Loose ends in the 9/11 Commission Report

[Adrian II]

This thread is meant as sort of an inventory.

A post in another thread got me thinking about the fact that '9/11 Truthers' somehow seem to have hijacked the American debate about the 9/11 Commission's Final Report. I wonder how members feel about the report, if they have read it at all, and if they think there are important loose ends in it that are still waiting to be covered.

[WARNING]
I know we have had some posts here in the past that drew attention to the conspiracy theories. I don't want them in my thread if I can help it. I don't even want to consider video's saying 'Look, it was a controlled demolition' or 'Look, George Bush is an alien'. As a baseline for this thread I propose that you accept that the 19 hijackers mentioned in the 9/11 report did it, that they did it on purpose, and that the American authorities did not intend it to happen. So if you feel that 9/11 was an 'inside job', that 'the Jews did it' or that CNN faked hours of footage, please GO. SOMEWHERE. ELSE.
[/WARNING]

Do you think that major, avoidable mistakes were made, either on 9/11 or in the Commission report? Was it a good decision of the Commission not to assign guilt or responsibility to persons or institutions? Did the Commission devote too little or too much attention to the 'blowback scenario'.

In short: What's your take on the 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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The official 'truth' only, please.

Sorry, no can do. History has proven there are too many cover-ups.

[Adrian II]

Sorry, no can do. History has proven there are too many cover-ups.

You are becoming a bit of a full-time troll, mon vieux. But you are forgiven for bringing up that masterpiece of YouTubism.



But - is it art?

[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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You are becoming a bit of a full-time troll, mon vieux.

I know, I know. It's terrible.


I just don't have the time to write anything substantial lately. However, I'm never gonna let you down, so here's an interesting report that you might want to check upon.

[Adrian II]

I know, I know. It's terrible.


I just don't have the time to write anything substantial lately. However, I'm never gonna let you down, so here's an interesting report that you might want to check upon.

Go.

Fornicate.

Yourself.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know, I know. It's terrible.


I just don't have the time to write anything substantial lately. However, I'm never gonna let you down, so here's an interesting report that you might want to check upon.

Damn it! First time ever.

I don't have anything constructive to add right now, I'll read up later.

[PanzerJaeger]

Has anyone asked Hillary if she feels Bill's reactions to the numerous attacks against Americans and their interests overseas during his years in office were sufficient?

More importantly, is she still pissed about that whole Monica Lewinsky thing? How does Chugly feel about it all??? ? ??

[Adrian II]

Damn it! First time ever.

I don't have anything constructive to add right now, I'll read up later.

Fortunately, I can do my own homework. I found some interesting footage of a panel discussion between two French terrorism experts.

[cegorach]

I know, I know. It's terrible.


I just don't have the time to write anything substantial lately. However, I'm never gonna let you down, so here's an interesting report that you might want to check upon.

I just love 1980s.









Hmm

Another useless post which adds nothing of any value to the thread.

[Adrian II]

Another useless post which adds nothing of any value to the thread.

Oh, apart from Vladimir's great starter this thread is gong nowhere, and you're not to blame.

We all know who is to blame.. right, Louis?

[Vladimir]

I just wish Gregoshi would have made a Loose Change pun from your Loose Ends title.

Maybe we could have had some action then!

Anybody interested in a three page action memo about 9/11 commission reforms? Hot off the presses.

[Adrian II]

Anybody interested in a three page action memo about 9/11 commission reforms? Hot off the presses.

Bring it on, mate, bring it on..

[cegorach]

We all know who is to blame.. right, Louis?

Yes, yes blame the French !

[Louis VI the Fat]

Fortunately, I can do my own homework. I found some interesting footage of a panel discussion between two French terrorism experts.

Yes, yes blame the French !

If you are getting desperate, you can always join the 318 people from 18 countries who are currently at:

www.prayforfrance.org

'Forty Days of Prayer to Change a Nation'

[Proletariat]

Ok, I did my praying. Where do I pick up my complimentary baguette?

[Don Corleone]

I'm going to resist the tempation to join in the wit and humor (mainly becuase I'm neither witty, nor humorous, at least not at the moment with a 9lb airhorn sleeping in my bedroom that goes off at 2 hour intervals throughout the night). She is mighty cute, however, so we're considering keeping her.

I think the 9/11 commission report was a complete snowjob, for both sides. Democrats and Republicans were united in a CYA the likes of which the world had never seen before. In reality, there were lots and lots of screwups made. The Clinton administration making it illegal to surveil known terrorists? Bush ignoring his intelligence briefing?

I like to think that at some level, the decision was made that laying blame could only hurt, not help, but those in serious dereliction quietly made ammends. And yet, here we are, with one of the two co-prime-culpables running for first gentleman.

I have little hope that the 9/11 report accomplished much other than a lot of free lunches for a lot of rich people, and yet one more comprehensive report on why we need more government intrusion in the lives of law-abiding citizens.

[Adrian II]

If you are getting desperate, you can always join the 318 people from 18 countries who are currently at:

www.prayforfrance.org

'Forty Days of Prayer to Change a Nation'

You know, that website is right.

France is poised for revival.

And it will be for a very, very, very, very long time. Hurrah!

[Vladimir]

I have little hope that the 9/11 report accomplished much other than a lot of free lunches for a lot of rich people, and yet one more comprehensive report on why we need more government intrusion in the lives of law-abiding citizens.

Maybe you should actually read the recommendations then. You're probably thinking of FISA which is different, bell-bottom wearing, issue.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/35800.pdf

This is why there are so few informed responses: Willful ignorance prevails.

[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.

[Adrian II]

I think the 9/11 Commission's decision not to apportion blame was a genuinely political decision, not some bi-partisan ploy to cover up criminal negligence or lack of judgement on the part of the President, his predecessor or any particular institution. If anyone has proof of any evil doings leading to this decision, I would be interested to hear it.

By taking this decision, the Commission created a great opportunity to address structural failure in the U.S. approach to terrorism, particularly wrong thinking - as opposed to wrong practice - about terrorism, its origins and its repercussions. The Commission then blew this opportunity in two ways.

1. It failed to properly investigate the modis operandi of the 9/11 attackers, and it admitted as much on page 172:

"To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."

Come again? It is one thing to state that the origin of the funds could not be established. It is quite another to state that this matter is of 'little practical significance', i.e. not worth pursuing.

2. The 'blowback' effect is explicitly touched upon in various hearings, but the Commission only mentions it implicitly, for instance with regard to the original U.S. financing of Al Qaeda (page 56) or the continuous U.S. support for successive Pakistani dictatorships. Yet there was enough reason to go beyond such opaque statements. Individuals have had the guts to do so, for instance Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 10, 2008:

“We were attacked from Afghanistan in 2001, and we are at war in Afghanistan today, in no small measure because of mistakes this government made -- mistakes I among others made in the end game of the anti-Soviet war there some 20 years ago.”

These two shortcomings may have been intentional or they may not have been intentional. I can't gauge the answer to that question from the Commission's texts or any other sources. In any case, these loose ends allowed the Commission to evade an important political question. Given the facts that the 19 perpetrators, their organisation and their finances mostly originated in Saudi Arabia, an American ally, and that they operated out of Afghanistan where the regime has been installed by Pakistan, another American ally, the Commission should have asked: What the hell is wrong with our foreign policy?

I don't think the answer would be quite as scoffing or as radical as Rory suggested. But a rethink couldn't hurt.

On the other hand, and despite the blind spots in the 9/11 report, I think the U.S. establishment has managed to send a clear message to the worlds' islamist terrorist handlers: this time round only Kabul was bombed, but if there will ever be a repeat of this sort of attack, then Karachi and Riyadh will be bombed. Maybe that explains why there has been no repeat up to to date. Don't ask me to prove it though.

P.S. It is interesting that the Cuban/Soviet conspiracy theory about the Kennedy murder is a variety on the blowback theme: Lee Harvey Oswald shooting Kennedy at the urging of Fidel Castro's agents in response to the Kennedy brothers' insane urge to have Castro assassinated.

[Vladimir]

Back...

Wedge. Read it if you want to know why there was a "cover up" of the JFK thing. As Adrian stated millions of lives and untold destruction were at risk; something which is worth more than one man's life. Oswald is also another reason why CIA doesn't "do" assinations anymore (we just use bigger, exploding bullets ). I also have it on good authority that Neither the Cubans or Russians were actively involved in the assination.

As far as US financing of terrorists: Look to the Soviets if you want to learn how a real superpower finances and trains them. America's election cycle policy decision making process was and will continue to be what leads to these sort of questions; not some ZOMG conspiracy by teh eval Bushies. Also Pakistan wasn't much of an ally. Our foreign policy in the 90's was poor to nonexistent and at best they were a counter to a Soviet/Russia friendly India. For Saudi Arabia it's important to note that we actually receive only a small percentage of our oil from them and it's still a global market.

Adrian if you think we were bad about tracing funding in the 9/11 comission, we'd make you sick now. Borderline subversive organizations like the New York Times compromising those collection efforts is only one concern. I'm not sure exactly why we don't do all we can to trace the money but it's a government wide problem. No doubt "larger concerns" like for JFK are factored into their decision not to agressively track terrorist finances. You cold think of it in medical terms: Should we amputate the arm or undergo multiple, expensive, and painful surgeries to get it working again?

[KukriKhan]

I like that analogy

You cold think of it in medical terms: Should we amputate the arm or undergo multiple, expensive, and painful surgeries to get it working again?

For me the fatal flaw in the Commission Report is that it doesn't state the obvious: Bush was POTUS, it happened on his watch, it's his failure. Period.

And he knows it. And his admin team knows it. I think that knowledge is what drove them to seek such extreme retaliatory measures - to be seen as forcefully doing something, anything, so as to side-step responsibility.

The Commission report blames a systemic failure, a series of small, seemingly unrelated bureaucratic snafu's. Leadership is about being able to over-ride such inevitable governmental chaos, and with clear vision, find, state and solve problems.

bin Laden still lives free. That is unacceptable. Unless, of course, he wasn't really responsible - but that gets into Adrian II's eschewed conspiracy-side stories, so I won't go there.