Where is the good faith?

[noise]

1. Nobody held accountable.

2. Increased intel community funding.

3. Increased intel community powers.

4. Investigations that seemed primarily concerned with CYA. Evidence required to understand what happened has been classified.

5. Clamp down on civil liberties.

Why would anyone be considered a "conspiracy nut" for questioning the good faith conduct of US government officials?

[PatrickSMcNally]

1. 'Why would anyone be considered a "conspiracy nut" for questioning the good faith conduct of US'

Chomsky would certainly fit the description of someone who questions the good faith conduct of US officials. Whatever the potential validity of some version of a conspiratorial view of 911, such a conspiratorial paradigm explicitly calls for more than simply questioning the good faith conduct of US officials on 911. To speak of "good faith conduct" by US officials implies that Bush was seriously concerned with investigating 911 when he charged that Saddam Hussein had masterminded it. Obviously Bush did not act in good faith on this point. Perhaps eventually, after the matter has moved far enough into history for people to examine it dispassionately, and perhaps after more documents have been released without being sent to the shredder, a version of an insiders's conspiracy job on 911 will eventually be vindicated. But even then one will have to distinguish this issue clearly from arguing about the good faith conduct of the Bush administration. There's no question that the Bush administration acted in bad faith from start to finish. But that is not enough to constitute evidence of high-level conspiracy as the root cause of 911. Something more will have to argued for on the basis of real evidence. Otherwise, one may just as well stick with Chomsky's general picture of 911.

[petgoat]

2. The real evidence is in Paul Thompson's Timeline--all from mainstream news sources.

The Taleban was warned in the summer of 2001 that if they
didn't give in on the pipeline, they'd be invaded before the
snow fell.

They were invaded before the snow fell.

I'm not going to go through the whole list. You and Chomsky need
to learn a few facts before you blithely assume there's no evidence.

BTW, Kevin Barrett IMHO deliberately pissed off Noam Chomsky to
make sure he keeps clear from 9/11 Truth. Barrett is NOT one of
us.

[PatrickSMcNally]

3. "Taleban was warned in the summer of 2001 that ..."

That story came from Niaz Naik, a Pakistani diplomat. Naik also asserted that Uzbekistan was to participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby to aid the invasion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2002/0816salon.htm

Obviously there's no evidence to support that. If anything, Russia has grown concerned about military operations beneath its southern border and there's no evidence that Russia played any role in the invasion of Afghanistan that actually occurred in 2001. Naik's story is very clearly an exaggeration. Ahmed Rashid has argued that Naik was trying to exert pressure within the Pakistani government and so deliberately exaggerated. That at least is consistent with the fact that we have no reason to believe that 17,000 Russian troops were standing by to aid the invasion of Afghanistan. Given the clear exaggerations and the plausible motives for Naik as someone trying to push the Pakistani government to break its ties with the Taliban, the whole story seems doubtful. Even according to Naik's version of the story taken on faith, the conditions required had nothing to do with a pipeline but were rather demands that Bin Laden be turned over. Of course, there hasn't been any indication of a pipeline being set up in Afghanistan.

Regardless of that, however, it has no bearing on the original point which you had claimed to be responding to. Maybe someone will eventually find some corroborating evidence to support Naik's assertion and maybe not. But either way, we know that the Bush administration was not acting with "good faith" when they tried to pin the blame for 911 on Saddam Hussein. However arguments about the "good faith" of the Bush administration are a strawman as far any claims for a conspiracy are concerned. To substantiate a conspiracy you need more precise arguments than simply the fact that the Bush administration acted in bad faith. Your citation of Naik's story is indicative of exactly the errors one must be cautious of the moment we step beyond charging the Bush administration with bad faith and attempt to construct a conspiracy theory.

[Realityhack]

5. Petgoat.... You might want to re-think your position if it...

involves telling Chomsky to leart the facts.

Obviously Chomsky doesn't know everything and is wrong on some things... but he is a shitload smarter and more knowledgeable about most things than you are.

[petgoat]

6. Obviously Chomsky doesn't know shit about 9/11, and Barrett acted to ensure he never will nt

[MNReformer]

7. Right. And, so the story goes, they offered to hand off "bin Laden"

and were turned down.

[petgoat]

8. Here's the writeup on that from Paul Thompon's timeline.

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?topics=on&dosearch=on&projects=on&articles=on&descriptions=on&titles=on&searchtext=bin%20laden&entities=on&timelines=on&events=on&search=Go&startpos=400

Late September-Early October 2001: Bin Laden Reportedly Agrees to Face International Tribunal; US Not Interested?


Leaders of Pakistan’s two Islamic parties are negotiating bin Laden’s extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for the 9/11 attacks during this period, according to a later Mirror article. Under the plan, bin Laden will be held under house arrest in Peshawar and will face an international tribunal, which will decide whether to try him or hand him over to the US. According to reports in Pakistan (and the Daily Telegraph ), this plan has been approved by both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

Based on the first priority in the US’s new “war on terror” proclaimed by President Bush, the US presumably would welcome this plan. For example, Bush had just announced, “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’”

Yet, Bush’s ally in the war on terror, Pakistani President Musharraf, rejects the plan (stating that his reason for doing so was because he “could not guarantee bin Laden’s safety”). Based on a US official’s later statements, it appears that the US did not want the deal: “Casting our objectives too narrowly” risked “a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr. bin Laden was captured.”

[PatrickSMcNally]

9. "Bin Laden Reportedly Agrees to Face International Tribunal; US Not Interested?"

Well that much is perfectly believable. There's no question that Washington was determined to squeeze everything possible out of 911 once it had occurred, and that plans for the PATRIOT Act had been in the making since at least the mid-nineties; Bush had been talking from the early days of his administration about invading Iraq; and so on. It's perfectly plausible that some opportunties for getting Bin Laden through backdoor diplomacy may have deliberately shunned aside. All of that, however, is logically distinct from the debate over whether or not 911 was actually planned as an incipient operation by anyone in Washington, or whether they merely took good advantage of it. If any serious case is ever going to be made for the former possibilty, then one does need to clearly distinguish it from the latter case.

[petgoat]

10. Your caution is to be commended.

I was slow to get from negligence to LIHOP to MIHOP myself.

Here are some of the points that give comfort to CIA/al Qaeda complicity


Joint CIA/Saudi funding of al Qaeda. Estimates of support go as high as
$40 billion over the years.

Clinton ordered Osama killed. The CIA hired mercenaries who dragged their
feet. When Clinton wanted cruise missiles fired at the al Qaeda camps,
the NAVY demanded ten hours lead time. Sandy Berger wanted commando
raids on the al Qaeda camps. The Secy of Defense and the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs opposed them.

Osama meets with CIA agent Larry Mitchell two months before 9/11 in the
American Hospital in Dubai. Also meeting with Osama is Prince Turki al
Faisal, who will later be ambassador to the USA.

Prince Abdullah of Jordan offers 2000 men to go after al Qaeda in
Afghanistan in the summer of 2001. The US turns him down.

The night before 9/11, Osama checks into the Pakistani military hospital
at Rawalpindi, ostensibly for dialysis. Rawalpindi is 6 km from the capital,
Islamabad. It's where the airport is. It's filthy with US miltary advisors.
If Osama wanted dialyss, he could have got it in the mountains in Peshawar.
When 9/11 happens, nobody knows what happened to Osama.

Al Qaeda is allowed to leave Kabul in a night-time convoy with headlights
blazing. They drive to Jalalabad. Later they are allowed to convoy from
Jalalabad to Tora Bora. At Tora Bora, only 36 US soldiers are assigned.
Osama and 1600 al Qaeda fighters walk out into Pakistan.

4000 al Qaeda and Taleban fighters are allowed to airlift out of Kunduz
into Pakistan.

Bush says he's not interested in getting bin Laden. Porter Goss says he
has an excellent idea where Osama is, but sovereignty issues prevent him
from doing anything.

[AZCat]

11. I thought you didn't think "Osama and the boys" did it.

That's the confusing thing about CTers - the unbelievable disconnect. You'll cleave to any evidence or hypothesis as long as it supports your primary claim - that the U.S. government was complicit. Fucking pathetic - that's what it is.

[petgoat]

12. I cleave to the facts. I don't know who did it, and proving this theory or that is not the point.

Getting an honest investigation is the point. One that considers all
the facts.

I do tend to find the controlled demolition hypothesis more consistent
with the facts than the government's story. But I'm not wedded to
any theory. In the future when the question of my adherence to the truth
movement comes up at a job interview or a waterboarding session or an
evening with the new girlfriend's parents I can say that I was after
new investigations simply on these two principles:

1. It's not right that the Jersey widows can't get 91% of their questions
answered

2. Even if every single conspiracy turns out to be dead wrong, it was still
our duty as citizens not to settle for the sham investigations and whitewashes
the officials gave us.

[noise]

15. How about the notion that

questioning the government makes one an al Qaeda sympathizer or an unpatriotic conspiracy nut. This sort of authoritarianism has led some Americans to cheerlead for torture. Dissent=terrorism.

I've noticed such views on some debunking sites.

Have these people been paying attention? Do they truly believe the Bush administration has acted in good faith? Do they truly believe they have to unconditionally support the government?

[AZCat]

17. Anybody who promotes such a notion can go fuck himself.

I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't think much of conspiracy theories, but my problem is with the poor or nonexistent application of logic and science to various phenomena - not the questioning itself. I may consider your questions foolish or ignorant, but it is bullshit to claim you don't have the right to ask them (although web sites can restrict content - for better or worse - because they are privately owned).

[PatrickSMcNally]

13. "I was slow to get from negligence to LIHOP to MIHOP myself."

Actually I went through that whole nine years in under 2 years and by the summer of 2003 was heavily immersed in 911 sites. I started drifting away from the whole thing two years later around the summer of 2005. It wasn't that I had become convinced of any "official story" but simply that it became obvious that the whole matter was getting enough public attention that one could more safely feel that something will eventually come out if there's really anything there. It felt at that point as if the most reliable step would be to largely set the issue aside and maybe look at again at some later time when the climate of 2003 was at a greater distance. I didn't actually begin looking at any "debunker" sites until another 2 years later in 2007 when someone who suspected a controlled demolition suggested that I look at a few sites to get a representation of the counter-arguments. All that I'd be willing to say definitively offhand right now is that if 911-activists wish to have enduring relevance they need to stop operating in a mode as if its 2003 forever. Just about everything which you've tossed out on these boards is something which I poured over fervently some 5 years or so ago. There were a fewer newer bloopers which came up later like the "Angel is next" hoopala and Steven Jones's thermite. But most of it was all in heavy circulation 5 years ago and the 911-activist groups show very later tendency to develop anything substantive and lasting. I won't place any bets on the honesty and integrity of the Bush administration, but that fact doesn't get 911-activists off the hook either.

[noise]

14. The coverup continues

and the questions haven't gone away simply because time has elapsed. Shouldn't government officials (who have justified torture and domestic spying because of 9/11) be able to explain contradictions (noted in this thread) in their own accounts?

Here is an example of continuing excessive secrecy which is difficult to understand considering the 9/11 Commission is claimed (by some) to be the definitive account:

In papers filed late Tuesday, the government urged a judge to block aviation companies from interviewing five FBI employees who the companies say will help them prove the government withheld key information before the 2001 attacks.

The lawyers said it would be impossible to interview the employees without disclosing classified or privileged material that could "cause serious damage to national security and interfere with pending law enforcement proceedings."

"The harm described is not hypothetical and cannot be lightly dismissed," according to the court papers submitted by the office of U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia. "Investigators continue to seek out those parties responsible for the 9/11 attacks who remain at large."

Gov't says FBI agents can't testify about 9/11

[PatrickSMcNally]

16. "the questions haven't gone away simply because time has elapsed"

Well I never said anything of the sort, so as a implied rebuttal your comment is irrelevant. What is true is that very little of what has been produced in the last 7 years as ostensible "truth-literature" has maintained a sufficiently cool-headed form to really provide any lasting contribution. Questions remain, but are not likely to be seriously investigated until people break away from the passions of those early post-911 years. And some of what people continue to put forward as "questions" are just silly errors such as "how did Building 7 collapse in 6.5 seconds?" It didn't, it took 18 seconds. Or "how did the Towers collapse in 8 and 10 seconds?" They didn't, they each took 16+ seconds. Questions like that seemed plausible 5 years ago and no one need apologize for having jumped on them at the time. But very little of what 911-activists have been doing has actually resulted in solid work which can be picked up and studied seriously by someone who 20 years from now wants to find what 911 was really all about.

"the 9/11 Commission is claimed (by some) to be the definitive account"

You should be more specific on such a claim, particularly since I haven't seen anyone, on this board at least, claim that the Commission Report is a definitive account. All that anyone has ever suggested in regards to the CR is that some errors fequently made here on these boards might be reduced in occurrence if more people read what either the CR or other sources actually say. There's an important difference there with regards to the CR versus activist literature. The CR really will be carefully studied by someone living 20 or so years from now who wishes to learn about 911. It'll be treated seriously as a source just because it's an official document where one can go through looking for holes and gaps. It has an automatic enduring interest just for that. But most of the current truth-literature will be on the dungheap in 20 years. If some really lasting contribution is ever made by any truth-literature that probably will take more time and a greater distance from the events before it is written.

[noise]

18. I posted the news article

to demonstrate the continued degree of secrecy. The 9/11 Commission voted to keep some of the supporting evidence for their report classified until 1/09. The CIA IG report (the full report not just the executive summary) is still classified. CIA interrogation tapes were destroyed.

IMO, government account skeptics have raised reasonable doubt. A government acting in good faith would have tried to address such concerns a long time ago.

[noise]

4. The good faith argument

is related to pre-9/11 and post 9/11 conduct by the government. So yes that is different from Chomsky and Klein (author of the Shock Doctrine) who evidently believe the Bush administration merely exploited the attack to push through their radical agenda.

1. Why did the CIA withhold the alHazmi/alMidhar intel from 01/00 through 08/01? This conduct appears to rule out Bush vs. Clinton arguments since the protection spanned both administrations. Don’t people want to know why Presidential Medal of Freedom winner George Tenet has put forth a contradictory account? He claimed he and officials at the CTC were freaked out about a possible terrorist attack. OTOH, he and officials at the CTC were withholding al Qaeda related intel at the very same time.

2. I’ve listened to author James Bamford’s book tour interviews. In one he admits the NSA had the legal authority to obtain FISA warrants and/or notify the FBI so they could obtain the warrants. Yet he also makes the case that Hayden failed to follow this procedure because he was overly cautious about civil liberties. His case for Hayden doesn’t make sense. As Bamford himself notes, the choice wasn’t between illegal warrantless surveillance or nothing. Hayden had a legal option to go through the FISA court which was set up to protect civil liberties.

3. After the alHazmi/alMihdhar intel was shared with the FBI it was withheld from the Cole investigators. The FBI ITOS (headed by Michael Rolince) not only obstructed the Cole investigation and prevented the Cole team from finding alHazmi and alMihdhar but they also obstructed the Moussaoui investigation. FBI agents Samit and Rowley both wondered what on earth headquarters was doing.

Most common excuses to these issues and rebuttal:

1. Incompetence=nonsense. Orders to withhold intel rule that out.

2. Turf battle=bizarre. One, the FBI had jurisdiction. Period. Two, CIA officials can't have it both ways--either they wanted to prevent attack or they didn't. If they did then they had to share intel unless they wanted to conduct an illegal operation of their own. Obviously they didn't do so as the attack went forward. Three, Rice, Hadley and Clarke didn't have any turf battle issues. What were they doing to ensure CIA/FBI cooperation?

3. Gorelick wall=nonsense. Alhazmi and Almihdhar were linked to al Qaeda by the NSA by 1999. They were linked to Cole plotters in late 2000 by way of the Malaysia meeting. CIA witholding intel had nothing to do with the "wall." FBI UBLU agent Corsi knew they were linked to a Cole plotter (Bin Attash) but withheld that intel. Bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings in 1998.

4. Lack of CT funding=absurd. The executive summary of the CIA IG report stated that Tenet diverted CT funding to other areas. The funding issue comes up because acting Director Pickard asked AG Ashcroft for increased funding and reportedly Ashcroft said CT wasn't a priority. This does nothing to explain the strange conduct at the FBI in the lead up to 9/11.

5. Risk aversion=idiotic excuse. Going after terrorists was risky? Huh? That makes no sense. Getting FISA warrants was risky? The only way this makes sense is if the FBI and CIA are criminal organizations whereby successful terrorist attacks are considered more helpful for career advancement. In the commonly accepted definition, risk aversion is a pathetic excuse that makes one wonder why any officials with such an attitude wanted to be in the CT division.

The government's failure to clear up these very important questions is indicative of extreme bad faith.