I attempted to start this topic last week but the poll questions were scrambled.

So I sticking out my neck again. Why? Because this topic has drawn my attention the past year or so.

You may call me a conspiracy nut, or just plain cuckoo. I can assure you I have been called worse.

I would desire that anyone that takes time to read this poll, would take it seriously. If not, just continue on to another topic on AD.

I value highly the opinions of the debaters on AD. I thank you in advance for your posts and any addition information that I may gleam from your informed posts.

I have attempted to put this topic in the correct forum. If not, please place in appropiate forum.

To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?

-Edited to include debate question in body of post.

Firstly, i think it is impossible to even think about debating this subject without something, even conjecture, about the US government's prior knowledge or involvement with the events that transpired on 9/11.

Secondly, the evidence (and i use that term lightly) that is presented has to be pretty stone cold in order for anyone to accept this conspiracy theory as true.

The facts as I see it is that the 9/11 Commission Final Report places blame on no singular entity and instead points the failure towards numerous areas of government. Furthermore, if we accept that the government (Bush Administration) was in fact involved, it would mean that the government planned this somewhere in the 8 months Bush was in office. Those on the far-left like to believe that Bush is a bafoon...yet he helped mastermind one of the most damaging and terrible attacks ever on this country? No way. OBL and Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks on numerous occasions. Now we would have to accept that the Bush administration was working with AL Qaeda...and let me remind you that we then invaded Afghanistan and pretty much destroyed there entire terrorist network. Make sense?

1. I believe the 9/11 commission final report has been in the news lately. And there have been some new result that the 9/11 commission wasn't truthful about. I am talking about Mohammed Atta in 1999.



I have a feeling that the 9/11 may not have been as truthful as many believed. The facts are still coming in, so it is still too early to tell.

And you comment on Bush being a Bafoonis probably more truthful than false. But there is lots of evidence that Bush is not the head of this adminstration. This adminstration is being run by individuals more intelligent and powerful than our President.

Thanks for your input.

The US government was involved personally in bringing about 9/11.

Whether by incompetence or by design, the US government, specifically Congress, had the responsibility to ensure the safety of our airlines before 9/11. We had plenty of terrorist attacks against our airlines and plenty of examples of other countrys' airlines being attacked before 9/11 that precautionary actions, such as locking down the cockpits of planes, should have been done years before.

If any conspiracy exists, it is this: The public safety takes second place to corporate profits in our government. You don't need to go looking for buried evidence on this; it is as plain as day.

Corporations lobby Congress to stop legislation that might cost them money and to roll back regulatory legislation. The end result is that 9/11 - like disasters become more likely to happen. However, this then becomes a matter of risk management.

The airlines decided to take the risk of a 9/11 tragedy in order to save money. Congress went along with the program, and thus has responsibility. Is this 20-20 hindsight?

Not if you've ever been involved in disaster planning efforts for corporations. In that intellectual exercise, every possible bad thing comes up for discussion, and the risks are weighed against the costs. Some, like nuclear holocaust, can be brushed aside, because that would mean everyone goes into disaster mode and that corporations would stop existing. But floods and tornadoes, earthquakes and raging fires -- those things are seriously considered.

As are large jet airliners flying into tall buildings -- but some corporations brush that aside as unlikely. That's what the US Congress did too. Call it what you want, it is still accepting risk to save money. That's a part of doing business.

Does that sound too harsh? Sorry, but balancing the cost of lost customer lives against the cost of securing a service, such as redesigning a jet airliner, is the stuff of which corporate spreadsheets talk.

It's just doing business. Besides, the risk management exercise is done by those who aren't taking the risk, at least those who make the final decisions. These people ride in private corporate jets. Besides, what's the chances, even if they take commercial rides now and then, that their planes will be used in an attack or get blown up midair? Pretty low you know. There's more chance that a freeway accident will take them out.

Well, now we have locking cockpits and air bags in cars, seatbelts too. Sometimes the public safety wins out, sometimes not. Before 9/11 public safety lost. Now it won.

And so it goes. Next time you vote, and if you care about this, consider whose side your politicians are on.

To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?

To zero degree - I don't think anyone in government knowingly had a hand in the events of 9-11.

Now, Hanlon's Razor (in my signature below) applies to an extent - there were errors of omission and communication that ade preventing 9-11 more difficult (that have been well rehearsed here and elsewhere). And underlying attitudes held by the whole of America, as outlined by AuthorMusician, may have unintentionally made America more vulnerable to this kind of attack.

But that makes government incompetent, nor murderous or liars or both.

It could be argued that other issues - perhaps including the Iraq War - indicate that government may indeed include murderous liars, but that is not the issue here, since (as we now know beyond much doubt) there is little or no connection between 9-11 and Iraq, and there never was, outside the minds of the current adminstration.

Let me remind you that we sold arms to Iraq so why would we invade them? And you can’t ignore the Arbusto Energy (Dubya) - James Bath (financier for Arbusto) - Saleem Bin Laden (Osama’s eldest brother, and major investor in Arbusto) connection. Using that logic won’t get you far my friend.

popeye47, I’m like you in that I don’t trust my government and the current administration has eroded what trust was left. Having worked for the government I know the depths to which they’ll reach. The Bush family and their cronies have so many ties to the Middle East it makes your head swim so it wouldn’t surprise me if a major connection/motivation was uncovered for the Iraq war. However….

To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?

As much as I despise the current administration and their ulterior motives I believe it’s a stretch to think they were directly involved in the attacks of 9/11. Without question the Bush administration was looking for a reason to invade Iraq so the possibility exists where they may have looked the other way when intel ran across their desks or just simply refused to connect the dots, possibly hoping for a reason to invade.

Directly involved? Probably not. Hoping for an excuse to invade Iraq? No doubt.

To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?

I am constantly amazed at what people believe. These types of absurd conspiracy theories are not new and they are not just on the Left. I think I remember some crazy people talking about US government’s role in the Oklahoma City bombing.

I really hope that after the Bush administration we get a president that helps restore some optimism to the country. For whatever reason there are groups on both sides that will believe the worst about their country to help fulfill their zealous ideology.

Oh, the Government had absolutely no “personal” involvement in 9/11. The Apollo actually landed on the Moon. The Earth is round and Paul isn’t actually dead, but he is the walrus.

No involvement. I haven't seen any evidence from anyone of any hint of involvement. Incompetance is debateable (but if so, then you have to attribute it as much if not more to Clinton's administration), but there was no government involvement. Since you made the topic, popeye, perhaps you could list any evidencce you have more than just a "hunch".

It baffles me that some people believe this is true. Among other things, this would mean:

(1) The government not only knew thousands of Americans were going to die and did nothing about it, but they wanted it to happen.

(2) Assuming the horrific situation in #1 is true (which I simply cannot fathom from anyone in our government, left or right), the greatest coverup in the history of this nation has been played. To plan such an orchestrated event such as 9-11, at least dozens, if not hundreds, of government personnel would have been involved (and would have had to have been planned well before Bush's administration) and yet there has not been a peep. When there's more evidence for the conspiracy behind JFK's assassination, I think we can put this one to rest.

The most baffling is those who think no plane hit the Pentagon. Despite the fact that there are eyewitnesses and a Boeing jet seems to have disappeared, where did the 100+ people alleged to have been onboard go? I guess they all just packed up and moved to Aruba.

The lack of common sense showed by some so-called "intellectuals" is deeply disturbing.

Richard E. Clarke, who also served in the Clinton administration, sent a memo to President Bush about Osama bin Laden's plans, a memo that the President ignored. The memo was all the more important since Bush had not managed to meet with Clarke. He wasn't interested. Perhaps posters here can remember the hearings where Condoleezza Rice read the title of the memo from Clarke that somehow did not rise to the level of something that should be read by this President.

If the government was not complicit in the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the airliner that ended up crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, it can be demonstrated that there was negligence.

I'd like to know just what in the 28 pages omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report was so damaging in hindsight that the American people were not allowed to know about it. Yeah, I know--NATIONAL SECURITY--funny how that enters in when the government wants to cover something up. I wonder if there would be a bunch of us screaming "impeachment" if we did know the contents. But then, the government protects itself quite well.

The sinking of the Lusitania was something discussed by the Brits and the Americans before it happened. It was understood that this, if it happened would signal the entry of the United States into WWI. The Lusitania was filled with arms and the Germans knew it. The results? History.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was foretold many years earlier by a General Mitchell, who lent his name later to the Mitchell Bomber. At the time he made the statement, Mitchell was compelled to apologize to the Japanese. There are documents attesting to Franklin Delano Roosevelt knowing that an attack on the Pearl Harbor base was in the works, and that this would serve as the outrage bringing the United States into WWII. The Brits needed help; a direct attack on an American base would move Congress toward declaring war on the Axis powers.

When Lyndon Johnson wanted to escalate the undeclared war in Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin attack was ready to be used.

Other accounts can be furnished by people from other countries, detailing how their leaders were not above using an occasion to bring about an attack or a war. It has happened repeatedly in history.

But so many of us as Americans just can't find it within ourselves to believe that it was anything but dastardly acts on the part of villains and possibly, grudgingly, inattentiveness on the part of our leaders that have allowed terrible things to happen to our people on our soil.

Was our President just too busy doing more important things to give heed to what his anti-terrorist advisor had to say about what bin Laden was planning?

Now, I'll grant you: Bush is never going to be considered a schemer or even a deep thinker, and he probably did not cynically plan this outrage in order to attack the man in Iraq who "tried to kill [his] daddy." But, in reading Richard E. Clarke's book, I found out that tremendous pressure was brought to bear on the State Department to try to link the 9/11 attacks to Iraq. Once it happened, this administration was determined to make political hay out of it, whether the blame was rightfully laid at Saddam Hussein's doorstep or not.

(Which brings me to another point: Just how many of the posters here actually think that liberals want Bush harmed? Please, put it out of your minds. We realize that Cheney has the potential to be a far more toxic and manipulative President than Dubya!)

So, please folks, feel free to pooh-pooh the idea that this government would never stoop to allowing a foreign, hostile act to enrage and mobilize this country in a direction that it ordinarily would not go. Stay asleep....

650 words later and that is the closest you came to actually answering the question: “To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?” However, I do applaud you anti-bush rhetoric. You nailed almost ever talking point.

For this debate to proceed in any civil fashion we have discuss facts and not ideological conjecture. Richard Clark also says in his book that President Clinton refused to act on Bin Laden after the Cole attack because Clinton wanted to concentrate on the Israel-Palestinian peace deal. Obviously we have the benefit of hindsight, but I believe Clinton was doing what he thought was best at the time.

If people who don't believe that the government had a role in the 9/11 attacks are asleep, then those that do must be popping pills, right?
I've read through many of the 9/11 conspiracy websites. They make for an entertaining read. But in everyone of them, theories abound, but no actual evidence. They might as well claim that E.T. pointed his glowing finger at the twin towers and brought them down.

Are there questions that remain? Yes, and I have many myself. How did passports survive the WTC attack, but the black boxes from the aircraft not? Why did it take so long to scramble fighters, and why were they sent off shore before vectoring into the target areas?

But, for me to be convinced, there has to be solid evidence or a gaggle of witnesses to come out and debunk the official version. I cannot, in this age of political divisiveness, believe that of the multitude of people required to be complicit in a 9/11 conspiracy, that not one person would have come forward, whether for money or reasons of truth and integrity. The amount of eyewitnesses that back up the official version FAR outweighs the amount that disprove it.
Just as PE stated that events were used or created for national policy in the past, I think that there are just as many who would dearly love to have the conspiracy theory be true, since it would lead to Bush's impeachment and the death knell of the current and near future Republican Party.

The events in the past such as Pearl Harbor (if even true), and the Lusitania operated in a technological vacuum compared to the age which we currently live in. With commercially available satellite imagery, radio intercepts, GPS, the 'net, and the slavish thirst for information to be bought and sold as a commodity, if the government had a role in 9/11, somebody would have come forward. Good god, could you just imagine the book deal and TV/radio/lecture circuit?

I think that AM did bring up a good point, that is we associate public safety v. cost. But in a sense, we have to. The public at large would not have stood by idly while millions of tax dollars were spent on measures, programs and equipment that were thought not to be needed at the time. That is always going to be the case concerning issues of public safety. There is simply not enough money in the world to do everything possible to protect people. The business of safety and compliance is reactionary. One weighs the risk, makes an assessment, justifies to whatever oversight body one falls under, and is given the yea or nay.
When a company or the government makes a decision in favor of profit over safety, when risk indicators are present, that's criminal. But I have yet to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the events of 9/11 could have been precisely divined, to warrant much more than reinforced cockpit doors.

*You give me too much credit, nemov. I didn't even bring up the PATRIOT ACT, which was ready to go and just waiting for the right circumstances. I must be slipping.

I did notice, nemov, that in all your commentary of what I wrote, you had nothing to say about Bush's non-response to Richard Clarke's warning. Care to comment about that?

Edit: I cannot prove, nor can anyone here, the complicity of the U.S. government in the attacks on our soil on September 11th. But to suggest that there was no complicity whatsoever because we were the good guys and good guys don't do that is incredibly naive.


Actually, DTOM, I always thought that the opposite of "asleep" was "awake." Interesting about the pills, though.

You are correct. I mentioned Clark and Clinton to add to the government negligence. It was not only isolated to the current administration; I give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. However, the Clark discussion is not relevant to this topic. To continue on about Clark would further muddy the topic.

Edit: To suggest that I suggested that there was no complicity whatsoever because we were the good guys and good guys don't do that is incredibly naive.

How do you figure that the Clarke memo would muddy the topic? Was it not more relevant than say, a tabloid talking about Demi Moore's and Bruce Willis' breakup?

It has EVERYTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks. It was warning about bin Laden's plans to use planes to attack U.S. targets! How could it not be relevant to the discussion?

If it was not complicity, it was negligence. FBI agent Rowley and others demonstrated the lack of willingness on the part of their superiors to cull the information they had gathered and look at the composite picture it presented--an attack of this nature was being undertaken seriously, methodically. And the brass didn't care enough to listen to the underlings in the organization.

Yet, when the anti-terrorism guy himself, Richard Clarke, sent a memo to the President, it was ignored. NOW WHOSE FAULT WAS THAT?

Edit: Changed "Rowling" to Rowley

To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?

The only way that is relevant is if you wish to state that the reason Bush "ignored the memo" was because the US was behind the attacks. Feel free to start a topic on complicity or even negligence. I am sure there are plenty of other topics here at which are suitable for discussing Clark.

It is irrelevant because this statement is not true. The Clarke Memo, (pdf format) says nothing about an impending attack from Al Qaeda by aircraft. Instead it references possible reactions to the attack on the Cole and lays out a strategy to deal with the Al Qaeda network. And it was not ignored, but rather didn't receive the kind of attention Clarke wanted it to.

From Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission we have this statement......

Minimal at best. I say this not because I belive the possibility of the government slaughtering its own citizens, but because I believe communication broke down. The chances of the administration not knowing about 9/11 seems highly unlikely, this is just a gut instinct, mind you.

To those who think it a plausible theory I have just one question: why? Our government has never planned a systematic attack against Americans who are, in the collective sense, innocent.

I do not hold the government responsibile for 9/11 in the slightest, nor do I think it completely innocent for not pooling resources and uniting the Intelligence Community before 9/11.

Regarding Condoleezza Rice's testimony before 9/11 Commission


Aquilla, I do stand corrected on the aircraft portion. However, I would like to think that the President would have been concerned about the presence of al-Qaeda cells in the United States. Apparently it was too much to ask of THIS president, until it was too late. He could have read the damn memo.

I don't know; to what degree is any government "personally" (as in a person) involved? You want me to say that I think the government was personally involved, so that what I write may be dismissed out of hand. I will not give you that satisfaction. I know that collectively, there was indeed negligence on the part of the government. Beyond that, there is only conjecture as far as the involvement of the Bush administration in particular.

How many time has incompetence covered complicity? We'll never know.

Either this administration was complicit or INCOMPETENT, and then dishonest about coming forward about the incompetence.

Maybe in another administration the same attacks might have occurred; we'll never know that. I just wonder about those who said "I'm so glad George Bush [not Gore] was in charge when this happened"--without any PROOF in the wings that Gore would have goofed things up or would not have done things better. And now, these same folks are suggesting that it would have happened to anyone, that it wasn't the negligence of this administration that might have played a role in the outrage. And it is sooo convenient that their President did not read the damned memo but really John Wayne-d it to the max after the WTC was a mass of smoking rubble and broken bodies. "Osama bin Laden is our number one priority, we will not rest until he is captured and brought to justice," blah blah blah.

Wouldn't it have been wonderful if the President, without Dick Cheney there to hold his hand, could have testified that he had read the memo and that he was trying to stay up to speed about al-Qaeda cells in the United States?

The problem with your line of reasoning is this, though blame can certainly be placed on the Bush administration, and rightly so for reasons of negligence. But while you can sit there and poo-poo or blah-blah peoples notions that it would have occurred in a Gore administration, it is undeniable that the planning for 9/11 started and progressed far earlier than Bush swearing the oath of office.
The problem with discussing such an emotional issue as 9/11 is we hear more rhetoric than thoughtful retrospection from both sides.

The public record is there, such as it has been allowed to be, to be read. The public record contains what the Bush administration gave time to and considered to be its priorities, and what it neglected. That is not open for debate; it's in black and white.

I would agree that the planning was years in the works, probably having its roots in our abandonment of Afghanistan after its fighters repelled the Soviets, and before the Gulf War when there was a slender opportunity for Osama bin Laden and a group of battle-hardened fighters to attack Saddam Hussein in Kuwait instead of getting the United States involved in what was basically an Arab affair, best dealt with by Arabs.

I do not recall, however, reading any situation where Vice President Al Gore gave short shrift to foreign affairs; indeed, he was far better versed in international relations than his opponent. But all the Republican side had to do was characterize him as some kind of flake because he was interested in the environment as well--certainly not the same calibre as an equinophobic, swaggering Texan with a hat.

Yes, the emotions tied up with 9/11 do make it difficult to look objectively and sensitively at the factors involved.

During my commute from work, I realized that I would have included in my post, the intent behind writing it. That being that if the government was involved, knowing what we know about the planning, and the sheer logistics of planning something like this, we would have to point the finger at at least two administrations, not just the current.

And I agree that Gore is well versed in foreign affairs compared to Bush. Strangely Gore was the smart guy to Clinton as Cheney is the smart guy to Bush. I guess VP is the wonk job, while president is the popularity contest. But I do chuckle at your characterization of Bush as a swaggering Texan with hat and Gore simply being just interested in the environment. He did call for the banning of the internal combustion engine in his book. Could certainly be seen as flaky by a large number of people......

But bottom line, with what we know about the planning, even if Gore would have instituted some security measures, 9/11 would have still happened at least on some scale. One thing is for sure, I do not give the Bush administration enough credit to pull off an inside job like this in that short amount of time, and still keep it a secret.....

I voted that they were so busy trying to find a way to invade Iraq and shore up his very joke of a presidency at the time of 9/11 - Karl Rove I am sure was aware that no president has ever lost an election during a war in the US- and this gift was handed to him. I think they ignored any evidence of anything that wasn't linked to Iraq- I think they probably saw some of the warnings, but it really didn't dawn on them that Al-Quaida was the real enemy, and not Saddam. An obsession with the wrong guy if you will.

I can understand the conspiracy theory types obvious focus on 9/11- I mean, the old follow the money- there is only really one person that this became a win-win for- GW Bush. He get's to invade Iraq and avenge Daddy, his buddies at Haliburton get the big payoff, and he gets to use the war to make himself look like he might be competent for a moment- too bad he is not


I think Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are pretty smart guys with real blind spots, and that GW is just one step away from a drooling vegatable. The guy had everything in his life handed to him and he still was not succesful unless daddy's friends stepped in and took over for goodness sakes! I think Rove can only understand dirty tricks and trashing poeple and such, and that is his only dimension- and that Cheney is just looking to scratch backs that scratched his- but GW is about the same there too.

I think Hanlon's comment by Jules is correct. It was incompetence.

I would like to play Devils Advocate.

Out of the list of 19 hijackers, at least 4 and as many as 9 have been found to still be living.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm



This is from a reputable source. Also there have been other supposedly terrorist found alive and well, but this may not be as reputable source as BBC. But nevertheless other reputable sources have the same message but I couldn't get those sites to work. Well anyway, here is an account.

http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunec...ckers-alive.htm

So, if this many hijackers are still living, how do we know if the rest of them aren't still living. In fact, who were the hijackers that were on the planes. Who knows for sure? The American public doesn't. Does anyone else in the government know?

My next point is on the night before the 911 attacks there were reports of men drinking and threatening about bloodshed tomorrow on the eleventh.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/14/...ain311268.shtml



This would not seem to fit the profile of individuals that would be committing terrorist acts the next day.

There seems to be an emphasis on leaving a false trail of evidence.

There was an effort to make sure that we(as americans) would remember these instances after 911. Sure we remembered them as Muslims and Muslims were the ones to be blamed for the deaths on 911.

Who really were the men that falsely represented themselves as certain individuals, but later we found out they are still living?

To me these are big questions that haven't been answered.

One additional item.



It appears that there are more than a few people, that don't believe the government's official story of 911.

Goldblum



I hope I have given you some FACTS NOT HUNCHES.

I appreciate you unbiased constructive criticism.

I would think that common sensewould cause you to think that the government's story may have many unanswered question and big holes in their official story.

Thanks to Fife and Drum,PE, and AM, and other for a very constructive discussion.

I don't really want to weigh into this too seriously but just to throw something in there...

I've read comments that planning by our government would have to span 2 administrations or that it couldn't be planned in 8 months. Well, it's possible that "they" started planning all the way back in 1997. That's when the PNAC formed. They're the one who have all the pie in the sky dreams about American military dominance, space weapons, ability to fight 2 major wars at the same time (didn't work out too well huh ) global bases, Team America Special Covert Agents etc. etc. And they knew the only way they'd be able to bring about these changes, and build the military force any evil genius dreams about is by either waiting a long time or "another Pearl Harbor." Check out page 64 of the RAD Kampf

Did the PNAC plan 9-11 in the late 90s in hopes that they'd be able to influence whoever is in power to follow their plan? No. Did they hit the jackpot and not only get major political positions and a Commander in Chief that could plan a party let alone a war? Yes. Are they responsible for 9-11? No, but...you never know.

I guess, the real question is, deep down inside, are they happy they got their wish?


Just wanted to add to your story about the 3 men in the bar.
If the government wanted to blame this on extermist Muslims this is pretty stupid on their part. If we assume they were devote Muslims, they wouldn't be drinking alcohol as they're not allowed and they probably wouldn't be getting lap dances.

I'm in the LIHOP crowd - Let It Happen On Purpose.

To think the the administration was behind 9/11 is ludicrous simply because that would have been the only thing Bush got right next to his never ending list of blunders. It's just too implausible.

However, I believe they had more than a clue of what was going down. I don't think they knew the day or the seat numbers, but they probably had a pretty good idea about everything else. Richard Clarke warned them, Bush got PDB's titled "Bin Laden determined to attack the United States", Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds discovered Muslims were learning to fly airplanes with no concern for landing, and we had ABLE DANGER - the project that learned how many fillings Atta had in his teeth. Miraculously, every single shred of these efforts somehow failed to reach the proper level. Uh-huh...I bet. Just like our "faulty" Iraqi intelligence. We accidentally got it 100% wrong.

So, Bush let it happen. He didn't care because that would become his reason to invade Iraq. Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq right after 9/11, but was talked into Afganistan first. Before that war was finished and after Bush counted to 10-mississippi, Bush withdrew everything in Afganistan to attack Iraq.

9/11 was the legacy Bush was hoping for. He did nothing to stop it. So choice B is what I voted.

You bring up some good pints DR, there certainly are some unanswered questions. I'm with the negligence crowd. Negligence that spans back at least to the first WTC bombings. That was our wake up call, and we pushed the snooze button.
I can't however believe that Bush essentially knew a 9/11 was imminent, and let it happen. It's obvious that the war in Afghanistan was not to be the 'crown jewel' of his foreign policy, it was to be Iraq. I believe Congress would have approved the IWR regardless of 9/11 happening, so that leaves me with the question of why would he let the attack happen, and why would he let the pentagon be attacked, which is obviously the primary component of warfighting.
Two things lead me to believe that Bush shouldn't bear 100% of the blame. I try not to be a part of the blame Clinton crowd, but if Bush let it happen, then surely Clinton did also; Jaime Gorelick should have been called to testify before the 9/11 Commission, not be a part of it. Her policies had a direct impact on the non-dissemination of critical information; and, the findings of Able Danger came by it's now blockbuster findings prior to Bush taking office. It may suit some peoples purpose to compare Bush to a drooling vegetable, but I think an objective look will place 9/11 blame at about 65/35 Bush/Clinton.

Especially in light of an article today from of all places, the New York Times:

NYT

I do now have questions as to what National Archives documents Sandy Berger stuffed in his pants, and claimed he destroyed........

It's a shame that even with lack of clear evidence pointing to an inside job, the negligence that did lead to the tragedy of 9/11 is being used for partisan purposes, and instead of trying to get to the facts, the events are simply props in a smear campaign.

To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?

As a government, then I do not believe there was any involvement at all, but governments are made up of individuals and these have a tendency, especially around large concentrations of political power, to congregate into factions.

Some factions, like the PNAC, are open and obvious to all and others are hidden in order to protect their agenda.

I do not see any argument at all that contradicts the possibility that people in the US government or in the US intelligence/ military services have not conspired to engineer events in order to promote US global hegemony.

On the contrary, the existence of PNAC, to me indicates that there is a strong likelihood of another, deeper faction who's existence PNAC serves to protect. AS John Travolta says in the film 'Swordfish', the trick is in misdirection and as Paladin Elspeth has pointed out, misdirection has been used by previous US governments in order to justify going to war.

As far as I can see, it is more than possible that whilst some members of the US government are wholly ignorant of any conspiracy that is guiding their policies, others are willing dupes quite prepared to accept what ever possibilities are sent their way by 'event's'.

I'd place Powell in the former category and Rumsfeld, Rice and Bush in the latter. Dick Cheney is probably the main political power that fuels current US policy but I doubt he is a 'master mind' because he is too 'exposed'.

If there is any such person then its most likely its some one obscure, probably some one not in the US government at all but some one who has deep connections throughout the upper levels of the US political system.

We have such a person here in Denmark, his name is Mærsk. Anything he wants, he gets. His company is the largest private company in the country, and the largest shipping corporation in the world. In order to finance his shipping he has taken control of Denmarks entire off shore gas and oil production for the next forty years. He has been shown many times to be far more powerful than the democratically elected government of the people.

Such men, and women, are common in history as any research in to the Medici family (for example) will reveal.
Considering the US is said to be home to the top 2,000 richest people on the planet, I don't find it unusual, or improbable that amongst such people there are those who would willingly sacrifice a few thousand innocents in the name of the 'greater good', a 'higher purpose' or just own gain.

Any one who tries to insulate themselves from entertaining even the possibility that such people are able to control the US government must explain why.

What is so different about the USA? I don't see anything to set America apart from the rest of the human race in this context, if anything, taking the vast industrial military complex that seems to rule America, I'd say that it was more than probable that US foreign policy is not determined, or even written by the civil servants in the oval office but rather by vested interests that are not in any way accountable to the people of the USA.

A lot of Americans, especially conservative Americans, put a great emphasis on the 'checks and balances' of the US political system. Its almost as if they believe the system to be perfect, as if they can't understand that there is no such thing as a perfect system, that corruption is universal and corrosive.

The way I see it, the US system has long since fallen foul of exterior interests and hidden factions. I believe this started a long time ago, so far back that it is now so much a part of the system that it goes unnoticed. Lobbyism for example, strikes me as being an amazingly undemocratic method of procuring political power for interests that do not serve the public good. Eisenhowers farewell speech is another glaring example. The predominance of Jewish names and the weight of pro Israeli anti Islamic opinion in the US entertainment is another example.


So, in order to answer the question To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11? I'd have to reply by asking, who is the American government?

Is GW Bush a sincere man who is serving the American public or is he an opportunist who had the right name and connections to get elected in order to further a political agenda.

I believe the appropriate expression here is "Oy Vey!"

Come now, friends and fellow debaters let's ease up off the crazy sauce for just one moment as we think this one through.

There has been up to this point in the debate zero, nada, nil evidence to even suggest that one member of the US government either knew with any specificity that the attacks of 9/11 were going to occur.

If it were possible that evidence could be less than zero, that's the figure I would pick for the quality of proof that any member of the government engineered or in any way knowingly facilitated the attacks.

Check what you're saying in the above quote.

You acknowledge that the idea is not physically impossible, that apparently leads you to a conclusion that it is at all likely.

It's silly and I suspect you (and everyone else on this line of argument) know it.

I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would "remove all doubt" as it were by expressing belief in the involvement of the US government in an act of mass murder on its own citizens without one shred of evidence.

I mean I'd think self-respect would figure in somewhere.

turnea



But, I like that crazy sauce, it tastes good!


I think this makes no difference to the debate, because if such proof was already available to the public, then the people implicated would already be facing criminal proceedings and this question would never have been asked.

It is in the absence of knowledge that we are debating which is why I use such terms as 'probable' and 'possible'.

I don't know how all the complexity of the US government works and I suspect no one does given the size of that entity. What I do know however is the lessons taught by history. That all political systems, no matter how wonderful they are upon conception, are subject to corruption, nepotism and factions that undermine the system for own gain/ agenda's and all of these are present in the US government/political system.

Thus, there is nothing to prove that some one in that political entity referred to as the US government, did not play a role in the 11 September attacks.

There is nothing to prove they did either. The door swings both ways. I am quite ready to entertain either notion... are you?


The point is, you don't know and can't know so you can't be sure whether or not any such complicity took place.

Given the amount of warnings that were unheeded, the 'JFK style' mystery already surrounding the deed and the sheer scale of the response, then there is much to suggest that we, the uninitiated public have no idea as to what has really taken place, and never will.

Such conspiracies do not take place in the public eye. Records are not left on paper for Seymour Hersh to tumble upon. If any one in the USA engineered the attacks, or let them happen, then they did so in the most subtle and invisible way possible. They certainly didn't enlist the help of scores of soldiers and civil servants who might go blabbing to the press when all went belly up.

And, please remember, I'm not saying it did happen, only that it is possible, and therefore cannot be ruled out as improbable.

Its quite possible, probable even, that the mess the USA is in today is just the result of incompetence on behalf of the cold war dinosaurs who stand behind GW Bush.




That is not what I said. I said I don't find it improbable... this does not mean that I find it likely.

I accept and admit to my ignorance as to the truth of the matter. I am merely pointing out that there is nothing to prove that the US government, or rather elements of the US government didn't have a hand in the 9/11 attacks.


Looking aside from the fact that this isn't what I said, lets run with the ball regardless. Why not? What separates the people of the US government from the rest of humanity? The human race has seen many examples of governments killing people for political gain... what else do you think is happening in Iraq right now?

The US government is no different from any other political power this planet has seen. It will, and has killed innocent people to pursue a political agenda. Why should the fact that American citizens must die in order to carry out such an agenda be so unbelievable? Are Americans so much more valuable than every one else?

How valuable were the passengers of the Lusitania or the mass of Americans caught at Pearl Harbour?

You might not like the idea that the US government would kill innocent Americans in order to protect a higher agenda, but looking back over the course of your country's history, how many times were innocent black people killed in order to preserve an agenda? What changed to make you suppose that you wouldn't be killed tonight if the state didn't require your death in some obscure fashion?

Do you think Donald Rumsfeld would hesitate to order your imprisonment, torture or death of he felt it was for the good of the nation?

And who do you think would stop him?

I think turnea really hit the nail on the head with this discussion. There is no proof whatsoever of government involvement unless you equate negligence with direct involvement. Atleast, no evidence has been presented. Speculation means nothing. moif, one can speculate that aliens have invaded the earth and are actually controlling our government instead of our elected representatives. One can speculate anything using this logic. Thats why certain things are conspiracy theories and other things are proven true through facts. Anything is possible. Most things are even probable if you stretch the meaning of the word. But what did happen is completely different.

What did happen is well documented. If we listen to the tapes from the planes that crashed on 9/11, namely Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania...is there any doubt that it was someone other than Islamic terrorists?

Furthermore, we have to balance the risk versus reward. Lets believe for a second that 9/11 WAS orchestrated by someone in the US Government to further their imperialistic policies in the world. Now lets look back at the years since 9/11. What has the US gained? What has the US gained in Afghanistan? What has the US gained in Iraq. We have been helping these people rebuild their own nations and allow them to have autonomy over their own nations. So now after accepting that this whole thing was a conspiracy, we have to accept that the government then used policies that go against the stated purpose for orchestrating the act in the first place.

Cutting to the chase here........



That's what it's really all about isn't it, Moif? That's what it boils down to, those power hungry, greedy Jews. Nothing new under the sun I see, especially in Europe. Moving along.....


I think that the 9/11 commission hearings were held at absolutely the wrong time, right in the middle of a Presidential campaign. I think that colored those hearings with sharp partisanship and ended up really defeating their purpose. Lots of finger pointing going around, from both sides. Quite frankly, I would support creating a new commission now in the hopes that the partisan in-fighting might not be so heated. New information is arising that I think is important. The New York Times has a couple of articles on some of this new intelligence.

State Department Documents


Able Danger

If we can put aside the finger-pointing here for a moment, it seems to me that the real failure that occured was a systemic failure that prevented a cohesive intelligence picture from being developed. I'm not very hopeful that this has been corrected, even today. Perhaps a new look into things without the finger pointing would be useful.

A big "thank you" to both you and Turnea. This is the point I was trying to get across earlier. As the old Wendy's ladies used to ask "WHERE'S THE BEEF?" Don't give speculation, opinions, impressions... If you want to levy a charge such that has been levied and expect anyone to take you seriously, you need to have some hard evidence, circumstantial or not.

Without it, you're just blowing the hot air (or perhaps crazy sauce) around.

lederuvdapac

Perhaps, but how do you or I know what happened? Because we've heard a tape that implicates Islamic terrorists?

So what? Who has denied that Islamic terrorists carried out the attacks? The question is, who was behind the attacks, who ordered them to be carried out? Who knew about them and did nothing?

I don't know one way or the other. I admit this freely.

But neither do you. The difference is, your not prepared to entertain the possibility of the opposite opinion because you don't like what it implies.


What has the US gained?

It has gained a military hold over Iraq. A military presence in the middle east that doesn't rely on the shifting sands of Suadi Arabian support. Thats what it has gained.

The fact that the plan didn't work very well, doesn't mean there was no plan. Go and read the PNAC site and you can see the plan in all its Imperial glory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Aquilla

So, if a European makes note of the powerful pro Israeli lobby in the USA, then its 'Nothing new under the sun'.

Obviously I must be a nazi.

Come on Aquilla, you can do better than that! Are you going to deny that Israel maintains a powerful lobby to further its own interests in the USA?

And germane to my point, are you going to claim that Israel, if it felt it had to, would not order innocent people, even Americans or even Israeli's to be killed in its own national interests?

I contend that ANY state would do this, even the USA. I don't need to prove this because its a fundamental truth of geo-politics that is being played out right now in Iraq.

moif



Look, i am not prepared to entertain the possibility of such a ridiculous assertion because, A) there had been no proof whatsoever presented... B ) because there has been no proof of reward for the actions C) if i entertain this wild notion, than whatabout all the other crazy conspiracy theories out there?

Why should i believe that the government was directly involved in 9/11? Because you say that its a possibility? Once again, anything is a possibility if you just use your imagination. The argument that "well i have no proof but it is possible" is not going to win over the hearts and minds of many. I am prepared to believe the truth. And unless factual arguments are made with a basis of support...i will believe what i know to be fact. Conjecture and speculation on such a subject as 9/11 is extremely irresponsible. In any other thread, i would be lambasted for the use of logic that you are using in this very thread and you know it.



So the US has gained a military hold over Iraq? That was the plan? To invade Iraq, fight an insurgency, start up a democratic process, hand over autonomy of the nation to those who inhabit it, and then leave? Thats what is happening. Not this crazy talking point that the US is going to hold permanent sway over the Iraqi people.

Once again lets look at the risk:
-Possibility of government involvement leaking out to the public
-Large collapse of economy (which did happen)
-Civil Unrest
-Loss of confidence in the government
And any number of things i can't think of right now

Possible rewards as you have stated:
-Military foothold in the Middle East (which we already have outside of a few diplomacy issues with Turkey and Saudi Arabia)
-Control over Iraq (in which we have given autonomy to the Iraqi people)
-Oil (which is in complete control of the Iraqis)
-And i am unable to come up with any more rewards for the situation because i do not see it as anything favorable towards the US

So you weigh it. Put it on a balance and see which side comes out on top.

For all those in the Bush let it happen because he benefited from it, I have the following question. Wouldn't he have gotten even more benefit from stopping it? I mean, revealing the plan would still give the pretext for the invasion, etc, etc. that everyone seems to think was his motivation, with the added benefit of having saved the day by stopping the terrorists. Why cause himself all that extra grief for no reason? Well, other than the obvious answer that there wasn't any involvement to begin with. I also find it very enlightening that those who wish to put forward the notion that the Bush administration was behind this seem to poo-poo the time frame element that clearly indicates that Clinton would have had to have been in on it as well. No reason to let the facts get in the way of the desired set of results, apparently.

While we're in the mode of unproven allegations, I find it a little ironic that the following hasn't been thrown out there. One of the time honored traditions in the passing of the torch between Presidents has been a meeting in which the outstanding issues are laid out by the current member, along with his objective thoughts on the matter. It doesn't seem that far-fetched that Clinton himself might have been the one indicating that the Iraq situation had grown untenable, and that invasion offered perhaps the only solution. Of course, I don't have any facts to corroborate this...but then, that doesn't seem to be a requirement in these vast conspiracy debates either.

I will add that for the various discrepancies that have been pointed out in this forum, I have no problem with investigating them I just think the evil conspiracies theories would be better shelved until the results of that investigation become known. But, of course, that takes out all the fun, doesn't it?

To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?

Not involved. For those who think that 911 was permitted to happen as an excuse to invade Iraq, then why wasn't it used as an excuse to invade Iraq? Why weren't the WMD planted? Strange that Bush and his associates could be so diabolically clever yet simultaneously inept.

Fact is, it's about impossible to prove a non-existence. I can't prove that I wasn't personally involved in 9/11.

If you are not prepared to entertain the possibility then why are you posting in this thread?


Leder, you don't have to believe anything. I don't believe it and I'm not asking you too. I'm simply pointing out that since the possibility exists then I can entertain it. That is to say, consider it... grant the idea some of my time.

After all, history shows us the murderous duplicity and deceit practised by governments, even the US government to further vague and often badly planned political agenda's.

Whether you believe it or not, thats entirely up to you, but you can't deny that right now thousands of innocent Iraqis are lying dead as a direct result of an American government decision.


With all due respect, you don't know what the truth is. You have chosen to believe the official line and that is your right, but the official line leaves many unanswered questions, such as the identity of those involved and how come Popeye can post a link to a BBC page that indicates some of those who are said to have taken part in the attacks have been found to be alive and well?

Then there is the greater question as to who knew what and what they did with the information they had. Why did GW Bush ignore a memo that warned of an attack on American soil?

There are questions unanswered that undermine the official position so its common sense to keep asking questions.


Perhaps, but not by me. 9/11 is a day that begs serious questions be asked, no matter how painfull they may be.

The innocent do not fear questions and yet GW Bush seems to fear them very much.


No. The plan was to create a democracy in Iraq in the same way that a democracy was created in Germany and Japan. Haven't you read the PNAC essays?

Don't you remember those halcyon days when Rumsfeld predicted the people of Iraq would welcome the US liberators with open arms and flowers? It wasn't that long ago...

Ahhh, The glory of hindsight!

Its not a question of what I think. It was not my decision to start this war, though I foolishly supported it originally.

Its rather a question of what was going on behind the scenes. In the PNAC faction, amongst the neo cons and the cold war hawks. It was what they believed in that fuelled the urge to go to war in Iraq. They believed, and publically stated that they believed, that an attack on Iraq, to bring democracy to the region, would act in a domino fashion through out the middle east. That the anti western tyrannies the threaten US strategic interests on the Eurasian continent could be countered by a series of surgical military operations with small, fast attacks against key nations. Remember Rumsfeld's insistence on a smaller light army?

These people, these conservative war horny Americans, believed that war was the solution to the problem of terrorism. They believed it so strongly and so blindly that in 1993 they forgot all about Osama Bin Laden, leaving him to carry on attacking people all over the planet and concentrated on what they saw as 'the bigger picture'.

The invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein, though he had nothing what so ever to do with the 9/11 attacks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Hobbes

Who says Bush let it happen?

I doubt GW Bush had any idea at all what was going down on 9/11.

moif



I am sorry moif, i didn't realize that everyone had to agree with the premise of a thread in order to post in it. I thought this was a debate site...perhaps i am mistaken?



Again moif, it is possible that aliens are controlling us instead of our government. It is possible that this is just a computerized world set up by machines who want to harvest our body's energy. Anything is possible. However, without facts or any evidence whatsoever...the talk of possibility becaomes speculation and then a conspiracy theory. Furtehrmore, this thread is about government involvement in 9/11, not in the Iraq war. If you want to say that the government benefited from the events of 9/11 or that it was used as justification for invasion of iraq then go right ahead...but that does not equal involvement in the attack.



Of course there are a lot of questions left unanswered. But in no way does that implicate government complicity with 9/11. It just proves that there are questions unanswered.

Furthermore, did you check the date on the link popeye provided? September 23, 2001. Do you think that misinformation only two days after the attack is commonplace or suspect?

The President of the US gets attack reports and memos every single day. The memo made no mention of a time nor a place. It just said that Bin Laden was determined to attack America. Well that wasn't exactly a breaking news headline. He was attacking America for years. The problem was that there was little to no actionable intel to move on. And even if Bush decided to act on one sentence of intel, he would have met resistance from Congress and the American people because terrorism on such a scale was not seen as a real threat. Unfortunately it takes an actual event to open up people's eyes.



Then let me refrase my point. "Baseless" speculation and conjecture is irresponsible.



Yes the glory of hindsight is grand (the memo brought up earlier?). Firstly, if i remember correctly, a Democrat was in the White House in 93, not a conservative. Secondly, so what if the policy of the "necons" was to bring democracy to the Middle East? (oh what a terrible plan!) That still doesn't mean that the government was involved in 9/11. Again, it is debatable if their agenda was served by the event...but it in no way means they were complicit.

To what degree was the US Government personally involved in 9/11?

I voted 'other'.

I do believe hindsight is 20/20.

On the Titanic, the captain and Bruce Ismay were given ice warnings from the Marconi operators. The Titanic still hit an iceberg and sank.

If I had to blame anyone for 911, I would blame Clinton. I believe he set the stage and Bush walked onto it. I don't blame Bush for 9/11, but I do blame him for the deaths associated with the invasion of Iraq. In light of this, would I want their jobs. Absolutely not.

Fair enough.

This line of argument only works because you've ignored half of what I wrote in order to pour scorn on the other half.

Alien control is indeed possible, but its not probable is it? There certainly is no historical examples of it happening that I am aware of.

A government using a enemy attack for its own purposes is hardly in the same league as an alien invasion or a 'Matix world' of evil machines, so please, lets stay within the context of what I've said without spinning off in to the realms of ridicule

If we can do that, then we'd see that I never said that the US 'government benefited from the events of 9/11'. I only said it was possible, and given the lessons of history, not improbable.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough?


Exaclty. You've just answered Hobbes question quite nicely.

I shall now repeat myself for the benefit of the cheap seats. I do NOT believe the US government was involved in the 9/11 attacks and I've never said they were. I don't know if they were.

All I have said is that the possibility is there and since the US government has demonstrated its willingness to kill innocent people to further its political agenda, then its not improbable that the US government, or rather, powerfull elements in or connected to it, might not look the other way with regards to a terrorist attack in order to use that attack to justify a war.

After all, they've done it before.


Its hardly 'baseless' when there is a precedence of the US government using attacks, real or imagined to justify going to war.


Sorry about the 1993, I mean 2003


Nope. I never said it was either. I simply said, several times, that it was possible, and given the lessons of the past, probable.

Leder



Edited to remove personal attack and belittling comment These men were reported alive in various medias. And there are numerous other sites that I can point you toward. I only picked BBC because it is more reliable. I believe you argument is poor at best.



Apparently you haven't been reading the previous posts. They have been verified reports that anywhere from 7 to 9 of the supposedly hijackers are alive and well.

Now what proof and documentation are you talking about. What proof do you have that the reported hijackers were Islamic. Show me the proof. I have already showed you facts that some are still alive. What conclusion would you draw from that?

I can name you 10's of supporting evidence that shoots holes in the official government 911 story. Someone is lying and the truth is not being told.



I haven't given speculation, opinions, impressions. I have given facts. I believe you are the one that has given speculation,opinions,impressions. All I have seen is a repetition of assumptions. Just repeating the same old story. The government said this and that, so it must me true.

One of the reported terrorist's passport was found on the street not far from the WTC buildings but his body or any of those in the plane were not found. But it was very convient to find his passport. Bingo. That evil terrorist was on the plane. Now who believes in the Easter Bunny.

Leder



What words. Oh, I see, I guess extremely irresponsible is worse than irresponsible. Why is it speculation when the government story is full of holes. All I am is asking for some answers. In some case the answers are so far from the truth, it isn't funny. My logic is to not believe anything until it is fully proven, and the government has not did that to my satisfaction.

Hobbes



I beg to differ. If you check Bush's approval poll numbers they were in the middle 50's. After 911 the approval was around 90%. Now how could you get a higher approval than that.

Mrs. P



I believe it was used as an excuse to invade Iraq. At one time prior to the invasion of Iraq, 70% of the public believed that Saddam was involved in 911. Of course this was indiscreetly implied to the public, until they believed it. Than Bingo, Saddam was the big bad man and lets invade his country. Then the majority of American people said, way to go Bush, and followed him anywhere he wanted to go.

I'm not prepared to conclude that elements of the administration participated in or had foreknowledge and looked the other way. However, there are a myriad of facts that call out for careful examination an explanation. That's what we should demand, a fully funded, totally independent investigation of the inconsistencies in the official explanation. I'm not prepared to list all of the unexplained issues but here are a few links for anyone who wants to explore them.

Griffin Lecture

Controlled Demolition?

Clark Memo to Rice

NYC Citizens Petition

New Pearl Harbor Review

These were the easy links to locate. There are many others. They don't prove anything other than there are massive unresolved issues that need to be investigated and haven't been.

I can conclude that this would indicate even more strongly that the government wasn't "in on it". These types of mistakes happen by piecing together evidence after-the-fact, if the hijackers were using assumed identities. Don't you think that the "guilty" government would pick the right suspects, since they would have had this information beforehand? It's a pretty convoluted sort of logic that could lead one to conclude guilt and/or foreknowledge based on inaccuracy in the depiction of events. Don't you think that a government willling to sacrifice thousands (estimates were 50,000+ deaths we were very lucky remember) and take down the World Trade center would at least ensure (one way or the other) that the hijackers they would lay the blame on were dead?

I can't help what inaccurate public opinion thinks. We had been engaged in a longstanding low-level war with Iraq for 12 years by that point, so I'm not surprised the ignorant public would come to that conclusion. However, by the convoluted logic presented here, the "guilty" government had a hand in this to justify a war in Iraq. If that is so, such a deviously clever government would have also created the conditions to build a much more solid case against Iraq. "Hey! We'll crash (or permit to crash) four passenger planes and simultaneously cripple our economy overnight. The bonus will be, we will blame it on Bin Laden and (eventually, after many months) use that to form a case against Iraq! It's brilliant! No one will ever know..." Of course, "the government" isn't a single entity, and anyone who has ever worked with a bureacratic agency knows how smooth this plan would go.