UncommonSense

5/24/02

Do you get the feeling that all this shit is just about to come tumbling down? I mean, Bush telling the FBI to back off bin Laden, upper management ignoring the Phoenix memo or saying that they didn't have the resources to investigate, upper management refusing to investigate Zacarais Moussaoui, the Justice Department refusing to issue a FISA warrant to search his computer. Something is being hidden here. Incompetence? Or was it complicity? When Condi Rice and Ari Fleischer protested that no one ever expected the hijackers to crash the planes, were they really aware of a pending hijacking and planning to let it occur so that they could capitalize politically? I just don't know. But each day, it seems that some new report comes out that says that not only did someone ignore a warning, they took steps to make sure the warning was ignored.

"It's now looking as if the US authorities DID know that a plane had been hijacked BEFORE the first crash into the World Trade Centre." Source.

Yet this article doesn't quite get the story straight when refering to Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon. If you put together it's timeline, it says that Flight 77 changed course at 9:20 and struck the Pentagon 20 minutes later (9:40). But according to the NY Times and USA Today, controllers knew that Flight 77 had probably been hijacked as early as 8:50 or 8:46. The articles show that controllers knew that the first plane had been hijacked before it hit the North Tower at 8:45. They knew that Flight 77 had been hijacked a minute later. Yet Flight 77 remained in the air, unchallenged, for almost a full hour. At 9:05, a second hijacked plane struck the South Tower, erasing any lingering doubts about the true horror of the situation. Yet flight 77 flew for 35 more minutes, unchallenged, toward our nation's capital.

The burning question is, why?

Repeal the Patriot Act now!

5/23/02

This guy is a model Republican. Fox News ought to hire him as a consultant. He's almost as good as this guy, obviously a candidate to head the RNC.

Arguing against a special commission to investigate 9/11, "Bush said that, because 'we're still at war,' it was important the information he received 'be protected because we don't want to give away sources and uses and methodology of intelligence gathering.'" Here's what's wrong with his argument:

We aren't at war. We are policing Afganistan. He likes to say we are at war, because if we weren't at war, he wouldn't have a foreign policy agenda, period. The moment Americans realize that we aren't at war, you can bet your ass we'll be at war within the week.
Your sources, uses and methodology of intelligence gathering has accomplished DIDDLY. They've failed. You're afraid to reveal to the terrorists how many times you've screwed up? Or afraid to reveal to the American people how many times you've screwed up?
In any case, a special commission isn't going to reveal state secrets. The reason you are opposed to this is because the special commission will most likely be comprised of people no longer holding elected office, which is to say they are people who can't be threatened by your political machine into complying with your every wish and desire. You want to keep the investigation in the intelligence committees because you have power over the members of those committees.

He'd probably also like to avoid an investigation of his Enron ties. The White House response to Sen. Lieberman's subpoena? T'uh! I was just fixin' to do that anyway! Yeah, right. The very manner in which the Enron investigation is being assisted by the White House and the Republicans in Congress (party-line vote to issue a subpoena after seven weeks of dragging their feet) is an excellent reason why an investigation into 9/11 must be removed from the political arena and placed in the hands of an independent commission. Whatcha wanna bet that, if the independent commission ever is appointed, the Republicans will insist that Poppy be a member?

Wherever Bush goes, a strange time warp reverts things to the good old days of Cold War ideologies. "I have no war plans on my desk," Bush said in reference to Iraq. Of course not, Georgie. They've already been approved, you signed them months ago. They wouldn't still be on your desk.

Once upon a time, the Department of Justice was there to protect the American people. Now, it exists to protect Bush and Cheney and all their cronies from investigation. Obviously, before taking office, these guys decided that rather than try to hide their malfeasance in office, it would be much easier to simply block any official investigation of their greater crimes. So far, it's working, but only because the American media is a blow-up doll.

Want to talk about a blockbuster? How about this... "Passenger jet hijackings are not uncommon and the U.S. government has prepared detailed plans to handle them. On Sept. 11 these plans were ignored in their entirety." As I've said numerous times, the smoking gun for this administration will be why there was no military response to a known multiple hijacking. It isn't what they knew before the first plane hit, it's why they did nothing until after the third plane hit.

5/22/02

Slow day. But Molly Ivins is always good to liven things up.

Taking pot shots at the Bush administration does seem to be the journalistic sport of the day. There are too many examples to link to. At least they've opened hunting season. I just hope this isn't a momentary flare, soon to be lost in stories of shark attacks. Yes, shark attacks. Experts have determined that as more people go swimming during the summer months, we can expect an increase in the number of shark attacks. So glad they're here to tell us these things.

Last night, as I was driving home I noticed a pair of helicopters hovering over my neighborhood. My first thought was, uh oh. Then I wondered if maybe a police chase had ended somewhere nearby. Lots of thoughts going through my head, none of them good. However, what actually happened doesn't really make me feel any better. How good are you at dodging a car? Somebody has lost their little boy. Maybe we should avoid our front yards, too?

How much worse, then, to live someplace like Gaza or Kashmir? I don't understand it. I suppose that as an American, it is difficult for me to understand this bloody, unseverable umbelical with the land that makes people willing to die rather than surrender one inch. For me, one place is as good as another, and frankly, I can think of a good many better places than Gaza or Kashmir. So their ancestors have lived there for a thousand years. Do they love their pitiful scrap of desert more than their children? There's plenty of Gaza-like and Kashmir-like places in America, minus the tanks and shooting and threats of nuclear annihilation. They can come here and make a new homeland.

The other day, I saw a campaign commercial for some Republican running for Congress in my district - his name escapes me at the moment. Anyway, the commercial pretty much stated that his qualification for Congress consisted largely of his successful leadership of the 2000 Bush campaign in Tennessee. You remember the election in Tennessee, don't you? So he's running based on his success in disenfranchising minority voters in Tennessee. Plus his ability to adhere without question to Bush's sphincter. One wonders who this chap will be representing, should he be elected - the people of West Tennessee, or the billionaires of Texas and Saudi Arabia? It really speaks of the politics of today that someone could honestly run a local campaign based solely on his willingness, indeed his promise, to vote for whatever the president wants. I just wonder if the Justice Department investigation of voter fraud will include him. Let's hope so.

5/21/02

Usually I agree with Jon Carroll. His wisdom is boundless. But today he is wrong. Actually, he isn't wrong. He is right in his assertion, but he is missing the point. The point is:

Why did it take eight months to admit that Bush had a security briefing in August, while on vacation for a month? Why did Ari Fleischer and Condoleeza Rice lie about the contents of that briefing, saying nothing specific was discussed, and that the nothing specific dealt with terrorism against American interests abroad? Why did they say it only dealt with traditional hijackings? What difference does that make, even if it were true - are traditional hijackings just dandy with this administration? And why did they say no one had any clue that planes could be used as missiles, when just about everybody had that clue, including the Italians, because they installed anti-aircraft guns in preperation for Bush's visit last July? Why didn't Bush receive a security briefing about hijackers using airplanes as missiles in July before he left for Italy, since the Italians surely seemed concerned about it? And if he didn't receive a security briefing in July before leaving for Italy, why did he stay on the USS Enterprise instead of in a hotel, like all the other leaders at the G8 summit?

Why did they only admit to this August briefing after it was reported in the news? Why are John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller only now admitting that they saw the Phoenix memo, but saying that they saw it two days after 9/11? Why has it taken six days since this story broke for Ashcroft and Mueller to answer this most basic question? Isn't their story convenient for them? And why did Congress receive a different version of the Phoenix memo, one with the more specific information deleted?

See, the problem isn't what could Bush have done with the information as we know it. Jon Carroll is right about that - there wouldn't be much he could do, except maybe tell John Ashcroft to stop flying commercial, which he did (based on supposedly non-specific information?). But Bush isn't getting a bum rap, he's getting a bum wrap (aka, covering his ass). All this obfuscation, back-peddling and spin makes you wonder what aren't they telling us - they hid this, what else are they hiding? Was what they aren't telling us specific enough to require specific countermeasures, which they failed to take, possibly for the purpose of allowing a traditional hijacking to occur in order to gain public support for an invasion of Afganistan that was already planned and already being staged? The only way to find out is to conduct a thorough investigation, but a thorough investigation is the one thing the Bush administration wants to avoid at all costs.

You have to ask, why? And this is the point.

I just wish more members of Congress were reading the Mad Cow Morning News.

Is it any accident of timing that ABC ran Enemy of the State last night? I noticed a couple of things while watching it. Just a few years ago, in all the conspiracy movies like Enemy of the State, the NSA was the bogeyman of choice. Now, whatever became of the NSA? Why isn't the NSA mentioned in any of the intelligence failures of 9/11? Why is the FBI and the CIA taking all the heat? Also, the birthday of Gene Hackman's character, Brill, was... 9/11/40. Brill used to work for the NSA. His last assignment was in Iran, monitoring communications coming out of Afganistan. Coincidence?

Did you know that the USA PATRIOT Act was written BEFORE 9/11?

5/20/02

Bush administration declares that, no matter how well Iraq complies with UN resolutions, it reserves the right to use military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I don't know about you, but that kinda makes it sound like we don't really care about UN resolutions and international law - all we care about is doing whatever the hell we want. It's our way, or the highway; and by the way, we own the highway.

Dick Cheney's continued contempt of Congress and contempt of the American people. Maybe Congress should force his hand, truly force him to defy Congress on some legal matter. And if he does, impeach him.

And it seems awfully damn convenient that as soon as things start to get hot here for Massa Gawge, we get new warnings about a much worser turrist attack, Unka Dick's prediction of more attacks, a new Bin Laden video, a threat to the water supply in Florida, and a wag-the-dog airstrike against an Iraqi air defense facility. Obviously, this is why we must not question the president during times of war. If we do, there's no telling what he won't do to save his bacon.

Since I can't get any response to my queries anywhere else, I suppose it is time to spill the beans here.

On September 17, 2001, I was sitting here in the office talking to a co-worker about the 9/11 terrorist attack. I said to him, how could we make it so that no one could ever hijack an airliner ever again?

Reinforced cockpit doors? These won't work, as all a terrorist has to do is stand outside the door and execute passengers until the pilots open the door.

Armed pilots and air marshals? A good temporary solution, but still very dangerous. Again, in a hostage situation, an armed guard can be forced to disarm to avoid the execution of hostages.

Then I stumbled on an idea that seemed beautiful in its simplicity. I thought about the technology that allows the CIA to remotely fly predator drones.

Such technology could be placed in all commercial airliners, in an area of the aircraft that can only be accessed from the exterior of the plane, thus preventing the terrorists from turning it off.

Such technology could be designed so that it can be activated either by the pilot or a controller on the ground, thus preventing the terrorists from thwarting it by killing the pilot before he can arm the system.

Such technology could be designed so that, once it is turned on, it can't be turned off without dismantling part of the aircraft, thus thwarting the terrorists' ability to use the hostages to force controllers to return control of the airplane to the terrorists.

Such technology could be designed so that, once it is turned on, if it should lose contact with the ground for any reason, the automatic pilot engages, preventing the aircraft from crashing.

Such technology could be designed so that, if for some reason it is removed or damaged while the plane is on the ground, the aircraft's engines will not start, thus preventing terrorists from posing as aircraft mechanics and turning the system off before the plane leaves the ground.

Such technology could be designed so that it can receive an emergency override which changes the encoding of the signal used to control it, thus preventing terrorists from obtaining the signal code and scrambler frequencies and using these to remotely hijack a plane. In such an event, the system could be overriden by an emergency command code known only to a few people, sort of like nuclear launch codes.

With such a system in place, it would be virtually impossible to hijack an aircraft. Everything I have described is available with existing technology. This is something that the government could begin doing today.

On September 17th, I sent an email to a local senator describing this system. In this email, I made one request. I declared that I was willing to give up any rights to such a system, provided that whoever puts this thing together must provide it to the government at cost, that they not be allowed to make a profit from it.

Since that day, I have written to numerous other senators and representatives on the appropriate Congressional committess. To date, I have not received one response. I sent this to the editor of an aviation magazine after he expressed interest in knowing the details. To date, I have not received a response. I wondered why.

Then I saw the conspiracy theories saying that this very technology already exists, and that it was used on 9/11, not to prevent a hijacking, but to accomplish it. And then I read this. If true, nothing more needs to be said about why I can't get one person in a position of authority to answer my letters.