9/11 Commission Report in HTML
July 22, 2004 2:10 PM Subscribe
The 9/11 Commission Report. In HTML with permalinked paragraphs, courtesy kottke. Also available in .pdf format from the WaPo.
The strategy we have recommended is elaborate, even as presented here very briefly. To implement it will require a government better organized than the one that exists today, with its national security institutions designed half a century ago to win the Cold War. Americans should not settle for incremental, ad hoc adjustments to a system created a generation ago for a world that no longer exists. (1093)
This is so right, but will never ever happen. Unfortunately.
And this:
Our report shows a determined and capable group of plotters. Yet the group was fragile and occasionally left vulnerable by the marginal, unstable people often attracted to such causes. The enemy made mistakes. The U. S. government was not able to capitalize on them.
(937)
What's going to be the result of all this? Is Bush required to act on any of it at all? Our next president? Congress? Anyone?
posted by amberglow at 2:52 PM on July 22, 2004
This is so right, but will never ever happen. Unfortunately.
And this:
Our report shows a determined and capable group of plotters. Yet the group was fragile and occasionally left vulnerable by the marginal, unstable people often attracted to such causes. The enemy made mistakes. The U. S. government was not able to capitalize on them.
(937)
What's going to be the result of all this? Is Bush required to act on any of it at all? Our next president? Congress? Anyone?
posted by amberglow at 2:52 PM on July 22, 2004
What's going to be the result of all this? Is Bush required to act on any of it at all? Our next president? Congress? Anyone?
The commission gave recommendations, so no one is required to do anything with this information.
For more Commission Report fun, why not try the Warren Commission Report. I've been reading it this last week, very interesting. I may read the Starr Report after the 9/11 Report.
posted by TacoConsumer at 3:01 PM on July 22, 2004
The commission gave recommendations, so no one is required to do anything with this information.
For more Commission Report fun, why not try the Warren Commission Report. I've been reading it this last week, very interesting. I may read the Starr Report after the 9/11 Report.
posted by TacoConsumer at 3:01 PM on July 22, 2004
Kottke has the executive summary, not the complete report.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:10 PM on July 22, 2004
posted by kirkaracha at 3:10 PM on July 22, 2004
There's no reason for the sentence number links to be so visible. They just interrupt the flow if you try to read the document.
Instead, he should use the standard permalink icon from his blog at the end of each paragraph.
posted by smackfu at 3:14 PM on July 22, 2004
Instead, he should use the standard permalink icon from his blog at the end of each paragraph.
posted by smackfu at 3:14 PM on July 22, 2004
The Starr Report is very good, but NSFW at all.
Seriously tho--who thinks this is going to result in any substantive changes at all? isn't everyone just going to give lipservice to this, and defend their own turf or piece of the pie? (and how sucky and dangerous is that?)
posted by amberglow at 3:16 PM on July 22, 2004
Seriously tho--who thinks this is going to result in any substantive changes at all? isn't everyone just going to give lipservice to this, and defend their own turf or piece of the pie? (and how sucky and dangerous is that?)
posted by amberglow at 3:16 PM on July 22, 2004
was #2 on Amazon a few hours ago but is now #1. Only $8
posted by jacobsee at 3:43 PM on July 22, 2004
posted by jacobsee at 3:43 PM on July 22, 2004
heh, imperial Hubris has jumped from 6 to 3 as well...(i was thinking about ordering them both)
posted by jacobsee at 3:44 PM on July 22, 2004
posted by jacobsee at 3:44 PM on July 22, 2004
For more Commission Report fun, why not try the Warren Commission Report.
As Robert J. Groden told me, it was a report disproving or proving a conspiracy theory. Not a report finding out whom killed JFK. Is this the same?
posted by thomcatspike at 3:47 PM on July 22, 2004
As Robert J. Groden told me, it was a report disproving or proving a conspiracy theory. Not a report finding out whom killed JFK. Is this the same?
posted by thomcatspike at 3:47 PM on July 22, 2004
That's not the full Warren Commission Report linked above, either: the full one is 26 volumes.
Paraphrasing Norman Mailer, it's worthless for telling you who killed JFK, but it provides an amazing picture of American life at the time of the assassination. There are hundreds of interviews, with people who led ordinary lives, but who inadvertently stumbled into a significant historical event. IIRC, there's one woman interviewed in it whose only connection with the assassination was that, on an extended vacation in the U.S. from Australia, she took the same Greyhound bus that Lee Harvey Oswald took to Mexico, two months beforehand. She didn't even know who he was. You get her whole life story in the Report, just for that one moment.
posted by Prospero at 3:55 PM on July 22, 2004
Paraphrasing Norman Mailer, it's worthless for telling you who killed JFK, but it provides an amazing picture of American life at the time of the assassination. There are hundreds of interviews, with people who led ordinary lives, but who inadvertently stumbled into a significant historical event. IIRC, there's one woman interviewed in it whose only connection with the assassination was that, on an extended vacation in the U.S. from Australia, she took the same Greyhound bus that Lee Harvey Oswald took to Mexico, two months beforehand. She didn't even know who he was. You get her whole life story in the Report, just for that one moment.
posted by Prospero at 3:55 PM on July 22, 2004
was #2 on Amazon a few hours ago but is now #1. Only $8
Or you can save the time and shipping, and go to a Barnes & Noble's and pick one up for $10, like I did this afternoon.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:57 PM on July 22, 2004
Or you can save the time and shipping, and go to a Barnes & Noble's and pick one up for $10, like I did this afternoon.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:57 PM on July 22, 2004
go to a Barnes & Noble's
or my local bookseller ;)
just finished section 1.1 "Inside the Four Flights" from the pdf (shiver)
scary stuff
posted by jacobsee at 4:28 PM on July 22, 2004
or my local bookseller ;)
just finished section 1.1 "Inside the Four Flights" from the pdf (shiver)
scary stuff
posted by jacobsee at 4:28 PM on July 22, 2004
Instant Analysis: 9/11 Commission Report (WaPo Online):
Ohio: Since we know President Bush does not like to read should we expect him to read the entire report?
Robert G. Kaiser : I was thinking about this earlier this morning. Not only Bush, but countless members of Congress have the reputation of asking their aides to do their reading for them. This has driven me nuts for years -- Bush is hardly the first president I've covered who sometimes avoids nuts-and-bolts hard work to absorb complicated material. Some politicians even defend the practice as "good leadership" -- delegate the details. This drives me nuts too.
Ask your Congressmen and Senators when you see them if they have actually read the report. It will do them good.
posted by amberglow at 4:30 PM on July 22, 2004
Ohio: Since we know President Bush does not like to read should we expect him to read the entire report?
Robert G. Kaiser : I was thinking about this earlier this morning. Not only Bush, but countless members of Congress have the reputation of asking their aides to do their reading for them. This has driven me nuts for years -- Bush is hardly the first president I've covered who sometimes avoids nuts-and-bolts hard work to absorb complicated material. Some politicians even defend the practice as "good leadership" -- delegate the details. This drives me nuts too.
Ask your Congressmen and Senators when you see them if they have actually read the report. It will do them good.
posted by amberglow at 4:30 PM on July 22, 2004
jacobsee ... looks like the wits of amazon.com are already at it ...
"Great Story, July 23, 2004
Reviewer: Mark Saalwaechter (San Diego, CA United States) - See all my reviews
I enjoyed this nice campy tale of an evil terrorist and his plot to attack America. Not usually a big fan of fiction, but this story was so captivating, although slightly over the top. Sometimes it felt like the author was diving too deep into the details and the technicalities rather than develop the characters more.
Overall I'd consider it a light read and a nice book to curl up by the fire on a rainy night and really get into."
posted by pyramid termite at 5:30 PM on July 22, 2004
"Great Story, July 23, 2004
Reviewer: Mark Saalwaechter (San Diego, CA United States) - See all my reviews
I enjoyed this nice campy tale of an evil terrorist and his plot to attack America. Not usually a big fan of fiction, but this story was so captivating, although slightly over the top. Sometimes it felt like the author was diving too deep into the details and the technicalities rather than develop the characters more.
Overall I'd consider it a light read and a nice book to curl up by the fire on a rainy night and really get into."
posted by pyramid termite at 5:30 PM on July 22, 2004
As far as I'm concerned, any 9/11 report in incomplete unless we are told the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about what really happened to the flight which crashed in Pennsylvania.
I have a strong gut feeling that it was shot down by the Air Force (which is the only course of action that could have been taken under the circumstance -- and I would still consider the passengers as heroes), but I think we have a right to know.
Just level with us. We promise not to get mad (and unlike Jack Nicholson, we can handle the truth). But we need to know.
posted by Rastafari at 6:22 PM on July 22, 2004
I have a strong gut feeling that it was shot down by the Air Force (which is the only course of action that could have been taken under the circumstance -- and I would still consider the passengers as heroes), but I think we have a right to know.
Just level with us. We promise not to get mad (and unlike Jack Nicholson, we can handle the truth). But we need to know.
posted by Rastafari at 6:22 PM on July 22, 2004
I'm up to page 60-something, and I think I'm going to have to find a bookstore tomorrow that has a copy. I think I am going to want to read the whole thing, and I'd really rather sit comfortably while doing it.
So far, the only words that keep coming to the forefront of my mind are "Cluster F*ck of Massive Proportions".
posted by Orb at 6:31 PM on July 22, 2004
So far, the only words that keep coming to the forefront of my mind are "Cluster F*ck of Massive Proportions".
posted by Orb at 6:31 PM on July 22, 2004
of course it was, Rasta...i don't know one person, young or old, repub or dem, that thinks otherwise (including old folks, veteran relatives, rockefeller republicans, etc...).
I ordered one from Amazon...it'll be a keeper, but i'm still hoping it's not just another "ignored warning" thing.
posted by amberglow at 7:15 PM on July 22, 2004
I ordered one from Amazon...it'll be a keeper, but i'm still hoping it's not just another "ignored warning" thing.
posted by amberglow at 7:15 PM on July 22, 2004
I see the book by "Anonymous" is #3. Anyone read it yet?
posted by homunculus at 7:49 PM on July 22, 2004
posted by homunculus at 7:49 PM on July 22, 2004
Alice Hoglan's son Mark Bingham died on Flight 93, in a final struggle captured on cockpit tapes heard only by family members. With pride, grief and anger, she tells what happened.
posted by homunculus at 8:14 PM on July 22, 2004
posted by homunculus at 8:14 PM on July 22, 2004
I'm glad that the fate of our mighty nation is in such sober, patriotic, well-meaning hands.
Nobody's to blame - "institutions" are at fault. Nothing to see here folks. Move along now.
It's all under control.
Don't mind the monstrous alien heads the size of basketballs crashing through your roof. Take some more Paxil.
posted by troutfishing at 9:14 PM on July 22, 2004
Nobody's to blame - "institutions" are at fault. Nothing to see here folks. Move along now.
It's all under control.
Don't mind the monstrous alien heads the size of basketballs crashing through your roof. Take some more Paxil.
posted by troutfishing at 9:14 PM on July 22, 2004
what good is paying Amazon for a manuscript when the best 28 pages have been redacted by the president?
posted by tsarfan at 9:58 PM on July 22, 2004
posted by tsarfan at 9:58 PM on July 22, 2004
As far as I'm concerned, any 9/11 report in incomplete unless we are told the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about what really happened to the flight which crashed in Pennsylvania.
of course it was, Rasta...i don't know one person, young or old, repub or dem, that thinks otherwise (including old folks, veteran relatives, rockefeller republicans, etc...).
Out of curiousity: how do either of you personally have any insight on the fate of that plane? To have such assured positions that this fact and not conspiracy, I assume you have information that the 9/11 Commission does not?
posted by dhoyt at 10:26 PM on July 22, 2004
of course it was, Rasta...i don't know one person, young or old, repub or dem, that thinks otherwise (including old folks, veteran relatives, rockefeller republicans, etc...).
Out of curiousity: how do either of you personally have any insight on the fate of that plane? To have such assured positions that this fact and not conspiracy, I assume you have information that the 9/11 Commission does not?
posted by dhoyt at 10:26 PM on July 22, 2004
dhoyt, lots of people i know (and myself) believe it because it would have been the right and proper thing to do, given that flights weren't grounded early enough as that mother said, and also because if it really was done, we would never be told about it, especially by this crowd in power. We don't have any special insight, and until one of the pilots that was scrambled talks we won't ever know. It's a very very widespread belief tho. And reports at the time indicate weirdness (bangs?!?), including the speedy and immediate denial by the govt: ... but Pentagon officials firmly denied to ABCNEWS rumors that the U.S. military shot down the aircraft to prevent it from being crashed into Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, or another government facility.
Adm. Craig Quigley told reporters the cause of the accident "was not engagement by a U.S. fighter aircraft."
...
One eyewitness to the Pennsylvania crash, Linda Shepley, told television station KDKA in Pittsburgh that she heard a loud bang and saw the plane bank to the side before crashing.
posted by amberglow at 5:32 AM on July 23, 2004
Adm. Craig Quigley told reporters the cause of the accident "was not engagement by a U.S. fighter aircraft."
...
One eyewitness to the Pennsylvania crash, Linda Shepley, told television station KDKA in Pittsburgh that she heard a loud bang and saw the plane bank to the side before crashing.
posted by amberglow at 5:32 AM on July 23, 2004
The terrorists are quoted as saying, "Shall we finish it off?" just as the plane began to dive, and this is captured on the plane's audio. Why would he say that if it was supposedly shot down?
posted by dhoyt at 6:22 AM on July 23, 2004
posted by dhoyt at 6:22 AM on July 23, 2004
you're probably right, given this administration's proven incompetence--they probably couldn't have been as on the ball as they should have--Cheney was in charge, and Bush was in hiding, right?
IHT: Minute by Minute
The air-defense commander ordered three Air Force fighter jets to intercept the third airliner hijacked that morning. But he soon discovered that the fighters were not heading north, but streaking east over the Atlantic Ocean. "I don't care how many windows you break," the commander barked, ordering the jets to turn around and "crank it up" to the White House.
Cheney appears to have bypassed the normal chain of command in authorizing orders to shoot down any commercial airliners threatening Washington. And the Secret Service resorted to coordinating its own shoot-down policy with a National Guard general at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, outside the normal protocol.
Even as senior officials were meeting in Washington to assess the situation, three F-16 fighters from Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, were racing toward Washington. The final hijacking was playing out aboard United Flight 93.
.
Just minutes before the crash at the Pentagon, Flight 93, flying from Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco, went off course near Cleveland.
.
An air traffic controller there and pilots of other aircraft flying nearby heard over a radio transmission what sounded like screams and a struggle.
.
By 9:38 a.m., air traffic controllers in Cleveland had moved several aircraft out of the way of Flight 93, and soon afterward the hijacked flight reversed course over Ohio and began heading toward Washington.
.
Four minutes later, a top operations manager for the aviation agency, Ben Sliney, ordered all the agency's sites to direct all airborne planes to land at the nearest airport, the first such action in the nation's history. About 4,500 aircraft soon landed without incident.
.
Meanwhile, on Flight 93, passengers had heard via cell phones about the other hijackings, and some of them rushed the cockpit. At 10:03 a.m., Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
So you have Cheney ordering shootdowns early, and the Secret Service too--well before 93 crashed. Then later in the morning, you finally have official confirmation to shoot down planes, but that's only after everything had already happened. (either at 10:20 or 10:31, according to IHT) Who knows?
posted by amberglow at 7:00 AM on July 23, 2004
IHT: Minute by Minute
The air-defense commander ordered three Air Force fighter jets to intercept the third airliner hijacked that morning. But he soon discovered that the fighters were not heading north, but streaking east over the Atlantic Ocean. "I don't care how many windows you break," the commander barked, ordering the jets to turn around and "crank it up" to the White House.
Cheney appears to have bypassed the normal chain of command in authorizing orders to shoot down any commercial airliners threatening Washington. And the Secret Service resorted to coordinating its own shoot-down policy with a National Guard general at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, outside the normal protocol.
Even as senior officials were meeting in Washington to assess the situation, three F-16 fighters from Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, were racing toward Washington. The final hijacking was playing out aboard United Flight 93.
.
Just minutes before the crash at the Pentagon, Flight 93, flying from Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco, went off course near Cleveland.
.
An air traffic controller there and pilots of other aircraft flying nearby heard over a radio transmission what sounded like screams and a struggle.
.
By 9:38 a.m., air traffic controllers in Cleveland had moved several aircraft out of the way of Flight 93, and soon afterward the hijacked flight reversed course over Ohio and began heading toward Washington.
.
Four minutes later, a top operations manager for the aviation agency, Ben Sliney, ordered all the agency's sites to direct all airborne planes to land at the nearest airport, the first such action in the nation's history. About 4,500 aircraft soon landed without incident.
.
Meanwhile, on Flight 93, passengers had heard via cell phones about the other hijackings, and some of them rushed the cockpit. At 10:03 a.m., Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
So you have Cheney ordering shootdowns early, and the Secret Service too--well before 93 crashed. Then later in the morning, you finally have official confirmation to shoot down planes, but that's only after everything had already happened. (either at 10:20 or 10:31, according to IHT) Who knows?
posted by amberglow at 7:00 AM on July 23, 2004
go to a Barnes & Noble's and pick one up for $10, like I did this afternoon.
good idea. I suggest you pay cash. one does not want to leave a paper trail, eventually
posted by matteo at 8:06 AM on July 23, 2004
good idea. I suggest you pay cash. one does not want to leave a paper trail, eventually
posted by matteo at 8:06 AM on July 23, 2004
I have a strong gut feeling that it was shot down by the Air Force
You should have been on the commission. They could have used your "gut feeling." All they had to go on were useless things like "facts" and "evidence."
of course it was, Rasta...i don't know one person, young or old, repub or dem, that thinks otherwise
The only people I know who think that are the tin foil hat-wearing crowd. If the plane was shot down there would have been a debris field instead of a crater.
In a country where a blowjob witnessed by only two people gets plastered on the news, I hardly think an Air Force jet shooting down a commercial airliner would be succesfully covered up by The Man.
posted by bondcliff at 8:13 AM on July 23, 2004
You should have been on the commission. They could have used your "gut feeling." All they had to go on were useless things like "facts" and "evidence."
of course it was, Rasta...i don't know one person, young or old, repub or dem, that thinks otherwise
The only people I know who think that are the tin foil hat-wearing crowd. If the plane was shot down there would have been a debris field instead of a crater.
In a country where a blowjob witnessed by only two people gets plastered on the news, I hardly think an Air Force jet shooting down a commercial airliner would be succesfully covered up by The Man.
posted by bondcliff at 8:13 AM on July 23, 2004
I see the book by "Anonymous" is #3. Anyone read it yet?
Reading it now. Anonymous is angry and he spreads it around to everyone. It makes Clarke's book read like Make Way for Ducklings in comparison. It's really the first book I've read that actually says "This is what Al Qaida says they want, and this is how they're going about getting that and this is how we're playing into their hands." From what I've read about it, though, it doesn't offer many solutions other than, you know, killing all the Islamists, but I am not far enough into it to judge that for myself.
Also, regarding Flight 93, Salon has an interview with one of the mothers of the victims. It made an interesting read. All the evidence I've seen since that morning has been that it was taken down by the passengers and not a missile. I can't believe that the government is so incompetant that it can't put the 9/11 pieces together beforehand, but it is completely able to cover up something as big as shooting down an airliner. Plus, there is no reason to cover that up. I imagine that most Americans would have been uncomfortable with that, but would admit it was justified if it were to save lives on the ground.
posted by Jugwine at 8:24 AM on July 23, 2004
The only people I know who think that are the tin foil hat-wearing crowd. If the plane was shot down there would have been a debris field instead of a crater.
In a country where a blowjob witnessed by only two people gets plastered on the news, I hardly think an Air Force jet shooting down a commercial airliner would be succesfully covered up by The Man.
That's funny, ABC reported on it, and the military issued a statement about it--are they tin-foil hat crowd too?
All the evidence I've seen since that morning has been that it was taken down by the passengers and not a missile. I can't believe that the government is so incompetant that it can't put the 9/11 pieces together beforehand, but it is completely able to cover up something as big as shooting down an airliner.
CNN is saying today that the hijackers crashed it, not the passengers. They didn't even get in thru the cockpit door.
posted by amberglow at 8:34 AM on July 23, 2004
In a country where a blowjob witnessed by only two people gets plastered on the news, I hardly think an Air Force jet shooting down a commercial airliner would be succesfully covered up by The Man.
That's funny, ABC reported on it, and the military issued a statement about it--are they tin-foil hat crowd too?
All the evidence I've seen since that morning has been that it was taken down by the passengers and not a missile. I can't believe that the government is so incompetant that it can't put the 9/11 pieces together beforehand, but it is completely able to cover up something as big as shooting down an airliner.
CNN is saying today that the hijackers crashed it, not the passengers. They didn't even get in thru the cockpit door.
posted by amberglow at 8:34 AM on July 23, 2004
I should have been more precise: the plane was crashed due to the actions of passengers. Who actually drove the plane into the ground is not that important. If those passengers had remained in their seats it is unlikely that its final destination would have been a Pennsylvania field.
posted by Jugwine at 8:47 AM on July 23, 2004
posted by Jugwine at 8:47 AM on July 23, 2004
That's funny, ABC reported on it, and the military issued a statement about it--are they tin-foil hat crowd too?
When? In the hours following the attack? They also reported there was a truck bomb at the capital, if I remember that morning correctly.
Can you provide a link where ABC reports that the plane was shot down? Or the statement the military made about the plane being shot down?
Yes, I know news outlets have reported about "reports that the plane was shot down." The news has also interviewed people who think the moon landing was a hoax. That doesn't mean they reported that the landing was a hoax.
posted by bondcliff at 8:48 AM on July 23, 2004
When? In the hours following the attack? They also reported there was a truck bomb at the capital, if I remember that morning correctly.
Can you provide a link where ABC reports that the plane was shot down? Or the statement the military made about the plane being shot down?
Yes, I know news outlets have reported about "reports that the plane was shot down." The news has also interviewed people who think the moon landing was a hoax. That doesn't mean they reported that the landing was a hoax.
posted by bondcliff at 8:48 AM on July 23, 2004
Interesting tidbits from report analyses:
Underneath its everyone's-to-blame veneer, the report includes some weighty assertions that are potentially very damaging to the White House.
The report, for instance, criticizes the concept of the "war on terror" that has been the signature issue of Bush's presidency. It concludes that what is required to defeat Islamist terrorism is something more nuanced than that. And it does not support the argument that the war on Iraq was either related to or helpful in that quest.
And its activist list of proposals puts Bush in a reactive posture during a campaign season when he wants to convey a sense of steady and strong leadership.
...
The report argues that the notion of fighting an enemy called 'terrorism' is too diffuse and vague to be effective. Strikingly, the report makes no reference to the invasion of Iraq as being part of the war on terrorism, a frequent assertion of President Bush and his top aides."
...
Although recent polls have shown that more than 40 percent of the American public is still convinced that Iraq collaborated with al Qaeda and had a role in the terrorist attacks, the commission reported finding no evidence of a 'collaborative operational relationship' between the two or an Iraqi role in attacking the United States.
...
"An order issued by Vice President Cheney to shoot down threatening aircraft over Washington was not passed on to the pilots of two jet fighters scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, because military commanders 'were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance,' the report says.
link
Remember, the report does NOT include the most important aspect of the investigation: the money trail. Why? Tsarfan's link above provides a clue:
President Bush refused on Tuesday to release a congressional report alleging possible links between Saudi Arabian officials and the Sept. 11 hijackers.
...
Sources tell CBS the redacted section lays out a money trail between Saudi Arabia and supporters of al Qaeda, reports CBS White House Chief Correspondent John Roberts.
Among others, it singles out Omar al-Bayoumi, who gave financial assistance to 9-11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.
The FBI charges al-Bayoumi, an official of the Saudi civil aviation authority, never lacked for money and is believed to have received funds from a charitable trust run by the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. The Saudis, for all their protestations of cooperating in the war on terror, still refuse to allow the FBI access to al-Bayoumi.
posted by nofundy at 11:07 AM on July 23, 2004
Underneath its everyone's-to-blame veneer, the report includes some weighty assertions that are potentially very damaging to the White House.
The report, for instance, criticizes the concept of the "war on terror" that has been the signature issue of Bush's presidency. It concludes that what is required to defeat Islamist terrorism is something more nuanced than that. And it does not support the argument that the war on Iraq was either related to or helpful in that quest.
And its activist list of proposals puts Bush in a reactive posture during a campaign season when he wants to convey a sense of steady and strong leadership.
...
The report argues that the notion of fighting an enemy called 'terrorism' is too diffuse and vague to be effective. Strikingly, the report makes no reference to the invasion of Iraq as being part of the war on terrorism, a frequent assertion of President Bush and his top aides."
...
Although recent polls have shown that more than 40 percent of the American public is still convinced that Iraq collaborated with al Qaeda and had a role in the terrorist attacks, the commission reported finding no evidence of a 'collaborative operational relationship' between the two or an Iraqi role in attacking the United States.
...
"An order issued by Vice President Cheney to shoot down threatening aircraft over Washington was not passed on to the pilots of two jet fighters scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, because military commanders 'were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance,' the report says.
link
Remember, the report does NOT include the most important aspect of the investigation: the money trail. Why? Tsarfan's link above provides a clue:
President Bush refused on Tuesday to release a congressional report alleging possible links between Saudi Arabian officials and the Sept. 11 hijackers.
...
Sources tell CBS the redacted section lays out a money trail between Saudi Arabia and supporters of al Qaeda, reports CBS White House Chief Correspondent John Roberts.
Among others, it singles out Omar al-Bayoumi, who gave financial assistance to 9-11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.
The FBI charges al-Bayoumi, an official of the Saudi civil aviation authority, never lacked for money and is believed to have received funds from a charitable trust run by the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. The Saudis, for all their protestations of cooperating in the war on terror, still refuse to allow the FBI access to al-Bayoumi.
posted by nofundy at 11:07 AM on July 23, 2004
Who knows?
posted by amberglow at 10:00 AM EST on July 23
Precisely. Thank you. I'm glad we can agree that neither of us knows.
Prior to saying that, you answered the question by saying, "of course it was, Rasta..." which indicated you might have some insider knowledge. The phrase "Of course" doesn't make room for "theory". It suggests "fact", and fact is something neither of us have. The closest we have is info from the Commission report which suggests the terrorists pitched the plane into the ground themselves. A "bang" and the possibility that jets could've made it to central PA in time certainly make for an interesting theory, but without proof, why would any of us be so sure one way or the other?
It's confusing to visit MeFi every day and hear folks warn of "drinking the Kool-Aid" doled out by the White House, yet every popular conspiracy theory that comes down the pike is enthuiastically gulped down by those same folks.
posted by dhoyt at 11:26 AM on July 23, 2004
posted by amberglow at 10:00 AM EST on July 23
Precisely. Thank you. I'm glad we can agree that neither of us knows.
Prior to saying that, you answered the question by saying, "of course it was, Rasta..." which indicated you might have some insider knowledge. The phrase "Of course" doesn't make room for "theory". It suggests "fact", and fact is something neither of us have. The closest we have is info from the Commission report which suggests the terrorists pitched the plane into the ground themselves. A "bang" and the possibility that jets could've made it to central PA in time certainly make for an interesting theory, but without proof, why would any of us be so sure one way or the other?
It's confusing to visit MeFi every day and hear folks warn of "drinking the Kool-Aid" doled out by the White House, yet every popular conspiracy theory that comes down the pike is enthuiastically gulped down by those same folks.
posted by dhoyt at 11:26 AM on July 23, 2004
Cheney told me, dhoyt ; >
The information i have is not authoritative, and was not examined by the 9/11 commission. For that matter, there is tons of information was not examined by the 9/11 commission, including the Sibel Edmonds stuff, why the president sat in that classroom while the country was in grave danger, that Secret Service stuff mentioned in the IHT link above, etc...and for that matter, the president and Cheney never even testified under oath. Cheney himself said that he probably does have info the commission doesn't have, yet didn't volunteer to give it to them. (They fought against establishing the commission in the first place, remember?) There's plenty of information that was never given the commission, so i wouldn't say their findings are at all complete or authoritative--it's just the best they could do, i guess.
posted by amberglow at 11:42 AM on July 23, 2004
The information i have is not authoritative, and was not examined by the 9/11 commission. For that matter, there is tons of information was not examined by the 9/11 commission, including the Sibel Edmonds stuff, why the president sat in that classroom while the country was in grave danger, that Secret Service stuff mentioned in the IHT link above, etc...and for that matter, the president and Cheney never even testified under oath. Cheney himself said that he probably does have info the commission doesn't have, yet didn't volunteer to give it to them. (They fought against establishing the commission in the first place, remember?) There's plenty of information that was never given the commission, so i wouldn't say their findings are at all complete or authoritative--it's just the best they could do, i guess.
posted by amberglow at 11:42 AM on July 23, 2004
I know amberglow as a reasoned and rational person, and to accuse him of drinking down "every popular conspiracy theory" is a mischaracterization, and the tone you use to do so smacks of assholishness.
Also, just because there are conspiracy theories surrounding every event in history doesn't mean that none of them are true.
posted by jpoulos at 11:48 AM on July 23, 2004
Also, just because there are conspiracy theories surrounding every event in history doesn't mean that none of them are true.
posted by jpoulos at 11:48 AM on July 23, 2004
Besides: If I were part of this administration, I'd be encouraging theories that the plane was shot down. Shooting the plane down would have been the right thing to do, and it certainly presents a more decisive picture of a president than sitting and reading "A Pet Goat".
posted by jpoulos at 11:52 AM on July 23, 2004
posted by jpoulos at 11:52 AM on July 23, 2004
oh, and most conspiracy theories are not swallowed whole, but this one is very very widely believed--i'm not sure the commission's report will sway that belief.
and i'm with jpoulos--he's right that they should be encouraging this belief--it would have been the right thing to do (which means it's probably false, actually)--and of course that i'm reasoned and rational too : >
posted by amberglow at 11:56 AM on July 23, 2004
and i'm with jpoulos--he's right that they should be encouraging this belief--it would have been the right thing to do (which means it's probably false, actually)--and of course that i'm reasoned and rational too : >
posted by amberglow at 11:56 AM on July 23, 2004
I'm not trying to portrary assholishness, just encourage honesty. Sorry if any feelings were hurt, but what I've noticed over the years is that many, in addition to amberglow, seem to get a lot of glee out of encourgaging these same bits of misinformation: "Bush is holding Osama til election time", "Bush stole the election", "The war was to take Iraq's oil", "The terror warnings were fabricated to bump John Edwards off front pages" and so on. Sorry, but "enthuasiastically drinking" those conspiracy theories down is still an accurate portrayal in my mind based on posting history. It doesn't make anyone look savvier or more perceptive than the folks in the White House. It just seems dopey and superficial (not referring to this thread in particular).
just because there are conspiracy theories surrounding every event in history doesn't mean that none of them are true.
Nor does it mean they should be presented as "Duh, of course, everyone from every age group believes Theory X", when obviously no one knows for sure. Perpetuating misinformation as Joe MeFite is no better than doing it as a White House spokesperson.
posted by dhoyt at 12:29 PM on July 23, 2004
just because there are conspiracy theories surrounding every event in history doesn't mean that none of them are true.
Nor does it mean they should be presented as "Duh, of course, everyone from every age group believes Theory X", when obviously no one knows for sure. Perpetuating misinformation as Joe MeFite is no better than doing it as a White House spokesperson.
posted by dhoyt at 12:29 PM on July 23, 2004
Why is it misinformation if no one knows the truth for sure? You seem to be saying that everyone that doesn't buy the official line is a conspiracy theorist--that's not so. (especially when there's a proven track record not to believe what the current administration says, to the point where Rumsfeld told us all that misinformation will purposely be put out?)
Questioning all the things you mentioned (and that's what most theories are--questions) is what we all should be doing all the time. We're not sheep, and if this administration had ever dealt fairly and honestly with us, we'd be more trusting. They encourage speculation on all the things they're not willing to release or share (as in Cheney's recent statement that he probably knows more than the 9/11 commission). There are always options to the official line, and recently those options have been coming true right and left. If you want to call all the people that called those things out conspiracy theorists you can, but most of us aren't.
If I could show you polls about how many people believe we shot down that plane, I would. This is about as close as they come, and it's not official. Believe me--i like to always back up what i say. If you don't want to believe that many many people believe that the plane was shot down, don't. No one ever said "everyone" also. Accuse me of whatever you want, but ask around and see for yourself. AskMe is available; Ask Google, etc.....And: perpetuating misinformation when you speak from and for the white house and for a powerful government is vastly vastly different and more damaging than you or i speaking out of our asses.
here's just a little more to show how very not cut-and-dried this whole situation really was, and is: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (newsbio) was briefed by Cheney at 10:39 a.m. that he had been authorized by Bush to instruct fighters to shoot down hijacked planes.
"And it's my understanding they've already taken a couple of aircraft out," Cheney told Rumsfeld, according to the commission. Rumsfeld replied, "We can't confirm that. We're told that one aircraft is down but we do not have a pilot report that they did it."
but already we're derailing the thread--sorry....there's plenty of stuff online about this, dhoyt--take a look at it sometime.
posted by amberglow at 12:56 PM on July 23, 2004
Questioning all the things you mentioned (and that's what most theories are--questions) is what we all should be doing all the time. We're not sheep, and if this administration had ever dealt fairly and honestly with us, we'd be more trusting. They encourage speculation on all the things they're not willing to release or share (as in Cheney's recent statement that he probably knows more than the 9/11 commission). There are always options to the official line, and recently those options have been coming true right and left. If you want to call all the people that called those things out conspiracy theorists you can, but most of us aren't.
If I could show you polls about how many people believe we shot down that plane, I would. This is about as close as they come, and it's not official. Believe me--i like to always back up what i say. If you don't want to believe that many many people believe that the plane was shot down, don't. No one ever said "everyone" also. Accuse me of whatever you want, but ask around and see for yourself. AskMe is available; Ask Google, etc.....And: perpetuating misinformation when you speak from and for the white house and for a powerful government is vastly vastly different and more damaging than you or i speaking out of our asses.
here's just a little more to show how very not cut-and-dried this whole situation really was, and is: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (newsbio) was briefed by Cheney at 10:39 a.m. that he had been authorized by Bush to instruct fighters to shoot down hijacked planes.
"And it's my understanding they've already taken a couple of aircraft out," Cheney told Rumsfeld, according to the commission. Rumsfeld replied, "We can't confirm that. We're told that one aircraft is down but we do not have a pilot report that they did it."
but already we're derailing the thread--sorry....there's plenty of stuff online about this, dhoyt--take a look at it sometime.
posted by amberglow at 12:56 PM on July 23, 2004
Blaming No One
"The extent of the “whitewash” was painfully apparent last night on PBS’s Jim Lehrer News Hour. In a Margaret Warner interview with Condoleezza Rice, Warner (who always asks the “tough” questions) asked Rice, “Do you think it was a failure of imagination?”
Rice, who has been at the center of the 9-11 storm from the very onset, broke into a wide, Cheshire cat smile, unable to contain her glee. She knew (along with everyone else in the Bush Administration) that the report put to rest any implication of responsibility or, heaven forbid, culpability on the part of those in charge. Instead, it drew the broadest of conclusions, suggesting that even the “American people shared the blame for 9-11 for underestimating the terrorist threat”. (I’m not making this up)
Both commissioners of the 9-11 team appeared on The News Hour on Thursday, passing “o so softly” over the details, instead, opting to stick to their “talking points”. Those talking points could have been predicted before they went “on air”.
Both Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton emphasized that “When everyone is to blame…no one is to blame” (Again, I am not making this up)
Democratic hack, Hamilton went so far as to admit that, “We decided early on that we weren’t going to play the blame game.”
Say what?...."
posted by dinsdale at 1:22 PM on July 23, 2004
"The extent of the “whitewash” was painfully apparent last night on PBS’s Jim Lehrer News Hour. In a Margaret Warner interview with Condoleezza Rice, Warner (who always asks the “tough” questions) asked Rice, “Do you think it was a failure of imagination?”
Rice, who has been at the center of the 9-11 storm from the very onset, broke into a wide, Cheshire cat smile, unable to contain her glee. She knew (along with everyone else in the Bush Administration) that the report put to rest any implication of responsibility or, heaven forbid, culpability on the part of those in charge. Instead, it drew the broadest of conclusions, suggesting that even the “American people shared the blame for 9-11 for underestimating the terrorist threat”. (I’m not making this up)
Both commissioners of the 9-11 team appeared on The News Hour on Thursday, passing “o so softly” over the details, instead, opting to stick to their “talking points”. Those talking points could have been predicted before they went “on air”.
Both Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton emphasized that “When everyone is to blame…no one is to blame” (Again, I am not making this up)
Democratic hack, Hamilton went so far as to admit that, “We decided early on that we weren’t going to play the blame game.”
Say what?...."
posted by dinsdale at 1:22 PM on July 23, 2004
« Older Discover the Russia | Plotinus Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by dagny at 2:14 PM on July 22, 2004