They're probably going to have to permanently close Reagan Airport. A weedy abandoned field is a more appropriate tribute to Ronald Reagan anyway. Perhaps they can make it useful, and put the Ronald Reagan sanitary landfill there. Someone should write an essay drawing the direct line from Reagan's attack on the air traffic controllers to the completely inadequate response of air security to the plane-bombs. And let's not forget that it was under Reagan that U. S. foreign relations reached its psychopathic peak.
The U. S. has an unfortunate history of blaming terrorist attacks on countries it otherwise has a dispute with (Sudan, Libya, the "Maine" incident, the Tonkin Gulf incident), and using 'retaliation' for these attacks as a weapon in U. S. geo-political intrigues. Is it so crazy to think that U. S. desire to control an oil pipeline through Afganistan for central Asian oilfields is behind the quick determination that the Taliban is behind the recent horrors?
One of the main sources of income for the oligarchy is the taking of huge fees associated with money laundering. We therefore have a War On (some) Drugs, as this war both increases the value of the drugs and provides the necessity to launder the proceeds from the drugs. The oligarchs also enjoy moving their money around in offshore shelters from taxing authorities (the attack on these shelters was stopped by the Bush administration). Some of the profits on drugs grown in the Middle and Far East, together with money from governments and religious institutions, has been moved through the same money-laundering banks and offshore shelters used by the oligarchs, and has funded the terrorism cells. The only way to stop terrorism is to stop the funding for it, which would require stopping the War On (some) Drugs and forcing places which harbour money-laundering institutions (including London and, ironically, New York City) and offshore tax shelters to close them down.
Could the selection of George Bush as President have been a factor in the terrorism? We can expect that the forces behind the terrorism expect and want a retributive attack. Do they hope that Bush, someone who heard a rumour about the Vietnam war in a cocaine-alcohol haze, would act more rashly than Al Gore, who had first-hand knowledge of Vietnam, and would have a real understanding of the stupidity of sending thousands of Americans to die in Afganistan? Do thay hope that Bush is just a puppet of the old cold warriors who worked for his father, and will do exactly what they say, no matter that their solution to everything is war, as war gives them the excuse they want to radically increase military spending? Do they hope that Bush is stupid enough to walk right into the trap they've set?
One way to determine if the oligarchy had foreknowledge of the terrorism is to check the records of the victims. If there are no dead generals in the Pentagon, and neither dead senior executives, senior partners, nor sons of the oligarchy (i. e., you don't see Ritchie Rich IV on the list), and find that all these people were miraculously saved as they unavoidably had to be out of the office that morning, you can draw your own conclusions.
Did the oligarchs who run the U. S. let the terrorism happen so they could: 1) make huge amounts of money on the military contracts they will get; and 2) have the right to impose huge restrictions on civil liberties, at once both telling lots of people what to do and making more money supplying the various rent-a-cops and security devices that the restrictions will entail? While I wouldn't put anything beyond them, it is inconceivable that the oligarchs would countenance an attack on the WTC and the Pentagon, symbols of their power. Just the loss of computer and paper files in the WTC would drive them crazy. However, what if the terrorists told their infiltrators that they intended to attack a less important set of targets in less important cities? This would still cause the outrage that would lead to military and security contracts, without causing any great harm to the oligarchy. I can see the oligarchs, misled by the terrorists, letting the terror go ahead to make a little money.
If Monday was a 'patriot rally', what would a Benedict Arnold rally look like? Rather than look out for the interests of the country, investors seemed to follow the true American way and looked after their own wallets.
Just like Oklahoma City, this recent terrorism has the marks of a sting operation gone horribly wrong. The speed with which the FBI identified the terrorists, coupled with the evidence that warnings were given in Europe and the U. S., leads one to the conclusion that the U. S. counter-terrorism forces had infiltrated at least some of the terrorist cells. The terrorists are so sophisticated, however, that they anticipated infiltration, and either 'turned' the infiltrators or gave them incorrect information. The trouble with counter-terrorism is that the FBI has to wait until the last possible moment to gather enough information to make the arrests, and if they are misled as to the nature or timing of the attack, will wait too long. Even worse, given that the FBI may have had some terrorists in custody and then released them, is the possibility that the FBI may have been playing a counter-terrorism game, releasing the terrorists with a view to using them to follow the actions of other terrorists.
Does the public have a right to know if Port Authority workers ordered people back into one of the towers before it collapsed on them? What about stories of survivors who defied loudspeaker or employer advice to stay and therefore are alive to tell the tale?
Speaking of irony in its true sense, the worst thing about the recent horror was the pictures of the trapped people waving white cloths from the top of one of the towers. When we saw these pictures we knew, like a Greek chorus, that the hopes of these tragic actors for rescue would end with the collapse of the tower.
Is it not just a little ironic that the U. S. A., absolutely alone in the world, unable to even consider a single treaty (Kyoto, bio-weapons, racism, arm's control, etc.), now wants help from all sorts of nations in its new campaign against terrorism.
The fibs of the White House to explain why Bush didn't come back immediately to Washington don't make any sense. If you plan to attack the White House, it would presumably be your most important target, and you'd head for it first, or at least simultaneously with the other targets. Otherwise, you tip off the authorities, who may be ready to shoot you down. You also don't make a call to your target to warn them that you're coming! The Cockburn/St. Clair story in Counterpunch, that Cheney pulled an Al Haig-like 'I am in control here' and told Bush to stay away from Washington, makes a lot of sense. Bush seems to rely on Cheney to tell him what to do, and it was only when Bush's political handlers realized the bad optics of Bush's trip through the mid-west that he returned and the political machine had to make up excuses.
Why is the U. S. government now covering up the car bomb that was reported in front of the State Department? Why are they so coy about whether they shot down the Pennsylvania airplane? If they had shot it down, it would be to their credit. Could it be that they didn't shoot it down because their response time isn't good enough, but they don't want future terrorists to know that?
The argument being advanced for Bush's shameful absence from Washington during his country's hour of need is that the White House was subject to attack. No useful details are given about this, and I guess nobody bothered to tell Cheney, who apparently spent the day there (and, by the way, what happened to Cheney?). Bush apparently spent the whole day flying around to places like Louisiana and Nebraska. Could Bush have needed some time to get his story straight, given his and the whole Bush family's interesting relationship with bin Laden?
The United States in the last fifty years has been able to arrange proxy wars all over the world in furtherance of the interests of its military-industrial complex. It has been able to do this at no risk to its own rich citizens, and, with the notable exception of Vietnam, at relatively little risk to any of its citizens. Yesterday, a few psychopaths proved that those halcion days of safe American empire are no more. If terrorists can find qualified pilots who are willing to give up their lives, those terrorists can now commit acts of war on American soil, and there is no obvious way to stop them, short of turning airline flight into an Orwellian experience (which I expect we will see).
Will today's terror have the effect of drastically reducing the rents obtainable on high, prestigious pieces of real estate, the tenants of which may reasonably now see themselves as sitting ducks? Will it reduce or end the development of such targets?
Today was proof, as if any were needed, of the complete absurdity of a national missile defence system. The terror was committed by a handful of men who could fly airplanes and were willing to give up their lives for a cause. No amount of multi-trillions of defence spending could stop them. The absurdity will be magnified when the current administration uses the situation to argue for even more spending.
It was so inspiring to see Karen Hughes stand in for Governor Bush this afternoon, who I guess was unavailable at his country's greatest hour of need due to the fact he had to wash his soiled underpants in a bunker in Omaha. I wonder if some members of the oligarchy, awaiting death in their top floor executive offices in the World Trade Center, had any second thoughts about who they selected to pretend to be President.
Today's horrors were an attack on the World Trade Center, the symbol of U. S. financial hegemony, the Pentagon, the symbol of U. S. military power, and the State Department, the entity which arranges U. S. foreign policy to put U. S. military power to work to increase U. S. financial hegemony. It was clearly intended to be a symbolic attack against the military-industrial complex, and not, as the politicians and press would have it, against freedom, democracy and the American people. Having said that, it shows a psychopathic disregard for human life and security (unfortunately only matched by the psychopathic disregard for human life and security displayed by the military-industrial complex).
Cryptome reports that all of Ralph McGehee's posts on the Google Groups Usenet archive since May 1998 have been deleted. Mr. McGehee is a retired CIA officer who has the courage to write about the misdeeds of the CIA. Some wonder whether Google removed these posts at the request of someone who didn't appreciate their content. If Google is messing with the Usenet archives for any reason, no one should be able to trust any of their search services, and everyone would be wise to use some of the many alternatives to Google.
This is the almost unbelievable story of how the Japanese looted Asian countries of gold in World War II, only to have the gold secretly taken from them at the end of the war to form the basis of a huge slush fund for use by the CIA and other American interests in the Cold War.
The Americans seem to have decided that Africa is a good place to play their little intelligence games of undeclared covert wars in aid of installing dictators who will look kindly on the exploitation of African natural resources and markets by American corporations. Could they have been behind the still mysterious death of Habyarimana, President of Rwanda, which directly led to the Rwandan genocide?
Karlheinz Schreiber is still in Toronto, trying to keep from being extradited back to Germany (some misunderstanding about taxes). Meanwhile, the repercussions from some of his 'gifts' to the German Christian Democratic Union party are still being felt in Germany.