Joe 6 Pack's Elegant Coincidence Theory Blog

Commentary: criticism of how 9-11 happened; criticism of how the Bush administration responded to 9-11; and criticism of how the Bush administration is still avoiding efforts to provide the public with the whole truth about September 11, 2001.

Saturday, January 31, 2004

What If...

... Dubya really had done his job?

... anyone who studies the record with any care will know that there were any number of moments when it would have been possible for a more alert administration to intervene in such a fashion as to interfere and quite possibly thwart the hijackers’ purposes. Here are just a few:

  • What if Bush's National Security Agency had translated on Sept. 10, 2001 - instead of Sept. 12 - disturbing Arabic intercepts that referred to phrases "tomorrow is the zero hour" and "the match is about to begin"?

  • What if the FBI had acted on the Phoenix memo and aggressively investigated — and arrested potential terrorists and illegal aliens who were taking flight lessons for the purpose of hijacking?

  • What if the CIA had received and acted upon the Minneapolis memo, and combined with the FBI to apply its vast knowledge of al Qaeda operations to break up the U.S.-based network of fliers?

  • What if the FBI and CIA had not mysteriously decided to drop their investigations of the whereabouts of hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar who, following their return from an al Qaeda planning meeting, continued live and work under their own names in San Diego?

  • What if Bush and Cheney had seized upon the recommendations of the Hart/Rudman Commission rather ignoring - and pretending to review - them?

  • What if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had agreed to the Senate and House Armed Services committee’s request to reprogram $800 million from missile defense to terrorism protection?

  • What if Bush’s National Security Council had carefully studied the evolution of terrorist threats: to hide bombs on 12 U.S.-bound airliners and crash an explosive-laden airline into the CIA; to crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, CIA or the White House; and crash a plane into the Eiffel Tower or to the Genoan castle where Western leaders met in spring 2001?

  • What if the same NSC had taken seriously the recommendations of Clinton counterterrorism chief Richard C. Clarke to institute an aggressive program in order to: attack the financial network that supported the terrorists, freezing its assets and exposing its phony charities, and arrest their personnel; offer help to such disparate nations as Uzbekistan, the Philippines and Yemen to combat al Qaeda forces; increase U.S. support for the Northern Alliance in their fight to overthrow the Taliban’s repressive regime; and institute special operations inside Afghanistan and bombing strikes against terrorist training camps?

  • What if the Bush Treasury Department had taken a less indulgent view of the kind of money-laundering operations that support terrorist networks and worked with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to try to curb it?

  • What if Secretary Rumsfeld had green-lighted the use of the CIA’s Predator surveillance plane over Osama bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan, armed with Hellfire missiles?

  • What if Attorney General John Ashcroft had taken the initiative in speeding up the FBI request to add 149 field agents, 200 analysts and 54 translators to its counterterrorism effort, instead of vetoing it entirely to focus on his higher priorities?

  • What if Attorney General Ashcroft, instead of simply deciding not to fly commercial like the rest of us, persuaded the administration to institute an emergency program to improve airport security to prevent hijackers from reaching their targeted weapons?’

The administration and its allies rule all such questions out of order, going to extraordinary lengths to ensure they don’t enjoy any political traction. When the issue was first raised, back in 2002, Vice President Cheney termed all suggestions "incendiary," and "thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war," Even the usually apolitical Laura Bush got into the act by calling the questions about what the administration might have done as an attempt to “prey upon the emotions of people." But Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), former chairman of the Senate intelligence panel and co-chairman of the inquiry, had a different answer. "The attacks of Sept. 11 could have been prevented if the right combination of skill, cooperation, creativity and some good luck had been brought to task."

And because of the success of the administration’s efforts to keep the commission from getting at truth—as well as a decided incuriosity on the part of the mass media, it’s likely we will never know. Apparently, that would suit the Bush administration just fine.

Tuesday, January 27, 2004

Certainly 9-11 Could Have Been Prevented... IF A Number Of Federal Agencies Had Only Followed Standard Procedures

Kevin Hayden @ the Street tips us off to a recent article reporting that the 9-11 attack probably wouldn't have happened IF several agencies had followed standard procedures.

Several commissioners at the hearing noted a lack of coordination and inadequate intelligence sharing between federal agencies before the attacks, which may have made it easier for the men to enter the United States.

Commissioner Slade Gorton, a former U.S. senator, questioned whether the government's improvements since Sept. 11 would be sufficient to avert that kind of attack today.

A second statement from commission staff, read out by executive director Philip Zelikow, said, "... this story is not just about the past. We wonder whether the management of transnational intelligence operations has adapted enough to cope with the challenge of the war on terrorism."

Saturday, January 24, 2004

Conspiracies & Conspiracy Theories

Our compatriot David Neiwert over at Orcinus provides some insights about these terms we hear so many Reptilican conservatards using these days, which is notable owing to their normally constrained vocabularies.

He's also posted an accompanying discussion that explains how conspiracy theories are generated. Fascinating reading!

Here's just an inkling of an excerpt from the Orcinus article:

It is worth recalling, of course, that many of the Clinton conspiracy theories were in fact promoted by such mainstream conservative organs as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times and The American Spectator.

They came to encompass nearly every smear that was directed at Clinton, including the phony Gennifer Flowers and "black love child" tales. Interestingly, many conservatives raised these smears in conjunction with Clinton's impeachment trial, which revolved not around any alleged conspiracy but his private sexual conduct.

Now, with George W. Bush - whose father was almost certainly a participant in Iran-Contra and a likely participant in the October Surprise cases - in the Oval Office, Republicans are eager to dismiss as mere conspiracism serious questions about the kind of crony capitalism and abuse of the national-security apparatus not only was rampant in the first Bush administration but is a self-evident hallmark of Bush II.

Make no mistake: There have in fact been a significant number of conspiracy theories swirling around Bush's presidency, particularly regarding the 9/11 attacks (see Berlet's excellent summary of these) as well as the war in Iraq (notably the contention that the invasion was primarily about obtaining control of the oil fields for Bush's industry buddies). Most of these originate on the far left, though they also have enjoyed a certain level of circulation on the far right aswell.

However, mainstream liberals who have attacked, for instance, the involvement of the neoconservative Project for a New American Century in the invasion plans have likewise been dismissed, by such conservative luminaries as the New York Times' David Brooks, as not only conspiracy theorists but likely anti-Semites as well. This is, as I say, an easy smear.

same tactic is being directed at Kevin Phillips, himself a former Republican and a widely esteemed truth-teller and political analyst. The accusation is being hurled not only because American Dynasty tackles such subjects as the October Surprise and the Bush family's Nazi dealings, but due to its larger themes of confronting the danger posed by the confluence of dynastic wealth, corporatism and political power.

Yet as Jonathan Yardley notes in his Washington Post review, Phillips in fact has taken great pains to avoid the pitfalls of conspiracism. In his introduction, he writes:
We must be cautious here not to transmute commercial relationships into a latter-day conspiracy theory, a trransformation that epitomizes what historian Richard Hofstadter years ago called the "paranoid streak" in American politics. ... On the other hand, worries about conspiracy thinking should not inhibit inquiries in a way that blocks sober examination, which often more properly identifies some kind of elite behavior familiar to sociologists and political scientists alike.

Of course, what is really remarkable about this is the way the same people who accuse Phillips of conspiracism have themselves trafficked in outrageous conspiracy theories over the years, particularly those aimed at liberals and Bill Clinton in particular. But then, Hofstadter also rather keenly observed that projection is a common trait of the American right, along with its paranoia.

Friday, January 16, 2004

Family members of 9-11 victims are STILL PISSED about the panel set up to investigate why the Bush administration completely fucked up 9-11

-- The panel set up to investigate why the United States failed to prevent the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, faced angry questions Thursday after revelations that two of its own senior officials were so closely involved in the events under investigation that they have been interviewed as part of the inquiry.

A spokesperson for relatives of the 9-11 victims surmises:

"We want the whole issue of who has access to the briefings revisited," said (9-11 widow) Breitweizer, "the entire commission has to have access to them."

A delegation of relatives traveled to Washington Thursday for an evening meeting with commission staff, which was expected to be stormy.

Philip Zelikow, the commission's executive director, worked on the Bush-Cheney transition team as the new administration took power, advising his longtime associate and former boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, on the incoming National Security Council. He also has ongoing ties with Karl Rove, so I believe there IS cause for concern about the partisan nature of the commission's findings, and it's NO coincidence that the only two panel members who have the fullest access to ALL of the evidence happen to be either Karl Rove's pals or a senior level staffer of former AG Janet Reno's office who hasn't any qualms about Zelikow's role on the commission or the fact that evidence is NOT accessible equally to ALL commissioners. WTF is the point of this commission anyways if it isn't full disclosure?

Thursday, January 15, 2004

There are several archived resources on the topic of your popular belief (at least amongst Americans) in the 'official' White House account, which is merely a coincidence explanation for simple public consumption. It's neither complete nor providing full disclosure on the matter, and its' authors are continually facing matters concerning their integrity on a variety of other issues. Do YOU believe in coincidence theories?

Note: Henceforth, MOST items directly regarding 9-11 shall now be posted at this site you're visiting presently. Joe6Packs also maintains the Fog of War blog and the latest one covering everything else generally... over here. Have a look about!

Monday, January 12, 2004

I intend to devote the Elegant blog to the matter of 9-11 and the subsequent investigation and events directly related to it. Contrary to some wishful thinking conservatards, this issue will not just disappear anytime soon. Look to the Joe6Pack's Elegant blog for continuing updates which shall all be archived here, along with links to pertinent news articles and online resources about the truth of 9-11 rather than just the 'coincidence theory' you've been inculcated constantly with via your mainstream media. Take the 9-11 Visibility Project for instance. Here's a growing movement that's dedicated to learning the truth about 9-11. It may even interest you. Who knows?

Friday, January 09, 2004

I do hope you'll visit my new blog location while you're by!

Thursday, January 08, 2004

Joe 6 Packs' NEW home.