Like many of you, I have been bothered by things which have occured during the Bush Administration. The two most infamous events which have happened during this time have been the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina. Of course we're all painfully aware of the numerous bullshit 9-11 conspiracy theories which infest the internet, but there are a number of troubling questions about that event which have never been satisfactorily answered. The same is true of Katrina. But "controlled demolition" theories aside, we know enough about these events to make some sense of them, if you consider that they have one thing in common... Bush. All you have to do is take what is known about the two events and merge them into one narrative, call it 9-11 vs. Katrina.
11 September 2001
The reason we were attacked, the reason these people are dead, these people are missing and dead ... They weren't doing anything wrong, they were living their lives, they were going to work, they were traveling, they were doing what they normally do. Uh, as I understand it -- and my understanding of this is vague, at best -- another smaller group of people stole some airplanes and crashed them into buildings. And we're told that they were zealots fueled by religious fervor, religious fervor. And if you live to be a thousand years old, will that make any sense to you? Will that make any goddamned sense?
I'm sure everyone remembers watching David Letterman's monologue in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. What stuck with me was the line "if you live to be a thousand years old, will that make any sense to you? Will that make any goddamned sense?", because it didn't make any sense. No matter how many times I pondered the possible explanations, they just didn't add up. Only now is it beginning to become clear to me. It's a combination of thinking I've stumbled upon some great truth and at the same time feeling stupid that I never quite added it all up before, because the truth is largely hiding in plain sight. As is so often the case, the official story is complete bullshit. It always is, although not usually such complete and transparent bullshit. But the conspiracy theories of "what really happened" somehow manage to stray even further off the mark. So what did happen? Endulge me here, if you will. It took me five years to process all of this, it will take some time to explain.
Unfortunately, it isn't possible to discuss this issue without first addressing the Conspiracy Theory (CT) advocates. These people divide themselves into two catagories, MIHOP and LIHOP. Either BushCo "Made it happen on purpose" or he "Let it happen on purpose". The central belief of these CT advocates is that Bush had some idea of what was going on at the time, or that some other group of people with power and influence had situational awareness, and acted upon this knowledge in such a way that would help them achieve a pre-existing political agenda. But that doesn't jive with the facts. To put it another way, it is illogical. Indeed, many of the CT promoters are obvious hoaxsters. They present fantastic claims which are completely uncorroberated, which is odd since thousands of people witnessed and survived the happenings of the WTC complex on 9-11 and the days leading up to it. I can't help but wonder if some of these guys weren't the same characters who pulled off the crop circle stunts. The CT crowd are a real obstacle to understanding the truth of 9-11. Just as UFO enthusiasts helped to keep the true purpose of Area 51 a secret for many years - as anyone who questioned what was going on in the skies above the Nevada desert was immediately dismissed as a UFO nut - so too have CT advocates stood in the way of exposing the truth of 9-11. Anyone who even suggests that there is bamboozlement going on with the official accounting of 9-11 is looked at with suspicion, and understandably so. People are really sick of hearing about WTC 7. But none of this is necessary. You don't need to know the exact temperature at which steel beams will fail nor do you need to be able to accurately predict how a skyscraper will behave when struck with a fully fueled Boeing 757, something for which there isn't alot of previously existing data. You don't need to go there. You just need to look at the things we know for certain and apply simple logic. There is a large enough body of evidence, at this point, to apply logic to the known facts and come up with an accurate conclusion.
First consider the question of whether our Government knew there was a threat of a 9-11 style attack before it happened. I suppose we're all generally aware that Richard Clarke warned Bush of the threat posed by al-Qaeda in the months leading up to 9-11, but how many of you know about other indications that such attacks might be likely? Take, for instance, the Genoa Conference. In July of 2001, Bush attended the G-8 conference in Genoa, Italy. The LA Times reported on 27 September 2001 that security officials in the Italian Government were concerned that terrorists would hijack planes and crash them into targets on the ground. Among the extraordinary precautions taken to prevent this, the conference was held on a large ship as it was believed that a waterborne target would be difficult to hit from the air. Also, Surface to Air Missile (SAM) batteries were deployed to protect the conference.
U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials said Wednesday.
The Genoa warning was disclosed last week by Italian Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini. In remarks on a television talk show reported by the Italian news agency ANSA, Fini said: "Many people were ironic about the Italian secret services. But in fact they got the information that there was the possibility of an attack against the U.S. president using an airliner. That's why we closed the airspace and installed the missiles. Those who made cracks should now think a little."
Then of course, there was the infamous 06 August 01 PDB.
On August 6, when Bush received the briefing entitled, "Bin Laden to Strike in US," he apparently "broke off from work early and spent most of the day fishing." [New York Times, 5/25/02]
He went fishing.
Fast forward to 10 September 2001. Bush is in Florida (he just loves those battleground states) and getting ready for a photo op at a local school. The Secret Service, apparently, were doing their job.
...when Bush spent the night in Sarasota, Florida, the night before the 9/11 attacks, surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort where he was staying. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02]
Again, a SAM Battery is deployed to protect the POTUS from an airborne threat. Do you suppose the Secret Service had a word with their Italian counterparts? It's likely they did just that, as did many other agencies within our government. The FBI, CIA, NSA and other agencies charged with protecting the security of the American people are filled with capable patriots. They didn't stop doing their job when Bush was inaugurated. When the question is raised by CTers as to whether the US Government had advance knowledge of 9-11, my response is that of course they knew! It's their fucking job to know. That's what they do all day. But you have to be careful about exactly who "they" are. "They" might refer to the head of a powerful agency, or someone in a sensitive position in the Pentagon, or some agent in the field. But none of that counts for shit if "The Decider" doesn't want to hear about it. And as this post entitled 2+2=9-11 should make clear, he didn't want to hear about it.
"But we never got warnings in the form of giant, flashing neon signs that told us the time, date, flight numbers and methods of the hijackings!" the Bush people cry desperately (and repeatedly). Well, if that's what you need to stop a terrorist attack, then we are in deep shit, because you never get that kind of detailed information in the real world. This excuse is the worst of all, because it is so ridiculous, so pathetic beneath the false formica veneer of its surface, that there is no doubt whatsoever that Rice and Bush know that they are misleading the people, desperate enough to use such a lame excuse because it's all they've got. As I have laid out above, there was more than enough warning. All the pieces were there. It would not have been hard at all to put them together without the benefit of hindsight; all it would have taken was basic competence to put 2 plus 2 together. But because Bush & Co. were do damned focused on missile defense, because terrorism was antithetical to that agenda, and because they were so keen to diss anything even smelling of Clinton, they failed to do what they needed in order to get that second "2" of the equation, and so they failed to add the pieces together. As a result, the terrorists walked right past the otherwise-engaged Bush administration, right onto the airplanes and committed their atrocious act.
The FBI, CIA and the Secret Service knew there was a real threat that al-Qaeda terrorists would hijack planes and use them to hit targets on the ground. They also knew the possible targets would be FBI HQ, CIA HQ, The Pentagon, The WTC and the POTUS. They did their jobs, and like Mayor Ray Nagin crying for help over the radio, they desperately tried to get BushCo to act. Again from 2+2=9-11.
From the beginning of the year, they were warned by Clinton administration officials that al Qaeda cells were in fact in the country. On July 6th, the CIA warned of a terrorist attack that would be "catastrophic," and that would be quantitatively different from anything that had been done to date. In late July, during the Genoa conference, they were made acutely aware of al Qaeda's plans to use aircraft as weapons. And in the now-infamous August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing (PDF file), it was made clear that there was a great deal of al Qaeda activity in the U.S., and there were hints that they were planning to hijack aircraft.
...they knew that al Qaeda was here, they were up to something, and it would be very bad. That much is not in question, is not challenged. So, their reaction should have been this: shake the trees. Something bad is coming guys, and we want anything and everything even remotely concerned with al Qaeda given top priority. Bush's people claim they did this, but it is incredibly obvious they did not. If they had, then two key pieces of intelligence would have fallen from the trees, namely: the Phoenix Memo of July 10, sent from Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams, which reported that individuals connected to Osama bin Laden were studying at flight schools in the area, and there was "the possibility of a coordinated effort by Osama bin Laden to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation universities and colleges," and "[t]he individuals will be in a position in the future to conduct terror activity against civil aviation targets." And then, there was the August 15th arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui in Minnesota, a man with jihadist connections who was training to fly commercial jets, but with no prior flying experience and no explanation of how he got his funding or why he was in the U.S. And it's not like the agents involved weren't stressing the intel enough.
[I quoted liberally from this post, because it's such good stuff. But I wanted to quote more. Definitely go read the whole thing.]
Then the day came. September 11th. We all remember it, there's no need to go there. I could recall in detail the bizarre behavior of Bush on that day, but it's all pretty well known, and this diary is already doomed to being way too long. There's a detailed timeline here. I checked out most of the links, and they seem to be in order. I don't know if this site is guilty of pushing CTs, but their timeline is accurate as far as I can tell. The gist of it is simple enough, while the rest of us were coming to grips with the fact that our nation was under attack, the POTUS seemed to be floundering around aimlessly. At first he decided to stick to his schedule. Then, once it became clear that was not an option, after a very inappropriate delay, he proceeded to run around the country like a chicken with his head cut off and not have a goddamned clue what to do about it. Now lets put this in perspective, he's been warned repeatedly about the threat of terrorists hijacking commercial aircraft and crashing them into buildings. Every reasonably aware person in the world knew that there were Islamic terrorists in the world who had a hard on to destroy the World Trade Center. Specifically, they wanted to bring down the Twin Towers. Bush knew, like the rest of us, that a 757 crashed into one of those two towers when it was reported on the news. This happened before he even got to the school for his infamous reading of "My Pet Goat". People focus on how he responded, or failed to respond, to being told "America is under attack". But it never should've come to that. After having SAMs over his head for a couple months, you'd think the guy would immediately put 2 and 2 together and ditch the photo-op. But he didn't. He couldn't process those simple facts. Apparently no one around him, not his advisors, not his Secret Service detail... none of them were willing or able to help him do so.
It's time to switch gears...
Katrina
This one is too easy. Again, from the cooperative research site, a Katrina timeline.
10:00 pm August 26, 2005: NHC Advisory: Katrina, Now a Category 2 Hurricane, Getting Stronger The National Hurricane Center (NHC) reports that Katrina continues to move west-southwest, but will likely turn west, then west-northwest on Saturday. Katrina is following the typical pattern observed in intense hurricanes, and likely will become a Category 4 hurricane. Indeed, some models indicate it could become a Category 5 hurricane. NHC warns, "most of the reliable numerical model tracks are now clustered between the eastern coast of Louisiana and the coast of Mississippi." The official forecast indicates that Katrina will move over the north central Gulf of Mexico in approximately 48 hours. Other aspects of the NHC Advisory include:
Location: 24.6 N, 83.6 W
Direction and Speed: West-southwest at 8 mph
Maximum Sustained Winds: 105 mph with higher gusts
Estimated Central Pressure: 965 mb
Size: Hurricane force winds extend outward from the center up to 25 miles; and tropical storm force winds extend up to 85 miles
Probability that in the next 69 hours, Katrina's eye will pass within 75 miles of:
Panama City, FL: 15 percent
Gulfport, MS: 18 percent
New Orleans, LA: 17 percent [National Hurricane Center, 8/26/2005; National Hurricane Center, 8/26/2005; National Hurricane Center, 8/26/2005]
Whatever happened to that 1% solution? At this point our government has determined that there is 35% probability that a Category 3-5 hurricane will hit somewhere between New Orleans and Gulfport. A scenario which is considered the #3 priority on FEMAs list of possible worst case scenarios, after a terrorist strike in New York City and an earthquake in Los Angeles. So what do they do?
August 27, 2005: Several White House Officials Enjoy Vacation As Katrina barrels towards the Gulf Coast, most of the top White House staff members are on vacation, taking advantage of President Bush's five-week vacation at his Crawford, Texas ranch. Andrew Card, White House Chief of Staff, and a veteran crisis manager who managed the federal response to hurricanes under George H.W. Bush, is vacationing at his lakefront summer home in Maine. Vice President Dick Cheney is vacationing at his Wyoming ranch. Frances Townsend, the White House Homeland Security Advisor who reports to Bush on Homeland Security policy and combating terrorism matters, is vacationing as well. After Katrina sweeps through the Gulf Coast, she will attend several meetings in Washington, before leaving on a previously scheduled trip to Saudi Arabia where she will work on joint counterterrorism projects. Bush will urge Townsend to make the trip despite the unfolding Katrina disaster as a "signal to ... the enemy" that the hurricane has not distracted Bush's attention from terrorists, according to one report. Later, White House representatives will decline to identify the person in charge of preparing for the hurricane in Washington, maintaining that Bush and his aides can run the government just as well from their summer homes.
There's no need to go further. And that's the striking thing about the difference between 9-11 and Katrina. With 9-11, there is so much we don't know about what precisely happened. That's why the crazy-batshit-insane-conspiracy-theory market has been booming since 9-11, because we know so little about it. But with Katrina, we know plenty. The reason for that is simple. Weather isn't classified. You don't need to be up on foreign policy to know about storms, floods and other natural disasters. They couldn't pretend that there was a lack of "actionable intelligence". It doesn't take a CIA spook to speak with authority about things like urban flooding. And you don't need a security clearance to go to New Orleans and take pictures. People know what happened, the President was warned that a hurricane was coming and he basically did nothing. It was business as usual, in fact, everybody went on vacation. All the spin and attempts at covering up the truth were less effective than they had been in the days and weeks after 9-11. It wasn't as easy to fool people about Katrina as it was to lie about 9-11. But that didn't stop them from trying. There has been a furious effort by BushCo, with the complicity of the Press to rewrite the history of both these events, which brings us to the next section...
The Cover Up
The first thing that people must understand is that Bush is not Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He just isn't. Neither Bush nor Cheney nor any of the other numbnuts in this Administration is a supervillian and they damn sure aren't SPECTRE. Did any of these guys pull off the 9-11 attacks? THERE. IS. NO. FUCKING. WAY. Did they know it was coming and make preparations for whenever it hit? The furthest I would go is that it occured to some of them, maybe Ashcroft, that a terrorist incident of some kind was possible. That would explain why he seemed to have the Patriot Act ready so quickly. As I said before, the FBI knew an attack was coming. They must've told Ashcroft as much, so he knew there was a possibility of some kind of terrorist attack happening. But it doesn't matter what Ashcroft knew if he couldn't persuade Bush to listen to him. Much has been made of Ashcroft being advised by the FBI to stop flying commercial airlines in the summer of 2001, but to me it just means that the FBI was doing their job. When it became clear to them that Bush wouldn't listen, they figured they should at least warn their boss. The fact that he didn't or couldn't get Bush to take seriously a threat that he and his agency clearly did speaks volumes. So if they didn't do it, who did? Well, it wasn't just a bunch of guys in Afghan caves. To understand the roots of 9-11, you need to know the history of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And that leads us to our great ally in the War on Terror... Pakistan.
Basically it went like this. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan the CIA and Saudi Arabia funneled money through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to rebels in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was there, but he was never a CIA asset. The sole purpose of the CIA's mission in Afghanistan was to kill communists. Once the Soviets left, the CIA closed up shop. ISI, however, continued to have an interest in Afghan affairs. ISI propped up the Taliban, and with the benefit of direct Pakistani military assistance, they quickly seized control of Afghanistan. From Janes.
After the ignominious Soviet withdrawal from Kabul in 1989 the ISI, determined to achieve its aim of extending Pakistan's `strategic depth' and creating an Islamic Caliphate by controlling Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republics, began sponsoring a little-known Pathan student movement in Kandhar that emerged as the Taliban. The ISI used funds from Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's federal government and from overseas Islamic remittances to enrol graduates from thousands of madrassahs (Muslim seminaries) across Pakistan to bolster the Taliban (Islamic students), who were led by the reclusive Mullah Muhammad Omar. Thereafter, through a ruthless combination of bribing Afghanistan's ruling tribal coalition (which was riven with internecine rivalry), guerrilla tactics and military support the ISI installed the Taliban regime in Kabul in 1996. It then helped to extend its control over 95 per cent of the war-torn country and bolster its military capabilities. The ISI is believed to have posted additional operatives in Afghanistan just before the 11 September attacks in the US.
But it doesn't stop there.
Along with Osama bin Laden, intelligence sources say a number of other infamous names emerged from the 1980s ISI-CIA collaboration in Afghanistan. These included Mir Aimal Kansi, who assassinated two CIA officers outside their office in Langley, Virginia, in 1993, Ramzi Yousef and his accomplices involved in the New York World Trade Center bombing five years later as well as a host of powerful international narcotics smugglers.
Well. That's fun. But what caught my eye was that last bit. Remember all those commercials about how if kids smoke pot they're helping the terrorists?
Opium cultivation and heroin production in Pakistan's northern tribal belt and neighbouring Afghanistan was also a vital offshoot of the ISI-CIA co-operation. It succeeded not only in turning Soviet troops into addicts, but also in boosting heroin sales in Europe and the US through an elaborate web of well-documented deceptions, transport networks, couriers and payoffs. This, in turn, offset the cost of the decade-long anti-Soviet `unholy war' in Afghanistan.
"The heroin dollars contributed largely to bolstering the Pakistani economy, its nuclear programme and enabled the ISI to sponsor its covert operations in Afghanistan and northern India's disputed Kashmir state," according to an Indian intelligence officer. In the 1970s, the ISI had established a division to procure military nuclear and missile technology from abroad, particularly from China and North Korea. They also smuggled in critical nuclear components and know-how from Europe - activities known to the US but ones it chose to turn a blind eye to as Washington's objective of `humiliating' the Soviet bear remained incomplete.
Wow. Now look, I'm no hippy. As far as I'm concerned a good commie is a dead commie, but I'd have to say this whole ISI thing got pretty seriously out of hand. I'm thinking that, in this case, Reagan and his pals may have thrown water onto a greasefire. Funny thing, our watchdog Press never seems to mention this stuff. But lets see if anybody in the International Press has dug up anything. How about, say, the Times of India.
While the Pakistani Inter Services public relations claimed that former ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on monday, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahumd.
What. The. Fuck.
...a direct link between the ISI and the WTC attack could have enormous repercussions. The US cannot but suspect whether or not there were other senior Pakistani army commanders who were in the know of things. Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake US confidence in Pakistan's ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition.
No shit. Really? You mean maybe these guys are unreliable because THEY FINANCED THE FUCKING ATTACKS THAT BLEW THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TO FUCKING HELL IN THE FIRST GODDAMNED PLACE!!! You know what Times of India dude, you've got a point there. You know what else, I'm beginning to think all those disagreements between the Bush Adminstration and the Joint Chiefs about how best to proceed in Afghanistan after 9-11 weren't so minor after all. I'm beginning to think there were serious disagreements in terms of tactics and strategy. I'm thinking Bush received the best possible advice and promptly chose to go with the worst possible advice instead. In fact, at this point I'm quite positive he fucked up Afghanistan as badly as he fucked up Iraq, we just don't yet know how badly he fucked it up because we haven't been told (you're doing a heckava job US Press/Democratic Party) the whole story, something I intend to do further down. Which takes me back to Janes.
The concern now for General Musharraf is whether the ISI will remain loyal to him and provide the US with credible information or continue to pursue its aims of ensuing the Taliban's continuance in Kabul," said one intelligence officer. The US, he added, will pull out of the region once its objectives have been achieved, but Afghanistan, with its incessant and seemingly irresolute turmoil, will remain Pakistan's neighbour for good.
I'm quite sure that General Musharraf has complete confidence in the ability of Bush and his authoritarian groupies to skillfully execute a massive counter-terrorism campaign and that Bush will be careful to ensure that Musharraf survives the dark forces which plague his country and which have long been deeply entrenched in the ISI. Is that treaty with al-Qaeda beginning to make sense kids?
OK. There was plenty for Bush to hide here, given the shady nature of the ISI. Given their involvement in WMD, given the drugs, the money laundering, and of course, the oil... it makes all kinds of sense that Bush didn't want the 9-11 Commission sticking their noses too deep into the goings on in South-Central Asia. Some people make a big deal about the fact that two of Bush's relatives were involved with the company that provided security for the World Trade Center. That in and of itself doesn't surprise me, the Bush Clan have their fingers in alot of pies. But the fact that Bush doesn't want people to scrutinize their role there is quite telling. It's more than a little nuts to say that these guys were involved with al-Qaeda or even ISI, but maybe they were involved in other things that aren't quite legal. Remember how Bin Laden's relatives were hustled out of the country? What was up with that? It's silly to think they knew anything about Mohammed Atta. But what else might they have known. Remember how the UN Oil for Food scandal wound up tracing back to Houston oil companies? Do you recall how the front company which Valerie Plame worked for was supposed to discover links between shady oil companies and black market nuclear proliferation? Do you see where I'm going with this? From Enron to the Taliban, there's nothing these guys won't do for a buck. And they aren't bashful about breaking the law to do it. Oh, they had shit to hide after 9-11, they had plenty to hide. But it didn't have dick to do with al-Qaeda, it had to do with the guys who pay their bills. One last thing, and it may be nothing, but remember how crazy Bush got when the NY Times reported on the SWIFT program? That was weird.
Now as far as the Katrina side of the story goes, it's ridiculously simple. Thank God for that, too. This diary is just too goddamn long already. But basically it goes like this... the roads were blocked, I didn't get the memo because the storm knocked communication satellites out of their orbits, and that Democrat Governor didn't fill out the proper forms. Whatever. The Katrina side is, again, too easy.
The 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, provides the ability to begin executing a strategic airborne forcible entry into any area of the world within 18 hours of notification. Their primary mission is airfield and seaport seizure. Once on the ground, they provide the secured terrain and facilities to rapidly receive additional combat forces. The division is the nation's strategic offensive force, maintaining the highest state of combat readiness.
On any day, a third of the division is on mission cycle, ready to respond to any contingency.
They can go anywhere in the world, on 18 hours notice, with the capability to kick ass and take names. New Orleans had an airport, an interfuckingnational airport which was servicable as soon as the storm passed. The people of New Orleans required neither ass kicking nor name taking, they just needed food and water. And we're supposed to believe that the President of the United States of America couldn't make that happen? Bullshit. TOTAL. COMPLETE. BULLSHIT.
That's how bad it is, how bad it's been since 20 January 2001. This guy allowed his poll numbers to take a hit from which they have never recovered, he allowed his image of being a protector to be diminished and, oh yeah... he left thousands of Americans to die. And all he had to do was make a fucking telephone call and it would have been over. And the bimbos on TV would have been saying how strong and resolute he was. He could then have returned to persuing his boyhood dream of destroying Social Security. But he didn't. Folks, racism doesn't explain this. The GOP have been making serious efforts to win over black voters, most of the gay marrige crap is aimed at blacks. The RNC really believed there was gold in them there hills with regards to homophobic blacks. It never really panned out for them pre-Katrina, but post-Katrina... forget about it. Black America is lost to the GOP for at least another 20 years. They definitely didn't want that to happen. And that's how bad it is, that's how much of a stupid asshole our President is. Think about that. A guy with so much to hide may have given his opposition the opportunity to investigate his crooked ass, starting next year, because he wouldn't make a fucking phonecall.
The Response
Earlier I alluded to rumors which were floating around about disagreements which existed between military professionals and the Bush Administration in the months that immediately followed 9-11. Now, I don't know why such disagreements might have existed. But maybe Sy Hersh does.
...the cream of the crop of Al Qaeda caught in a town called Konduz which is near ... it's one little village and it's a couple hundred kilometers, 150 miles from the border of Pakistan. And I learned this story frankly-- through very, very clandestine operatives we have in the Delta Force and other very...
We were operating very heavily with a small number of men, three, 400 really in the first days of the war. And suddenly one night when they had everybody cornered in Konduz-- the special forces people were told there was a corridor that they could not fly in. There was a corridor sealed off to-- the United States military sealed off a corridor. And it was nobody could shoot anybody in this little lane that went from Konduz into Pakistan. And that's how I learned about it. I learned about it from a military guy who wanted to fly helicopters and kill people and couldn't do it that day.
JANE WALLACE: So, we had the enemy surrounded, the special forces guys are helping surround this enemy.
SY HERSH: They're whacking everybody they can whack that looks like a bad guy.
JANE WALLACE: And suddenly they're told to back off--
SY HERSH: From a certain area--
JANE WALLACE: -- and let planes fly out to Pakistan.
SY HERSH: There was about a three or four nights in which I can tell you maybe six, eight, 10, maybe 12 more-- or more heavily weighted-- Pakistani military planes flew out with an estimated-- no less than 2,500 maybe 3,000, maybe more. I've heard as many as four or 5,000. They were not only-- Al Qaeda but they were also-- you see the Pakistani ISI was-- the military advised us to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. There were dozens of senior Pakistani military officers including two generals who flew out.
And I also learned after I wrote this story that maybe even some of Bin Laden's immediate family were flown out on the those evacuations. We allowed them to evacuate. We had an evacuation.
What a massive fuckup. Whoever authorized that is gonna pay bigtime. Talk about a career ending decision.
SY HERSH: I am here to tell you it was authorized -- Donald Rumsfeld who -- we'll talk about what he said later -- it had to be authorized at the White House. But certainly at the Secretary of Defense level.
JANE WALLACE: The Department of Defense said to us that they were not involved and that they don't have any knowledge of that operation.
SY HERSH: That's what Rumsfeld said when they asked him but it. And he said, "Gee, really?" He said, "News to me." Which is not a denial, it's sort of interesting. You know,
Um, about that whole accountability thing. Nevermind.
JANE WALLACE: What did we do that? Why we would put our special forces guys on the ground, surround the enemy, and then-- fly him out?
SY HERSH: With al Qaeda.
JANE WALLACE: With al Qaeda. Why would we do that, assuming your story is true?
SY HERSH: We did it because the ISI asked us to do so.
JANE WALLACE: Pakistani intelligence.
SY HERSH: Absolutely.
You simply have to read the whole thing. Seriously. This diary has become a goddamned novel, and I can't put up all the good stuff without blowing way over the fair use line. So go read it.
The gist is, Pakistan has had alot of nukes for a very long time. And they got shit for it from the international community. Since 9-11, where it was demonstrated that crazy motherfuckers exist in their neck of the woods who are willing and able to do all kinds of bad shit to the United States, they've become our best buddies. We give them lots of guns and money now. The primary benefactor of 9-11, by far, has been our "ally" Pakistan... not that there's anything wrong with that.
Tora Bora, yada yada... you figure the rest out.
In the context of this total goddamned disaster on the foreign policy front, George Walker Bush decided to divert US Military assets away from Afghanistan/Pakistan and instead use them to invade and occupy Iraq. The idea, apparently, is that if we sprinkle freedom dust on Iraq, there will be democracy and happiness throughout the world. Free Enterprise, bitches! Maybe the ISI will sign up for those nifty private investment accounts. Are you beginning to understand why all those Conservative Republican Generals have been badmouthing Bush and his neo-con pals to the Press? Nobody likes an incompetent Commander-in-Chief, especially when there are about 40 nuclear warheads in play.
Then there's the Katrina side. How's that Lower 9th Ward coming along? Yeah.
The Narrative
This is what I've been building up to. It's something that's been building up in me for awhile. Maybe it's been building in you too. What the fuck are we gonna do about it? Because it's goddamned evident that Hillary fucking Clinton isn't going to do anything about it. But what about those towers? The assholes that did this shit, regardless of where they got the money from or who put them up to it, they did it because they wanted to take those towers away from us. Why the hell are we letting them? Why haven't we rebuilt the towers? It's not as if no one has thought of that before, check these guys out. Every poll ever conducted shows that people want the towers rebuilt, why hasn't it happened? For the love of Buddy Christ, even The Donald wants to rebuild the Twin Towers. It's absurd, how are those who hold this view described as "a fringe group"? Bush cronyism, anyone? From David Shuster.
And then there is Governor George Pataki. Let's "follow the money." One of Governor Pataki's most prominent political and financial supporters is a man named Ron Lauder. (Lauder is an heir to the Estee Lauder cosmetics empire.) In the late 1990s, Lauder gave New York's Pataki controlled GOP more than $200,000. In 2002, Lauder reportedly gave Pataki's wife $40,000 in "consulting fees." In 2003, those "consulting fees" doubled. But back to 2002. According to New York's State Board of Elections: On September 26, 2002, Ron Lauder gave $30,000 to a campaign fundraising committee called "Friends of Pataki." On that same day, Sept. 26, 2002, "Friends of Pataki" received $28,000 from Lauder's wife. On that same day, Sept. 26, 2002, "Friends of Pataki" received $10,000 from Lauder's daughter.
September 26, 2002 was also the day that the Pataki controlled Lower Manhattan Development Corporation quietly narrowed down more than 400 entries in the WTC replacement "design contest" to seven semi-finalists. One of the semi finalists was a close friend of the Lauder family, an architect named Daniel Libeskind.
Did Governor Pataki, in exchange for the Lauder campaign contributions, pressure the LMDC to select a design by Lauder friend Daniel Libeskind?
Governor Pataki's office refused to comment and directed me to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. A spokesperson for the LMDC called the theories "bizarre" and said, "we went through an unprecedented worldwide selection process. Stories that suggest anything to the contrary are absurd." Regarding the engineering challenges, the LMDC spokesperson said, "we are working through the process."
None the less, several of my contacts and colleagues in New York say they still don't like the "smell" coming from the proposed Freedom Tower.
Unbefuckinglievable. But then again, what else would explain it. It's the same circus, different clowns. Are we going to let them get away with it? Think of it. If the Statue of Liberty was destroyed, would we replace it with a cheezy knockoff? Would we erect a Statue of Freedom? The Freedom Tower debacle isn't just stupid, it's outrageous. What are we going to do about it? Are we going to wait for Rahm Emmanuel to stand up and demand an explanation? That's never going to happen. And that's where the narrative comes in. It's all about the narrative. It's not about issues, it's not about ideology and it definitely isn't about slogans. It's about telling a story. From my favorite blogger.
I'm always reminded of the president's notorious Mission Accomplished speech on the aircraft carrier off San Diego. At the time, the Dems were complaining that he'd delayed the return of the sailors and airmen on the ship, that it was political and all the rest. But as long as he was riding high it was all just words in the wind. Needless to say, the event became an albatross that still hangs around the guy's neck.
That didn't change because anyone realized it was political when they hadn't realized it before. It changed because the 'victory' he was crowing over started to seem more and more like a failure. People will accept a lot from someone who delivers. But they're merciless when a leader fails.
Today, the record is really quite clear. Pretty much everything the president has done on the foreign front since 9/11 has been an abysmal failure. Even the things were legitimate successes early on, taking down the Taliban, for instance, have turned into failures.
If the president is politicizing 9/11, which he is, people who are open to seeing that, can see it already. And the way to focus attention on that is not to state the obvious. It is rather to point out the almost countless ways in which his record is one of failure. Where's bin Laden? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Is Iraq part of the problem or part of the solution in making the United States safer from terrorism? All these questions all but answer themselves. And all in ways profoundly damaging to the president. Start asking them. And stop whining.
Did you hear that? Stop whining. And stop apologizing for our crappy Party leadership. I'm talking to you Delaware Dem. There's more.
So Majority Leader John Boehner today wondered "whether Democrats are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people."
And this comes with a chorus of Democratic complaints about whether the president was politicizing 9/11 in his speech last night.
This might be a moment when everyone should look to their own senator or representative, look at how they're approaching this election fight and let them know if they're screwing up.
The response to all of this should be really simple. It might go something like this. "I wouldn't mind if the president were politicizing 9/11 so much if he hadn't failed so badly at rounding up the people responsible for it. The president pulled our troops out of Afghanistan for Iraq when they had Osama in their grasp and he's still at large 5 years later. And he's still pretending that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. People need to make a decision on November 7th. Is five years of failure enough? If people think President Bush is on the right course, they should vote Republican. If they think it's time for a change, they should vote Democratic."
It's that simple. Remember, the issue of politicization should be an afterthought. Failure is the issue.
Had enough?
You people should read Josh Marshall everyday. Listen to what he says. Are you tired of the fact that the New York City skyline has been without the Twin Towers for 5 years? Are you unhappy that New Orleans is not being rebuilt? Do you think the people who allowed New York and New Orleans, two of America's most important cities, to be trashed and did nothing about it should be held accountable? Have you had enough? Because apparently Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama don't think that. If they did, they'd come out and say it. But they don't. And that sends a message to voters. It says that we don't have a problem with this shit, and peer pressure is a very powerful thing. It will cause people, who should know better, to say things which are obviously false. Like, premarital sex is bad... or, parachute pants are wicked cool... or, Iraq is vital to US National Security. That's why we need a unifying narrative. That was the whole idea behind this insanely long diary, we need a simple, singular narrative. Let's take all the different stories of the last 5 years and merge them into one integrated narrative. Bush fucked up 9-11, because he's a stupid, stubborn, asshole. Bush fucked up Katrina, because he's a stupid, stubborn asshole. Bush isn't FDR, and he isn't Hitler either. Bush is General George Custer. That's how he should be portrayed. It's just that simple. Then you say all the things he should have done and didn't. Then you promise to do those things. And how about we start with pledging to do everything possible to stop the abomination that is the construction of Freedom Tower, and instead to begin immediately the reconstruction of the Twin Towers. Nothing would go further towards fighting terror. Nothing else would do more to end our national nightmare. How about it? What do you say? Do you want the towers back? Then you listen to me, and you listen carefully, because this your goddamned life I'm talking to you about today... Listen to me. Listen to me goddamnit. I want you to get up out of your chairs, I want to get up out of your chairs and sit your asses back down and post comments. I want to be wading knee deep in comments, thousands of them saying that I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE! I DON'T WANT GOP CRONIES DESECRATING LOWER MANHATTAN WITH THEIR CRAPPY FREEDOM TOWER, I DON'T WANT THE FRIENDS OF PATAKI GETTING THEIR QUID PRO QUO! I WANT THE TWIN TOWERS BACK. THOSE WERE OUR TOWERS, AND WE WANT THEM BACK GODDAMNIT! WE WANT THE TOWERS BACK!