The REAL agenda behind the 9/11 Commission

Look at these three statements and tell me what the connection is. You will see that ultimately both the Bushies and Clarke are calling for the same thing. The buck passing between the two sides is not the main event it is a smokescreen from behind which the establishment is inventing or rather reinforcing the logic of the war on terror.

From the CS Monitor:

One of the main topics of the hearing was what Rice herself called the "tragic" failure through a string of administrations to undertake structural reforms in domestic agencies - and particularly those focused on intelligence gathering - to face the growing terrorist threat.

Rice emphasized the building realization within the Bush administration that "legal and bureaucratic impediments" of the pre-9/11 period prevented the government from "connect the dots" supplied by intelligence agencies that could have allowed for a strategy against terror attacks. When Commissioner Fred Fielding, a Republican, said "it still doesn't appear to us that have solved the institutional issue," Rice responded that the structural problem may not have been "solved" but that "critical progress" has been made, including creation of the Homeland Security office.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0409/p01s01-uspo.html

From the Newshour with Jim Lehrer:

DONALD RUMSFELD: But here our country wasn't arranged that way. I mean, if you think about it, we didn't have a Department of Homeland Security, which would be the responsible agency as it would be today. We didn't have domestic intelligence. We frowned on that. We thought that's not a good idea so we won't let the Defense Intelligence or the Central Intelligence do any domestic intelligence. We'll leave that to the FBI, and the FBI was basically law enforcement. They were the people when someone breaks the law, they go out and stop them.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june04/rumsfeld_3-25.html

Tenet from the transcript:

TENET: Governor, let me give you a big systemic answer that I feel pretty passionately about.

You know, in about the mid-'90s at the time we were trying to take this all on, we started to rebuild a clandestine human operations capability that went away on this country. We were trying to recapitalize NSA. We were trying to get ourselves better imagery capability.

And on the human side, I'm still five years away from being able to look at you in the eye and say -- because it's terribly -- you got to recruit the right people, have the right training infrastructure. We've built all those things.

There has to be -- you know, just like people talk about other instruments of power, there must be a relentless focus on ensuring that the intelligence capability this country has is allowed to grow in the critical areas that allow us to have capability inside sanctuaries where people are going to go hide.

Now, from the perspective of integration, the sharing of data, the relationship on the domestic side -- I mean, one of the things that obviously needs to be built here is seamless flows of data from your law enforcement community to your intelligence community that requires law enforcement community to have.

And Bob Mueller is building a digital communications system that allows you to connect the dots of his empire in the United States so all the data comes forward in a way that we can see it and feel it and touch it the same way and understand its integrity.

And all of that data that we collect, sir, ultimately we have to treat the state and local governments and their police forces as if they're part of this fight in a way, because they are not really interested in how you did the operation. They need the data. Thousands of people who walk around our streets that can collect data need to be educated.

Now, to be sure, we'll get into longer-term intelligence, systemic issues in April, I suspect.

And to be sure, we have to ask ourself some pretty tough questions about, are we organized the right way? Is this the structure you want for the next 50 years? It's been here for 57 years. What kinds of issues do we have to put on the table? All with the notion of fusing and integrating operations and data in a manner that's seamless so that there's never the assertion that I didn't see this piece of information that could have saved lives.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04085/290935.stm

This was reported in the Washington Post, I saw the actual testimony and heard his call for a special domestic intelligence agency, so the article is not twisting his words:

Clarke, appearing before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, also criticized the FBI's performance in assessing domestic threats from the al Qaeda terrorist network before the attacks and called for the creation of a new domestic intelligence agency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20071-2004Mar24.html

Now I present to you the difference between the Bushies and the Clintonites when it comes to this issue. Granted, Clarke is a Republican, but to see the way the liberal establishment and DU have rallied to him you wouldn't know it. Understanding that the terms liberal and conservative are rather vague anyway the way you define Clarke is by looking at who benefits from his line of thought. First and in the most minor way, Clinton benefits. Secondly, the Democrats benefit. And thirdly both the Republicans and the Democrats benefit or rather those controlling interests which drive both.

In the first case it is clear that Clarkes testimony was meant to be damaging to Bush. Given the commission's scope of investigation (who did more to kill Bin Laden, Clinton or Bush) this also becomes a plus for Clinton. On the second point, similarly what is bad for Bush is good for the Democrats. You can also, as I said before, clearly see the Democrat establishment attaching itself to Clarke's critique of Bush. Now in the third and most important case, because it will ultimately become the finding of the commission and become practical policy, Clarke's call for increased domestic intelligence clearly dovetails with the interests of both the Bushies and the Clintonites, or the Democrats and the Republicans. One need only look at the similarity in what Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet (a Clinton appointee) and Clarke have said in either criticizing the lack of a domestic secret police or advocating it.

Thus on the most fundamental issue of how the and whether the "war on terror" should be prosecuted all sides agree. "The war on terror" is a Bush invention. Why is it that Kerry, Kerrey, Clinton, Kennedy et al have so forcefully backed it? Is it because it represents an objective reality or is it because it is in their shared interest as political elites and in the interest of those who REALLY back them (i.e. not your average voter).

To point out more clearly the trend towards domestic intelligence gathering I suggest one look at the bills that Clinton put through from 1995-1996:

"The Executive Order I signed last month to stop fund raising for
Middle East terrorist groups and my proposed Omnibus Anti-terrorism Act will greatly strengthen our abilities to act quickly and decisively against this threat to peace. The budget I submitted earlier this week maintains the vigorous law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic capabilities the United States requires to act effectively against terrorism on all fronts."

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1995/95f0208y.htm

"The American Civil Liberties Union opposes this legislation. We urge members of the House to vote against H.R. 1710. Instead of being a tool to prevent "another Oklahoma City" the portions of the legislation that violate civil liberties have little to do with preventing such a bombing attack in the future. They are instead a collection of measures--many of which have been offered before--attached to legislation promulgated as anti-terrorism legislation. Indeed, much of the bill is little more than a number of misguided immigration restrictions totally unrelated to terrorism."

http://archive.aclu.org/congress/terract.html

Antiterrorism Acts from 1995-1996:

http://resource.lawlinks.com/Content/Legal_Subject_Index/criminal_law/terrorism/antiterrorism_acts_from_19951996.htm

Now compare this legislation to the PATRIOT Act. You will find striking similarities.

USA PATRIOT Act:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

Also look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a disgusting piece of legislation that came out of hearings very similar to the 9/11 hearings going on now. How many of you know that we have secret courts in the U.S.? Oh, and it was signed into law by Carter.

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/fisa_faq.html

The ironic thing about FISA is that it sounded pretty good at the time and in theory, but of course in practice it has been egregiously abused.

FISA: End-Run Around the Fourth Amendment:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12290

So their you have it a quick summarization of the differences between the Clintonites and the Bushies or the Republicans and the Democrats, and how these differences dovetail into shared interests on fundamental issues. And how the realization of these shared interests is the agenda behind the 9/11 commission.

Granted it isn't a perfect post, clearly I can't tell you everything there is to know about it in one post, and I do rely on alot of ACLU stuff, but having actually gone through the different legislations and hearings related to them as well as looking at the historical and political context in which they were created I think the ACLU's line on these issues is correct.

[el_gato]

1. I agree

good work

I think the 9/11 commmission is a sham

[NNN0LHI]

2. Smoke and mirrors n/t

[NeonLX]

3. Yer probably right...

...and that depresses the hell out of me.

[louis-t]

4. The irony of all this..

is that when bushies defend themselves on 9/11, at times they can't defend themselves without defending Clinton. And at times they can't slam Clinton without slamming *.

7. It's a perfect example

This irony can be better described as a contradiction and it clearly shows the amount of difference between the Bushies and the Clintonites as well as that between the Dems and Repubs. This contradiction shows itself in the debate over Iraq too. In other words the differences are superficial and of course the superficial is what we're all trained to look at when it is the similarities that are really driving policy.

[theboss]

5. I don't know what your expectations are

Both parties agree that the "War on Terror" is a good thing. This commission is not going to call for an end to the war. It's an investigation to see why 9/11 wasn't prevented (by both the Bush and Clinton Administrations).

As for the "War on Terror" itself (I hate the name as you can see by the other post). No one thinks we should ignore a terrorist threat so it becomes largely a discussion of tactics. Invading Iraq is a bad tactic in the larger scheme of things, for example.

8. It is not to see why 9/11 wasn't prevented

It is to bolster public opinion around the case for the "war on terror" as well as train people to think with the same logic that leads to a defense of the "war on terror".

If they wanted to know why 9/11 wasn't stopped wouldn't they focus on what actually happened? Instead they focus on why Bin Laden wasn't killed before 9/11. As if, given their own line about the attacks being planned for two years, the death of Bin Laden would have stopped the attacks. The concentration on Bin Laden is a concentration on one of the supreme assumptions of their case for the "war on terror". That is, an external threat which becomes central to U.S. foreign, domestic and economic policy, just like the Cold War. And it is meant to divert attention on what really happened and why and to channel public opinion into giving up more rights.

[theboss]

10. You are coming from an assumption too

If I am reading correctly, I take it that you don't accept the presumption that agents of Al Qaeda acting on their own orchestrated the attacks on 9/11. So, you would want the commission to start from scratch and hear everything, up to the guy in France who says that no plane ever hit the Pentagon.

But I assume that if this commission did this, and still concluded that it was Al Qaeda, you woulnd't accept that conclusion.

The point is investigations don't start from a point of zero assumed knowledge. They can't; nothing would ever be accomplished. You don't investigate a murder and prove that the victim is, in fact, dead.

I think the purpose of the investigation is proper: find out where we screwed up and make sure it doesn't happen again. I don't think they are going to accomplish their goal necessarily, but the goal itself is good.

I could be reading too much into your post. How would you investigate this?

12. You don't have to assume anything wacky

To ask that the commission really look into what happened. For instance why, when the FBI and CIA had been tailing several of the hijackers, didn't they arrest some of them.

Why was the air defense on stand down.

Who were the actual hijackers. The BBC and others have reported that several, as many a five, of the hijackers still listed by the FBI are alive.

What happened to the investigation of put options which showed that the two airlines, as well as many of the groups connected to the WTC as either tenants or insurers, had a ridiculous increase in the number of puts in the days before 9/11. Of course indicating that someone had foreknowledge and those people should be connected to Bin Laden and caught.

In fact what is the official story and timeline of what happened on 9/11 and leading up to it? It would be nice if the commission was looking at the FBI/CIA investigation of what happened and basing there own investigation of why we supposedly couldn't stop it on those facts. In any investigation one of the first things you do is make a finding of facts, i.e. what actually happened. The 9/11 commission has completely by-passed that.

None of this assumes that Al Qaeda didn't do it. But wouldn't figuring out the actual facts of the case be a good start to finding out how to fix it?

The argument the commission and all these bureaucrats are making is that we fucked up bad, but don't hold us accountable, instead give us more power and we promise we'll do better next time and not abuse the power you give us. Now if someone wrecks the family car, do you go right out and buy them a new and more expensive car?

[sangh0]

6. OH MY GOD!!!!

You mean the 9/11 Commission is a conspiracy motivated by a desire to protect us from terrorism?

Those bastards!!

9. If you read the critiques of Patriot act and ATA

you will find that these are not and cannot be effective against "terrorism". If the ATA was effective wouldn't it have stopped 9/11? The commission is not a conspiracy to protect us from terrorism it is a whitewash intended to corral people into giving up more rights and ultimately creating a political situation in which people actually demand a secret police system in the U.S. It is intended to reinforce the same logic that created the ATA, the PATRIOT Act, the war in Iraq, the war in afghanistan, and the increased militirization of our society both at home and abroad.

[shance]

11. Have you heard about the fence being built around the Capitol?

I heard that on Air America last night when a women with the American Veterans Association was talking. It was a leetle chilling.

Apparently there is a fence being built, most probably to keep the American Peeple from coming to visit? The War on Terrorism is ridiculous, totally ineffective and more and more seems less designed to create safety and security and more apt to instill a fascist government.

Look at the direction we have been moving since 9/11. Has it been towards building effective communication with citizens and their government to try and provide a more productive and proactive policy in building communities, which of course is the only real way to combat terrorism.

The War on Terrorism is getting AMAZING mileage, considering how it has only provoked the widespread chaos, fear and trauma inflicted on citizens and even our troops abroad, not to mention that we as a nation are only contributing at this point to the violence, upheaval and destruction.

Either our Congress is pretty ripe with cowards driven by money and accolades by their colleagues or something is truly a miss. I dont see what good the 9-11 Commission has created up to this point, except to stall and avoid asking the questions needing to be asked in order to get to the truth.

If there is any solution at this point, it is our voices, our family members and friends voices and we should probably be calling our congress people every day to address a different issue, and also to build a repore with them, not to mention to ask them WHEN are they coming back to town to touch base with us, their constituents and give us a run down of what they are doing as far as their job is concerned.