Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Go back to the press briefing Wolfowitz gave on 9/11. I remember it as if it were yesterday. He said "regimes will be destroyed." I noted the plural -- regimes. My next intuition in trying to understand this was "he's talking about Iraq, we're going to be invading Iraq." The PNAC vision was in public view if you were watching, and this event was the tripwire. That one phrase -- "regimes will be destroyed" -- It colored every other thought I had about 9/11, including all the conspiracy theory stuff about how the government was in face behind it. I don't think it was behind it, but it's pretty clear that have gained everything from it happening, and lost precious little -- there were no follow on attacks, the economy sputtered but did not seize, and the spring-loaded Patriot act strip-mined the Bill of Rights faster and more effectively than 12 years of Reagan-Bush in the 80s and early 90s.

REJECTING THE GOOD GUYS

By JOHN PODHORETZ

March 19, 2004 -- IN Iraq, as in the War on Terror, we're the good guys. In fact, rarely in the course of world history has the essential goodness of a nation been revealed so starkly as in America's conduct of the war against Saddam Hussein.
The question is: Why is it so hard for so many Democrats, liberals and Europeans to accept it?

What is it about the liberation of 25 million people and the removal of a barbaric tyrant - a tyrant who either directly or indirectly murdered at least 1 million of his own people and waged wars that killed another million in neighboring countries - they don't like?

Why can't they celebrate the ouster of a monster who paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 a pop - in essence helping to recruit new mass murderers by making a public offer of an insurance policy to ease any concerns a bomber might have about leaving his loved ones in the lurch?

And why do they struggle so fiercely to believe that the dictator who paid off those terrorists - and who housed others, among them the devil who pushed a wheelchair-bound American Jew off a boat into the Red Sea - had no interest in collaborating with other terrorist groups?

Have they forgotten that the dictator's refusal to abide by the terms of the 1991 ceasefire that left him in power forced the international community to keep restrictive sanctions in place against his nation - sanctions that helped contribute to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children?

Did they pay no attention when the humanitarian exception to those sanctions - the "Oil for Food" program - simply became a means for Saddam to enrich himself? Have they failed to read the news stories revealing how Saddam used "oil for food" to bribe hundreds of foreign politicians, businessmen and opinion leaders whose identities we are only now getting to know?

There was nothing good about Saddam's regime. Nothing.

And there was nothing bad about the liberation of Iraq. Nothing.

It was carried out in three weeks' time with astonishing care taken to keep the war from bloodying the suffering Iraqi people. The problems that arose after the war - problems relating to water and electricity, primarily - were the result not of allied action but rather of sabotage by demented remnants of the regime.

Indeed, most of the post-war problems were caused by saboteurs - including the looting that became the subject of such hysterical and overblown coverage by a mass media eager to find a bad-news story that might tarnish the brilliant success of the war effort.

What is so striking about those who criticized it before the fact and have criticized ever since is their tone of moral outrage - not against Saddam, but against President Bush. He misled us, they say. He lied his way into war. He tricked everybody.

This is arrant nonsense. But let us try a thought experiment. Assume that Bush deceived the nation and the world: What are the results of that deception?

Yes, let's see. The nation of Libya has unilaterally disarmed itself as a direct result of the war. In addition, the world has now learned of a nuclear-proliferation network stretching from North Korea through Pakistan into Libya that somehow managed to escape the attention or knowledge of the United Nations agency we are supposed to think knows all about this matter.

There are now more than 70 newspapers publishing freely in Iraq, and the country's three major religious-ethnic groups have agreed to an interim constitution that is the most radically advanced document ever to come out of the Arab-Muslim world. There are increasing signs of democratic unrest inside Iran and even in Syria.

The world is an unambiguously better place today, March 19, 2004, than it was on March 19, 2003, when Saddam and his two disgusting sons were still the dominant figures in the Fertile Crescent. Indeed, it's a better place today than it was a month ago, because the Iraqi interim constitution was signed.

There's something especially horrible about the way these facts are ignored and disregarded. More than 500 brave Americans have lost their lives in Iraq since the end of hostilities.

Those who deny the justice of the American cause are essentially saying that these heroes died for nothing. And that may be the biggest outrage of all.

Shorter Spidle/Podhoretz: The ends justify the means.

They did not die for nothing. They died for a lie.

Charles

"The question is: Why is it so hard for so many Democrats, liberals and Europeans to accept it?"

This should read: Why is it so hard for so many Democrats, liberals, Europeans and Iraqis to accept it?

Of course they didn't die for nothing, now americans can keep on driving their Hummers a few years more.
Ps if their motives were so pure why did they put a convicted conman, in power there?

"an interim constitution that is the most radically advanced document ever to come out of the Arab-Muslim world."

Here is an excerpt of the Iraqi constitution:

===============
Article 2 [Authority]
The people are the source of authority and its legitimacy.

Article 5 [Nationalities]
(a) Iraq is a part of the Arab Nation.
(b) The Iraqi People are composed of two principal nationalisms: the Arab Nationalism and the Kurdish Nationalism.
(c) This Constitution acknowledges the national rights of the Kurdish People and the legitimate rights of all minorities within the Iraqi unity.

Article 19 [Equality]
(a) Citizens are equal before the law, without discrimination because of sex, blood, language, social origin, or religion.
(b) Equal opportunities are guaranteed to all citizens, according to the law.

Article 20 [Criminal Trial]
(a) An accused is presumed to be innocent, until proved guilty at a legal trial.
(b) The right of defense is sacred, in all stages of proceedings and prosecution.
(c) Courts sessions are public, unless it becomes secret by a court's decision.

Article 22 [Dignity, Personal Integrity, Arrest, Home]
(a) The dignity of man is safeguarded. It is inadmissible to cause any physical or psychological harm.
(b) It is inadmissible to arrest a person, to stop him, to imprison him or to search him, except in accordance with the rules of the law.
(c) Homes have their sanctity. It is inadmissible to enter or search them, except in accordance with the rules of the law.

Article 26 [Expression, Association]
The Constitution guarantees freedom of opinion, publication, meeting, demonstrations and formation of political parties, syndicates, and societies in accordance with the objectives of the Constitution and within the limits of the law. The State ensures the considerations necessary to exercise these liberties, which comply with the revolutionary, national, and progressive trend.
===============

Truly groundbreaking, possibly the most radically advanced document ever to come out of the Arab-Muslim world, right?

Oops, that's actually from Saddam's constitution, enacted in 1990.

http://www.cleverley.org/areopagus

"God save me from my friends. I can protect myself from my enemies." --Martin Luther

------------------

Top Stories from Reuters Mar 23 12:56pm CT

Powell: Sept. 11 Attacks May Have Been Unstoppable

Clarke Denies Playing Election-Year Politics

Highest-Level U.S. Visitor to Libya in 30 Years

Israel Says All Militant Leaders Marked for Death

Gasoline Pump Prices Hit All-Time High

Pakistani Tribal Elders Urge Gunmen to Surrender

------------------

...If I was God, the first thing I'd do is turn Ariel Sharon and several of HIS friends into Puerto Ricans....

------------------

The New Pentagon Papers

by Karen Kwiatkowski

March 10, 2004

A High-Ranking Military Officer Reveals how Defense Department Extremists Suppressed Information and Twisted the Truth to Drive the Country to War

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0310-09.htm

------------------

Spheres of influence

[Undated]

Neoconservative think tanks, periodicals, and key documents.

Top neocon think tanks...

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/spheresInfluence.html

------------------

Blood Money

By William Rivers Pitt

27 February 2003

http://truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=53

------------------

Greater Israel -- What Does It Really Mean?

Alfred Lilienthal 2003

http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/greaterisrael.htm

------------------

America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace

by Jimmy Carter

New York Times April 21, 2002

http://www.mideastjournal.com/carter.html

------------------

THE THIRD TEMPLE'S HOLY OF HOLIES: ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army

September 1999

"...Ariel Sharon, an outspoken proponent of 'Greater Israel' was quoted as saying, 'Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches'..."

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm
------------------

Hey Adrian, I have a questoin for you.

When the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil occurs, what country are we going to invade in response?

Also, how will we do it? Our forces are tied up in Iraq, remember?

>When the next terrorist attack on U.S.
>soil occurs, what country are we going
>to invade in response?

Syria.

PNAC has already marked it for destruction.

It's small, has a coastline, is a frontline anti-Israel state, and doesn't have nukes. It has a Kurdish minority to assist, and a bogeyman president -- though the old Assad was more bogeyable than his son.

Hell, they probably have rape rooms.

They're teed up like a golf ball.

If we had an Army twice the size we have at present, they'd have already been done.

"Hey Adrian, I have a questoin for you.

When the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil occurs, what country are we going to invade in response?"

I don't know... maybe Syria??? maybe Iran???

NAH.

That would be a great excuse to invade FRANCE!

Adrian

"That would be a great excuse to invade FRANCE!"

I know this is meant as humor (ha! ha! ha!) But Paul Wolfowitz might come, in case of a second act of mega-terrorism, to mean it litteraly since he has advocated dealing with France as an ennemy. (This guy should be treated for paranoia immediately.) And I am pretty sure that there are people out there in states I am not in tune with who would happily contemplate this idea.

Besides the utter craziness of the idea, there is a little detail these folks seem to forget about: France is a nu-ku-lah power (and its warheads are under its own control and not NATO's). War with France would mean the annihilation of several US cities. I am starting to miss the cold war when the overwhelming danger of a real confrontation among major countries was keeping most heads cool... and constantly reminded people with a brain about the need to maintain resonable diplomatic relations with other countries.

Hitting a new low for trolls here.

Does moveable type support / have plug-ins for user accounts, with settings to require registration with a real email address before posting, and the ability for individuals to supress (killfile) posts based on user names?

I like the contrary opinions, but the nitwits and trolls are a drag. Even long time poster Patrick said, a few threads back, he only comes here to laugh at how stupid lefties are.

I mean, instead of talking about the absurd posts of this latest troll, how about a discussion on easy ways for the host to use forum technology as old as Usenet and bbs's? (oh wait he is a commedian! note to adrian, don't quit your day job).

Any users of this blog software with suggestions on easy to install, zero administration plugins?

On Sept. 11, 2001, I was outside working solo on a housepainting job, no radio. I found out about the attack when the people I was working for came home from work about 5:30 p.m. After thinking about it for 15 minutes, I said, "Looks like we'll be going to war." "But against who or what? There's no one to attack!", the man of the house replied. "Afghanistan."

Geez, I'm no expert, but some things are obvious, even for the moderately informed. It's not heartening to know that policy makers with access to all the information available can spin it so readily into utter unreality.

Adrian Spidle quoted, "And why do they struggle so fiercely to believe that the dictator who paid off those terrorists - and who housed others, among them the devil who pushed a wheelchair-bound American Jew off a boat into the Red Sea - had no interest in collaborating with other terrorist groups?"

Because Al Qaeda thought Saddam was an evil secularist? Just a guess.

vsa,

Movable Type, as currently configured, gives the publisher the ability to block IPs. The 3.0 release, due out shortly, will have a log in feature.

Well, maybe the usual suspects could start a Committee For the Repeal of the First Amendment.

"[at 1:00 AM 9-12-01] I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. "

The above is a perfect example of why this guy got demoted. Less than 24 hours after the attack he's decided it's Al Qaeda!

No wonder Bush had to tell him in no uncertain terms to GET COMPLETE INFORMATION FIRST. Then they could make their decision about how to proceed. Facts first, decision later.

Keep this from The Newshour with Jim Lehrer:

" RICHARD CLARKE: ... So this president has chosen people who are very strong personalities. He wants them to debate and engage as Franklin Roosevelt did. Franklin Roosevelt used to get his advisers to go at it to see what that produced in terms of analysis and alternatives and options. ... What people are complaining about is that there is contention and debate and analysis and confrontation. I think that's better than trying to sweep everything under the rug."

When reading the following from Clarke's book:

" Later in the day, Secretary Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was change the government, not just hit it...as Rumsfeld had implied.

" Joint Chiefs Chairman Hugh Shelton's reaction to the idea of changing the Iraqi government was guarded. He noted that could only be done with an invasion by a large force, one that would take months to assemble.

"On the 12th and 13th the discussion wandered: what was our objective, who was the enemy, was our reaction to be a war on terrorism in general or al Qaeda in specific (sic)? If it was all terrorism we would fight, did we have to attack the anti-government forces in Colombia's jungles too? Gradually, the obvious prevailed: we would go to war with al Qaeda and the Taliban. The compromise consensus, however, was that the struggle against al Qaeda and the Taliban would be the first stage in a broader war on terrorism. It was clear there would be a second stage...."

And it's not "hard to believe" at all. What IS hard to believe is the complete lack of self awareness of the man who told us in October 2003:

"What people are complaining about is that there is contention and debate and analysis and confrontation." Cause that's what Clarke is doing himself.

"The above is a perfect example of why this guy got demoted. Less than 24 hours after the attack he's decided it's Al Qaeda!"

Shorter Sully: Be fast, be correct, get demoted in the Bush White House.

"Well, maybe the usual suspects could start a Committee For the Repeal of the First Amendment."

Re movable type being able to suppress posts based on user names? C'mon Sully, even you should know that this is not a First Amendment issue.

patrick, remember that Al Quaeda was THE known threat even before Sep 11. The CLINTON admininstration was watching it, and had warned the incoming administration about AQ. what is so surprising about deducing that AQ was responsible for the attacks?
BTW, I am not american and i am no liberal, but i must say, given what i have been reading so far, and my experience in working with CEOs with big egos, what happened seems pretty obvious.

Yeah, the quality of the trolls here is lacking - but how much worse are they than, say, John Podhoretz (from the comment, above). That guy sounds like a complete loon. And isn't he one of the "fathers" of the neocon movement, as well as the actual father of the TNR editor? It amazes me how these public intellectuals could be so illegitimate - why are they taken seriously? Where are the standards in our media? These types of arguments and people should be laughed at and dismissed.

Said Podheretz: "rarely[...]has the essential goodness of a nation been revealed so starkly as in America's conduct of the war against Saddam Hussein."

"What is it about the liberation of 25 million people and the removal of a barbaric tyrant[...] that Democrats, liberals and Europeans[...]don't like?"

To paraphrase Kevin Drum, that's the type of comment you'd expect from a third tier warblogger.

>Like Our Invading Mexico After the Japanese Attacked Pearl Harbor"

No its not. It’s like declaring war on Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Much has been made about the fact the Iraq had no connection to 9/11. Granted. Iraq did however, harbor, sponsor and fund terrorists like Hamas. (Hussein himself presented money to surviving relatives of suicide bombers in a graduation like ceremony). As far as I know this is not in dispute.

But they weren’t “our terrorists”. This is like saying that the if the KKK burns a cross on my lawn, and the “white Arian Brotherhood“ vandalizes my neighbor’s garage, I will only pursue the KKK because after all, only they actually did me any harm.

Here is a reason why Hamas, and any one who aids and finances them directly effects us: One of the great Arab grievances against the United States is our perceived support of Israel over the Palestinians. It would be greatly in our interests to see a resolution of the Israeli /Palestinian conflict, yet suicide bombers by various terrorist organizations constantly sabotage the process. There is no question that Iraq was financing these efforts.

Further, The U.S does in fact, topple oppressive regimes, for instance, Kosovo. (and with no UN approval, either). Where were the cries to impeach Clinton over Kosovo? No matter what, the Iraqis at least have some chance at a better life- before they had none. You doubt it? Take a look at North Korea- The death of an “evil dictator” does nothing to end the regime- the torch is simply passed down to the next generation- and we all know how evil Sadam’s sons were.

Now I’m a republican, but no fan of George Bush. This administration has made some very bad decisions- and will likely pay for them in the upcoming elections. They made the wrong case for the war (WMD) and frankly, and their priorities wrong- I agree Al Quida should have been our focus. I just don’t agree that we had NO reason to invade Iraq, and it server NO useful purpose.

"Granted. Iraq did however, harbor, sponsor and fund terrorists like Hamas. (Hussein himself presented money to surviving relatives of suicide bombers in a graduation like ceremony). As far as I know this is not in dispute."

Which one is not in dispute? Iraq sponsoring Hamas or Hussein paying relatives of suicide bombers?

No it's not.

It's MORE like "our" invading/occupying Mexico after Al Capone (WAS it Capone? I forget) 'offed' all those guys in that garage in Chicago--back 'in the day'.

BTW, while I'm here, I have a question for "Alan on March 23, 2004 12:29 PM":

Do you think it would do any good to ask dick/weed where and when "the next 'terrorist' attack" is scheduled to occur--BEFORE it "occurs"?

What if we got 'em under oath? Do you think that would help any?

---------------------

Bin Laden comes home to roost

His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story

By Michael Moran, MSNBC

NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998

http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1

---------------------

Suspicious Activities Involving Israeli Art Students at DEA Facilities

Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Security

June, 2001

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/2001/dea0601.html

---------------------

August 28, 2001 (D): A previously mentioned unnamed R[adical] F[undamentalist] U[nit] agent (see August 27, 2001 (B)) edits the Minnesota FBI's request for a FISA search warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's possessions. Minnesota is trying to prove that Moussaoui is connected to al-Qaeda through a rebel group in Chechnya, but the RFU agent removes information connecting the Chechnya rebels to al-Qaeda. Not surprisingly, the FBI Deputy General Counsel who receives the edited request decides on this day that there isn't enough connection to al-Qaeda to allow an application for a search warrant through FISA, so FISA is never even asked. [Senate Intelligence Committee, 10/17/02]

According to a later memo written by Minneapolis FBI legal officer Coleen Rowley (see an edited version of the memo here: Time, 5/21/02), FBI headquarters is to blame for not getting the FISA warrant because of this rewrite of the request.

She says "I feel that certain facts ... have, up to now, been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons."

She asks, "Why would an FBI agent deliberately sabotage a case?"

The superiors acted so strangely that some agents in the Minneapolis office openly joked that these higher-ups "had to be spies or moles ... working for Osama bin Laden."

Failing to approve the warrant through FISA, FBI headquarters also refuses to contact the Justice Department to try and get a search warrant through ordinary means. Rowley and others are unable to search Moussaoui's computer until after the 9/11 attacks.

Rowley later notes that the headquarters agents who blocked the Minnesota FBI were promoted after 9/11 (see December 4, 2002). [Sydney Morning Herald, 5/28/02, Time, 5/21/02] FTW

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/timelinebefore911.html#a082801fisa

[See also:

FBI Pigeonholed Agent's Request: Canvassing of Flight Schools For Al Qaeda Was Rejected

By Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, May 22, 2002; Page A01

http://propagandamatrix.com/FBI_Pigeonholed_Agents_Request.htm ]

---------------------

Taliban Met With U.S. Often

Talks centered on ways to hand over bin Laden

The Washington Post October 29, 2001

WASHINGTON -- Over three years and on as many continents, U.S. officials met in public and secret at least 20 times with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice.

Talks continued until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Taliban representatives repeatedly suggested they would hand over bin Laden...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/wpost102901.html

---------------------

The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection?

By Ron Callari, Albion Monitor

February 28, 2002

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12525

---------------------

The Counter-Terrorist

by Lawrence Wright

The New Yorker Magazine, June 1, 2002

John O'Neill was an F.B.I. agent with an obsession: the growing threat of Al Qaeda.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.03A.oneill.nyer.htm

---------------------

Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United

by Margie Burns

Prince George's Journal February 4, 2003

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

---------------------

I'll just sing softly to myself Alan, while you CAREFULLY consider the evidence AND your resply.

...Louis, Louis, Louis
Louis, Louis, Lou-eye...

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067814#ContinueArticle

Special "FYI: You MAY (2001) Want to let Dick Handle THAT too" postscript especially for Alan:

---------------
From: Center for Cooperative Research

9/11 Timeline: 2001 to 9/11

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/timelinebefore911.html#a082801fisa

...January 31, 2001: The final report of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart (D), and Warren Rudman (R) is issued (see also September 15, 1999). The bipartisan report was put together in 1998 by then-President Bill Clinton and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The report has 50 recommendations on how to combat terrorism in the US, but all of them are ignored by the Bush Administration. Instead, the White House announces in May that it will have Vice President Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism, despite the fact that this commission had just studied the issue for 2 1/2 years. According to Senator Hart, Congress was taking the commission's suggestions seriously, but then, "Frankly, the White House shut it down... The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president'... And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day." Interestingly, both this commission and the Bush Administration were already assuming a new cabinet level National Homeland Security Agency would be enacted eventually even as the general public remained unaware of the term and the concept. [Salon, 9/12/01, download the complete report here: USCNS Reports]

Late January 2001:�The BBC later reports, "After the elections, [US intelligence] agencies [are] told to 'back off' investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that anger[s] agents."�This follows previous orders to abandon an investigation of bin Laden relatives (see September 11, 1996), and difficulties in investigating Saudi royalty.�[BBC, 11/6/01] FTW An unnamed "top-level CIA operative" says there is a "major policy shift" at the National Security Agency at this time. Osama bin Laden could still be investigated, but agents could not look too closely at how he got his money. [Best Democracy Money Can Buy, by Greg Palast, 2/03] Presumably one such investigation canceled is an investigation by the Chicago FBI into ties between Saudi multimillionaire Yassin al-Qadi and the US embassy bombings (see August 7, 1998) and other terrorist acts, because during this month an FBI agent is told that the case is being closed and that "it's just better to let sleeping dogs lie" (see October 1998). Reporter Greg Palast notes that President Clinton was already hindering investigations by protecting Saudi interests. But, as he puts it, "Where Clinton said, 'Go slow,' Bush policymakers said, 'No go.' The difference is between closing one eye and closing them both." [Best Democracy Money Can Buy, by Greg Palast, 2/03]

-----------

May 2001: Around this time, intercepts from Afghanistan warn that al-Qaeda could attack an American target in late June or on the July 4 holiday. However, The White House's Counterterrorism Security Group does not meet to discuss this prospect. This group also fails to meet after intelligence analysts overhear conversations from an al-Qaeda cell in Milan suggesting that bin Laden's agents might be plotting to kill Bush at the European summit in Genoa, Italy, in late July (see July 20-22, 2001). In fact, the group hardly meets at all. By comparison, the Counterterrorism Security Group met two or three times a week between 1998 and 2000 under Clinton. [New York Times, 12/30/01]

May 2001 (B): US intelligence obtains information that al-Qaeda is planning to infiltrate the US from Canada and carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives. The report doesn't say exactly where inside the US, or when, or how an attack might occur. Two months later, the information is shared with the FBI, the INS, US Customs Service, and the State Department, and is included in "a closely held intelligence report for senior government officials in August 2001" (apparently a reference to Bush's well-reported briefing - see August 6, 2001). [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02, Washington Post, 9/19/02]

May 2001 (C): The Defense Department gains and shares information indicating that seven people associated with bin Laden have departed from various locations for Canada, Britain, and the US. This is around the time that most of the 19 hijackers enter the US - could those be some of the people referred to? The next month, the CIA learns that key operatives in al-Qaeda are disappearing while others are preparing for martyrdom. [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02, Washington Post, 9/19/02]

May 2001 (D):�Secretary of State Powell gives $43 million in aid to Afghanistan's Taliban government, purportedly to assist hungry farmers who are starving since the destruction of their opium crop in January on orders of the Taliban.�[Los Angeles Times, 5/22/01] FTW This follows $113 million given by the US in 2000 for humanitarian aid. [State Department Fact Sheet, 12/11/01]

May 2001 (E):�Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a career covert operative and former Navy Seal, travels to India on a publicized tour while CIA Director Tenet makes a quiet visit to Pakistan to meet with President General Musharraf.�Armitage has long and deep Pakistani intelligence connections (as well as a role in the Iran-Contra affair). It would be reasonable to assume that while in Islamabad, Tenet, in what was described as "an unusually long meeting," also meets with his Pakistani counterpart, ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed (see October 7, 2001). A long-time regional expert with extensive CIA ties stated publicly: "The CIA still has close links with the ISI." [SAPRA, 5/22/01, Times of India, 3/7/01] FTW

May 2001 (F): General William Kernan, commander in chief of the Joint Forces Command, later mentions: "The details of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan which fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, were largely taken from a scenario examined by Central Command in May 2001." [AFP, 7/23/02]

May 2001 (G):�Vice President Cheney's national energy plan is publicly released.�It calls for expanded oil and gas drilling on public land and easing regulatory barriers to building nuclear power plants. [AP, 12/9/02] There are several interesting points, little noticed at the time.�It suggests that the US cannot depend exclusively on traditional sources of supply to provide the growing amount of oil that it needs.�It will also have to obtain substantial supplies from new sources, such as the Caspian states, Russia, and Africa.�It also notes that the US cannot rely on market forces alone to gain access to these added supplies, but will also require a significant effort on the part of government officials to overcome foreign resistance to the outward reach of American energy companies.�[Japan Today, 4/30/02] The plan was largely decided through Cheney's secretive Energy Task Force. Both before and after this, Cheney and other Task Force officials meet with Enron executives, including a meeting a month and a half before Enron declares bankruptcy (see December 2, 2001). Two separate lawsuits are later filed to reveal details of how the government's energy policy was formed and if Enron or other players may have influenced it, but so far the Bush Administration has resisted all efforts to release these documents (see October 17, 2002 and February 7, 2003 (B)). [AP, 12/9/02] At the very least, it's known that Enron executives met with the Commerce Secretary about its troubled Dabhol power plant in 2001 (see November 1993). [New York Times, 2/21/02] If these documents are released, they could show what the government did to support Enron's Dabhol plant with an Afghanistan gas pipeline.

May 2001 (H): The US introduces the "Visa Express" program in Saudi Arabia, which allows any Saudi Arabian to obtain visas through his or her travel agent instead of appearing at a consulate in person. An official later states, "The issuing officer has no idea whether the person applying for the visa is actually the person in the documents and application." [US News and World Report, 12/12/01, Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] At the time, warnings of an attack against the US led by the Saudi Osama bin Laden are higher than they had ever been before - "off the charts" as one senator later puts it. [Los Angeles Times, 5/18/02, Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02] A terrorism conference had recently concluded that Saudi Arabia was one of four top nationalities in al-Qaeda. [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 5/19/02] Five hijackers - Khalid Almihdhar, Abdulaziz Alomari, Salem Alhazmi, Saeed Alghamdi, and Fayez Ahmed Banihammad - use Visa Express over the next month to enter the US. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] The widely criticized program is finally canceled in July 2002 (see July 19, 2002)

May 2001 (I): An Iranian in custody in New York City tells local police of a plot to attack the World Trade Center. No more details are known. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

May 2001 (J): US Medicine magazine later reports, "Though the Department of Defense had no capability in place to protect the Pentagon from an ersatz guided missile in the form of a hijacked 757 airliner, DoD [Department of Defense] medical personnel trained for exactly that scenario in May." The tri-Service DiLorenzo Health Care Clinic and the Air Force Flight Medicine Clinic train inside the Pentagon this month "to fine-tune their emergency preparedness." [US Medicine, 10/01]

May-July 2001: In a two month time period, the NSA reports "at least 33 communications indicating a possible, imminent terrorist attack." None of these reports provide any specific information on where, when, or how an attack might occur. These reports are widely disseminated to other intelligence agencies. [Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02, MSNBC, 9/18/02] The NSA Director later claims that all of the warnings were red herrings. [NSA Director Congressional Testimony, 10/17/02]

May-August 2001: A number of the hijackers make at least six trips to Las Vegas. It's probable they met here after doing practice runs on cross-country flights. At least Atta, Alshehhi, Nawaf Alhazmi, Ziad Jarrah, Khalid Almihdhar and Hani Hanjour were involved. All of these "fundamentalist" Muslims drink alcohol, gamble, and frequent strip clubs. They even have strippers perform lap dances for them. [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/4/01, Newsweek, 10/15/01]

May 6-September 6, 2001: The hijackers work out at various gyms, presumably getting in shape for the hijacking. Ziad Jarrah appears to have trained intensively from May to August, and Atta and Marwan Alshehhi also took exercising very seriously. [New York Times, 9/23/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] But these three are presumably pilots who would need the training the least. For instance, Jarrah's trainer says "If he wasn't one of the pilots, he would have done quite well in thwarting the passengers from attacking." [Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] Most of the rest appear to have only made token efforts, if at all. For instance, Hani Hanjour, Majed Moqed, Khalid Almihdhar, Nawaf Alhazmi, and Salem Alhazmi work out for four days in early September. [AP, 9/21/01] Three others - Waleed Alshehri, Wail Alshehri and Satam al-Suqami - "simply clustered around a small circuit of machines, never asking for help and, according to a trainer, never pushing any weights. 'You know, I don't actually remember them ever doing anything ... They would just stand around and watch people.'" [New York Times, 9/23/01] Those three also had a one month membership in Florida - it isn't known if they actually worked out then or not. [Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] Since apparently all of the hijackers knew they were on a suicide mission (see March 2001), why weren't they preparing for it?)

May 8, 2001: Bush entrusts Cheney to head the new Office of National Preparedness, a part of FEMA. This office is supposed to oversee a "national effort" to coordinate all federal programs for responding to domestic attacks. Cheney says to the press, "One of our biggest threats as a nation" may include "a terrorist organization overseas. We need to look at this whole area, oftentimes referred to as homeland defense...."

Just in case it's OK to comment rather than interminably cut-and-paste (I hope it is) -- what IS Donald Rumsfeld ON?

This is like the looney king in Amadeus. "Too many notes." "Iraq has better targets. Let's bomb Iraq."

Who's in charge, and is he sane?

"Iraq did however, harbor, sponsor and fund terrorists like Hamas. (Hussein himself presented money to surviving relatives of suicide bombers in a graduation like ceremony). As far as I know this is not in dispute."

Perhaps you're right and it's not in dispute but I've never heard the claim that Iraq's government made payments to Hamas and I've been following this topic pretty closely.

However, consider that a lot of individuals gave to Hamas so perhaps that's the source of the Iraqi funds you reference. Other sources of Hamas money include the Saudi royal family, every other Arab country, and individuals in the US. Of course Hamas is much more than a "terrorist organization". They've also built a lot (perhaps most) of the schools and hospitals in Palestine. As far as making donations to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, I'd hardly equate that with supporting terrorism. These are people who've had their homes destroyed by Israeli bulldozers for the sin of being related to a zealot for Palestinian self-determination; a zealot using tactics that are not that different from the ones used by Israel's founding fathers 50 years ago.

It's a huge mistake for the US to equate the Palestinian terrorism used in a desperate attempt to defend the last scrap of their land open to dispute with the Islamic fundamentalists who've used terrorism in an endeavor to drag the world back to the 12th century.

We can be against all the forms of terrorism, including Israeli assassinations, no matter how just the cause, but we're making our country weaker when we confuse a thin slice of terrorism (Hamas) with the ones who actually attacked the US for simply being the chief representative of the modern world.

"patrick, remember that Al Quaeda was THE known threat even before Sep 11. The CLINTON admininstration was watching it, and had warned the incoming administration about AQ. what is so surprising about deducing that AQ was responsible for the attacks?"

From Richard Clarke's testimony to the 9-11 Commission:

---------------quote------------
Now, I heard Sandy Berger this morning point out that immediately following the Pan Am 103 terrorist attack, the assumption in the intelligence and law enforcement communities was that it was a Syrian attack. And I recall that. He's quite right. And it turned out not to be a Syrian attack.

He pointed out that in the days and weeks after the TWA 800 crash, we assumed it was a terrorist attack. There were eyewitnesses of what appeared to be a missile attack. But after exhaustive investigations that went on for years, in the case of the NTSB and the FBI, a determination was made that it was not a terrorist attack. And I believe that that is the accurate determination.

Mr. Berger made other examples -- Oklahoma City and whatnot. I think we have to distinguish between rushing to judgment after a terrorist event, which as Mr. Berger said, is a mistake because sometimes the evidence changes, sometimes the evidence develops.
------------endquote------------

Bush and the neo-cons are swinging by a noose of their own making
......In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States. Attorney General John Ashcroft downgraded terrorism as a priority, choosing to place more emphasis on drug trafficking and gun violence, report Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in the March 29 issue of Newsweek.
......former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,""It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.
......Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism chief of the national-security staff, tells Newsweek that at an April 2001 top-level meeting to discuss terrorism, his effort to focus on Al Qaeda was rebuffed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. According to Clarke, Wolfowitz said, "Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?" The real threat, Wolfowitz insisted, was state-sponsored terrorism orchestrated by Saddam Hussein.
........Rand Beers who was Security Council special assistant to the president resigned after Clark, "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure" "Counterterrorism is like a team sport. The game is deadly. There has to be offense and defense," Beers said. "The Bush administration is primarily offense, and not into teamwork."the Bush adminstration "underestimating the enemy." It has failed to address the root causes of terror, he said. "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded."
......."Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski(R), 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists. "It wasn't intelligence‚ -- it was propaganda," she says. "They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials‚ -- including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February‚ -- that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war."

Bush and the neo-cons are swinging by a noose of their own making
......In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States. Attorney General John Ashcroft downgraded terrorism as a priority, choosing to place more emphasis on drug trafficking and gun violence, report Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in the March 29 issue of Newsweek.
......former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,""It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.
......Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism chief of the national-security staff, tells Newsweek that at an April 2001 top-level meeting to discuss terrorism, his effort to focus on Al Qaeda was rebuffed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. According to Clarke, Wolfowitz said, "Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?" The real threat, Wolfowitz insisted, was state-sponsored terrorism orchestrated by Saddam Hussein.
........Rand Beers who was Security Council special assistant to the president resigned after Clark, "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure" "Counterterrorism is like a team sport. The game is deadly. There has to be offense and defense," Beers said. "The Bush administration is primarily offense, and not into teamwork."the Bush adminstration "underestimating the enemy." It has failed to address the root causes of terror, he said. "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded."
......."Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski(R), 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists. "It wasn't intelligence‚ -- it was propaganda," she says. "They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials‚ -- including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February‚ -- that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war."

mexico

Thank you for sharing that with us!

Make sure you still have something worth wishing for.