Hollywood movies, FUCK the NSA, FUCK the irresponsible 'national security' idiots who focused on missile defense and let this happen, FUCK all those perpretating a false sense of security to hundreds of millions, and DAMN FUCKING FUCK every ideology and religion that makes people think the murder of 50,000 innocents can serve their cause!!!

Damn am I furious, having seen this FORECASTED! As if experts and friendly Arab states didn't warned of the dangers of unilateral and Mideast policy! As if experts didn't pointed out that instead of a petty missile confrontation with China and 'bandit states', the US should concentrate on terrorist attacks with conventional weapons/modes of transportation! As if the fucking billion dollar NORAD system wasn't the thingy that could have noticed four planes weering off course!

Shit, and this could be only the beginning of bad things! How will this moron in the White House react? That FUCKING ASSHOLE senator on CNN already abused the tragedy to push the military, denouncing 'the last ten years' and announcing 'education, charities and all that stuff isn't the real government priority'... So what now, nuke Kabul, another ten thousand innocent  deaths??? I bet that would be exactly what these mad Jihad-ists would want: it would nicely unite the fucking stupid Islamic world behind them, with thousand more fundie assholes going on mission! Damn, you poor Americans, you could be the victim of neobarbarism for the coming years... as could the rest of the World...

Those BRAINLESS RETARDED MORONIC SHITHEADS, whoever they were, destroying the lives of tens of thousands, and marching for the destruction of their own country & people in holy sureness of whatever faith!

The Holocaust taught us nothing, period.

Notice that what I said several times on ET about focus on missile defense and ignoring terror was not in hindsight, and Richard Clarke's post-resignation comments weren't needed to establish that Dubya 'dropped the ball'.

After posting this I looked around, and that was the second big shock. Part of my American friends, who used to be sane people, turned into raving lunatics, demanding the nuking of Afghanistan or all the Middle East. And it wasn't just words, they meant it, it became clear as the forum descended into a flame war between them and the rest of us (including most Americans). At the time it wasn't even known who did it.

I couldn't sleep at all, that feeling that madmen were served an opportunity for much bigger slaughter grew into certainty. I continued to watch TV/post in forums during the entire next day, when I temporarily got the feeling that maybe I was too pessimistic, as most politicians held back with wartalk, and Bliar even mentioned Muslim co-citizens.

One more quote from me-ante that is interesting in hindsight:


>            Is Cataclysmic Terrorism Ahead?
>                by Patrick J. Buchanan
>                   January 12, 1999

<snip article for bandwidth>

My jaw dropped... I didn't thought this idiot is capable of some intelligent thought. But, I disagree with his anti-interventionist policy. Not intervention is the problem, the way and motivation it is done with is.

(Now I call myself a recovering liberal interventionist...)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 07:49:17 AM EST
Do you think the assassination of Massoud was directly related to 9/11?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 07:54:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you mean by direct?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 08:38:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is the near simultaneity coincidental? Or was the assassination of Massoud intended to decapitate the most likely local ally of the Americans in case of retaliation?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 08:41:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The story I heard was the "payment" version, Bin Laden 'paying rent' to the Taleban by knocking out their top enemy, but I haven't checked on this for a long long time.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 08:50:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Best article I found so far.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 09:08:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think to save us all a lot of time and bother, we should require 'private' to do some outside reading, a little history, a little poly sci- before he graces us with his 'personal insight' again. He writes in complete sentences, true, and doesn't seem terribly antagonistic (at least compared to what his sources might sound like) but there are just incredibly large gaps in his knowledge base. It's like the entirety of his worldview is made of an especially smelly brand of Republican patriot cheese. I think a diary (maybe I'll write it) needs to be posted on the lightness of the Republican's fact free world view; how it amounts to a very dangerous kind of magic thinking.

The immediate epiphany in which private realizes as the towers are crumbling that it's all Clinton's fault, sans both logical arguments and valid facts, is indicative of this method. Find your enemy (Clinton), project an emotionally violent response onto him (reaction to 9/11) and don't worry about any intervening evidence to support or refute the emotion --magic think! That's also how propaganda works, by the way.

As Jerome and private both point out, this is, unfortunately, a fairly accurate, if broad, portrait of how many Americans might 'feel' about 9/11.  It's managed to become the narrative precisely because so many right wing pundits and talking heads have repeated these errantly false talking points --using the magic think method outlined above -- until they've managed to take on a life of their own.  There's no easy corrective for mass delusion, but given that private (if he is one person) seems reasonably articulate, one would hope that pointing him to some information that runs contra to the conventional false wisdom might help him come back with a revitalized and refreshingly accurate world view.

As luck would have it, a recommended diary over at dKos The Facts So Few Americans Know About Iraq & George Bush  has a wealth of facts accumulated in one easy to peruse spot for private's much needed edification.

Let him go read, then if he has something to say, let him return for second round. Of course, no one can force him to read it, horse to water and all of that. But he should be aware that emotional appeals without even the flimsiest historical context or set of relevant facts is the bread and butter of rightwing propaganda that we in the states are treated to every single day. There's nothing especially new or insightful here, it's the same old  tendentious bullshit that's been wasting everyone's time for the last 6 years.

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 11:17:17 AM EST
" do some outside reading" and you recommend dKos. That I find humorous.

The fact is when you sit on the editorial board of a news or public policy magazine you need to read extensive research and ignore the slanted views of blogs. I actually majored in politlcal science and have read more on certain subjects (including the rise of radical islam) than most and certainly much more than you.

I would suggest that rather than recite the rants of the lunes on Dkos you may want to consider the library and getting to primary sources of information and history.

I did mention in that post that I blamed U.S. Presidents (and policy) going back to Eisenhower. Why blame Clinton? Because at that moment (without knowing any facts) I knew his lack of action against Al Qaeda, that this was planned long in advance, and that Bush was only in office for 7 months.

I voted for Clinton twice. I even met the guy once in hotel in Houston. I was one of those people who thought that Clinton would solve some of the major problems we have had. Two terms and he did not do anything of significance to accelerate development of alternative energies and less than nothing for healthcare. Instead he coopted Republican policy initiatives and made them his own so he could have a legacy. Sorry, but in fact Clinton was a failure as a President. Great used car salesman but never had the courage to face challenges. Unfortunately as we now know, he did not even have the courage to kill bin Laden.  Sorry, but this should not have been Bush's or Gore's problem.

I love how you people can only think in a single dimension and feel compelled to categorize people who think objectively in a certain box: either left wing or right wing. I don't fit those boxes.

by Private on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 10:50:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
kinda says it all.

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 01:35:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Says what Izzy? Says that I use my brain and spent time reading things other than lunatic blogs that dumb you down to a level of feckless followers. Been inside a library recently?  
by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 09:34:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It says you identify yourself as being part of a different "group," which you've just confirmed by calling this venue a "lunatic blog" which begs the question -- what are you doing here?  If you have no respect at all for the format or the participants, why are you interacting?

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 01:07:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"recite the rants of the lunes on Dkos" - -  Don't put words in my mouth Izzy. I said dKos is a lune blog. Obviously reading comprehension is a problem for you. This blog is far different in tone and intelligence.
by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 04:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This blog is far different in tone and intelligence.

You are absolutely right.  Here there is no place for handing out ad hominem attacks.  

So stop it.  

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 04:46:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You said:

I use my brain and spent time reading things other than lunatic blogs

As far as anyone reading could tell, this was not aimed at a specific blog.  This comment came after you've been insulting 3 of the front page contributors to this blog.  I believe anyone would find my interpretation reasonable.  I did not put words in your mouth.  If you want to be understood, you should quit attacking people for their reading comprehension and work on clarifying your communication.

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 06:16:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Izzy - I believe I was the one attacked from the outset. You want to dish it out but can't take it yourself. If you want to make comments, try being specific and not use hyperbole and false characterizations. The latter is apparently a way for respondents to dismiss comments they cannot answer intelligently.
by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:03:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've used neither hyperbole nor false characterizations.  I presented a reasonable interpretation of your own words.  You used the word "blogs" -- plural.  I also explained my interpretation, politely, after you insulted my reading comprehension.  

So how do you reply?  You don't say you were misunderstood and clarify.  Instead, you attack again, framing my response as hyperbole, etc., making a childish "dish-it-out" accusation, and casting aspersions on respondents' intelligence.

Do you think this displays a good faith effort to communicate?

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 10:16:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I actually majored in politlcal science and have read more on certain subjects (including the rise of radical islam) than most and certainly much more than you.

What do you know? Some on this blog have a deep knowledge of history, some speak and read Arabic, some have lived (or still live) in the Arab world. Don't try to be condescending, it's beyond your capabilities. That you think that wahhabism and salafism are modern movements born of Muslim Brotherhood shows that you have still a lot of basic reading and research to do about the rise of radical Islam you pretend to have studied...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

by Melanchthon on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 08:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The 'lunes' over at dKos include frontpagers from this site, leading politicians of the majority party in both the House and the Senate of the United States, journalists, essayists and professors from all over the world. Except for a common commitment toward ending the brutal war in Iraq and certain broad progressive goals outlined by Digby here, there is almost no unifying ideology there or here, for that matter. Certainly the political leanings run the gambit from socialism to anarchism and libertarianism. True, dKos wants to get Democrats elected, but you'd be surprised at how many posters are seriously dissatisfied with the current Democratic party. You can count me as one. I only wish that the same diversity of opinion on dKos could be reflected in our mainstream media: we'd have a much healthier intellectual environment and a more informed electorate. But, of course, if you refuse to read anything there, it's hard for you to know that, isn't it? But I think your cavalier dismal actually hides a fear that you'll be proven wrong. It's much easier to call folks 'lunes' than to try to refute their arguments. Five years olds tend to embrace this method as well.

Therefore, in attempt to take the high road, allow me to introduce you to David Michael Green. He is the original author from which the linked information was culled. He is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. If you happen to disagree with his points, he is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (mailto:dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.

Here's a link to the same material at a different site. And if you don't like that 'site', I can provide you with a few more links. Just let me know.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/15/1896/

Happy reading! Get back to me after you've managed to absorb the main points and we can further deconstruct  your 'personal' view of 9/11.

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 09:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The 'lunes' over at dKos include frontpagers from this site, leading politicians of the majority party in both the House and the Senate of the United States, journalists, essayists and professors from all over the world.

Nevertheless, since you can't rise above your own quivering prejudices to click a link, allow me to introduce you to David Michael Green. He is the original author from which the linked information was culled. He is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. If you happen to disagree with his points, he is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (mailto:dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.

Here's a link to the same material at a different site. And if you don't like that 'site', I can provide you with a few more links. Just let me know.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/15/1896/

Happy reading! Get back to me after you've managed to absorb the main points and we can further deconstruct  your 'personal' view of 9/11.

by delicatemonster (delicatemons@delicatemonster.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 07:28:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why am I spending time responding to a pathetic rant when I've work piled up on my desk....

I wish the brilliant Walt Kelly was still among us to skewer that lunatic and his lunatic views with the cartoony skills he used on Simple J Malarkey and the Jack Acids.

by Lupin on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 10:35:34 AM EST
"pathetic rant" - tell that to the nursery school children of the dead parents. Can't have a terribly good job if you have time to do this during work hours.
by Private on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 10:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Aw shut up, you idiot. I wish Steve Gilliard was still among us to expose your lunacy.
by Lupin on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 02:33:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree on the second part, but let's avoid insults and getting personal on ET.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:25:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What about the nursery school children whose parents died in a car crash? Or the millions of other people who lost someone close through some kind of accident or disease? You know, you are going to die. You, everyone you know and love, and everyone else too. So get over it already! What was so special about those who died on that often quoted date? Are their children any sadder than the ones whose parents died in a car crash? How is it helpful to anything to keep fixating on this one event? Why is this so important to you?
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 08:54:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My guess is that for Private it symbolises the battle--they will try to attack us ("us" = the west) with nuclear weapons if they can.  They want to kill us all.  And 9/11 symbolises that.

For me (I must be in a minority of minorities here) it symbolised:

Twin Towers--attack the finance people (you are not safe, even though you're rich!)
Pentagon--attack the military (you think you are tough, we die as we attack your centre!)
Pennsylvania--(was supposed to be heading for the White House?)--attack the U.S. govt (you politicians are not safe!)

I don't see any interest in killing americans per se.  I mean, if the hijackers wanted to terrorise, not the rich, the military, or the politicians, but ordinary people, they could have flown their planes into...say...the largest shoppest mall in the area, or into the largest block of flats--attack the people (you american citizens are not safe in your homes!)  That was the approach of the chechnyans when they blew up blocks of flats (unless the russian military/secret service/mafia/other planted the bombs)..

...so that's my guess why that date is important.  It symbolises the association, for some, of themselves via their govt., military, and financial leaders--their way of life, a way of life (U.S. govt. financial military) that is, indeed under attack.

Some americans think that no matter what their govt. military or financial institutions do, they will still be attacked.

From what I hear (my anecdotal evidence), most of the arabic world and latin america just want the yanquis to go home.  They don't care about the lives of the average american any more than an american cares about the life of an average jordanian or equadorian.

As you (and I) don't hold the same philosophy as Private, we see death...and then we look at Iraq and we see...death.  And we look at Nicargua...death...Tibet...death.

Bombs in London....death.  Bombs in Spain...death.  Bombs in Kenya...death.  In Ethiopia...death.  In Bali...death.

In fact, the Bali bomb is, as far as I understand it, another example of an "against the people" bombing.  It targeted a night club--young australians.  "Don't come here: you are a target."

There was a palestinian bombing of an "indie" night club in Tel Aviv ("Indie" being my description from what I saw on a report): "You who think you are 'politically safe' because you hold the correct opinions: you are targets too.  There is no neutral space."

That is Private's position as I understand it: There is no neutral space--for us or against.  black, white.  Do or die.

He needs to take some mushrooms and sit on a hill and stare at clouds for an afternoon...calm down.  Lose the rage...

"But all of those dead people!"

All over the world!  Dead people!

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 10:31:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He needs

To be clear: In my opinion he or she needs...

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 10:34:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another emotional appeal argument followed by a personal insult. Please avoid that here.

You should also be aware of timezones different from US ones, BTW. Lupin's comment was at 4h35m PM local time.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
....to post the ravings of a lunatic, especially so soon after the death of Steve Gilliard, a New Yorker, a historian, a man who understood 9/11 like few others, and who spent a considerable amount of time on his blog debunking and rebutting (in very forceful terms) the insanities that "Private" is expounding.

I know it was never intended that way, but it feels like an insult to a great man recently departed, whom I miss very much.

It saddens me that while Steve is no longer among us to articulate his views, creatures like "Private" crawl out from under their rocks and continue to spew their venom.

Someone recently pointed out that the "signal-to-noise" ratio on ET was excellent; it has been lowered considerably today.

by Lupin on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 02:46:05 AM EST
Sorry- the quote should be attributed to
Metafilter.

The confirming link to the US government archives is my own.

by Sassafras on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 05:22:16 PM EST
Means don't feed the trolls.  We have far more important things to accomplish here through true debates.

You will soon be mine, My Precious.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 07:28:44 PM EST
Damn good comment.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jun 21st, 2007 at 07:59:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not sure how Jerome came upon this article, but for the first time I find it difficult to believe something Jerome wrote. [Note, I am not really questioning you Jerome] I just can't believe that this was sent anonymously. it just reads like a right-wing hit piece. Seriously, I'm having a difficult time believing it, though I know Jerome wouldn't post it unless it was legit.

Here's a fact that completely undercuts this fellows story: My younger brother worked in the World Trade Center. After the bombing in '93, I've had to listen to my Mom go on for a almost a decade about her fear of his working there. Why? Because my brother idiotically once pointed out to her that everyone he works/worked with in the WTC fully expected to get hit again. They knew they were target #1, and working there was an act of denial. These are smart people, they can put two and two together. They were fully aware why the building was targeted, who was targeting them, and what the geopolitics were. It's perhaps ironic that this poster should note that a group of Israelis were questioned the morning of 9/11 for celebrating the destruction of the WTC. What were they celebrating? Why, the fact that Americans now were witness to the sort of treachery, violence, and terror that has become so normal to Israelis. I truly believe the Israeli reaction makes sense, in a twisted way, of course, but only because the Israelis readly understood the geopolitical situation that led to the bombing.

This guy just had his head in the sand. I can't understand wh he had this hate of Clinton that colored everything he wrote.

by Upstate NY on Thu Jun 21st, 2007 at 11:15:27 PM EST
Jerome, as always, your diary reflects great intelligence and morality.

Unfortunately, it is based on a false narrative of 9/11.

I challenge people to watch all 6 parts of these videos.  I think you will conclude, as I have, that false images of planes were broadcast on 9/11.

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

There are other reasons I believe this, not least of which is the complete lack of authenticated affirmative evidence for the official story.  However, these videos alone, viewed as a whole, place great doubt on the verity of the broadcast images, and believe prove their falsity.

Cognitive dissonance is a poweful thing.  Try not to let it keep you from viewing these videos objectively and critically.

by Ningen on Sun Jul 8th, 2007 at 07:51:04 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]