Secrets of September 11

May 1, 2003 9:39 AM

“There has been a cover-up of this.” Ah, well, why should we be surprised. The Republicans already have decided to co-opt September 11 to their political advantage by rescheduling their convention in New York so close to the anniversary of that day, so why not keep the report on the actual events of September 11 secret - to avoid any sort of embarassing political fallout?
posted by kgasmart (35 comments total)

A Newsweek opinion-piece reprinted by MSNBC and linked via a shrill & partisan MeFi post. Nicely done, kgasmart.
posted by dhoyt at 10:19 AM on May 1, 2003

a right-wing apologist attempt to depreciate an interesting, long-on-fact, short-on-opinion article in the form of an inaccurate and partisan mefi comment. nice job, dhoyt.
posted by quonsar at 10:37 AM on May 1, 2003

dhoyt - that's all fine and great but how about trying to dispute any part of the post?

oh yeah, wait a minute....it's too easy to just call names and dismiss it out of hand. did you even bother to read the piece - especially the part that quotes Republican Rep. Porter Goss as saying he's just as frustrated as his colleague from across the aisle?
posted by photoslob at 10:41 AM on May 1, 2003

It's an interesting issue. I think the White House is being overly sensitive about this, I really don't think anyone would blame them for Sept. 11, the blame is with the perpetrators, and any intelligence failure can hardly be the fault of the brand-new administration. Furthermore, the public is squarely on Bush's side when it comes to prosecuting the war on those responsible for Sept. 11th, and their affiliates.

I guess it's possible that the Democrats would try to make political hay out of something like Bush was given a warning of a major attack on Sept. 10th, but still, unless that warning was ultra-specific, wouldn't that tactic backfire badly on the Democrats? By keeping this classified, the Administration is just giving fuel to the conspiracy theorists, which I guess are marginal enough that they don't matter.
posted by cell divide at 10:42 AM on May 1, 2003

Have all the political mainstream newsfilter info you can digest, quonsar. I already read the news this morning, so I'm full. So much for the "Best of the Web" criteria.
posted by dhoyt at 10:42 AM on May 1, 2003

you know, i've read it and read it again, and i just can't seem to find the word 'newsfilter' in your original comment. and somehow the post had miraculously gone from opinion to news. hey, when all else fails, invoke the mysterious metafilter posting criteria. yeah, that's the ticket!
posted by quonsar at 11:04 AM on May 1, 2003

It's an interesting issue. I think the White House is being overly sensitive about this,

Overly sensitive about what? You haven't read it. Neither have I. If you read it, would you still think they're being overly sensitive? It's impossible to say without reading it, isn't it. Which I believe is the whole point of the post.

I really don't think anyone would blame them for Sept. 11, the blame is with the perpetrators, and any intelligence failure can hardly be the fault of the brand-new administration.

It's great that you feel this way. I rather think the Administration would like you to go on feeling this way. I'm certainly not in a position to tell you that you wouldn't feel this way if you read the report, because I haven't read it either. Oh, I already mentioned that, didn't I? Let's all just be happy. We're in good hands. Everything's fine. Just fine.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:08 AM on May 1, 2003

Shrill? Partisan? Moi?

Well yeah, because it pisses me off. Release the fucking report already. This was an event that profoundly affected all Americans, but not only that - it has served as the basis for a profound shift in American foreign policy.

And it's particularly offensive if the full release is being held up not for sound, national security reasons, but rather niggling, don't-let-the-Democrats-make-hay-of-this reasons - which Goss himself seems to allude to.

Smack me, perhaps rightly so, for the tone of the original post. But I would much prefer to see you take on the content of the story itself.
posted by kgasmart at 11:09 AM on May 1, 2003

Statement of Mindy Kleinberg to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. There are entirely too many unanswered questions, and given everything else we have seen, I would put nothing past the current administration.
posted by muckster at 11:09 AM on May 1, 2003

in the form of an inaccurate and partisan mefi comment

And the opening post wasn't partisan?

The post sets the mood and with such a partisan, preaching tone the thread was doomed for partisan sniping from the start.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 11:10 AM on May 1, 2003

i didn't say it wasn't partisan, i was mimicing dhoyts prose. bu-duh.
posted by quonsar at 11:22 AM on May 1, 2003

But I would much prefer to see you take on the content of the story itself.

I agree with virtually everything you said, kgasmart--it's completely ominous that they wouldn't release the report and probably a deliberate suppression of something that would reveal major security lapses on behalf of the goverment. Everything Goss said is right on, too.

But none of that is my point, nor is it the point of MeFi--I stand by my right to observe that it's both a Newsfilter post and an opinion article (according to Newsweek) and a preachy, poorly worded post. To boot, it's also been posted at Warfilter. If it had been an FPP linking to Free Republic that ranted about the "Loony Left", it would have sucked every bit as much.
posted by dhoyt at 11:23 AM on May 1, 2003

dhoyt, why don't you post your observations to MetaTalk and let the rest of us get on with the conversation?
posted by muckster at 11:26 AM on May 1, 2003

No problem, muckster. In the meantime, I'd be interested to observe what kind of conversation is going to develop about an 800-page secret document none of us have read.
posted by dhoyt at 11:31 AM on May 1, 2003

and any intelligence failure can hardly be the fault of the brand-new administration.

I don't entirely agree. The Hart-Rudman Commission had warned the incoming administration of the danger and our vulnerability, but they were ignored. By not being more vigilant, the Bush administration didn't do their job. I think it's fair to accuse them of incompetence, though not of malfesance.

And as one of y2karl's recent posts explains, not nearly enough has changed.
posted by homunculus at 11:41 AM on May 1, 2003

I wonder if this secrecy has anything to do with this: Senator: At Least One Foreign Country Assisted the 9/11 Terrorists
posted by homunculus at 11:48 AM on May 1, 2003

Congressman Burton, a Republican, speaking on the PBS Now program, said "I believe a veil of secrecy has descended around the administration and I think that's unseemly."

Everyone from the ACLU to the Libertarians have decried the wall of secrecy that has gone up around this administration.

Is any one else concerned that "we the people" are being treated like mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed a lot of, er, manure)?

Did the report perhaps disclose more about the connections between the bin Laden and Bush families?
posted by ahimsakid at 12:41 PM on May 1, 2003

homunculus:
I wonder if this secrecy has anything to do with this: Senator: At Least One Foreign Country Assisted the 9/11 Terrorists

And what if that foreign country happens to be an "ally" - say, Saudi Arabia?

Pure speculation - tip o' the hat, dhoyt, consider me fully chastised - but read "Fall of the House of Saud" by Robert Baer in the most recent edition of The Atlantic Monthly (sorry, no link to the piece) for details of how that particular kingdom already has funnelled plenty of money to terrorists - and, of course, weren't 13 of the 15 hijackers Saudi citizens?

I want to see this come back and bite the administration on the ass, because if the administration is keeping it secret for pisssant political reasons, it deserves to be bitten on the ass... and if it's being kept secret because there are damning revelations therein, it's even worse.
posted by kgasmart at 12:49 PM on May 1, 2003

it has served as the basis for a profound shift in American foreign policy.

And a profound shift in American internal policy.

America has always been a rogue nation. From its expansionist wars against Mexico to its corporate ownership of Carribean sugar countries to its CIA-assisted overthrow of a dozen nations, America has always had awful foreign policies.

But it had a helluva good thing in its Constitution. It refined the ideas that European philosophers and intellectuals had been agitating for, and put them into law. It was a big step forward: "by the people and for the people." Incredible.

Sadly, all that seems to be getting flushed down the drain as American citizens allow their government to run roughshod over their rights. Fear and complacency is going to be America's downfall.

That's going to be a crying shame. I hope some other country takes a stand and shines out as an example of Doing It Right.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:01 PM on May 1, 2003

The terrorist attacks happened on a Republican watch, so it's not surprising that they don't want to release a lot of information about their failures. Of course, the problem is that any potential cover up of those failures continues to put Americans at risk....but no doubt political risk is of greater concern to Bush et al than any risk to human life.

(By the way, keep posting, kgasmart. There are always a few here on MetaFilter, who, ill-equipped to refute or discuss, resort to whining about "opinion pieces" and "partisanship" in an attempt to stifle any dissent that threatens their own limited worldview.)

But none of that is my point, nor is it the point of MeFi--I stand by my right to observe that it's both a Newsfilter post and an opinion article (according to Newsweek) and a preachy, poorly worded post.

Yeah. You're so right. We hate those kinds of posts....like for example this partisan, NewsFilter post "Euphoria in Baghdad" (which consisted of a few links to BBC, CNN, Reuters and a few photos designed to paint a one-sided picture and support an opinion of events in Iraq). Anyone who made a post like that, then made a fuss about what he/she called other "NewsFilter posts" would sure be behaving pretty goddamned hypocritically, right? I mean, so much for the Best of the Web criteria, eh?

~wink~

In the meantime, I'd be interested to observe what kind of conversation is going to develop about an 800-page secret document none of us have read.

Duh. The story is the fact that the 800 page report is not being released, which is what people (other than you) are discussing here.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:19 PM on May 1, 2003

IIRC, didn't Bush seal the lid on a bunch of other gov't docs that were supposed to be released this year under the FOIA?
posted by five fresh fish at 2:56 PM on May 1, 2003

I wonder if this secrecy has anything to do with this: Senator: At Least One Foreign Country Assisted the 9/11 Terrorists

Odds on it wasn't Iraq then. Damned sure it'd be all over the place if it was.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:18 PM on May 1, 2003

didn't Bush seal the lid on a bunch of other gov't docs that were supposed to be released this year under the FOIA?

Yes. Shortly after 9/11, President Bush signed an executive order that kept 68,000 pages of documents from the Reagan/Bush adminstration, due to go public, secret. As usual, he claims he did it to protect national security. Critics believe he is trying to protect something else. (more)
posted by crunchland at 3:46 PM on May 1, 2003

A grown "professional" hounding a perfect stranger from thread to thread out of a personal vendetta--classy as ever, foldy. I'm not sure how posting a belated link about the fall of Baghdad is "partisan", but I'm doubly sure I don't want to witness any oft-deranged explanation from you.

I stand by saying that the Bush administration is hiding something, and I stand by saying it was a bad post. Perhaps you have another smug ~wink~ for us?
posted by dhoyt at 4:15 PM on May 1, 2003

Has anyone--anyone at all--resigned or been fired because of September 11? Because someone, or more likely, multiple someones, fucked up. People whose jobs are to protect the citizens of the United States utterly failed, thousands of people died as a result, and we are absolutely owed a full and complete explanation.

From Mindy Kleinberg's statement to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States:

Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m. one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane was hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why?

This is something that has bothered me since September 11, and I haven't heard any explanation.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:48 PM on May 1, 2003

There's also The People's Investigation of 9/11.

What I find incomprehensible is that anybody could excuse the administration's stonewalling. It should be plain that a thorough investigation of what happened is in everybody's best interest in order to prevent attacks in the future.
posted by muckster at 5:27 PM on May 1, 2003

apparently not everybody's.
posted by crunchland at 5:30 PM on May 1, 2003

homunculus: I'm not sure about Graham's interview there. How much assistance would the hijackers have needed from *any* nation-state, be it Saudi Arabia or Iraq, outside of financing? Really. Only government can provide certain essential boxcutter skills? And the hijackers have never sounded to me like the most mega-competent of dudes. Just focused ones, maybe, but even then ...

Well, here's a report of Mohamed Atta asking a USDA worker for a government loan. Among the questions he asked her was one concerning where to get karate training (which she'd brought up). He even asks about security at the World Trade Center. He praises bin Laden and, upon not getting a loan or pic of D.C., ponders the possibility of the capital being destroyed. How focused is that? Going around talking this way to strangers? He shows up with a bad disguise in a second trip, claims to be an accountant seeking to buy a sugar cane farm. She recognizes him, but he is never reported to authorities.

Methinks after reading this article, and Mindy K. story, that, regardless of foreign involvement, one nation-state which assisted the 9-11 hijackers plenty was surely the United States.
posted by raysmj at 11:37 PM on May 1, 2003

(What part of 'take it to Metatalk' do you not understand, dhoyt?)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:05 AM on May 2, 2003

Since Sept. 11, it's easy to forget that the pattern of belligerent government secrecy "because we're at war now," "because everything has changed," was already established by this administration well before the event in question. Please remember that the next time our state of war is invoked to justify the further trashing of American democratic ideals.
posted by soyjoy at 8:01 AM on May 2, 2003

A grown "professional" hounding a perfect stranger from thread to thread....

dhoyt, why don't you post your real name, photo, and profession so you're evenly matched? It seems cowardly (and vaguely threatening) to constantly allude to fold's identity while keeping your own hidden.
posted by hyperizer at 8:14 AM on May 2, 2003

I'm not sure about Graham's interview there. How much assistance would the hijackers have needed from *any* nation-state, be it Saudi Arabia or Iraq, outside of financing?

That's the problem, raysmj, since the information is classified and Graham can't discuss the details, we don't what kind of assistance he's refering to. It may turn out to be nothing. The problem is that we're not allowed to know and make our own judgement, but if what Graham says is remotely true, then every American has a right to know. But it's doubtful that we're going to find out as long as Bush is President.
posted by homunculus at 10:36 AM on May 2, 2003

In Dreaming War, Gore Vidal talks about a general from Pakistan who supposedly visited the Pentagon weeks before the attacks and left with a sack full of money. I don't have a link for this, I haven't seen it elsewhere, and I know Vidal's name is enough to turn a lot of people off right away, so have a copious helping of salt with this. Still, I'd like to hear more about it. Anybody?
posted by muckster at 11:35 AM on May 2, 2003

They could have been helped with intelligence info that facilitated the attack, or helped with immigration, etc.
posted by mblandi at 11:43 AM on May 2, 2003

So, minutes later I come across the following quote via homunculus' warfilter post:

Those same people, "in liaison with the Pakistani secret services, put in place the finances for the Sept. 11 attacks," Levy said.

Lots of quirky theories out there. BushCo's secrecy does nothing to alleviate paranoia and rampant conspiracy theories.
posted by muckster at 11:46 AM on May 2, 2003