« Secretary Gates: “Al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America”
The U.S., Iraq & Empire Building (Or: When a War Becomes a Business Deal) »
9/11 and Other American Plots
When fire breaks out in a mental hospital, the paranoids are the first to respond — they always expect someone to do terrible things.
That bit of apocryphal folklore comes to mind with news that almost two-thirds of Americans think federal officials knew in advance about 9/11 but chose to ignore the warnings.
A similar survey last year showed one out of three thinks our government assisted in the attacks or took no action to stop them so the US could go to war in the Middle East.
These conspiracy beliefs come, not from residents of a mental hospital, but a study of Americans normal enough to answer their own phones.
In 1964, historian Richard Hofstadter wrote “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” a book widely read because its thesis was then so new and startling: that a “sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness and conspiratorial fantasy” was spreading from the lunatic fringes into the mainstream of our national life.
The political paranoid, he wrote, “does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician…Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated.”
From then on, starting with President Kennedy’s assassination, more and more Americans believed everything that happened had to be part of some evil design, rather than the result of human randomness. No one could be trusted and, during its tenure, the Bush Administration has provided much evidence to support such suspicions.
But, in large part, distrust goes back to changes in perception as well as politics. Before TV, news was what people in power said it was, and there was no way to see behind the official version of truth. But with events coming into our living rooms, we could start to make our own judgments about what was really going on.
Now, with 24/7 news everywhere, everyone is “in the know,” and there is no reason to accept the official version of anything. As any blogger can tell you, the more devious the explanation for events, the more attention and, for some, credence it receives.
We are now free from getting only a white-washed picture of the world, but are we closer to any truths by getting a flood of black-washed analyses of everyone’s actions and motives? Little wonder that some Americans now see everything as a conspiracy,
Cross-posted from my blog
More about Americans’ distrust here
opinions powered by SendLove.to
21 Responses to “9/11 and Other American Plots”
I mean, wouldn’t they be talking in the context of the memo that said ‘Bin Laden determined to attack the United States’, or at least taking the question that way as opposed to the government knew it was going to happen, and let it happen anyways? I don’t know. I just think the way this is being talked about makes it seem like Americans are agreeing to something they don’t truly believe. It’s a twisting of a view which at its core intends to say that the government could have done more to prevent the attacks but failed to act because it did not correctly estimate the threat, or was obstructed by beaurocracy.
Government is the problem. All liberals believe in social programs just to gain power using the poor as tools. Government must be drowned in the bathtub. Who do you think supports Ron Paul? It’s only mildly surprising since in effect the attitude displayed towards the government has been the mantra of the American conservative movement for decades. It can’t all be laid at their door but they certainly do contribute to it.
Its fine for government to perform a limited role, as long as they perform it competently. Katrina and 9/11 shook Americans belief that the functions that only the federal government can and must perform well will be performed well. Honestly, government performs well when it serves special interests- which are disjointed groups, not when it serves the country as a whole.
As far as conspiracy theories go- you don’t have to be paranoid to believe that some major incidents in our history resulted from conspiracies. If you believe that its possible that warnings for 9/11 were purposely ignored- why does it make you a nut?
There’s a conspiracy alright, but not in the way you might imagine.
After 9/11 Bush did the right thing by going after the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The attacks themselves were not a US gov’t conspiracy- and if even if Bush would have taken sufficient notice of the warnings leading up to the attacks and made it a top priority, I don’t think the attacks could have been stopped.
When Bush saw the easy win in Afghanistan (things were going extremely well for the US) and the usual war profiteering, Bush decided to go after Iraq- I mean what could be an easier target? Saddam was all but castrated and with all that oil under the sand Bush saw a chance to reward his friends (read: Republican donors). After building a case for WMDs and a reason to invade Iraq, he got the authorization and went in. So that was (is) the conspiracy. It’s not even a government conspiracy- it’s a Bush administration conspiracy.
But then the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq fell apart, so Bush started doing everything to maintain and expand his power. He needed two things, just like the war: support from Congress, which was easy since his fellow Republicans controlled it and the support of the American people, which would be easy since they were already afraid of terrorists. Bush just had to play them (us).
So the scandals grew more numerous and Bush had to (still needs to) fight hard. He dragged otherwise good Republicans and Dems into supporting him.
So now we’re at a stage where a complex web has been woven and it’s all to support the Bush conspiracy. So I don’t believe a government conspiracy per se exists- no one sat down as a mastermind with a plan for all to follow. Rather there was a Bush conspiracy to invade a country (Iraq) and make a lot of money. That needed to be kept under wraps and that required obtaining more power.
All of the political games going on today does support to a certain extent that initial Bush conspiracy, even if some of the political games have other uses as well.
So it doesn’t surprise me that the American people see a conspiracy everywhere- it is everywhere, but only because Bush’s goal is to keep the conspiracy from seeing the light of day.
Isn’t there some game where you have a pile of sticks and you pull one out at a time, hoping the whole pile does not come down?
This is the same way- there’s a whole pile of sticks that in the whole may appear to be part of a conspiracy, but many of those individual sticks in the stack are not essential to the conspiracy and can be pulled out without unraveling the conspiracy. This is why the American people see conspiracies everywhere- it’s all related. But the trick is to know which sticks you can pull out with out the pile collapsing. That can only be done by looking very closely at the individual sticks. With the amount of information available it’s very difficult to do unless you have patience and judgement.
Shaun,
Just out of curiosity, for our ‘how many angles can dance on the head of a pin’ question of the day wouldn’t “human randomness” theory allow for evil designs to come about? i.e. “randomness” posits all possibilities. Why not the occasional ‘evil design’ every once and awhile?
And by the way….I am new to the blog. Excellent blog
Bush came into office itching to attack Iraq- that’s why there was so much of a concerted effort to tie Saddam to the attacks. He had a grudge because Saddam was rumored to have wanted to assasinate his father, and had told a previous biographer he wanted to be a wartime president. (his dad was revered during the short first gulf war)
When he and Cheney came into office they abandoned Clinton’s peace talks with Palestine and Israel and abandoned attempts to disarm North Korea. Cheney immediately asked about Iraq. 9/11 provided the window of opportunity to convince the public that it was necessary. To this day a third of Americans still believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, a fact that I find very scary.
Put it this way- if any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories were true (and I’m not saying I believe they are-only that its possible) wouldn’t the best defense be to dismiss the believers as part of the tin foil hat club- or just plain nutty?
Krit, let me alter your last comment a bit:
Put it this way- if the 9/11 conspiracy theories are false (and I’m not saying I believe they are-only that its possible) wouldn’t the best defense be to dismiss the believers as part of the tin foil hat club- or just plain nutty?
See what I mean? If someone claims they were abducted and probed by government-controlled communist space aliens and someone said they were nutty are you suggesting that might be evidence that the nut theory is true?
Ok, as for 9/11, I was still in the military and still working in intelligence at that time. For much of the summer of 2001 the intel community knew that AQ was planning for an attack.
Of course, there is a big difference in knowing that an attack is coming and knowing when and where it will happen, what kind of attack it will be, who is involved, etc. So Americans are right we basically knew an attack was coming, but we thought it would be overseas.
You can read all about the reporting the US received in the months and weeks immediately prior to 9/11 in the 9/11 commission report chapter 8.1.
It’s ironic how a 40-year-old questionable statement at that time is used nowadays to wrongfullly slander those who know and are better than those doing the slandering — not only those who throw tantrums when others don’t also worship robotically at the Altar of Government, but the “Cheney shot down Wellstone!” crowd.
Since conspiracy theories didn’t begin with 9/11, it’s not much use picking that event apart for its conspiracy value. The JFK assasintion speculations are still alive and well, BTW.
The interesting question is why people love conspiracies so.
I think one reason conspiracies are attractive when they involve the government is because no one trusts the governernmnt to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That mistrust didn’t start with Bush, BTW. although his extreme penchant for secrecery fans the flames of suspicion pretty well.
The government has always had the CIA and FBI to do things in the dark that can’t be done under the glare of lights, and they have been used by a long line of presidents to do exactly that. When that’s true, then anything can seem possible.
What I wonder at, though, is why there is such readiness to cross the line from what’s possible to believing that what’s possible is also true.
It seems that people can’t tolerate the slightest trace of ambiiguity. They bellieve either A or B, and can’t accept that even if they don’t understand everything about A, that doesn’t necessaritly make B ture. Conspiracy theories, as they are marketed,, don’t allow any amiguity; it’s this and thais and this. period. The truth, however, in trying to be honest, doesn’t exclude the ambihuous bits and is thus at a disadvantage in the market place of ideas.
The irony is that even for the most honest and forthcoming government, it’s necessary to have some secrets. Every aspect of US global strategy can not be published in the NYT, or every strategy would be ineffectice from its inception.
Since some secrets are invevitable, then conspiracy theories have a long futue ahead of them.
In history a 100 years from now…mabey 200 our great, great, great, great grandchildren will be reading about how Congress RIPPED from the office of the President many powers that had been reserved for the President since the beginning of time and thru evolutionary proceedings because of the acts of Richard Nixon.
Essentially the first president who actually got caught doing something really underhanded and shady in which a nation was willing to take him to task. I do not condone his actions I merely point out the historical context of the situation.
Sitting smack dabb in the middle of this presidency ripping power grab by congress was one young Dick Cheney. He was rather annoyed, fought the power grab by congress but in the end failed to preserve and protect the office of the president as was his mission and focus in life.
Enter 2000. GWB and his newly elected Vice President. The agenda was clear. Take back what was taken from the office of the presidency. Now while many on the far left are aghast at the actions of one Dick Cheney and his cronies he in reality is not doing anything that a dozen or perhaps 2 dozen presidents have themselves done in the last 100 years. Aspire to more presidential powers.
He has made it his mission to restore the power of the presidency.
It was his mission since the days of Gerald Ford who resigned the powers of the presidency to an overzealous and over reacting congress.
It is as I always say having spent my life studying, writing about and analyzing historical significance of events.
“What goes around comes around.”
When the Left declares GWB as King George they do so with animosity and anger and yet they are not far from the truth in one respect. This president has taken upon himself to restore to the office of president powers that were taken from them during the Ford Administration. Yet in another year Bush will be gone and the next president will have much more power then did Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton.
The height of the presidential empasse was never more obvious then under Bill Clinton and George Bush that forced both presidents to beg the world for action and to beg congress for action and to beg the people for action.
This has empowered the people with power that ought not be in their hands and it has gutted the political and foreign policy powers of the president to such an extent that congress now is on the verge of having the power of preventing a president from defending this nation as commander in chief.
That is frightening considering that our congress is so polarized that it is gridlocked into inaction. Not a pretty sight going forward.
Entropy- Weren’t the warnings from Tenet, Clarke and the FBI agent about a domestic attack? From what I’ve read (not exhaustively I admit) the administration blew off the warnings. Rice had started from scratch on a terrorism policy, seemed woefully unprepared to deal with the intel that was coming in. Several international governments claim that they also warned us of an impending domestic attack. I can’t say that there was enough to put it all together- so that is why I said it is possible-not that I believe it was a conspiracy.
There were some strange coincidences —like the owner of the WTC did not show up for work that day-nor did his kids who worked in the buildings. He had taken out a bigger insurance policy out on the WTC about a month before the attack.
Then you have the administration’s adamant opposition to the establishment of the 9/11 Commission. That of course could be because they didn’t want their state of unpreparedness broadcast to the public.
I would never join the conspiracists without more solid proof though- mostly because I can’t stand the thought that any American would do nothing in the face of an impending attack.
BTW- at the risk of seeming really nutty, I do believe that there was a conspiracy to murder MLK because he was shifting his focus from civil rights to anti-war. The family forgave the supposed assassin in the face of evidence that a conspiracy of FBI and mob connections planned the murder.
Krit-
Even assuming that there had been warnings about a domesitc attack.
On whidh date? Was even the year specific?
Where in the UsA? should we have evacuated the whole country in preparation?
By whatt means? Why not the ususal bombs and explosives?
Rice was unprepared? No one was prepared.for planes crashing into buildings.
This was a SURPRISE
By this flimsy logic, anyone in the USA who didn’t die in the towers could look suspicious, and maybe some of the dead could be said to just be covering their tracks.
Almost anything is POSSIBLE.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the true one.
What came out was that the response was bumbling and confused, and that’s enough reason for a coverup right there, if you really need one.
This is the kind of thinking that keeps people believing in horoscopes. Upon a background of vagueness, the believer is free to insert his own points of certitutde. The promise of good fortune can materialize in a winning lottery ticket orin finding a penny on the sidewalk. On a boring day, good fortune could even be that nothitng very bad happened.
Again, anything is POSSIBLE.
If the President isn’t a Democrat or otherwise doesn’t conform placidly to post-1932 Democratic and liberal expectations, whyyyyyy, it has become an “imperial presidency” [sic], and arrogation of executive powers by Congress is a “necessary” reform.
Besides, it gives Congress more to do after, in the same post-1932 Democratic and liberal tradition, legislative powers have been dumped on the executive as “regulatory” authority, and Congress has accepted arrogation of legislative authority by the judiciary so long as court activism is liberal. (Attempts to stop and correct this misconduct these days are dishonestly labeled “conservative activism.”)
I don’t have much to add to what Doma said, except I think you may find it instructive to read the section in the 9/11 commission report I cited above. There was a LOT of threat reporting – the problem is that most of it was vague and most of it pointed to an overseas attack – which had historically been the case. Many military facilities in Europe and the Middle East were put on their highest alert as a result.
Entropy- Ok if you
will read Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies” where he describes numerous attempts to bring incoming threats to
Bush and Rice’s attention- If you remember he at least had the grace to apologize
for his failures to stop 9/11 in front of the commission. Their report may have buried the most volatile failures of both Clinton and Bush by bipartisan consent. There was a lot of political pressure on the committee.
Again- Doma and Entropy- I’m not saying I believe that it wasn’t confusion, disorganization and shock-it may have well happened that way.
just that I think its possible that it wasn’t. As you can see, 9/11 and Katrina has destroyed a lot of my trust in government. Living in the DC area I have read about Bush administration Inspector
Generals, like Scott Bloch,
who are supposed to be independent of the WH
firing whistleblowers to protect the administration. Yesterday I learned he had erased his e-mails and called Geeks on Call to scrub his hard drive, and that of his associates, while he is supposed to be investigating Karl Rove’s missing e-mail. Ok call me a cynic- for its very true.
Kritt,
I might suggest that Clarke might just be a bit self-serving in his book. Look, there were many, many people in the intel community working on AQ and the terrorism issue at the time. I regularly read their reports and while an attack on the US was considered a possibility, the analysis indicated an overseas attack was most likely. Let’s assume we knew for sure it would be a US attack – even in that case we still don’t know timing, method and all the other details. We might have thwarted it by raising security in general, but it’s hard to speculate.
If there was some kind of “smoking gun” intel that Rice or the President ignored, then there are literally hundreds of people who would have known or seen that intel. Given that hardly anything with political implications can stay secret in Washington, if such intel existed it would have been leaked. Whatever Clarke may claim now, he simply did not have any intel that amounted to much more than “AQ would like to attack the US.”
Even today we don’t get a lot of detailed information on possible attacks. When information is received that’s deemed credible, most often you’ll see a general alert and an increase in security across the board – and this is after 9/11.
I would guess that the trouble is that the intel pieces don’t come in labeled ‘credible’ and ‘forget it’.
There’s hust a lot of information, the good and the bad all mixed.
After the fact, it’s easy to say “aha, you had this piece of intel, and you ignored it.”
Before the fact, it’s a big problem identifying that one crucial piece of information among many that is the one to act on.
That’s why there are so many analysts, often disagreeing with one another.
Krit-
I don’t mean to say that we have no reason to be suspicious of governernment.
As much as possible, suspicions should be investigated.
Just like the ‘there is no proof’ argument cna’t prove innocence, the ‘there are suspicions’ arguments can’t prove guilt.
Not all suspicions are of equal value, however.
When they depend on cherry picking odd bits of coinciidences, they are least valuable. Most often, the reasonable explanation is acutally the most reasonble for grounding guesswork.
Doma- well I brought up a few suspicious facts- I’m not a ‘Nutter’ so I’m not well-versed on what they believe or the rationale for it. My reason for saying what I said is just to point out that it may not really be all that crazy. I’ll be the first to admit that I have no idea what really happened. That’s not to say that I’m not skeptical, probably because there have been so many lies about 9/11 that we know about and also about progress in Iraq, Plamegate, etc.
Its just safe to say that like the JFK assassination, we’ll never know the whole truth.