Loose ends in the 9/11 Commission Report

[Vladimir]

Hindsight is 20/20 my friend, so there were no mistakes.

To be pedantic no mistakes were made on 9/11, unfortunately almost everything went according to plan. On the report itself; I think it is pretty damn good. This won't satisfy people's bloodlust but as far as one of these bipartisan, blue ribbon, old white guy conventions go it was pretty good. More mistakes were made before and after Pearl Harbor than 9/11. I say that the lack of blame gives it more credibility.

The attack was unprecedented and in an era which was said to have witnessed "the end of history." Some are too shocked to believe it and if they don't have God to blame a large conspiracy will do. A large, seemingly omnipotent earthly power works too.

Judging by how quickly we knew the details of the attack we know that the system did work; the problem was the system itself. If terrorism is a law enforcement matter then the system was successful. Once the crime was committed we were able to determine those who were involved. The problem was national, both institutional and cultural.

If blame must be placed it would rest mostly on actions conducted during the Clinton administration. This isn't to blame that administration for the attacks as they were operating in the accepted paradigm. I find it amusing that similar attention isn't paid to the '93 WTC bombing which could have caused a far greater number of casualties then 9-11. Was the Bush administration to blame? Yes in a way. Attacks against American symbols abroad were growing in scale and we had largely withdrawn from the world again. To me and many others the signs were clear as to where they would strike if they could. But our oceans will protect us, right?

The mistake that was made was to think that everyone wants what we want, peace and prosperity.

[Geoffrey S]

The mistake that was made was to think that everyone wants what we want, peace and prosperity.

A) peace and prosperity for the west.
B) define peace and prosperity.

[Adrian II]

Vlad, since this is virtually between you, Don Corleone and me anyway, I thought I'd put in my two cents.

If terrorism is a law enforcement matter then the system was successful. Once the crime was committed we were able to determine those who were involved.

In this respect the report is far superior to many previous ones, for instance the Warren Commission report.

Practically nobody believes anymore that the murder of JFK was perpetrated by a lone Commie whom hated his Mom and took it out on the President with a $12 rifle. The FBI destroyed lots of essential evidence, the Warren Commission didn't even look at half of what remained, and the result has been that the conspiracy buffs managed to turn themselves into an industry.

I believe that there was no major cover-up of a government murder conspiracy in 1963, just as there has been none in 2004. But in 1963 there certainly was a cover-up of all the leads that indicated a conspiracy (i.e. two or more persons) as well as all indications of the involvement of Oswald and other main characters with the FBI, the CIA, and all sorts of right-wing riff-raff. Even Jack Ruby worked for the FBI, as J. Edgar Hoover later had to admit.

I think the reason for that cover-up was that the Washington establishment feared either internal or international ramifications that it would be unable to control. The lone assassin was a political expediency, as was the magic bullet and all the other nonsense. I think this is clear from many documents and interviews of the period, as well as records. For instance the famous telephone conversation between Lyndon Johnson and senator Richard Russell, which illustrates how convincingly Johnson could work that phone if he put his back in it, and also how concerned he was that everyone should work to posthumously convict Oswald, close the case and get this thing behind them.

This time round the conspiracy nuts haven't a leg to stand on. A large part of the American public seems to agree with Don Corleone that the 9/11 report is a political whitewash, but they do not agree that it is a criminal whitewash of some sort of government conspiracy. This time round, we know who dunnit.

[rory_20_uk]

But so a cover up was done as telling the truth might be embarrassing and uncontrollable... But were the people in charge that to leave such a vacuum has meant that there is no reposte to any and every theory?

So, we know that the truth must have been viewed as worse than the government being complicit in a cover up. What could be that bad?

In the case of the modern event I feel that the actions prior to the day were the problem, namely the monstrous arrogance of the USA that the entire world appreciates their ham fisted and usually myopic attempts to sort out problems that are not as simple as their leaders hope.

[Adrian II]

But so a cover up was done as telling the truth might be embarrassing and uncontrollable... But were the people in charge that to leave such a vacuum has meant that there is no reposte to any and every theory?

Frankly, I believe I don't understand the above.

So, we know that the truth must have been viewed as worse than the government being complicit in a cover up. What could be that bad?

Well, the involvement of Castro or even, as Lyndon Johnson indicates in the course of that phonecall, the involvement of the Russians. Johnson said he'd rather not wait for the day when Khrustchev would be forced to go on tv to explain whether or not he had killed the President of the United States, as the right-wing idiots in Dallas were clamouring.

You have to remember that Johnson had just been sworn in and that he had been immediately advised, as was customary, of the ins and outs of a certain briefcase and all that it implied, including the death of 40 million Americans in the first round of a nuclear exchange. That was the going estimate at the time and that was the number he mentioned to Russell. I really admire that SOB by the way for his inimitable capacity to strike deals; he would have able to get the Devil to work for him if he wanted to.

"Now, of course you don't like Earl Warren.. but you'll like him before this is over with."

In the case of the modern event I feel that the actions prior to the day were the problem, namely the monstrous arrogance of the USA that the entire world appreciates their ham fisted and usually myopic attempts to sort out problems that are not as simple as their leaders hope.

This phenomenon is known as 'blowback' and it was dealt with extensively in the 9/11 Commission report. I guess Vladimir is right that the contents of that report are, shall we say, little known...

There would of course have been international ramifications to the 9/11 investigation if the hijackers had turned out to be foreign agents. Hence, that lead was not exactly pursued with great vigour by the 9/11 Commission. But there is no doubt in my mind that the 19 gentlemen mentioned were the perpatrators and that their attack was a complete surprise to the American security establishment.

[Don Corleone]

But so a cover up was done as telling the truth might be embarrassing and uncontrollable... But were the people in charge that to leave such a vacuum has meant that there is no reposte to any and every theory?

So, we know that the truth must have been viewed as worse than the government being complicit in a cover up. What could be that bad?

In the case of the modern event I feel that the actions prior to the day were the problem, namely the monstrous arrogance of the USA that the entire world appreciates their ham fisted and usually myopic attempts to sort out problems that are not as simple as their leaders hope.

If you're talking about 9/11, and not the JFK assasination, (or actually, I'd argue, even if you are), there's a very subtle fallacy hidden in your above assertion. You say "so we know that the truth must have been viewed as worse than the government being complicit in a cover up. What could be that bad?" Here in lies the fallacy.

People cover things up all the time. It's almost reached the axiomatic level that the cover-up winds up being worse than the truth. I don't think the members of the 9/11 comission said "Well, even if we get caught lying, that's still better than the truth coming to light". I think there's always a certain arrogance in public office, that somehow, they can control the flow of information. The cover up is to save people from a small amount of harm, and those engaged in the cover up don't look at it as "a known lie is better than the public knowing the truth", they look at it as "well, if they buy it, we can spare ourselves some needless pain that doesn't impact the story anyway".

So you wind up with:

-The 9/11 commission ignorning inexcusable lapses of judgement by senior members of both political parties. (Nobody says that admitting this means that the US government was actually involved, just that they were irresponsible).

-Gary Condit denying he ever had a relationship with Chandra Levy (Admitting the relationship in no way meant he was actually the murderer, just that he was guilty of some really bad judgement).

And so on, and so on.

And Vlad, we're looking at this two different ways. You're looking at it from the point of view of "steps will be taken to lessen the likelihood of this occurring in the future". I'm looking at it from the point of view of anyone with clear culpability through negligence or incompetence, not actual involvement in the 9/11 plot, ought to be held accountable. The 9/11 commission report completely ducks that question, and therefore, IMHO, was a coverup. As Adrian rightly specified, a political coverup, not a criminal one.

But dammit, I'm really, really pissed that 3000 people died, and Bill Clinton never had to say "Gee, maybe I should have allowed surveilance of guys on Interpol's watchlist" and W never had to say "Guess those intelligence reports are worth reading after all, sorry". Nope. The two of them get to pretend that there wasn't a thing in the world they could have done to have lessened the likelihood of the event, which is patently false. Sure, even with perfect security measures in place, 9/11 may still have happened. But that fact doesn't excuse those who didn't do what they could have.

[drone]

I'm looking at it from the point of view of anyone with clear culpability through negligence or incompetence, not actual involvement in the 9/11 plot, ought to be held accountable. The 9/11 commission report completely ducks that question, and therefore, IMHO, was a coverup. As Adrian rightly specified, a political coverup, not a criminal one.

Wasn't the point of the report to spread the blame so far and wide that no one person or agency would share the brunt of it? I'm surprised it didn't get down to the level of "the terrorists went to Yellowstone and fed some bears, so the US Park Service has some culpability."

[Don Corleone]

Wasn't the point of the report to spread the blame so far and wide that no one person or agency would share the brunt of it? I'm surprised it didn't get down to the level of "the terrorists went to Yellowstone and fed some bears, so the US Park Service has some culpability."

Fair enough. But there are responsible parties, and then there are responsible parties. When you make a laundry list of 1000 people and declare them all to be equally responsible, it's the same as saying nobody is.

[drone]

Fair enough. But there are responsible parties, and then there are responsible parties. When you make a laundry list of 1000 people and declare them all to be equally responsible, it's the same as saying nobody is.

In a massive bureaucracy with conflicting jurisdictions, this is a fairly trivial task. Such-and-such policy was implemented by department X, based on flawed info from agency Y, and improperly enforced by bureau Z. Do this enough, and everyone's rear end is covered, at least enough to get hammered.