UncommonSense

3/29/2002

No Update Today

3/28/2002

Daily Screed

This demands a response. It's been addressed before by others, taking Bob Woodward to task for writing such an awful puff piece for Karl Rove. But it hasn't been dissected enough. For those who poo-poo conspiracy theories, this sort of reporting, written verbatim (most likely) from the White House's own narrative of the events, is filled with inconsistencies, probable lies, and unanswered questions that raise all kinds of suspicion.

Bush remembers senior adviser Karl Rove bringing him the news, saying it appeared to be an accident involving a small, twin-engine plane. In fact it was American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767 out of Boston's Logan International Airport. Based on what he was told, Bush assumed it was an accident. "This is pilot error," the president recalled saying. "It's unbelievable that somebody would do this." Conferring with Andrew H. Card Jr., his White House chief of staff, Bush said, "The guy must have had a heart attack."

There are a number of contradictions in this. First, Bush has said repeatedly that he saw the news report of the first crash either before he left the hotel or before going in to read to the kids. His reaction was not as noted above. He, in fact, said, That's one bad pilot.

At 9:05 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, also a Boeing 767, smashed into the South Tower of the trade center.

Remember the time.

Bush remembers exactly what he thought: "They had declared war on us, and I made up my mind at that moment that we were going to war."

Yet he continued to read to the kids?

"I wonder," Tenet was overheard to say, "if it has anything to do with this guy taking pilot training." He was referring to Zacarias Moussaoui, who had been detained in August after attracting suspicion when he sought training at a Minnesota flight school. Moussaoui's case was very much on Tenet's mind. The previous month, the FBI had asked the CIA and the National Security Agency to run phone traces on Moussaoui, already the subject of a five-inch-thick file in the bureau.

This being the file created when and by whom? The people whose arms had to be twisted just to arrest the guy? The guy who was not deemed a credible enough threat to issue a search warrant before September 11th?

At 9:30 a.m. the president appeared before television cameras, describing what had happened as "an apparent terrorist attack" and "a national tragedy." He appeared shaken, and his language was oddly informal. He would chase down, he said, "those folks who committed this act."

Again, remember the time, as it becomes very important later.

9:32 a.m. Secret Service agents burst into Cheney's West Wing office. "Sir," one said, "we have to leave immediately." Radar showed an airplane barreling toward the White House.

Meanwhile, American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that had taken off from Dulles International Airport, turned away from the White House and flew back across the Potomac River, slamming into the Pentagon at 9:39 a.m. In the tunnel below the White House, Cheney stopped to watch a television showing the smoke billowing out of the World Trade Center towers, heard the report about the plane hitting the Pentagon and called Bush again.

At 9:05 AM, Bush hears about the plane hitting the second tower and decides at that moment that we are at war. Yet he continues to read to the kids. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney sits in his office for a full 27 minutes before being moved below ground. If Dick was only informed of the danger at 9:32, why did he call Bush again? Why did he call him the first time, and when?

In his Pentagon office, Rumsfeld felt the huge building shudder. He looked out his window, then rushed out toward the smoke, running down the steps and outside where he could see pieces of metal strewn on the ground.

Establishing the sight of debris from the plane? Also, why wasn't Rumsfeld (or anyone else in the Pentagon) notified that a plane was headed for Washington? They knew it was on the way, they had been tracking it for some time, as noted here:

Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta, summoned by the White House to the bunker, was on an open line to the Federal Aviation Administration operations center, monitoring Flight 77 as it hurtled toward Washington, with radar tracks coming every seven seconds. Reports came that the plane was 50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out-until word reached the bunker that there had been an explosion at the Pentagon.

So Transportation Secretary Mineta was summoned to the White House bunker, where he monitored reports of the plane being tracked from 50 miles out. How long did this take, and why was he summoned below before Dick Cheney? Why wasn't the Pentagon alerted? Actually it was, but it seems like Rumsfeld was taken by surprise by the impact.

Rumsfeld began helping with the rescue efforts until a security agent urged him to get out of the area. "I'm going inside," he said, and took up his post in the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon war room. Pentagon officials ordered up the airborne command post used only in national emergencies. They sent up combat air patrols in the Washington area and a fighter escort for Air Force One.

By this narrative, it appears that air patrols were only ordered up after the plane hit the Pentagon. Maybe the writer is just trying to tell an exciting story, but this isn't fiction - this supposed to be journalism. In any case, we know patrols were ordered earlier, but they were ordered from bases many miles away from Washington when there were two fighter wings sitting on the ground 8 miles from the Pentagon.

"There is a plane 80 miles out," he said. "There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?" "Yes," Cheney replied without hesitation. The plane was now 60 miles out. "Should we engage?" Cheney was asked. "Yes," he replied again. As the plane came closer, the aide repeated the question. Does the order still stand? "Of course it does," Cheney snapped.

Within minutes, there was a report that a plane had crashed in southwestern Pennsylvania-what turned out to be United Flight 93, a Boeing 757 that had been hijacked after leaving Newark International Airport. Many of those in the PEOC feared that Cheney's order had brought down a civilian aircraft. Rice demanded that someone check with the Pentagon. On Air Force One, Bush inquired, "Did we shoot it down or did it crash?" It took the Pentagon almost two hours to confirm that the plane had not been shot down, an enormous relief.

By this account, the plane was no more than 60 miles from Washington when it went down. There was a fighter in the area. We have telephones, cell phones, pilots have radios in their cockpits, everyone is in contact with everyone else. The crash site could be reached from Washington within minutes by helicopter. Yet we are to believe that it took two full hours before they knew whether or not one of our own fighter jets had shot down a commercial airliner?

10:32 a.m. Cheney called Bush on Air Force One, on its way from Florida to Washington, to say the White House had just received a threat against the plane. The caller had used its code word, "Angel," suggesting terrorists had inside information. Card was told it would take between 40 minutes and 90 minutes to get a protective fighter escort up to Air Force One.

Recall that earlier, they said this, "They sent up combat air patrols in the Washington area and a fighter escort for Air Force One." This was after the Pentagon hit, according to the narrative, but in truth, we know that the fighters were airborne before the plane hit the pentagon.

Now, look at two things here. This article was printed Jan 27, 2002, and it is making the assertion of the Air Force One threat which was discredited months before.

It is also saying that 27 minutes after Air Force One left took off from Florida, 53 minutes after the Pentagon was hit, that it would be between 40 and 90 minutes before they could get fighter protection for Air Force One? Even though it was flying out of Florida, which is filled with Air Force and Navy bases, including a very big base in Pensecola. An hour and a half after the beginning of a terrorist attack, and it could be another hour and a half before they could get fighter protection for Air Force one. Meanwhile, it takes exactly this long for Air Force One to fly to Barksdale AFB in LOUISIANNA!!!!!!! They are telling us that Air Force One could reach Barksdale AFB in Louisianna before any fighter planes from Pensacola could get up to protect it! Lies, lies, and more lies.

Someone inside the White House had heard a threat to Air Force One, perhaps in a phoned-in call, and passed it up the line using the code word "Angel." Others thought the threatening caller had used the code word. It took days for the incident to be sorted out and weeks before the White House publicly acknowledged it.

So this is how they spin the lie. There was no threat, but now they are saying that at the time they believed there was a threat. This contradicts earlier stories that said the whole Air Force One Threat story was a big stinky one floated by Karl Rove to cover the Boy King's skeedaddle across the country during a time of crisis. The way this timeline totally screws up the sequence of events does nothing to discount the reality of that infamous flight down the bunny hole.

A check of the passenger manifests of the hijacked flights had turned up three known al Qaeda operatives on American Airlines Flight 77, which had struck the Pentagon.

But this contradicts the fact that on no released list of passengers are any of the accused hijackers listed. In fact, some are said to still be alive, including one who was issued an official apology by the government of Saudi Arabia.

Tenet said that since all the attacks had taken place before 10 a.m., that was probably it for the day but there was no way to be sure.

WTF? Is that in the official CIA handbook - terrorist prefer to hunt at dusk and dawn, lying up in the shade during the heat of the day.

The rest of this is much the same, and has to be one of the worst pieces of fiction ever written. That is pretends to be an official representation of the events of that morning does but one thing - it calls into question the government's need to lie about this. What is there to cover? Is the government willing to give life to some very serious conspiracy theories just to protect George Bush's image?

When will Bob Woodward answer to the lies he printed? When will he question the innacurate and misleading timeline fed to him by Karl Rove? When will he ask why the government needed to lie about what happened?

3/27/2002

Daily Read

Cold fusion again in the news, as noted in a previous edition. Why would the government try to suppress the publication of the article describing the experiment?

Why would the government want to suppress investigations of terrorists?

Why would the government hide how it came up with it's energy policy?

Why does our military refuse to allow impartial journalists to cover the war, while at the same time making deals to produce reality tv shows of the war? The answer is simple - entertainment can be scripted and edited by the generals, while journalism is protected by the 1st Amendment. If our cause is noble and right, what does the military have to hide?

Why is it important to keep secret who is being detained by the Justice Department? Because, just maybe, if we found out who they are, it would be all too easy for a few journalists to show how outrageous and immoral these detentions are?

Clue to the Houston Chronicle - when you print "Heart of Texas Republicans heaved a sigh of relief Friday with the partial resolution of a scandal of sex, videotape and possible dirty politics in the battle to see who represents the president of the United States in the state House" you reveal how skewed Republican politics have become. Republican elected officials don't represent the president, they represent the people who elected them. Or, that's how it is supposed to work. Of course, in the GOP, we know what the reality is. The GOP chooses their candidate. Anyone else who runs is driven out. It's all about being on the team. The quarterback is the president. Screw the voters, screw choice, the GOP decides who runs and who wins. So those who win represent the president, not their constituents.

Daily Screed

Today's screed begins with a letter written by Norman Mailer:

Letters to the Editor

THE BOSTON GLOBE

FOR WHOM THE WILL TOILS

Published on March 14, 2002.

To the Editor:

George F. Will writes: "Bush's terseness is Ernest Hemingway seasoned with John Wesley." ("Old Fashioned Values Return Since Sept. 11," Op Ed, March 12)

Well, one is hardly familiar with John Wesley's sermons, but I do know that to put George W. Bush's prose next to Hemingway is equal to saying that Jackie Susann is right up there with Jane Austen.

Did a sense of shame ever reside in our Republican toadies? You can't stop people who are never embarrassed by themselves. Will's readiness to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse can be cited as world class sycophancy.

Here's a passage from "A Farewell to Arms." It has more going for it than "terseness."

"I was embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious, and sacrifice... I had seen nothing sacred, and the things that were glorious had no glory and the sacrifices were like the stockyards at Chicago if nothing was done with the meat except to bury it. There were many words you could not stand to hear... Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the names of roads, the names of rivers, the numbers of regiments and the dates."

It is worth reminding ourselves that the life of a democracy may also depend on the good and honorable use of language and not on the scurvy manipulation of such words as "evil" and "love" by intellectual striplings of the caliber of our president.

NORMAN MAILER

Provincetown

This reminded me of something else written by Hemingway.

"But there are not great estates that must be broken up?"

"Yes. But there are those who believe that taxes will break them up."

"How?"

Robert Jordan, wiping out the stew bowl with bread, explained how the income tax and the inheritance tax worked.

"But the big estates remain. Also there are taxes on the land," he said.

"But surely the big proprietors and the rich will make a revolution against such taxes. Such taxes seem to me to be revolutionary. They will revolt against the government when they see that they are threatened, exactly as the fascists have done here," Primitivo said.

"It is possible."

"Then you will have to fight in your country as we fight here."

"Yes, we will have to fight."

"But are there not many fascists in your country?

"There are many who do not know they are fascists but will find out when the time comes."

This is from For Whom the Bell Tolls, a story of the Spanish Civil War. It shows that nothing much has changed, despite all the wars. In Spain, the fascists won. In the rest of Europe, they were defeated. But the fascists here in American were never called to task - they were merely driven underground for a time. But they're back now, in the fullness of their power, with George W. Bush at their head.

It is criminal that they have usurped the Republican party. They should be called what they are - the AFP, American Fascists Party. George Will (is that pronounced Vill?) has performed a sacriledge by summoning up the ghost of Hemingway, who abhored fascists, in support of his own little Adolf.

3/26/2002

Daily Read

First read this article about DynCorp's spraying herbicide in Columbia and Ecuador. Now, follow me for a moment. DynCorp is spraying "in the same region where Texaco devastated the environment and caused untold suffering to the people of the rainforest, a new enemy now comes from the air, poisoning the people, killing their crops and destroying their land." The people of that region won a 1993 lawsuit against Texaco for its actions. Can it be any accident that DynCorp, who is linked to Enron through Pug Winoker, is poisoning people who sued a Texas-based oil company? Texaco couldn't run these people off and claim their land for oil development, so now DynCorp comes in and sprays them with herbicides. Were they hoping to drive them from their land so it can be exploited for oil development?

Another example of our war crimes government - use of secret evidence. "Your honor, the defendent is guilty. We can't tell you why, or how, or anything at all, other than we are sure he is guilty. You'll just have to trust us. We've never been right before."

Daily Screed

Are there two Chris Matthews'? Will the real Chris Matthews please stand up? Chris says he doesn't see how anything can prevent our going to war with Iraq. I do. It's called the Congress of the United States. Only Congress can declare war. The Constitution created this system to prevent this very situation - a power-mad president declaring war with whomever he pleases. Congress holds the purse strings. If we the people, and especially people like Chris Matthews who have national tv programs and write sydicated columns, demand that we stay out of Iraq, Congress can prevent this so-called inevitable action by refusing to pay for it. That's how the system is supposed to work. But it won't work if we fail to demand it.

Last night, as I continued unpacking, I came across a map that had fallen out of a National Geographic. Strangely enough, the map was of the Caspian Sea region. The date on the map was 1999.

On this map were numerous red lines showing pipelines and proposed pipelines leading away from the Caspian Sea oil fields. One such proposed pipeline ran through Tajikistan, Afganistan, and Pakistan. There were also items identifying oil and gas reserves for each country in the region.

On the Afganistan item, it noted that civil war in the country had prevented the construction of the proposed pipeline. It is pretty clear (though I don't have the links at the moment) that the Bush administration had plans to get this pipeline back into construction. According to some reports, the Taliban was given an ultimatum in July 2001 - accept our carpet of gold or suffer a carpet of bombs. It's also said that US representatives stated that we would be at war in Afganistan by October.

The question that remains to be answered is - how did the Bush administration plan to sell this war to the American people? September 11th was only 20 days away from October - time was running out and they had not yet even broached the possibility of our intervening militarily in the region.

This is opposed to the saber rattling concerning Iraq. They've been talking about this for months, just to get Americans used to the idea. If the Bush administration planned to attack Afganistan, where was the publicity campaign to build American support for the October invasion?

Or was it already assured?

Speaking of Iraq, according to the map, Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in the region. More than the Caspian Sea. Coincidence?

(Note: I received a handwritten note in the mail from Congressman Harold Ford Jr, thanking me for my kind words in my article last week: Daily Screed 3/19. How many other elected representatives will take the time to write a letter by hand and mail it off, I wonder?)

3/25/2002

Daily Read

Satellite photos and more info on the black water in the Gulf.

Another case of criminal cronyism - the Defense Department cuts its ties with an independent scientific organization because they refused to appoint three administration good-olde-boys (Bush Pioneer types, most likely) to their board. Apparently, rewarding campaign supporters is more important than independent, scientific review.

More war criminals. If you are involved in a war, and if you declare that your opponents are illegal combatants who, if captured, have no legal rights, who can be tortured and executed, and who, even if tried and acquitted, could still be imprisoned indefinitely, wouldn't that endanger your own soldiers? If I know that my surrender is as good as a death sentence, why should I ever surrender? Why should I not use every means at my disposal to fight you? And why should I treat your soldiers any differently if I capture them? ---- I can't believe this is America any more.

Daily Screed - The Choices of Master Unwise

Last night, I had another dream about Israel. Only this time, the dream took place behind the church where I was married. In the dream, Israeli troops were in place on the hill by the church, while Palestinian militia were holding a small creek which runs behind the church. I happened into the middle ground, the no man's land between them, just as the battle erupted. Strangely, both groups were shooting at me. I managed to escape, but many other innocent bystanders did not.

After the fighting stopped, I happened upon a friend whose infant grandaughter had been killed by a Palestinian mortar. Seeing that small, shattered body lying in his lap as he sat on the ground filled me with an anger that I have never before known. I wanted revenge in the worst way, I wanted the Israelis to renew the battle, and I offered to join them.

Then, other refugees began to wander through the area, and I came upon a small boy crying for his mother. I picked him up and tried to help him find her, but both his parents had been killed in the fighting. He was alone, an orphan, and I didn't know what to do. I wondered if I could take him home.

And that's when it occured to me - if I wanted revenge for the dead girl, then I would have to leave that orphaned boy to wander alone on a battlefield, searching for a mother who would never again answer his cries. If I wanted to help the boy, then I would have to give up my desire for revenge.

As a world, as a nation, as a people and as a species, we are faced with this same choice. We can revenge the dead, or we can take care of the living - but we can't do both. When we avenge the dead, no matter how justifiable our actions, we abandon our children to a future of violence and revenge. Violence begets violence, blood cries for blood.

But the children weep as well. Whose cries will we answer - the ghosts of a dead world, or the children of our future?