Four years after the 9/11 attacks there are four theories of what happened. These theories can be summarized as follows:
SNAFU- Situation normal- all fucked up.
LIHOP- Let it happen on purpose.
MIHOP- Made it happen on purpose.
NTSHMA- Nothing to see here, move along.
There are subsets of these categories, but they basically encompass all the various theories of what went wrong. The prevailing attitude of the American public is best expressed as SNAFU. The 9/11 Commission’s explanation falls into the SNAFU category.
:::flip:::
The Commission didn’t deny that we issued 52 FAA warnings, that certain agencies were hot on the trail of some of the hijackers, or that we received an abundance of warnings from informants and foreign intelligence agencies. In fact, the Commission admits that everyone’s ‘hair was on fire’, and that Bush received a rather specific warning on August 6th, 2001 that warned of hijackings “or…other attacks”.
Their explanation for why none of this enabled us to prevent 9/11 is that the intelligence agencies did a terrible job of sharing information. Massive governmental incompetence is, for many, a simple fact of life. It’s normal. But it’s all fucked up. For those that are skeptical of the explanatory power of the SNAFU, the reaction to Hurricane Katrina is a remarkable counterpoint. Even with several days of warning and several planning exercises, the government still completely dropped the ball.
It’s entirely possible that 9/11 was nothing more than the biggest SNAFU since the Battle of Little Big Horn. But there are real problems with the official story told by the administration, the FBI, and the Commission. And this leads many to subscribe to either the LIHOP or MIHOP theories.
Distinguishing between LIHOP and MIHOP is virtually impossible without access to the thinking of the principles involved. 9/11 was a covert, clandestine operation. It was carried out by Arabic speaking suicide terrorists. We know that from cockpit transmissions. We know that Usama bin-Laden has taken credit for ordering the attacks. What we don’t know, for sure, is who UBL was working for. Was he working for elements within Pakistan’s ISI, an intelligence agency with extremely close historical ties to the CIA? Was he working for elements within Saudi intelligence, another agency with extremely close historical ties to the CIA? Was he working for rogue elements, possibly retired, from within our own Defense Intelligence Agency? Was he tipped off that we would be running multiple war games on September 11th? Zawahiri spent a year in the custody of Russian authorities. Was he flipped, and turned into a Russian agent?
One could go crazy speculating on such matters. And, the bottom line is that we probably will never have definitive answers to these questions. It’s entirely possible that UBL and Zawahiri were not in the employ of any intelligence agency, and that they managed to carry out one of the most successful clandestine operations in history all on their own, and for the reasons they declared: as punishment for the Iraqi sanctions, our military presence in Saudi Arabia, and our pro-Israel policies.
So, while we can speculate about who made 9/11 happen on purpose, we can never be sure which intelligence agencies were involved, if any. But, we can assess whether or not the Bush administration (at the highest levels) had information that a plot was afoot, and whether they did anything to stop it. Did they let it happen on purpose? Was the only surprise the scope of the destruction? And here, the circumstantial evidence has been building ever since the August 6th memo was revealed back in May of 2002. Richard Clarke said the Bush administration did nothing about the threat. He would know. But doing nothing about terrorism is different from letting something happen on purpose.
Perhaps the strongest case for LIHOP/MIHOP is the war in Iraq. How on Earth would the Bush administration have justified the war in Iraq if not for the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax scare? The anthrax was traced back to Fort Detrick, Maryland, which is operated by the Pentagon, and then the investigation was stalled. Is it a coincidence that someone from the Pentagon mailed anthrax in the days after 9/11? Is that a normal reaction to the tragedy?
Another extremely curious question is Bush’s behavior at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School as the attacks unfolded. He claimed that he assumed the first plane was a small-plane, piloted by a ‘terrible pilot’. But we know he was briefed on the threat of terrorist suicidal hijacking a month before the attacks. How could he make the assumption that many of us made? How could he not immediately think about:
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar’ Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
It seems to me that a report of a plane (of any size) crashing into the World Trade Center would have been interpreted as a likely terrorist event by anyone who had been told that an attack was imminent, that al-Qaeda was training hijackers for attacks, and that buildings in NYC were being scoped out. If Bush didn’t figure it out himself, Condi Rice should have told him, or Andy Card, or George Tenet. Instead he shrugged it off and decided to read a book about a goat to children. Even when he was informed that a second plane had hit the WTC, no one thought to interrupt his photo-op. Why?
As we remember the victims of 9/11 today, we only know one thing for sure. Condi Rice’s claim that “no one could have imagined that terrorists would hijack commercial planes to use as missiles to attack key US government buildings” has been rendered inoperative. The NTSHMA (nothing to see here, move along) theory is the only theory we can definitively rule out.
There’s an eerie correspondence between the Condi Rice statement you quote and Bush’s assertion that no one could have predicted that the levees would be breached.
Whoops!
“Move along. These aren’t the droids we’re looking for.”
My thought exactly.
is the Katrina response and the continuing screw up. And since Bush praised Brown for doing a good job, it must be on purpose.
I think Katrina is a powerful example of SNAFU. But when SNAFU’s are staggering enough, it leads people to assume LIHOP. No one could be that incompetent. Except, they can be.
I vote for LIHOP and SNAFU with Katrina
necessarily more generous, but perhaps I am more cautious. I try to identify what I can know, and what I cannot know. I can make a case for MIHOP, LIHOP, or SNAFU. However, my SNAFU argument would still insist on LIHTGI (Let it happen through gross incompetence). I do not accept any SNAFU argument that place the blame solely on lack of intelligence sharing. Bad priorities were a major part of the SNAFU.
Gross incompetence does not explain how BushCo. managed to achieve exactly what it wanted. How can a SNAFU of that magnitude land ANYONE in the cat bird seat?
For me it boils down to just how evil are these people? For LIHOP (or obviously MIHOP), they have to be pretty damn evil. In the case of 9/11, the theory that they allowed the event to happen because they knew they could use it to their advantage does have some plausability, but that would mean that people would have to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, et al. were truly evil people, and not just incompetent power mongers. I don’t think they ever imagined the sheer destructive force of 9/11, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t allow it to happen.
The same could be said for the response (or lack thereof) to Katrina. In order to believe LIHOP, one must admit that the major players in our government are truly evil to desire the death and destruction of NO, so that they could disperse and kill off a large congregation of african americans and poor people.
I don’t think most people are willing to come out and say our president is an evil and cruel man. It is far easier to say they are just completely incompetent.
Yet, seeing how they have consistently prevailed with the spin machine, does kind of give credence to the evil, rather than incompetent, theory. If they were truly incompetent, they would not be able to pull the wool over millions of eyes and yet they do, time after time.
I have no problem believing that they see a “greater good” at work, or a lesser evil. It’s clear that they see themselves as big picture people, and no doubt think a few thousand lives here or that ain’t jack in the course of history.
Think of what we saw with our own eyes during Katrina – now think what we haven’t seen over the last several years in Iraq. Think several thousand dead Iraqis means anything? Keep in mind, torture was our OFFICIAL policy.
Kamakhya, my take on Katrina is that it was a case of SNAFU. You can see this if you are willing to think that the Bush spin machine is the most competent part of the Administration and that FEMA is the least competent.
I really don’t think it is that they are inherently incompetent. It is that they have the strong belief that government should not act, and that it cannot act effectively except in military cases.
If they work for someone who does not share that belief, then they will be directed to do the jobs necessary, but this comes from the very top, and they have filled the executive service and civil service with managers who share that belief. If they had someone telling them the jobs were necessary, many of them could do them. Possibly even Michael Brown if he had someone on his ass making him do it. But with that belief and no one to tell them otherwise, they cannot be separated from the totally incompetent.
I don’t think the LIHOP case is relevant if they are unaware that something is likely to happen. Since Brown did not consider FEMA relevant and Albaugh had announced early on that it had become too big and that expectations for it needed to be scaled back, and they lost all the experienced hands (assuming they would listen if told by a subordinate that something was needed) they simply never researched and came up to speed on the real dangers of a hurricane hitting New Orleans at any time when they had time to reflect. By the time Katrina was in the Gulf, of course it was too late.
That’s my biggest argument for SNAFU over LIHOP. They assumed nothing useful could be done, so they didn’t look at the needs or doing anything. Had they been aware of the need and not done anything, it would have been LIHOP.
MIHOP is very unlikely – the number of people involved makes maintaining secrecy over any extended period impossible. If I robbed a bank with two other guys, I’d be laying in bed at night worrying that one of them would be picked up by the police and rat me out. Here, we’re talking about hundreds of co-conspirators.
LIHOP has the same drawback, admittedly on a lesser scale.
What is certain is that 9/11/01 was a great day for the Bush administration. On 9/10 his presidency was going in the toilet – when the planes hit the buildings the village idiot got to act “presidential”, and it was like Christmas morning for the Republican pollsters.
Your reasoning applies to such things as aliens in New Mexico and faked moon landings. I never accept most conspiracy theories for precisely my inability to believe that any group of humans could keep something like that secret for very long.
I’m firmly in the LIHOP camp with some SNAFU (for both tragedies, actually). Think about the BCCI conspiracy. Lots of people involved, no one beyond political junkies and conspirologists know what the hell it is. And it’s not like the info isn’t out there. Much like 9/11 lots of it is hidden in plain sight. Having studies conspiracies some, I’m of the belief they take far fewer people to pull of than one would believe. That’s what the chain of command is for, to keep those underneath from asking questions about what they’re doing.
just to give a hypothetical case (not an endorsement) for MIHOP:
If Cheney and Runsfeld were the co-conspirators, how many people would have to have been in on the conspiracy? Probably a team of less than 12 people could have pulled it off. While out of power they use their contacts in the intelligence community (possibly all retired) to run a variety of operations. Forging Niger documents, placing in Italian hands, would be one. Other pre-positioning pieces could involve the recruiting through third-parties, like Bandar, or ISI, KSM, of pilots.
Once in power, all the war games are consolidated to 9/11, a process that is done quite openly. Someone at Ft. Detrick is charged with smuggling out some anthrax and mailing it to the opposition and leading media outfits.
Other than Rummy, Cheney, someone like Bandar, or the ISI chief, no one knows about the conspiracy.
I’m not saying this happened, but I am saying that MIHOP explanation doesn’t require a lot of people being quiet. In this scenario, Bush had no clue, and still doesn’t.
Again, I am not saying this happened at all, but you can’t rule out MIHOP with the assumption that it would involve a conspiracy too large to keep hidden.
at least we agree that Bush doesn’t have a clue.
I doesn’t make it necessarily easier to believe but I agree (as I stated above) it really wouldn’t take that many people to pull of MIHOP or LIHOP.
I’ll agree with you on the conspiracy. Back in college five of us stole a school mascot and destroyed it. We were caught within a week. Two of the idiots bragged to friends at a bar.
{We replaced the mascot, passing ourselves off as a small group of students with school spirit, so they didn’t klck us out, though we were suspended for the week it took to get a machinist to rebuild the thing. That conspiracy, with the knowledge of the Dean of Men, held up. I think.)
I’ll guarantee the truth of the statement that if two living people know something it is not a secret.
to this warning?
Attack today on LA
I’d have been a SNAFU adherent, except that the Bush administration is not normal. It is exceptionally incompetent – except for manipulating elections in their favor, patronage appointments, greed and corruption.
The incompetence in governing is intentional, based on an ideology that government should do nothing except conduct military operations.
The Katrina response to the well known and long anticipated disaster of a hurricane hitting New Orleans clearly demonstrates that SNAFU with the caveat of extreme incompetence at governing is a strong althernative to LIHOP or MIHOP.
But like you, I am not fully convinced.
For the LIHOP or MIHOP options, I still lean towards advance knowledge (probably in the Office of the Vice President) that something was going to happen, and letting it go so that it could be used to intitiate the invasion of Iraq.
Since the history of al Qaeda attacks had been relatively minor before 2001 (casualities in the low hundreds in Africa being the worst), no one expected a success as large as the collapse of both towers of the WTC. If there was any coordination between the White House and al Qaeda, whoever conducted the coordination is almost certainly dead now.
But I still go by the old addage that you almost never go wrong by attributing a screw-up to incompetence rather than planning gone bad.
As for Bush, I read somewhere that pilots had speculated that he left the Air National Guard because he became afraid to land the planes. It is known that his last six months his recording flying was all in two-seaters which lends some credence to that speculation.
That would indicate someone who cannot make decisions in a tight situation. Barely supported speculation, of course, but his history on 9/11 and when faced with every crisis (including when faced with Cindy Sheehan) since has been that he did not act until told to. He freezes and dithers.
The authorization for war with Iraq was inevitable.
The motive is always power. Like money, you don’t need to name what you are going to use it for.
In fact, the purpose of the war in Iraq, as originally intended, was power.
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: `One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, `My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, `If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”
…
According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush’s beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House – ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. “Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.”
If anything, the Iraq war was a failure of redundancy, of reaching for power the administration already had acquired. A failure to pare and focus. To pare, Bush would have to exert command over a political network which accepted him precisely because he does not regulate the market for spoils.
Bush’s stay-the-course phobia about touching down seems destined to cause any number of crashes.
I pretty much agree with you.
Remember, however, that in late 1999 Bush knew nothing at all about foreign policy, so Rove brought in Cheny and Rice to tutor him. I think that was where the actual impetus to invade Iraq came from, and since Bush is quite passive and indecisive, I suspect he delegated it to Cheney.
Cheney seems to be the active source behind all military decisions, and one reason the White House failed to act promptly on Katrina in New Orleans is that Cheney was on vacation in Montana. Bush then depended on Chertoff, who depended on Brown and didn’t realize what a cock-up it was until he went to New Orleans himself on Thursday or Friday.
No one working for Brown who knew how bad it really was dared call Chertoff and go over his boss’s head, so Chertoff had to get on-site to actually learn how bad things were. Until then, it was just statatics of how good things were going being passed up. That was what Bush was reporting to the public. Since they were so out of whack with what was coming over the TV, they should have known, but Bush is famous for not reacting to the media or the apparent momentary problems.
Iraq no doubt worked the same way, but the media didn’t give it the kind of coverage they have Katrina. No one has dared give Bush the bad news about Iraq yet, I imagine. And Iraq still has Chalabi to give good news to NeoCons and Cheney. No Chalabi’s in Katrina.
I vote SNAFU. There are plenty of well-known risks–from terrorists AND from mother nature–that nobody does anything about. It’s the way human politics works, and is just a reflection of human nature.
For example, in the wake of 9/11, why was so much money spent on airplane security and so little on train security? I don’t hear anybody from either side of the political spectrum demanding that all rail lines be protected against bombs, yet Lawrence of Arabia perfected the critical technology of that method of guerilla warfare almost 100 years ago–and taught it to the Arabs.
For example, there is risk of complete economic collapse of the country in the wake of major earthquakes in the Northeast or Central parts of the country, and yet they have been experienced in the past and are expected again.
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050622_new_madrid.html
Who’s the big-name politician who wants to do anything about either of these two cases? Nobody, because it would involve spending a lot of money for something that only “might” happen.
My theory is that people, including politicians, mostly hope for the best and plan to cope with crises as they occur. It’s too much work to actually plan ahead…
You are correct that a lot of things don’t get acted on. Government sets priorities and acts on the high priority items.
The difference is that usually the priorities are set by an evaluation of the most probable risks. These guys set priorities based on their ideology. That’s why we are building the anti-missile system. Low real priority, high ideological priority.
In the end, the difference between SNAFU and LIHOP is neglible.
National security competed with political and sectarian objectives.
Therefore, information was not shared.
Therefore, a predictable and preventable catastrophe.
The motives of the hold-outs of information are key.
Those motives do not have to be directly tied to the result, nor involve advance understanding of the specific consequences of undermining national security.
Ah, the preventable holds the key for me. Not a single protocol was followed on 9/11, that would be a massive SNAFU, everybody failed. What was routine became the exception. Even in as massive a SNAFU as Katrina relief, some people still did the right thing.
Nobody fucks up as badly as every agency did on the day of September 11th. Not even these incompetents.
of the Sept 11 attack. It’s been called things like “brilliant” and so forth. It took coordination and money, but hijacking some minimally-protected planes and crashing them into a target just doesn’t seem all that hard. You’d have had to maintain communications protocols anybody could figure out by reading a few spy novels. The key is not some kind of supersmart planning, but having extremely dedicated fanatics at your command. Seems to me Sept 11 was just an elaborate upgrade of the kind of suicide car bombings that are happening pretty much every day in Iraq and elsewhere.
This is important because I think the hype about the difficulty of the goal and the genius of the planning serves to somewhat excuse Bush’s failure — who’da thought anybody could do something like this? Just about everybody. Sorry, but it was obvious. I don’t read spy/conspiracy novels, but I’d bet there are dozens and dozens of them that describe the Sept 11 plot with fair degrees of accuracy.
Given the choices, I’d have to vote for SNAFU, but it would be the subcategory SNAFUOADI: SNADU On Account of Depraved Indifference. It’s true that Bush is profoundly stupid, and as a result, so are a lot of his administration. But outcomes like Bush’s unbroken record of failure and destruction don’t come from stupidity alone. They need sociopath-level indifference to the welfare of everybody but onesself and one’s close circle — think The Godfather.
Sept 11, Katrina, and all the rest of the outrages happened because Bush and his gangsters really don’t care enough about what happens to regular folks. All that matters is that they can proceed to consolidate power and rob the country blind while they’re prattling on and on about Jesus and USA Number 1. Sometimes it seems like we forget about the simplest explanation: bad, stupid, sociopaths make bad things happen. Whether they consciously intended those particular things to occur really doesn’t much matter.
From the perspective of the bush administration, a wonderful blend of all four….
SNAFU- Situation normal- all fucked up.
LIHOP- Let it happen on purpose.
MIHOP- Made it happen on purpose.
NTSHMA- Nothing to see here, move along.
From the citizens perspective we’re fucked, a frightening blend of all four.
At best an incredibly incompetetent administration, at worst they did it… No one held accountable, makes one wonder. The most incompetent, were promoted. Roadblocks set-up at every road that could lead to answers. Face it folks, they knew about it, they aided it, they benefited from it. We’re fucked. There is a basic thought in regards to re-incarnation… RETURN and REPEAT, till you learn your lessons. In regards to Katrina; Face it folks, they knew about it, they aided it, they benefited from it. We’re fucked. RETURN and REPEAT, what is next…. Have we learned anything ???
The first was an editor for one of the National Enquirer-type papers in Florida, very near where some of the hijackers received flight training.
Then, there was the letters sent to Daschle and Leahy–very curious politics there, eh.
Then Brokaw, Rather, and Jennings had their own personally addressed letters.
Finally, as if an afterthought, the New York Times.
And all of the people who died were not the intended targets.
A very interesting and baffling pattern. And very elephantine in tone.
.
Sibel Edmonds, Director-National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, sedmonds@nswbc.org
Sunday, August 28, 2005 — The Following National Security Whistleblowers were turned away, refused, or ignored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct & relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation:
John M. Cole (Senior Counterintelligence Operations Manager-FBI) – He notified the 9/11 Commission during its investigation and never received response. Also his name & contact information were provided to the Commission as key witness (Program manager for Pakistan & Afghanistan; has relevant information to 9/11 terrorist attack) by others, but he was not contacted. John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist, worked for 18 years in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division as an Intelligence Operations specialist.
Beginning in 1999, he discovered and began reporting serious issues of mismanagement, gross negligence, waste of government funds, security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. He wrote these issues in several letters to FBI management, to include Director Mueller to no avail. After he reported these acts to FBI management, he was retaliated against, suspended and ultimately left the FBI in March 2004.
Bogdan Dzakovic (Former Red Team Leader-FAA)- His testimony to the Commission was completely omitted from the final report.
[…]
▼ ▼ ▼
.
The only previous attempt by a terrorist group to use a passenger airliner to mount an airborne suicide attack was in December 1994. To punish France for its assistance to the Algerian government and to draw international attention to the Algerian conflict, the Armed Islamic Group (Groupe Armée Islamique – GIA) hijacked Air France Airbus A-300 Flight 8969 in Algiers on 24 December 1994. Of the 227 passengers, 40 were French nationals.
After the GIA had released some women and children, but murdered three passengers, the Algerian authorities permitted the aircraft to leave for France. The intention of the GIA cell, led by the 25-year-old Abdul Abdallah Yahia, alias Abou, was to crash a fully fuelled plane into the Eiffel Tower in the heart of Paris.
GIA – Metro bombings in Paris
“Such groups, I wrote then, nullify in large measure the need to have air power or intercontinental missiles as delivery systems for an Islamic nuclear payload. They will be the delivery system. In the worst of such scenarios, I wrote, the consequences could be not a car bomb but a nuclear bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center.
Well, they did not use a nuclear bomb. They used two 150 ton fully fueled jetliners, to wipe out the Twin Towers. But does anyone doubt that given the chance, they will throw atom bombs at America and its allies? And perhaps long before that, (they will use) chemical and biological weapons?”
G. Gordon Liddy Interviews Bibi Netanyahu 22 Oct. 2001 — The G Man in Israel
▼ ▼ ▼
They all planned 9/11 and the Iraq war together. – Can you really believe that the screw ups in Iraq are just incompetence? No, clearly a design for the benefit of radical Islamists, Iran, and France, all happily working together. They armed Iran in the eighties, the Wolfie and Perle vacation in France, they’ve all got ties to the Saudis… And of course the most powerful proof of all – cui bono?
Now how about them black helicopters…
You intentionally made an absurd case for MIHOP. There is a very compelling case that can be made, and has been made by very intelligence people…people with experience working at high levels of government.
Making fun of them is not an effective way of dismissing their arguments. As for cui bono, there are a couple things to consider.
One, speculating that the hijackers had assistance from a competent intelligence agency doesn’t tell us which one, or whether the assistance was fron rogue elements in that intelligence agency. I find it only marginally easier to believe that rogue elements of Pakistani or Saudi intelligence aided them, than rogue elements of American or Israeli intelligence.
And second, those rogue elements may have miscalculated how we would react as a people and as a government. The estimation of benefit may have been erroneous.
You intentionally made an absurd case for MIHOP. There is a very compelling case that can be made, and has been made by very intelligence people…people with experience working at high levels of government.
So what? The argument for the Iraqi nuclear program, for Iraqi involvement in 9/11, hell – even for Iraqi involvement in Oklahoma City has been made by ‘very intelligent people… people with experience working at high levels of government’. The French involvement with Al Qaeda btw. is one that has been made by Michael Ledeen. Would you object to someone dismissing their arguments by making fun of them?
All the MIHOP and LIHOP speculation is just that. Until someone actually comes up with decent evidence I’ll treat it the exact same way I treat Ledeen’s speculations about France or Wolfowitz’s about Oklahoma City or the various people who say that no, really, Saddam did have an active WMD program, he just hid it really well or moved it to Syria – with derision.