Crossposted at
The Next Agenda
If there is any question likely to start a pie fight on this site it is probably this one.
Who is responsible for 911?
Those of us who consider ourselves "reality based", logical, informed or even Republican would promptly answer "Osama bin Laden". He's the evil mastermind responsible for 911.
Some of us might parse this statement with observations on how countries will reap what they sow and thus America bears some responsibility for the attacks upon its soil.
Others among us may point to the anomalous behavior of persons in/of power on 911 and scratch their heads or offer one of many of what are known as conspiracy theories.
If you're ABC or Disney you'll say "Clinton", of course. ;o)
But I heard something today that gave me a really creepy feeling, the kind you would get when Rod Serling said "You have just entered the twilight zone."
So what was this momentous something?
Today Bush was giving another of his speeches. You know the kind. Today he admitted that well yes, there were secret prisons, but only because they were necessary to keep us safe. Nothing to see move along, right.
Admittedly it's not the sort of stufff you really bother listening to anymore because you know it's all lies and obfuscation anyway, so I wasn't really listening when I had it on.
But in the middle of all his whining exhortations, he said something that made my ears perk up.
Bush said they believed Osama bin Laden was responsible for 911.
Now on the surface, this doesn't sound all that earthshattering, does it?
Especially when the blogs are busy trying to stop ABC and Disney from rewriting history altogether and blaming Clinton for thinking more about his dick than running the country.
But what does such a statement mean for the Bushistas?
In the US, something like half the people polled think Saddam was involved in 911. This is hardly surprising given how they hard they tried to make the case that he was connected. Remember Mohammend Atta and Iraqi agents in Prague?
But Cheney came forward and declared they had never made the case. When you go back to the quotes you realize they left themselves wiggle room. It's their message amplifiers who make the connection. The administration suggests links, Rush solders them in place.
They're tricky like that.
So I've been thinking like everyone else about 911. I think about what we knew and when we knew it. I think about the stories that are told in the American media versus that in the Canadian or international media.
So when I hear Bush say he "believes" Osama is responsible, I hear wiggle room a mile wide. Bush also "believed" WMDs would be found in Iraq.
In America, it seems you can't be faulted for "believing" wrong things. Something to do with freedom of religion or something.
And consider the timing. Why is Bush softpeddling bin Laden as responsible now?
Pakistan has brokered a peace deal with the Taliban. If the Taliban promise not to cross the border and launch attacks into Afghanistan, the Pakistanis promise to stop watching the border where the Taliban have been launching attacks into Afghanistan.
If bin Laden promises to behave, they won't bother him either, says the initial report. Oh no, they will hand him over if they catch him the Pakistani ambassador to the US reassures Blitzer.
But considering Bush only seems interested in catching the innumerable No.2s of al Qaeda and never really thinks about bin Laden at all, how hard can we expect them to look for the man?
It has been five years after all.
So I asked myself, how do we know for sure that bin Laden is responsible for 911?
Here's a little piece from the Guardian on Sept 17, 2001:
The pressure on the US administration to exact revenge was underlined by a public opinion poll which showed that 84% of Americans supported military retaliation. Two-thirds of them would support it "even if it means many thousands of innocent civilians may be killed".
As call-up plans for at least 35,000 reservists were finalised yesterday, the task of planning the US military response shifted to Tampa, Florida, the headquarters of the Pentagon's central command (Centcom), which is responsible for actions in the Middle East, south and central Asia.
The Centcom commander, General Tommy Franks, has at his disposal a range of special forces and two navy battle groups equipped with 900 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's ambassador to the US, sought permission from the United Nations to allow the delegation to go to Afghanistan, which is subject to UN sanctions. The UN will have no hesitation in granting it.
She said: "We will be urging the Taliban leadership to accede to the demand of the international community...to hand over the person that they are harbouring, Osama bin Laden, so that he is brought to justice."
General Mehmoud Ahmed, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency, who has just returned from Washington, set off last night for the Taliban's headquarters in Kandahar with the official delegation.
But the US-Pakistan move appears doomed. The Taliban leader, Mohammed Omar, who convened a meeting of his inner-circle to discuss options, vowed he would not hand over Bin Laden for trial in the US.
The Taliban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, when asked how the Taliban would react to a US strike, said: "On the issue of Osama bin Laden, there has been no shift in our stand. We maintain our old position. We are responsible for the security of all those living in our country."
Bin Laden has fled Kandahar, the Taliban headquarters, along with his large family and supporters, mainly Arabs, according to Pakistani sources. He issued a further denial of responsibility yesterday. "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation," he said.
The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, expressed his conviction that Bin Laden was behind it: "I have no doubt that he and his organisation played a significant role in this. We are quite confident that he is the prime suspect."
Even if the Taliban was to hand him over, that is unlikely to prevent military action. The best the Taliban could hope for is the US focusing solely on Bin Laden's bases and leaving the Taliban forces alone.
The US president, George Bush, speaking in Washington yesterday said the campaign would not be over soon: "The American people understand that this crusade is going to take some time".
So I did a little googling. And I found some disturbing things. Some I had known, but forgotten. Some were new to me.
The tape that clinched it was one delivered in November 2001. This was the tape that many consider had a fake bin Laden.
Do you remember that?
It was after the bombing of Afghanistan and many thought he was already dead.
I recall the media discussing and comparing bin Laden photos, but the details were fuzzy in my head. So much disinformation, so little time.
But it seems that after that tape, Osama bin Laden was the one responsible for 911.
Apparently the Germans disagreed with the translation the US put up of this tape they discovered in a home in Jalalabad. They didn't think bin Laden said what the US claimed about knowing the details of the attack beforehand.
The other thing I found out is that while Osama bin Laden was on the FBI most wanted list, it was not because of 911. The tape became all the proof the media needed to hold bin Laden responsible for 911, but not the FBI. They didn't find the proof conclusive.
So I went to the FBI site today. Here is what it says today:
USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
I'm sure you recall that there have been a few terrorist attacks in the world since 911.
But they still don't single him out for 911.
So we're all outraged that Bush went into Iraq because he believed Saddam had WMDs. Of course we know that was a ruse. And we are appalled that he offers as an excuse that the world is better off anyway without Saddam and his thugs of sons running the country.
But what about Afghanistan?
Many of us see this as a different kind of war because we too believe Osama bin Laden was responsible for planning the 911 attacks. And even if there has been untold death and destruction in the country, the world is a better place without the Taliban running Afghanistan.
But what if our belief, like Bush's, is wrong?
What does this say about the mission?
What about our own responsibility for the carnage?