Loose ends in the 9/11 Commission Report

[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.

[Adrian II]

Back...

Good. Interesting views, bro. Your insights surprise me every time.

Wedge is on my buying list as of now.

I have heard many stories about FBI/CIA rivalry, but never seen it treated in systematic fashion, let alone pinpointed as a systemic failure in US national security. Interesting stuff. Though I am somewhat wary of American authors projecting highly idealised visions onto their political apparatus and then finding it wanting on all counts. The flipside of American optimism and can-do mentality is a refusal to accept certain inherent shortcomings of government. The main shortcoming in this instance being bureaucracy. I fail to see how a democratic country with the size, economic weight and military prowess of the of U.S. could improve its institutions in such a way that lapses like JFK or 9/11 can ever be prevented. People who think so live in Lalaland and should never get their hands on any policy buttons.

On the JFK thing, I think it is obvious that nearly all parties concerned felt that thay had something to hide. Hence the Warren Commission's shortcomings. This started at the local level. Dallas was a total zoo, let's be honest. The locals couldn't get anything right and there was a huge potential for conspiracy against the President's life there, even among the police force itself. Kennedy knew this when he told Jackie: "We're going to fruitcake city." In the words of former FBI agent James Hosty who was tasked with observing potential right-wing risks:

Believe me, believe me, there were a lot of nuts in Dallas. You may quote me on that. If we had picked up and watched everybody who had reason or wanted to kill Kennedy, we would've had to hire half the people in Dallas to watch the other half. It was a hotbed of right-wing extremists, and there was all sorts of murder-mouthing going on all around Dallas.

Then there were the FBI, the CIA, military intelligence and the Secret Service who were all deeply embarrassed because they should have had Oswald in their sights.

But I beg to differ with you that this bureaucratic rivalry would explain the Warren Commission cover-up. I believe that the powers that be - Johnson, Hoover, Helms, Angleton, even Robert Kennedy, and of course Warren and his commission - worked together to prevent any Cuban/Soviet leads from becoming public and causing an incontrollable international situation. In order to do this, they had to blame Oswald and no one else. I believe that none of them knew what had really happened, that is why they were afraid to pursue those leads, and that is why they overcame their traditional rivalries in that particular situation.

Whether the Cubans or the Soviets indeed set up Oswald or even send a second shooter to back him up, I have no idea whatsoever. I find that theory the most plausible of all because (a) it is backed up by serious documents and statements, and (b) it explains all of the major hullabaloo surrounding the murder, and this in accordance with Occam's razor.

But plausibility does not equal proof, and any opponent might rightfuly add that 'You, Adrian II, are no Earl Warren.'

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.

Whether the U.S. receives major barrelage from Saudi Arabia is not the crux, the control of the flow of oil is the crux. Just ask the Chinese...

Since WWII Iran and Saudi Arabia were the twin pillars of U.S. control over Middle Eastern oil. Iran was 'lost' in 1979, Saudi Arabia is on the verge of being lost since 2001. Against this background the destruction of the Twin Towers by mostly Saudi terrorists was doubly symbolic.