The Port Deal and Two Discordant Models of Reality for the 9-11 Attacks

[Time for change]

There are two vastly different and mutually exclusive models of reality that people use to understand the September 11th attacks on our country and the measures that the Bush administration took to prevent those attacks and to deal with their aftermath. (There are also hybrid models, of course, which some people adhere to).


Model # 1

One model, which is the one that is accepted by our corporate media and the good majority of the American people, says that our country was attacked by Muslim extremists and that the Bush administration tried as hard as it could to prevent those attacks (though many people who adhere to this model believe that our government’s efforts to prevent the attacks were not characterized by a high degree of competency).

People who adhere to this model generally also believe that the Bush administration’s War in Afghanistan, its holding of prisoners indefinitely without charges or trial, its torture of prisoners and rejection of the Geneva Convention proclamations for the humane and fair treatment of prisoners in general, and its warrantless spying on American citizens within the United States have been and continue to be conducted for the purpose of protecting American citizens against potential terrorist attacks – whether or not they agree with the specific methods that are used. Some of these people also believe, despite a vast amount of evidence to the contrary, that our invasion of Iraq was conducted for the same purpose – i.e., the protection of American citizens.


Model # 2

The other model says that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks – meaning that they either knew about the attacks and purposely allowed them to proceed, helped to facilitate them, or actually designed and/or participated in them.

People who adhere to this model generally also believe that the Bush administration’s War in Afghanistan and in Iraq, its holding of prisoners indefinitely without charges or trial, its torture of prisoners and rejection of the Geneva Convention proclamations for the humane and fair treatment of prisoners in general, and its warrantless spying on American citizens within the United States have been and continue to be conducted, NOT for the purpose of protecting American citizens against potential terrorist attacks, but for the purpose of enhancing its own power and wealth, as well as that of its wealthy and powerful friends and benefactors.


The relationship between the port deal and these two models

Doesn’t the strenuous effort of the Bush administration to push through a deal that would hand over the security of our ports to a corporation from a country with presumed ties to our enemies cast a long shadow over the plausibility of the first model described above (for those who assume that that model hasn’t already been discredited)? And if so, then isn’t the main significance of this effort what it signifies about the Bush administration?

[havocmom]

1. Yep. His 'yer for terraists or yer agin' em' talk sort trips on its self

doesn't it?

But if one follows the premise that all is as corporate power wants, it all falls into place.

Drumming up anit-arab/Muslim sentiment to get public behind a war of aggression against an innocent nation make billions for mega corps supporting the neocon pols. To get the public to the point of accepting such action did, indeed, take 'another American Pearl Harbor'. And did you see one of the owners of the WTC towers a year or so ago? (I was working in the room with the TV and Havocdad was watching something on Modern Marvels or some such program) In an interview he off handedly remarked that the towers as they were never fully reached the economic success the owners had envisioned. But the new center they would build would! uh-huh, one of the owners publicly said they were looking to a new facility to make more money anyway. (No tin foil vendors need apply.)

So, the WTC owners were disappointed and planning more profitable use for the property in the first place. The PNACers needed a highly charged emotional event to blind the population to their real agenda and promote knee-jerk support for sales to the Military Industrial Complex. Gee, that was a nice fit!

Then, we go to war while in a national state of irrational behavior in response to a parlor trick so heinous most people could not imagine OUR own leaders could be participants. Gee, that was easy!

For several years, we get all sorts of legislation crammed down out throats based on the mantra that "everything changed since 9-11". We nodded in fearful agreement as the Bill of Rights was stamped VOID where inconvenient to Corporate Political Puppets.
We let ourselves be distracted by the dog & pony show of the week while the US Congress allowed business to write the laws they wanted instead of doing their fucking jobs of representing We The People. Any real constraints on unbridled capitalism have been removed. Any regulations forcing corporate responsibility have been removed. Gee, that was fun!

And the 'reality' these people admitted THEY CREATE changes so fast people cannot keep pace with the crimes.

Now, our 'leaders' are threatening war against a nation which has not done anything aggressive toward us in over 26 years and providing opportunities for profit to a nation which, according to their own accounts, HAD been a participant in aggression against us. Others can be imprisioned without so much as notification to next of kin on these guys' say so that the parties helped finance terrorism, yet they threaten to veto the sale of control of 6 US ports to a regiem which has PROVEN ties to terrorist?

Yeah, it sorta blows all their spin to shit.

[Time for change]

16. Yes I think you hit the nail on the head -- it all falls into place

It's beyond my understanding how anyone can think that Bush gives a damn about anything other than expanding his power. But they'll keep spinning it as long as they can.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

2. .

:kick:

[bryant69]

3. Model # 3

This model says that the Bush Administration is incompetent; they ignored warnings of 9/11 and have generally floundered due to their ideological lenses since then.

People who believe in this model will share some traits of both model 1 and model 2. They will see Muslim Extremism as a potential threat, something worth addressing. But they may largely agree with the rest of model 2s critiques of how this adminsitration has fought the war on terror.

My guess is that, in the real world, people holding model number 3 out number people holding number 2 by a margin of 2 to one at least. On DU of course MIHOP/LIHOP pretty much reigns supreme.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Time for change]

4. Model # 3

Model # 3 is what I was making reference to when I briefly mentioned hybrid models.

You may be right that those who prefer this model outnumber model # 2 by 2 to 1.

But I see some big problems with it (well I see big problems with model # 1 as well). What you're saying is that these people believe that the handling of the war on terror is meant to increase the power of BushCo rather than to really fight a war to protect us, but they didn't have anything to do with the terrorist attacks in the first place. That seems like too much of a coincidence to me. They've benefited personally enormously from this. They had plans to invade Iraq and Afghanistan long before the attacks. It just doesn't compute IMO.

And that's not to mention the myriad of direct evidence on the point.

[CJCRANE]

5. I call Model #3 the "Lucky Accident" theory.

It's well documented that the PNACers required a "new Pearl Harbor" to gain the political will for the pre-emptive war policy required to invade Iraq (and subsequently other nations on their list).

The "Lucky Accident" theorists accept that 9/11 was like a dream come true for the neocons but see it as simply a lucky consequence of their incompetence.

[bryant69]

6. Funny I call it the "Rational" theory

In that the amount of secrecy needed for LIHOP (let alone MIHOP) boggles the mind. If they are capable of doing that . . . well, I have a hard time believing they would get tripped up on anything.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[CJCRANE]

7. There's isn't that much secrecy -

it's just the MSM hasn't connected the dots.

[bryant69]

8. I've seen your dots

And there's not much there to connect, in my opinion.

Rather the argument usually begins and ends with PNAC and a phase that organization used.

[CJCRANE]

9. They're not my dots -

there's books and books and reams of information that people far more intelligent than me have collated.

I don't have time to convey all that and I can't prove anything so for the time being the "Lucky Accident" holds sway.

[bryant69]

10. You mean, of course, the "Rational Explanation"

But that's ok - to each their own.

[Time for change]

11. I like that name -- I think it fits perfectly

Wish I'd thought of it.

[Yavin4]

12. Model 3 (The Incompetence Argument) Works The Best

Incompetence, greed, cronyism, and hidden agendas rule the day in this admin. 9/11 is a prime example of the sheer incompetence of this admin, who was given warnings about OBL, but took no action.

You could also argue that Model 3 was in action during the Katrina hurricane disaster. Once again, the admin was given advanced warning, but took no action.

The port deal speaks to the incompetence and greed of this admin.

[Time for change]

13. What do you have against model 2?

That incorporates all the greed that you mention and doesn't require a lucky coincidental acceident for the Bush administration.

[Yavin4]

14. It's Too Hard To Keep A Conspiracy Like That Together

Someone would have cracked by now. Hell, they couldn't keep the phony Iraqi WMD story together without people cracking within a year.

[Time for change]

15. People have talked

For example, how do you explain that radio contact was lost between the FAA and flight 77 by 8:50, and the transponder was turned off by 8:56, yet the Pentagon wasn't hit until 42 minutes later, and yet the most powerful military the world has ever known couldn't get a plane up in the air to protect the Pentagon? The military explains this by saying that the FAA never notified them that the plane was lost. Yet Laura Brown of the FAA says that the FAA was in constant contact with the military during this whole time, keeping them constantly apprised of the situation.

But what can you do when the corporate media won't cover these things?

And this is just one example of the inconsistencies in the stories that surrounded that day. There are many many more. It takes a lot more than one person "cracking" to get this out to the general public.

[Time for change]

17. Main point is that we as much or more to fear from the Bush administration

than anyone else.