Has Gore Vidal gone too far?
October 26, 2002 7:03 PM   Subscribe

Has Gore Vidal gone too far? Complicity, terrorism, and a heavy weight of proof from Mr. Vidal.
posted by four panels (66 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
My God! People might start perceiving Vidal as a pompous, outspoken, opinionated, self-important rabble-rouser! He'd better be careful...
posted by mr_roboto at 7:11 PM on October 26, 2002


Actually, I've thought the lack of response from the Air Force was curious since September 12th. Why hasn't anyone looked more closely at this -- or if there has been, why hasn't it been in the press?

In Vidal's most recent book, The Last Empire, he argued that 'Americans have no idea of the extent of their government's mischief ... the number of military strikes we have made unprovoked, against other countries, since 1947 is more than 250.'

Can anyone get specific on this? Apparently I have little idea.... I knew about a few latin american/Monroe doctrine style things... but 250+?
posted by namespan at 7:49 PM on October 26, 2002


Vidal as a pompous, outspoken, opinionated, self-important rabble-rouser

What lazy, ad hominem garbage, mr_roboto. Vidal's been a pointed and thoughtful voice of the left for a long time now; his latest book, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, is one of the most cogent summaries of the left's 9/11 argument around. Deal with those. This isn't WaRblOgiStAn, dude; insults won't cut it here.
posted by mediareport at 7:52 PM on October 26, 2002


The Mysterious Case of the Jets that Didn't Fly.
There y'go, Gore: title for your next book. I hope you can tidy up those loose ends - cos he're in Real Life, many of us certainly can't.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:56 PM on October 26, 2002


mediareport, I'm actually quite a fan of Vidal's; but I don't see how you could think the guy is anything but pompous, outspoken, opinionated, and self-important. It's his modus operandi, his style. He says what's on his mind and says it loudly (and writes it eloquently). My comment was a reaction to the "...gone too far" of the original comment: outspoken, controversial comments like these are nothing new for Vidal, and he certainly hasn't gone any "farther" than he's gone before with his commentary on 9/11. I guess I should have put in the sarcasm tags.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:05 PM on October 26, 2002


Also, I apparently really like the word "comment". Go figure.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:08 PM on October 26, 2002


No comment.
;)
posted by mediareport at 8:11 PM on October 26, 2002


And now a word from Mr. Cheney.
posted by four panels at 8:26 PM on October 26, 2002


Gore a wonderful writer but I can not recall at any time in his career when he did not badmouth the country of his birth. He lives now in Italy and has for some time. Except when he comes to his native country to be in a film, make a book contract, and badmouth America. But an interesting guy. Mailer should have beat him up years ago--and not just verbally.
posted by Postroad at 8:43 PM on October 26, 2002


I can not recall at any time in his career when he did not badmouth the country of his birth

Oh, whatever. Badmouthing Bush and Cheney is hardly badmouthing "the country of his birth." Grow up, Postroad.

Mailer should have beat him up years ago--and not just verbally.

Fuck you and the ad hominem horse you rode in on, jerk.
posted by mediareport at 8:52 PM on October 26, 2002


You know what, mediareport? You're starting to sound a lot like the people you're complaining about. "...insults won't cut it here", indeed.?
posted by sennoma at 9:08 PM on October 26, 2002


Oh, please, Postroad's a troll who deserves what he gets. Shot twice in each testicle, I think. By Norman Mailer, preferably.
posted by mediareport at 9:11 PM on October 26, 2002


Mediareport: Dial. It. Down. Sorry, but I think Sennoma was spot on. Maybe you need a little Metafilter break?
posted by Karl at 9:24 PM on October 26, 2002


Wow. So now it's ok to respond in a thread about Gore Vidal with incitements to violence against Gore Vidal? Is that really what you're saying, Karl?

But ok, I promised myself long ago that if old-skool MeFi-ers ever told me to tone it down, I'd tone it down. I'm [sob] off to drown my sorrows in tequila. If I get arrested, it'll be your fault, you know.
posted by mediareport at 9:32 PM on October 26, 2002


Vidal did make one good point, which is the oddest one:

"Vidal writes that 'astonished military experts cannot fathom why the government's "automatic standard order of procedure in the event of a hijacking" was not followed'. "

The rest of his screed is the familiar "The Pentagon Attacked Itself", so reminiscent of France, that it's surprising he lives in Italy.
posted by hama7 at 9:39 PM on October 26, 2002


He was awesome in "Gattaca."
posted by inksyndicate at 10:02 PM on October 26, 2002


Wow. So now it's ok to respond in a thread about Gore Vidal with incitements to violence against Gore Vidal? Is that really what you're saying, Karl?

No, I'm saying that in this thread you're representing yourself like some kind of Steve@Linnwood of Liberals. Just don't want to see your heart blow a valve.

Gore Vidal is by now quite aware of his reputation for pomposity, and the controversy of which he is capable. I somehow doubt he'd see Postroad's comments as an "incitement to violence." On the contrary, he'd probably feel secretly, wickedly elated to know he solicited such an insult!
posted by Karl at 10:11 PM on October 26, 2002


Hmmm. Has anyone stopped to think about what the reaction would have been if those planes HAD been shot down before they hit the towers? How many of the same people now loudly decrying the government's handling of the situation would have been screaming for the heads of the people who made that decision? I suspect it would have gone something like this: "Shooting down civilian laden airliners? Because they MIGHT have been used as missiles against potential targets? You murderous militaristic barbarians!"
posted by John Smallberries at 10:15 PM on October 26, 2002


LATER THAT DAY Goss told a closed-door conference committee he couldn’t accept the deal, citing instructions from “above my pay grade,”

Goss should be impeached. There is no "pay grade" above congressman, and he's betraying his oath to serve his country with this kind of candy-assed cowardice and appalling dereliction of duty.
posted by rushmc at 10:35 PM on October 26, 2002


I still say Bush is good at one thing: making people feel powerless.
posted by divrsional at 11:11 PM on October 26, 2002


I think ultimately it will come out that the only conspiracy that's really gone on is a conspiracy to conceal our ineptitude. At least, within the US Government. I'm a lot more likely to believe that Bush is a buffoon rather than a diabolical conspiracist and mastermind. Now, the people he's surrounded himself with might be another question.

Our real problem is we weren't (and largely still aren't) able or willing to think the unthinkable.

Were there contigency plans to deal with the type of things that happened on 9-11?
posted by geekhorde at 11:32 PM on October 26, 2002


Bush officials insist the VP’s stand is based on “principle,” not fear of embarrassments. Even some congressional critics tend to agree. “There’s just this general philosophical orientation that the less the world knows, the better,” says one GOP staffer.

*makes ambiguous gesture*
posted by y2karl at 11:38 PM on October 26, 2002


the planes should have been brought down, and re: pennsylvania, maybe that one was...why is no one allowed to discuss this without being attacked? and why has not one person been fired?
posted by amberglow at 11:58 PM on October 26, 2002


*makes ambiguous gesture*

*tosses in ad hominem attack*
posted by mediareport at 12:28 AM on October 27, 2002


he argued that 'Americans have no idea of the extent of their government's mischief'

I think a lot of folks on the further fringes of the left don't get this. We know. We are quite aware. The generation running the country is the post-Kennedy post-Watergate Generation (god help us). But do you think the USA should stop in its tracks and turn socialist because we invaded Grenada?
posted by owillis at 1:34 AM on October 27, 2002


? making less sense than ever.
posted by y2karl at 1:48 AM on October 27, 2002


Mailer should have beat him up years ago--and not just verbally.

Odd...Mailer had this to say about the WTC bombings and aftermath:

Referring to the World Trade Center towers, Mailer declared: "Everything wrong with America led to the point where the country built that tower of Babel, which consequently had to be destroyed." And he wondered: "What if those perpetrators were right and we were not? We have long ago lost the capability to take a calm look at the enormity of our enemy's position."

-- "The WTC was not just an architectural monstrosity, but also terrible for people who didn't work there, for it said to all those people: 'If you can't work up here, boy, you're out of it.' That's why I'm sure that if those towers had been destroyed without loss of life a lot of people would have cheered. Everything wrong with America led to the point where the country built that tower of Babel, which consequently had to be destroyed."

-- "And then came the next shock. We had to realize that the people that did this were brilliant. It showed that the ego we could hold up until September 10 was inadequate."

-- "Americans can't admit that you need courage to do such a thing. For that might be misunderstood. The key thing is that we in America are convinced that it was blind, mad fanatics who didn't know what they were doing. But what if those perpetrators were right and we were not? We have long ago lost the capability to take a calm look at the enormity of our enemy's position."

Hmmm...

But do you think the USA should stop in its tracks and turn socialist because we invaded Grenada?

Yowza. You'll find more fresh straw out in the barn for that man you're building. Exactly where did we read that Vidal or anyone else was clamoring for "socialism" based on one of Reagan's typical stupidities?

I somehow doubt he'd see Postroad's comments as an "incitement to violence.

Perhaps, but it really doesn't matter. Postroad's call for violence ain't at all funny, and is absolutely inappropriate. Mediareport was exactly right to call him on it, with or without tequila bottle in hand.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:49 AM on October 27, 2002


? making less sense than ever.
You sure are(n't).
posted by owillis at 1:22 AM on October 27, 2002


Oh, jeez. Calling for a preemptive Norman M. strike on Gore V. is about as much an incitement to violence as advising Christopher Hitchens to challenge Martin Amis to a duel; in all cases, the outrage, the scandalous outrage, is part of the persona. It's part of the act, and part of what we cherish about these guys.

They're Our Buffoons: what we get for public intellectuals and, frankly, what we deserve. Postroad is generally a knowing troll, but in this case I truly don't see the harm done.
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:24 AM on October 27, 2002


mediareport answers an unfunny call for violence with an unfunny call for violence and you endorse him? That doesn't exactly fit your ideologue, pal.
posted by David Dark at 2:08 AM on October 27, 2002


Hama7 quotes Vidal:

"Vidal writes that 'astonished military experts cannot fathom why the government's "automatic standard order of procedure in the event of a hijacking" was not followed'. "


Why dear sir, do you think that this is the most cogent yet odd points of Vidal's argument?


I also wonder what other people think about the rash of short selling on United and American hours before 9/11.
posted by yertledaturtle at 2:21 AM on October 27, 2002


It's really sad to see him become a parody of his former self. He engages in so much misdirection, sweeping generalization, redefinition of argument, and rhetorical questioning, sometimes all in the same sentence!, as argument that it's difficult to take any of what he says seriously. Confining myself to the Guardian's excerpts:

a 'Bush junta' used the terrorist attacks as a pretext to enact a pre-existing agenda to invade Afghanistan and crack down on civil liberties at home

junta? oh, dear, but I'll give him the street-fightin' rhet'ric.

But the administration came into office with other aims, with one of the most isolationist foreign-policy agendas in decades. The hawks didn't give a hoot about some dusty country in Central Asia -- they expected, wanted, perhaps even slathered over confronting China. Hasn't worked out that way at all. Anyone could see that Afghanistan remaining Taliban-controlled was a serious problem for our interests in the region. Conflict, at some point, may have been inevitable, though a war was just about the last thing on their minds. It wasn't sheep-herders with rusty Kalashnikovs that the hawks were interested in testing themselves against, I can tell you that.

Civil liberties? If they're being cracked down on, it's practically invisible. Yes, some key disappointments for privacy advocates and the like, but even the more reaching parts of USA PATRIOT aren't being used much (and may not survive court challenge anyway). And it was all duly passed by the legislature, which can undo as much of it as it believes the public wants undone.

We still don't know by whom we were struck....

Just a guess here, but it might have been the Rastafarians.

9/11 put paid not only to much of our fragile Bill of Rights but also to our once-envied system of government which had taken a mortal blow the previous year [in Bush v. Gore].

A mortal blow? Look out, Gore, the sky is falling.

Much of USA PATRIOT did not erode the 'fragile' Bill of Rights nearly so much as it rolled back elements of case law and legislative code. Not one part of the Bill of Rights has been repealed, amended, or otherwise eliminated from its primacy as constitutional law; every part of the legislative record since 9/11 is subject to judicial review as before. I expect significants parts of it to see that review; for that to happen, they'll have to actually be used.

a popularly elected President

I thought this was amusing in the beginning, but of course the Constitution -- the same one Gore's fretting about losing here -- established that the popular vote does not elect the President. The electoral vote does, and there's plenty of precedent for it. The legal officers of the state of Florida certified the election; their motives may be assumed to have been partisan, but to date legal challenges have proceeded little.

the real motive for the Afghanistan war was to control the gateway to Central Asia's energy riches.

Well, we certainly didn't want somebody unfriendly that close, for sure. But even so we were making progress in the region and the region itself, as well as the international committee called Six Plus Two (Afghanistan's neighbors), agreed that ending the civil war and finding ways to sell oil, gas, and other resources to the larger world without concerns for sabotage was the best way to economically develop the region. This is so mundane it is hardly worth mention. As a motivation, it is small by comparison with our interest in forestalling Chinese outreach; many of these samller countries, sandwiched between two great powers (Russia, China) and lesser ones (Iran, Pakistan) are eager to seek alliance with a distant power.

Osama was chosen on aesthetic grounds to be the frightening logo for our long-contemplated invasion and conquest of Afghanistan

Yeah, because we still have no idea who took out the towers. Rastafarians? What was I thinking? It must have been N'SYNC.

Sure, a few folks like Zbig were pumping this strategy from beforehand, but they weren't in the administration, one which actually precisely wanted to avoid increasing long-term overseas commitments. Much as he wants to make this the Beeg Seekrit Plan, it's just not the case.

the administration is convinced that Americans are so simple-minded that they can deal with no scenario more complex than the venerable, lone, crazed killer

And yet, despite this nutty, unrealistic focus on Osama, they have ... utterly failed to mention him in the last 8 months or so. Instead, they have weathered criticism over "declaring war on a noun". I love holding two contradictory ideas in my head -- don't you?

who would have thought that most of corporate America had been conspiring with accountants to cook their books since - well, at least the bright dawn of the era of Reagan and deregulation.

Well, not really. The rise of accounting consulting firms led to this, mostly beginning in the bull market of the 1990s, when the IPO business became much sought-after. And Gore knows full well that "many" != "most". Accounting has always remained a self-regulated industry (see GAAP), and as such has little connection to federal policies enacted by Republicans or anyone else.

astonished military experts cannot fathom why the government's "automatic standard order of procedure in the event of a hijacking" was not followed'.

Well, experts may certainly have been surprised at much that happened that morning.

These procedures determine that fighter planes should automatically be sent aloft as soon as a plane has deviated from its flight plan. Presidential authority is not required until a plane is to be shot down. But, on 11 September, no decision to start launching planes was taken until 9.40am, eighty minutes after air controllers first knew that Flight 11 had been hijacked and fifty minutes after the first plane had struck the North Tower.

In point of fact planes deviate from flight plans all the time. (I know an ATC. It's true.) There are some SAC procedures for using fighters to check on airplanes that may have lost control or been hijacked, but they are discretionary. For whatever reason they worked quite well with Payne Stewart's plane; on 9/11, not so well. But 9/11 was unprecedented, and remember, before 9/11 hijacked planes were not considered flying bombs. Once activated, pilots blew all stoplights getting into position, but were too late, because nobody fucking knew they were planning on flying into the fucking buildings.

By law, the fighters should have been up at around 8.15

No, Gore -- not by law. By discretionary procedure, procedures written for non-lethal hijackings.

If they had, all the hijacked planes might have been diverted and shot down.'

Let's go back to an ideal 9/11 scenario. All four planes are quickly identified. All four quickly shadowed. Now what? What is the justification for shooting down any single one of those planes?

Oh. Right. The flying bombs thing. But wait -- nobody knew that yet. No matter what, at least one plane would have had to complete its mission before we understood the danger. That would likely have been the one that hit the North Tower. We wouldn't have saved anyone at Cantor. Maybe we could have saved the South Tower; and I admit myself that I'm astonished we didn't have any kind of missile defense at the Pentagon or White House, much less any effective way to track planes that might be flying in to hit them. But that's because nobody built those systems, not because they existed and somebody flipped the power switch that morning.

Vidal asks why Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, stayed in a Florida classroom as news of the attacks broke: 'The behaviour of President Bush on 11 September certainly gives rise to not unnatural suspicions.'

Oh, jeez. Right. The Left-Loon keystone, here. Gore, Gore, Gore. He won't say it, of course, but he's alluded well enough in other places.

Look, I can actually build a strong incompetence argument here, a strong delegation-was-the-wrong-strategy argument, a strong reading-is-fundamental-but-less-important-than-this argument. Those all make sense. Bush didn't learn how to change from the don't-bother-me-with-details President for a few days at least. But what's Gore doing with words like "unnatural"? It's not like there was a hell of a lot he could do from there anyway. Go into another room and wait for information, as opposed to staying in this one and waiting for information, doesn't seem like a catastrophic choice, other perhaps than for his image-makers.

Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit Congressional investigation

I would agree that the time has come; there was incompetence, it should be identified, and it should be rooted out. Bush has instead diverted criticism into programs like the grandiose Homeland Security bill which seems to operate on the theory that incompetent people are less so when in the same room. That's craven but hardly evidence of conspiracy.

Vidal calls bin Laden an 'Islamic zealot' and 'evil doer' but argues that 'war' cannot be waged on the abstraction of 'terrorism'.

Wait, Gore. I thought you said they were keen to make Osama the personal image of our enemy? Oh, wait, no need to be consistent in your job.

Every nation knows how to protect itself from thugs of the sort that brought us 9/11 ... You put a price on their heads and hunt them down. Italy has been doing that with the Sicilian Mafia; and no-one has suggested bombing Palermo.

That would be because Palermo is not stopping Italian authorities from entering Sicily on grounds of international sovereignty. That means Italian police can actually go into Sicily and do that head-pricing and body-hunting thing.

'Apparently, Pakistan did [create the fundamentalist terrorist threat] - or some of it' but with American support.

About the most generous thing he's said all day.

In 1988, with US knowledge, bin Laden created Al-Qaeda (The Base); a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across 26 or so countries. Washington turned a blind eye to Al-Qaeda.'

I suppose it's possible we were aware of him when 'the Foundation' (the other, more accurate translation) was actually a widows-and-orphans fund. But it hardly "spread across 26 or so countries" that first day, and it didn't begin terrorist operations until the 1990s, long after we had left Afghanistan. The conspiracists love to exaggerate his role, but he is generally regarded as a fringe figure during the time we were supporting the mujahedin, and even "US knowledge" doesn't at all say anything about approval. We "know" about a lot of things. Gore's disingenuous to say we "turned a blind eye" to a widows-and-orphans fund. By the time Osama decided to strike the US in the 1993 World Trade attack, we certainly took off the blinders. But 1988 to 1993? It's one of hundreds of similar crackpot organizations with bigger plans than resumes. We couldn't treat them, then, as major global terrorist threats, because they hadn't done any major global terrorism yet.

the number of military strikes we have made unprovoked, against other countries, since 1947 is more than 250.

Even if you include the ones where we were invited, 50 is a high number. Mostly, that's talking about 'interventions' like Beirut, some of which were made under the auspices of the UN. But it's all our fault anyway, Gore, isn't it? But then I suppose you consider all US military operations to be 'unprovoked strikes'. Or maybe he's counting every strike in the Iraqi no-fly zones. Hmm. Even Use of US Forces Abroad, which uses the terminology used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes, counts only 234 since 1793. So 250 would be a high number for our entire history, and you're not even talking about things that all fit the words "unprovoked" or "strike", let alone "against". (I suppose D-Day was an unprovoked strike against France, since they hadn't attacked us. No wonder he only counts from 1947.)
posted by dhartung at 3:28 AM on October 27, 2002


yertledaturtle: how does the short selling thing fit in with what Vidal is saying? Couldn't anyone with foreknowledge of the attacks have done that? Say it were Bush et al. There must be much better ways for such apparently powerful people to make a few bucks, don't you think?
posted by shoos at 6:03 AM on October 27, 2002


I hope you can tidy up those loose ends - cos he're in Real Life, many of us certainly can't.
Well, that's why a Congressional inquiry could actually be useful. I mean, 9-11 is at least as important as Oval Office sex, isn't it?

Bush didn't learn how to change from the don't-bother-me-with-details President for a few days at least
I must have missed your point: do you mean 9-11 could have been mistaken for "a detail"?
And Dan, you can make fun of Vidal, but your Rastafarian joke will actually be funnier when somebody manages to _really_ explain how 9-11 happened and why the US military reaction was so amateurish
posted by matteo at 6:12 AM on October 27, 2002


Off the top of my head, Dan, I'd like you to ask your Rastafarian friends :

-- who did actually finance the whole 9-11 operation (only 300,000 dollars have been tracked, it must have been much more expensive than that)?
-- did Osama give the order? or Zawahiri did?
-- why in the hell did Atta go to Portland on 9-10 and spent the night there -- he almost lost his 9-11 flight because of that trip, it mut have been _really_ important I guess?
-- did they really use _only_ boxcutters? how can you slaughter an adult with a boxcutter? what about the flight attendant who called from the plane and said that the hijackers had shot somebody?
-- Four fighter planes to defend the whole NorthEastern US? Gee, with all the money the Pentagon eats up every year they could have done better... Why did the fighter jets wait to take off?
-- Was the Pennsylvania flight shot down?

some fun details:
-- why did Atta, that morning, claim he did not speak any English? His English was fluent. It's weird, isn't it?

ps Imagine President Gore staying 25 more minutes with the Florida kids when the WTC was burning. He would have been impeached the following weekend
posted by matteo at 6:27 AM on October 27, 2002


... before 9/11 hijacked planes were not considered flying bombs.

dhartung : prior to 9/11, there was an attempt to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower. I think it's hard to accept that the worst scenario, which had even captured the imagination of Hollywood movie-makers, was beyond the thought process of the military intelligence.

I agree with geekhorde : the only conspiracy that's really gone on is a conspiracy to conceal our ineptitude. At least, within the US Government.
posted by taratan at 7:20 AM on October 27, 2002


who did actually finance the whole 9-11 operation
Besides the cost of the plane tickets and the attempts at getting pilot training what other expenses were required?

Four fighter planes to defend the whole NorthEastern US? Gee, with all the money the Pentagon eats up every year they could have done better...
When was the last time before 9/11 the Air Force had to defend US soil against planes turned into massive bombs. Oh that's right, never. With no Cold War there is no need for large numbers of planes being on alert.

Why did the fighter jets wait to take off?
Discretion on the part of the commanders. Before 9/11 there was no reason to assume that hijacked planes would be plowed into buildings and therefore must be shot down right away!

Was the Pennsylvania flight shot down?
Until any evidence otherwise is produced all signs point to no.

how can you slaughter an adult with a boxcutter?
Apply box cutter to front of throat. Press firmly. Draw boxcutter across throat.

why did Atta, that morning, claim he did not speak any English? His English was fluent. It's weird, isn't it?
How exactly does this imply Bush complicity in 9/11?And what's so wierd about telling a white lie every now and then. Hell he probably did it so he didn't habve to talk to anyone and avoid questioning (pure speculation but so are most of matteo's ooints as well).
posted by PenDevil at 7:24 AM on October 27, 2002


taratan: The terrorist attack you mention (article on it) was thwarted before the plane left the ground in Paris (it was hijacked en route there from Algeria). The plan to fly it into the tower came from a "secret informant" (according to the article) so we have no idea of knowing whether that was the actual plan. All the terrorists were shot so I doubt they'll talk about it...

And in regards to my previous post:
On the question of why the jets waited to take off. It wasn't totally discretion on the part of the USAF as to when the jets took off (discretion would come in if they had to fire on the planes). They were in the air quite quickly after being alerted but in most cases were too far away to reach the areas in time.
posted by PenDevil at 7:41 AM on October 27, 2002


pure speculation but so are most of matteo's ooints as well
my "ooints", actually, are questions, that have not been answered. I don't believe in weird theories about US complicity, but there are serious questions -- about how it happened, about intelligence failures -- that have not been answered. And a congressional inquiry could help (it sure helped in the past, our Republican friends will agree)

Apply box cutter to front of throat. Press firmly. Draw boxcutter across throat.
Nice joke, very good taste, but unfortunately it's not that easy, unless the victim is cooperating witth the assassin, I'd say. Passengers before the crash talked on the phone about _several_ passengers and pilots killed by the hijackers. All of them killed with boxcutters? I just can't believe that Dan Lewin, Akamai founder and former Israeli Special Forces officer, was killed by a schmuck with a boxcutter. Even if you can believe that, maybe, a frightened, not very strong flight attendant was killed by a boxcutter, people with Lewin's training don't get killed with boxcutters -- they eat the aggressor alive, if he doesn't have a gun
posted by matteo at 8:40 AM on October 27, 2002


remember, before 9/11 hijacked planes were not considered flying bombs.

Wow. I don't know how you can possibly have missed the fact that the above statement is patently false, dhartung.

Philippine investigators said that in 1995 they told the FBI about a terrorist plot to hijack commercial planes and slam them into the Pentagon, the CIA headquarters and other buildings....Then, in September 1999, came the interagency government report --- titled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why" -- that referenced bin Laden's terrorist network, al Qaeda, and its potential involvement in such a plot...Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House. Ramzi Yousef had planned to do this against the CIA headquarters."

Remember, the airspace around the July 2001 G8 summit was shut down specifically to avoid the possibility of airplanes being used in that way. According to the LA Times, Hosni Mubarak told Le Figaro, "There was a question of an airplane stuffed with explosives. As a result, precautions were taken."

Your scenario is sustainable. So's Vidal's.
posted by mediareport at 8:46 AM on October 27, 2002


Besides the cost of the plane tickets and the attempts at getting pilot training what other expenses were required?

It's not that these 19 guys had regular jobs. Think about several _years_ of living expenses for the 19 men (some of them had families to support), constant traveling (by Atta for example) often under assumed names and stolen identities, car rentals, rented houses, hotels.
And, the pilot training they got in the US was not extensive enough for the hijackers to perform -- for example -- the Pentagon attack (it was done by a very good pilot with very sophisticated training, probably outside of the US).
The cost of the 9-11 operation is much higher than what you think
posted by matteo at 8:53 AM on October 27, 2002


Dhart for President (no snark, great rebuttal)

lets us start at home.

Oct. 31st, 1977. Adm. Stansfield Turner cut 820 positions with-in the CIA operations directorate. The pink slips stated: "It has been decided that your services are no longer needed".

The "Deutch Rules"

-restricts/blocks recruitment of agents by CIA case officers. leads to the firing of about 1000 of it's recruited agents, including middle eastern sources.

-blocks recruitment of spies with criminal or questionable background.

Deutch got a call from former N.J. Senator Robert Toricelli, alleging CIA involvement, through a Guatemalan officer on CIA payroll, in the murders of an american and a leftist guerilla in Guatemala. Deutch fired two case officers for "not being candid about the case".

former DCI Woolsey thinks these Deutch rules may be one cause for CIA's failure to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks.

Deutch had a habit of typing notes into a unsecured laptop after Pentagon briefings. He would then e-mail copies of the notes to himself at home using his AOL account.

The FBI began investigating Deutch in the spring of 2000

Clinton pardoned Deutch before he left office.
posted by clavdivs at 9:45 AM on October 27, 2002


great rebuttal

Read it again, clavdivs, and note how central the "no one could have thought they were flying bombs" thing is to dhartung's argument about what happened that morning.

Then recall that less than 8 weeks earlier a major international summit had gone to extraordinary lengths to protect against just such a "flying bombs" scenario.

"Great rebuttal?" Uh, there seem to be just a couple of huge gaping holes here.
posted by mediareport at 10:00 AM on October 27, 2002


[why not just have an enquiry? have all the questions been answered?]

great rebuttal, mediareport
posted by dash_slot- at 10:25 AM on October 27, 2002


clavdivs

I'm no fan of Deutch's, but why don't you say it more directly: 9-11 is Clinton's fault, right?

(btw since you're so nostalgic of the good old Cia days, I guess you must be in mourning for Director Helms untimely death)

They don't overthrow democratically elected governments like they used to, that's a shame
posted by matteo at 10:26 AM on October 27, 2002


dhartung: Changes in the accounting industry may not have been affected by deregulation as such, but it's impossible to argue that the general give-business-whatever-it-wants attitude in American politics - which really took off in the 1980's, although business lobbies had always been the most powerful before, on the whole - didn't contribute to the problem.

Criticizing Gore for what looks to being, as usual, an intentional provocateur (which makes him something akin to a hybrid of intellectual and hack pundit, who records for us virtually every single brain fart he has), does not mean you have to vehemently disagree with virtually everything he says. This sort of "They're for it, so I'm against it" dynamic is precisely why so many "liberal" pro-war people sound like neo-conservatives, all protestations to the contrary.
posted by raysmj at 11:07 AM on October 27, 2002


Gore Vidal's horoscope.
posted by homunculus at 12:04 PM on October 27, 2002


Criticizing Gore for what looks to being, as usual, an intentional provocateur (which makes him something akin to a hybrid of intellectual and hack pundit, who records for us virtually every single brain fart he has)...

He has a blog?
posted by solistrato at 2:37 PM on October 27, 2002


He should get one. Then Neal Pollack could add a Gore type as another side character in his grand Andrew Sullivan-centered spoof.
posted by raysmj at 2:56 PM on October 27, 2002


The scenario for flying planes laden with explosives is primarily contingent upon those planes coming into the U.S. I would imagine the "flying bombs" scenario would pertain to light aircraft....remember some nut flew a plane into the White House during the Clinton administration, but no explosives inside. A base in Afghanistan was used for training al Qaeda in the use of model airplanes and model helicopter attacks. (not model per say but those small scale ones with remote control) This base was one of the first bombed by the U.S.
Dharts premise: "But 9/11 was unprecedented, and remember, before 9/11 hijacked planes were not considered flying bombs" stands as planes originating from the U.S.-flown into buildings would be the least likely scenario. Perhaps this is why Atta went around wanting to rent/buy small aircraft, to through off investigators IF they where on to him. Plus Atta would have data for a lite aircraft attack using chem/bio weapons. This chem/bio scenario was very probable according to Jacquards: 'In the Name of Osama Bin Laden'.

Matteo: you said:..." 9-11 is Clinton's fault, right?"

I said: "former DCI Woolsey thinks these Deutch rules may be one cause for CIA's failure to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks".

I did give a few scant examples, there are more. I would have listed more but I needed to attend a coming home party for MS. Clavs' nephew whom just got back from advanced basic training (army). I am very proud of him.

I believe the Clinton administration hobbled the CIA's covert operations and recruitment policy. They put people in key slots that where not up to the job. Gdub and Co. are reversing these dysfunctional policies. On MeFi, I once stated that I would like to seem bubba tried, sentenced and hung. This is vitriol. Rather harsh and candid but non-the less, this Vitriol is part of our american tradition of politics. Take the Adams and Jefferson vitriol, that got down right nasty. Many felt the same about Nixon, including many of my university professors whom i still respect.
"btw since you're so nostalgic of the good old Cia days, I guess you must be in mourning for Director Helms untimely death"
The good ole days? like when. never mind, you may link Mao to the bay of pigs or some nonsense. The repubs brought in Geo. Bush to be DCI because they wanted to clean up the CIAs reputation. It was tottering from all the underhanded shit they did and allegedly did. But that was them whacky cold war days. I never really cared for Helms, to spooky for me. Orchids and machinations. all very unpopular. Untimely...what does that suggest, what do you mean. The man was 89 years old. (I did like O.Stones' deleted CIA scene from "Nixon" though. The Yeats poem, the black eyeballs, JFK allusions, extorting Nixon to keep his job and budget increases. All makes nice cinema)

would 'retort' work for you MR. did I help 'fill in the gaps'.
posted by clavdivs at 4:27 PM on October 27, 2002


But I loved Gore in Burns' "Jefferson". And in "Gattica".
posted by clavdivs at 4:29 PM on October 27, 2002


[why not just have an enquiry? have all the questions been answered?]
posted by dash_slot- at 5:37 PM on October 27, 2002


Matteo, your questions are reasonable ones to ask. I don't have the answers to most of them. They do not, however, pertain to or undermine my argument.

Um. Mediareport, put it this way. Nobody in the combined directorates covering air traffic control and national air defense had seriously considered the scenario, developed procedures to deal with it, and trained personnel for the eventuality. Tragically unfortunate, in retrospect, but it's still a big leap for people to make, and I don't think anyone in a position to do anything about it could have foreseen what was going to happen until Atta steered his Boeing down past, oh, the Tappan Zee bridge.

The people who did know about the earlier plots -- from the alleged Eiffel Tower plan to Ramzi Yousef's dozen-Pacific-flights to whatever -- were counterterrorism experts and marginalized FBI agents not in a position to do anything. And probably some of the people who put together that ignored terrorism report. Maybe John O'Neill really was the one person who could have put it all together, maybe not.

But my argument is not that everyone acted competently and swiftly. The response was lousy. Preparation was practically nil. Procedures that were set up weren't implemented, or late. Bush probably should have left the classroom immediately; he would have been forgiven. No, that is certainly not my argument. My argument is against the insinuation that Gore makes that all of these in concert present evidence of a conspiracy. That's the only reason he brings them up -- to buttress his assertion that we are governed by a junta who have illegally seized power and implemented a secret agenda.

Sane counter-terrorism response requires clear thinking. Vidal doesn't offer it. Maybe he does offer an appealing agenda to a certain slice of the fringe left; damned if it doesn't seem to appeal to a whole swathe, anyway. That's domestic politics.
posted by dhartung at 8:20 PM on October 27, 2002


Vidal is a great novelist, but his political commentaries the last few years have been paranoid and idiotic. The accusation that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and let them happen is stupid and embarrassing to those with legitimate criticisms of the Bush administration's policies.

I'm not sure Vidal should be characterized as Left. The "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and let it happen" claim Vidal cites was historically a right-wing conspiracy theory. Lionising Timothy McVeigh as a great American hero and modernday Daniel Shays is hardly a common Left positon. Much of Vidal's recent political commentary is closer to the anti-government, militia movement, "sovereign citizen" rhetoric of the loony far right. (I admit there's a hint of "we don't want him, you take him" in this paragraph.)

How long until the Wellstone conspiracy theories start? Freezing rain, yeah right -- I hear his plane was shot down by a missile, and Bush ordered the hit!

But I highly recommend Burr.
posted by Daze at 8:49 PM on October 27, 2002


Once you've 'jumped the shark' as a political commentator is it possible to ever cross back over into legitimate discourse?
posted by IndigoSkye at 9:00 PM on October 27, 2002




I like dash_slot.
dash_slot for president.
posted by mediareport at 10:34 PM on October 27, 2002


Hey I'm all for an enquiry, however I do not want to see an enquiry bogged down chasing wild goose conspiracies when the real issue is the failure of the American intelligence community.

It's like investigating a drunk driving accident and focusing on the slickness of the roads, the wear on the tires and the brightness of the headlights when the underlying reason is that the driver was pissed.

Seeing as how long and expensive Clinton's enquiry was, this one will probably be an order of magnitude more complex.
posted by PenDevil at 11:51 PM on October 27, 2002


dash_slot, I do not oppose an investigation in any form. Please do not imply that I do, by repeatedly asking me "why not?".
posted by dhartung at 12:42 AM on October 28, 2002


.. I don't think anyone in a position to do anything about it could have foreseen what was going to happen until Atta steered his Boeing down past, oh, the Tappan Zee bridge.

Dhartung : The credible reasons for that would be ... the failure of the American intelligence community[Rightly pointed out by PenDevil : the real issue is the failure of the American intelligence community ]. The congressional report following a review of counterterrorism capabilities and performance of the Intelligence Community before 9-11, released in July this year, cited failures and problems at CIA, FBI and NSA.

Your point is noted : My argument is against the insinuation that Gore makes that all of these in concert present evidence of a conspiracy.

This probably says it for you - 9/11: Bush's Fault, Clinton's Fault? -- Or An Institutional Failure For Many Years? (Quote) "The real fault more likely lies within a institutional mindset and actions of the government bureaucracy that actually runs all administrations. It is an vast infrastructure of under-secretaries, assistant secretaries, assistant to the assistant secretaries, directors, contractors, consultants, and career-service employees of various pay-grades who help shape the U.S. government (USG) policy on almost everything."

Vidal's solo piece sets off verbal sparks in many directions, but everyone should be the wiser not to be distracted for "regardless of which political party is in power in Washington, their primary responsibility must be the defense of the American homeland. There must be an enlightenment within the beltway that the threats facing our country are not those of the 20th century and that they will continue to evolve in an asymmetrical
way and at the whim of our enemies. The main challenge that faces our nation involves facilitating the capability for our nation's defense, intelligence, and emergency service agencies to recognize, improvise, and adapt to this changing threat environment at a more rapid rate than our adversaries can generate their evolution." (quote from last paragrpah of linked article)
posted by taratan at 2:04 AM on October 28, 2002


I tend to agree with taratan, although I'm still suspicious about just how high anti-U.S. agents have infiltrated the current government. I'm convinced they're scattered all over the FBI; anyone who watched CBS' 60 Minutes last night would probably agree. They finally got around to airing FBI translator Sibel Edmonds' story.

Her accusations that superiors ordered her to work *more slowly*, even erasing her completed translations and forcing her to start over - to make a better case to Congress for hiring more translators - are just jaw-dropping in the post-9/11 world. The incompetence of some translators working on Guantanamo Bay transcripts, and the accusation that her Turkish supervisor was actually working for the organization whose documents she was translating - and deliberately removing important information from those documents before passing them up the chain - were equally jaw-dropping.

, I do not oppose an investigation in any form.

Yes, yes, but will you join us in *calling* for one?
posted by mediareport at 6:31 AM on October 28, 2002


Dan, why do you think my question was aimed solely at you? True, you certainly seemed to ignore the poser earlier, but to be honest, I am perplexed why there isn't a groundswell of public opinion in the States about this. The rhetoric is aimed at all americans: why NOT have an enquiry? The terms will be set by Congress/the White House, so it doesnt have to get bogged down in tin foil conspiracies. The most curious thing: in the most open nation on earth, the guys at the top are stymying an inquiry into it's biggest ever terrorist outrage.

Are all the questions answered? No.

Why not have an enquiry?
posted by dash_slot- at 6:55 AM on October 28, 2002


Why not have an enquiry?

Maybe we should be asking our congressmen this question instead of our fellow MeFi'ers?
posted by namespan at 9:00 AM on October 28, 2002


Dan, why do you think my question was aimed solely at you?

There's the way your question followed an entire paragraph of text quoted from my post. What was the point of that?
posted by dhartung at 9:38 AM on October 28, 2002


Well, dhartung, obviously no-one is obliged to answer all the points made in a thread, but I thought it stuck out like a sore thumb that you chose not to respond to my comment here, which was a repitition of my comment here, whilst answering, in the usual tightly argued prose, lots of other points.

As I could see the potential for misunderstanding, I tagged it "sorry for the cut & paste, Dan, it's just for effect" - hoping that you wouldn't take it personally, & would see that I wanted to hear the counter (anti-enquiry) argument, from anyone - not just you. Still haven't heard it. Ho-hum.
As we're on the same side on this one (though I didn't know it: I hadn't seen you post on the subject of an enquiry yet, or the curious ability of the US Gov't to avoid one, yet), we should quit this boring ping-pong. Threads already gone, anyhow.

Sure would like to know, tho'.
posted by dash_slot- at 11:53 AM on October 28, 2002


mediareport answers an unfunny call for violence with an unfunny call for violence and you endorse him? That doesn't exactly fit your ideologue, pal.

Actually, if you'd ever read The Thin Red Line you'd understand that two shots in each testicle by Norman Mailer is a funny call for violence, providing a perfect mirror for our friend Postroad in which to see his own comments.

But it's odd that your sole contribution to this thread is to get exercised over my "endorsement", although that exactly fits your "ideologue". And I'm not your pal.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:31 AM on October 31, 2002


« Older   |   Fight the Power! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments