9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of An

[Gość: kazab]

9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis
How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorise Vacuously to Support Baseless
Supposition

:: A Reply to ZNet’s 'Conspiracy Theory?' Section ::


by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Introduction

I. Automatic Dismissal of a Legitimate Line of Inquiry

II. The “Incompetence Theory” of the 9/11 Intelligence Failure

III. David Corn and the Magic All-Explanatory “Incompetence Theory”

IV. Michael Albert Knows What Bush Knew

V. Misconstruing the Anthrax Case

VI. The Institutional Pattern of Provocation for War

VII. The Irrationality of Attempts to Delegitimise 9/11 Inquiry

VIII. Whitewashing the Israeli Mossad

IX. Whitewashing Pearl Harbour

X. Whitewashing the 9/11 Intelligence Failure

XI. Missing the Point

Conclusions

Notes

Introduction

Acceptance of the official narrative of what happened on September 11, 2001
has become widespread, not merely on the right, but also on the left. In
this paper, I take issue with the writings of several commentators who
attempt to forcefully argue firstly that acceptance of the official
narrative is justified, and secondly that certain kinds of inquiry into
anomalies and inconsistencies in that narrative are illegitimate and
unnecessary. The main bulk of this writing is available online at a new
section at the well-known progressive website ZNet, and is somewhat
representative of the mainstream approach to 9/11.[1]

In reviewing the work of these commentators on 9/11, I analyse in detail the
failure of the U.S. intelligence community in preventing the Al-Qaeda
terrorist attacks; the casual repression and/or misrepresentation of facts
related to 9/11; the failure of U.S. defence measures on 9/11; the historic
and institutional basis for skepticism about the official narrative; and
some salient facts which illustrate the need for proper research into the
linkages between U.S. government, military, intelligence, and corporate
policy, and the ease with which the September 11 terrorist attacks went
ahead.

I. Automatic Dismissal of a Legitimate Line of Inquiry

Numerous respected commentators on both the left and right of the political
spectrum have ardently criticised widespread speculation that the Bush
administration had advanced warning of the September 11th terrorist attacks,
sufficient to prevent them from occurring. When Democrat Party U.S.
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney called for a full investigation into the
events surrounding September 11 – and particularly into the warnings
received by the U.S. intelligence community suggesting that the
administration may have known more than it is letting on – she was publicly
derided. “We deserve to know what went wrong on September 11 and why”,
stated McKinney.

“After all, we hold thorough public inquiries into rail disasters, plane
crashes, and even natural disasters in order to understand what happened and
to prevent them from happening again or minimizing the tragic effects when
they do. Why then does the Administration remain steadfast in its opposition
to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack upon our nation?



“… Sadly, the United States government is being sued today by survivors of
the Embassy bombings because, from court reports, it appears clear that the
U.S. had received prior warnings, but did little to secure and protect the
staff at our embassies. Did the same thing happen to us again?”[2]

Cynthia McKinney’s comments here echoed her earlier statements in a Pacifica
radio interview: “We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come
on September 11... What did this Administration know, and when did it know
it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn
the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?”[3]

In response, on the right, Bush spokesman Scott McLellan declared: “The
American people know the facts, and they dismiss such ludicrous, baseless
views.”[4] Bush’s press secretary, Ari Fleischer, is quoted: “All I can tell
you is the congresswoman must be running for the hall of fame of the Grassy
Knoll Society.”[5] Nationally syndicated right-wing U.S. columnist Kathleen
Parker joined the escalating chorus of condemnation:

“She’s black, which means people give her a pass lest they be perceived
racist… None of which is to suggest that Cynthia McKinney is a terrorist, or
a terrorist sympathizer, or even a socialist rabble-rouser who despises her
own country. On the other hand, using McKinney’s own talent for inferential
dot-connecting, she just might be.”[6]

And on and on. The right-wing chorus of automatic denunciation appears to be
based on the implicit assumption that the Bush administration is entirely
guilt-free of any sort of role in implementing policies that may have
facilitated the September 11 attacks, knowingly or unknowingly (McKinney
specifies neither). Unfortunately, leading commentators on the left-end of
the political spectrum appear to have joined in the obligatory chorus of
derision. They are supported in this by the mainstream assumption that the
reason the U.S. intelligence community failed to prevent the attacks is
simply because of bureaucratic incompetence.

II. The “Incompetence Theory” of the 9/11 Intelligence Failure

That assumption has been adopted even by the private U.S. intelligence firm
Stratfor, which produces independent intelligence on worldwide affairs. On
September 16th 2002, Stratfor commented:

“We have no doubt that, after the databases have been searched, it will be
found that U.S. intelligence had plenty of information in some highly secure
computer. The newspapers will trumpet, ‘CIA knew identity of attackers.’
That will be only technically true. Buried in the huge mounds of information
perhaps once having passed across an overworked analyst’s desk, some bit of
information might have made its circuit of the agencies. But saying that
U.S. intelligence actually ‘knew’ about the attackers’ plots would be
overstating it. Owning a book and knowing what’s in it are two vastly
different things.”[7]

On 20th May, commenting on the outbreak of controversy in Washington DC
over “what Bush knew and when”, Stratfor elaborated on this perspective in
some detail, arguing that the colossal 9/11 intelligence failure was a
consequence of the structural fragmentation of the U.S. intelligence
community:

“The Central Intelligence Agency, as the name suggests, was founded to
centralize the intelligence function of the United States. It was a good
idea then and it is a good idea now. Unfortunately, it is an idea that has
never been truly implemented and from which, over time, the government has
moved intractably away. A centralized intelligence capability is essential
if the United States is to have a single, integrated, coherent picture of
what is happening in the world. A bureaucratically fragmented intelligence
community will generate a fragmented picture of the world. That is currently
what we have.”[8]

While it is clear that a generally “fragmented picture of the world” is a
likely consequence of a “bureaucratically fragmented intelligence
community”, in itself this does not demonstrate that the capabilities of
that community in developing specific intelligence on various aspects of the
world is completely dysfunctional. Rather it suggests that the U.S.
intelligence community will find it hard to develop an integrated, coherent
understanding of world affairs and their interrelationships.

What is like

[Gość: A.D.]

Gość portalu: kazab napisał(a):

) 9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis
) How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorise Vacuously to Support Baseless
) Supposition
)
) :: A Reply to ZNet’s 'Conspiracy Theory?' Section ::
)
)
) by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
) Introduction
)
) I. Automatic Dismissal of a Legitimate Line of Inquiry
)
) II. The “Incompetence Theory” of the 9/11 Intelligence Failure
)
) III. David Corn and the Magic All-Explanatory “Incompetence Theory”
)
) IV. Michael Albert Knows What Bush Knew
)
) V. Misconstruing the Anthrax Case
)
) VI. The Institutional Pattern of Provocation for War
)
) VII. The Irrationality of Attempts to Delegitimise 9/11 Inquiry
)
) VIII. Whitewashing the Israeli Mossad
)
) IX. Whitewashing Pearl Harbour
)
) X. Whitewashing the 9/11 Intelligence Failure
)
) XI. Missing the Point
)
) Conclusions
)
) Notes
)
) Introduction
)
) Acceptance of the official narrative of what happened on September 11, 2001
) has become widespread, not merely on the right, but also on the left. In
) this paper, I take issue with the writings of several commentators who
) attempt to forcefully argue firstly that acceptance of the official
) narrative is justified, and secondly that certain kinds of inquiry into
) anomalies and inconsistencies in that narrative are illegitimate and
) unnecessary. The main bulk of this writing is available online at a new
) section at the well-known progressive website ZNet, and is somewhat
) representative of the mainstream approach to 9/11.[1]
)
) In reviewing the work of these commentators on 9/11, I analyse in detail the
) failure of the U.S. intelligence community in preventing the Al-Qaeda
) terrorist attacks; the casual repression and/or misrepresentation of facts
) related to 9/11; the failure of U.S. defence measures on 9/11; the historic
) and institutional basis for skepticism about the official narrative; and
) some salient facts which illustrate the need for proper research into the
) linkages between U.S. government, military, intelligence, and corporate
) policy, and the ease with which the September 11 terrorist attacks went
) ahead.
)
) I. Automatic Dismissal of a Legitimate Line of Inquiry
)
) Numerous respected commentators on both the left and right of the political
) spectrum have ardently criticised widespread speculation that the Bush
) administration had advanced warning of the September 11th terrorist attacks,
) sufficient to prevent them from occurring. When Democrat Party U.S.
) Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney called for a full investigation into the
) events surrounding September 11 – and particularly into the warnings
) received by the U.S. intelligence community suggesting that the
) administration may have known more than it is letting on – she was public
) ly
) derided. “We deserve to know what went wrong on September 11 and whyR
) 21;,
) stated McKinney.
)
) “After all, we hold thorough public inquiries into rail disasters, plane
) crashes, and even natural disasters in order to understand what happened and
) to prevent them from happening again or minimizing the tragic effects when
) they do. Why then does the Administration remain steadfast in its opposition
) to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack upon our nation?
)
)
)
) “… Sadly, the United States government is being sued today by survi
) vors of
) the Embassy bombings because, from court reports, it appears clear that the
) U.S. had received prior warnings, but did little to secure and protect the
) staff at our embassies. Did the same thing happen to us again?”[2]
)
) Cynthia McKinney’s comments here echoed her earlier statements in a Pacif
) ica
) radio interview: “We know there were numerous warnings of the events to c
) ome
) on September 11... What did this Administration know, and when did it know
) it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn
) the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?”[3]
)
) In response, on the right, Bush spokesman Scott McLellan declared: “The
) American people know the facts, and they dismiss such ludicrous, baseless
) views.”[4] Bush’s press secretary, Ari Fleischer, is quoted: “
) ;All I can tell
) you is the congresswoman must be running for the hall of fame of the Grassy
) Knoll Society.”[5] Nationally syndicated right-wing U.S. columnist Kathle
) en
) Parker joined the escalating chorus of condemnation:
)
) “She’s black, which means people give her a pass lest they be perce
) ived
) racist… None of which is to suggest that Cynthia McKinney is a terrorist,
) or
) a terrorist sympathizer, or even a socialist rabble-rouser who despises her
) own country. On the other hand, using McKinney’s own talent for inferenti
) al
) dot-connecting, she just might be.”[6]
)
) And on and on. The right-wing chorus of automatic denunciation appears to be
) based on the implicit assumption that the Bush administration is entirely
) guilt-free of any sort of role in implementing policies that may have
) facilitated the September 11 attacks, knowingly or unknowingly (McKinney
) specifies neither). Unfortunately, leading commentators on the left-end of
) the political spectrum appear to have joined in the obligatory chorus of
) derision. They are supported in this by the mainstream assumption that the
) reason the U.S. intelligence community failed to prevent the attacks is
) simply because of bureaucratic incompetence.
)
) II. The “Incompetence Theory” of the 9/11 Intelligence Failure
)
) That assumption has been adopted even by the private U.S. intelligence firm
) Stratfor, which produces independent intelligence on worldwide affairs. On
) September 16th 2002, Stratfor commented:
)
) “We have no doubt that, after the databases have been searched, it will b
) e
) found that U.S. intelligence had plenty of information in some highly secure
) computer. The newspapers will trumpet, ‘CIA knew identity of attackers.&#
) 8217;
) That will be only technically true. Buried in the huge mounds of information
) perhaps once having passed across an overworked analyst’s desk, some bit
) of
) information might have made its circuit of the agencies. But saying that
) U.S. intelligence actually ‘knew’ about the attackers’ plots
) would be
) overstating it. Owning a book and knowing what’s in it are two vastly
) different things.”[7]
)
) On 20th May, commenting on the outbreak of controversy in Washington DC
) over “what Bush knew and when”, Stratfor elaborated on this perspec
) tive in
) some detail, arguing that the colossal 9/11 intelligence failure was a
) consequence of the structural fragmentation of the U.S. intelligence
) community:
)
) “The Central Intelligence Agency, as the name suggests, was founded to
) centralize the intelligence function of the United States. It was a good
) idea then and it is a good idea now. Unfortunately, it is an idea that has
) never been truly implemented and from which, over time, the government has
) moved intractably away. A centralized intelligence capability is essential
) if the United States is to have a single, integrated, coherent picture of
) what is happening in the world. A bureaucratically fragmented intelligence
) community will generate a fragmented picture of the world. That is currently
) what we have.”[8]
)
) While it is clear that a generally “fragmented picture of the world”
) ; is a
) likely consequence of a “bureaucratically fragmented intell