"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Friday, May 26, 2006

LIHOP? Or sheer incompetence?
Posted by Jill | 7:05 AM
For more than four years now, there have been people who said I was crazy because I have believed ever since the night of the 9/11 attacks that something stank royally about the official story. Not as many think it's crazy as did then, which says something about the nasty habit of reality encroaching on even the most dearly-held illusion.

It all started on the night of 9/11, when Larry Kudlow was on CNBC, grinning from ear to ear and crowing gleefully about how these attacks meant an end to any talk of a Social Security lockbox, because those dollars would now be used for defense. I listened to this clearly very happy guy, turned to Mr. Brilliant and said, "My God, they did it."

Since then, there has evolved the "LIHOP" and "MIHOP" camps ("Let it" vs. "Made it" happen on purpose), divided only in their view of the degree of Administration involvement in/complicity in the 9/11 attacks. I've long been in the LIHOP camp. This isn't because I don't believe the Bushistas aren't evil enough to architect a terrorist attack for their own political and financial benefit. In fact, I believe we may very well see MIHOP from this bunch before either this November's election or the 2008 election, whichever one presents a greater threat to their continued power. But from where I'm sitting, the 9/11 attacks are clearly a case of "Let's let it play out." You just have to put on a bit TOO much tinfoil for 9/11 to be a MIHOP scenario.

I don't think even the Bushistas banked on the World Trade Center collapse. My hunch is that they did some cost-benefit analysis of a few planeloads of people and 1993-attack-level casualties in the Twin Towers, and decided that the potential benefits in terms of consolidation of presidential power, the war in Iraq they wanted, and tons of taxpayer cash shoveled into the pockets of Bushista friends was worth it.

While the news media are once again sniffing around the Clintons' underwear drawers, they have paid almost no attention to Administration shill Judith Miller's bombshell of last week; that over the July 4 weekend in 2001, her sources were telling her that people in the intelligence community were worried about an Al Qaeda attack:

“I had begun to hear rumors about intensified intercepts and tapping of telephones. But that was just vaguest kind of rumors in the street, indicators…I remember the weekend before July 4, 2001 in particular, because for some reason the people who were worried about Al Qaeda believed that was the weekend that there was going to be an attack on the US or on major American target somewhere. It was going to be a large, well-coordinated attack. Because of the July 4th holiday, this was an ideal opportunistic target and date for Al Qaeda. My sources also told me at that time that there had been a lot of chatter overheard -- I didn’t know specifically what that meant -- but a lot of talk about an impending attack at one time or another. And the intelligence community seemed to believe that at least a part of the attack was going to come on July 4th. So I remember that, for a lot of my sources, this was going to be a ‘lost’ weekend. Everybody was going to be working; nobody was going to take time off. And that was bad news for me because it meant I was also going to be on stand-by and I would be working too.

“I was in New York, but I remember coming down to D.C. one day that weekend, just to be around in case something happened… Misery loves company, is how I would put it. If it were going to be a stress-filled weekend, it was better to do it together. It also meant I wouldn’t have trouble tracking people down -- or as much trouble -- because as you know, some of these people can be very elusive.

“The people in the counter-terrorism (CT) office were very worried about attacks here in the United States, and that was, it struck me, another debate in the intelligence community. Because a lot of intelligence people did not believe that Al Qaeda had the ability to strike within the United States. The CT people thought they were wrong. But I got the sense at that time that the counter-terrorism people in the White House were viewed as extremist on these views.

“Everyone in Washington was very spun-up in the CT world at that time. I think everybody knew that an attack was coming –- everyone who followed this. But you know you can only ‘Cry wolf’ within a newspaper or, I imagine, within an intelligence agency, so many times before people start saying there he goes -- or there she goes -- again!

“Even that weekend, there was lot else going on. There was always a lot going on at the White House, so to a certain extent, there was that kind of ‘Cry wolf’ problem. But I got the sense that part of the reason that I was being told of what was going on was that the people in counter terrorism were trying to get the word to the President or the senior officials through the press, because they were not able to get listened to themselves.

“Sometimes, you wonder about why people tell you things and why people…we always wonder why people leak things, but that’s a very common motivation in Washington. I remember once when I was a reporter in Egypt, and someone from the Agency gave me very good material on terrorism and local Islamic groups.

“I said, ‘Why are you doing this? Why are you giving this to me?’ and he said, ‘I just can’t get my headquarters to pay attention to me but I know that if it’s from the New York Times, they’re going to give it a good read and ask me questions about it.’ And there’s also this genuine concern about how, if only the President shared the sense of panic and concern that they did, more would be done to try and protect the country.

“This was a case wherein some serious preparations were made in terms of getting the message out and responding, because at the end of that week, there was a sigh of relief. As somebody metaphorically put it: ‘They uncorked the White House champagne’ that weekend because nothing had happened. We got through the weekend… nothing had happened.

“But I did manage to have a conversation with a source that weekend. The person told me that there was some concern about an intercept that had been picked up. The incident that had gotten everyone’s attention was a conversation between two members of Al Qaeda. And they had been talking to one another, supposedly expressing disappointment that the United States had not chosen to retaliate more seriously against what had happened to the Cole. And one Al Qaeda operative was overheard saying to the other, ‘Don’t worry; we’re planning something so big now that the US will have to respond.’

“And I was obviously floored by that information. I thought it was a very good story: (1) the source was impeccable; (2) the information was specific, tying Al Qaeda operatives to, at least, knowledge of the attack of the Cole; and (3) they were warning that something big was coming, to which the United States would have to respond. This struck me as a major Page One-potential story.

“I remember going back to work in New York the next day and meeting with my editor Stephen Engelberg. I was rather excited, as I usually get about information of this kind, and I said, ‘Steve, I think we have a great story. And the story is that two members of Al Qaeda overheard on an intercept (and I assumed that it was the National Security Agency, because that’s who does these things) were heard complaining about the lack of American response to the Cole, but also… contemplating what would happen the next time, when there was, as they said, the impending major attack that was being planned. They said this was such a big attack that the US would have to respond.’ Then I waited.

[snip]

“It was very strange…it was a strange feeling to have written a series that virtually predicted this, and to have had not a single other reporter call, not a single other newspaper follow-up on some of the information that we had broken in that series. At the time of the series, which was published in January 2001, we had information about chemical and biological experiments at Al Qaeda camps. We had gotten the location of the camps, we had gotten satellite overhead of the camps. I had interviewed, in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda-trained people who said that they were going to get out of the ‘prison’ in Afghanistan and go back and continue their jihad. They had talked about suicide bombings. We had Jordanian intelligence say that attempts to blow up hotels, roads and tourist targets in Jordan over the millennium was part of the Al Qaeda planned attack. And yet I guess people just didn’t believe it. But I believed it. I believed it absolutely, because I’ve covered these militants for so long. There was nothing they wouldn’t do if they could do it.”


After the 9/11 attacks, we heard a lot of "How could anyone have known?" Condoleeza Rice baldfacedly lied and said "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

(Other links to the Judith Miller story here and here.)

In the case of a crime, one has to ask: Who benefitted?

Who benefitted from the 9/11 attacks, indeed?

On 9/10/2001, our issue of Newsweek arrived, with a photograph of George W. Bush on the cover and an expose of the 2000 election shenanigans inside. His approval ratings were hovering at around 50%. Jim Jeffords had defected from the Republican Party, throwing control of the Senate to Democrats. Many were saying that this presidency was over already.

Then the 9/11 attacks played out, and ever since then, George W. Bush has been sitting bestride the world like a self-appointed colossus; an obedient Congress giving him everything he wanted: War in Iraq. Cuts to social programs. Gutting of privacy rights in the Consitution. Near-dictatorial authority.

Who benefitted?

Contrary to the notion that no one had a clue that anything like the 9/11 attacks might occur, there were plenty of clues at the highest levels of Washington, and even in the offices of the New York Times that something heinous was in the works. And still, men who became hijackers were at flight schools, learning to fly a plane but not land or take off. All 19 men were permitted to buy tickets and get on the planes.

So which is it? Did people at the highest levels of the Administration know that something was in the works -- even if they didn't know the exact details -- and decide to just let it play out because the potential benefits were great enough that it was worth the risk? Or were they so incompetent that they couldn't see the Big Neon Signals that we were going to be attacked? And if they decided to let it play out, who knew and who didn't? Was the president in the loop? Think about George W. Bush sitting in a classroom for seven minutes after being told that the country had been attacked. Think about the expression on his face. Had he been told to keep quiet? Did he realize that there were things going on in his Administration over which he had no control? Or was he a man realizing that all the speculation about what might happen was now real -- and that it was far worse than any of the speculated scenarios had anticipated?

The most charitable explanation is incompetence -- and if that's the case, why are we trusting this guy to keep us safe from terrorists? And why on earth did we elect him to a second term?
Bookmark and Share