Did they know?

[Pure]

I watched a fine docudrama on 9-11; the first to appear, I believe; it's called "Hamburg Cell." A fascinating study of Jarrah, the most interesting of the lot.

Given the number of memos floating about--e.g., by Richard Clark-- does one have to be totally paranoid to ask the question:
Is it fair say that, at the highest levels of US government, the attack of 9/11 must have been expected, that is, plans were likely known about (at least in outline and approximately) and ignored?

The same question has been raised about Pearl Harbor. The reason, according to these 'wild' paranoid theories, is that the US gov wished to galvanize the American people, for various war-related purposes.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I’ve heard about the docudrama but haven’t seen it, but ignorance never stopped me from having an opinion.

I kind of doubt that we had specific intelligence on 9/11 before hand. I know that we knew about the possibility of such an attack beforehand though, because I personally had heard the possibility of using a hijacked airliner as a weapon discussed long before 9/11. In fact, nuclear reactors have been designed to withstand just such a scenario for years and years.

I have little doubt that once the initial dust setlled, the attack was seized on as a political tool, and the War on Terror has never been more than that. If we’d been serious about stopping terrorism we would have gone after terrorists rather than invading Iraq, and real money would have gone to where it was needed and not become just another big money boondoggle. (The state of South Dakota gets as much in anti-terrorism funding as California or New York. How much sense does that make?) The terrorism color alerts were cynically manipulated running up to the last election too to bolster Bush’s political goals. I think that’s beyond dispute.

Let’s remember what things were like on 9/10/01 too, the day before the attack. The overriding National Secirity issue was Bush’s desire to go ahead with the $500 billion Star Wars anti-ballistic missile shield. (In fact, Condy Rice had just been giving a speech on that topic on that very day.) The dangers of terrorism on US soil, despite all of Richard Clarkes’s warnings, were relegated to the farthest back burner. It was all Star Wars, Star Wars, Star Wars.

Bush’s approval rating was very low as well. 43% if I remember correctly, but I might be wrong.

I’m not suggesting that Karl Rove and others said, “Fuck America, let’s use this as a political tool to have things our way!” But I think once the pols realized that GWB had the nation behind him, they decided to do things their way and for their own reasons.

He’s doing the same thing today, seeing his election victory as a public endorsement of his war in Iraq and his domestic agenda. I don’t think a 3 percentage point edge is exactly a ringing endorsement.

---dr.M.

 

[Belegon]

Did they know it was a possibility? of course, yes. The idea of flying a commercial airliner into a target was not unique, ask Tom Clancy.

Did anyone actually believe it could REALLY happen? No.

Blinded by arrogance or disbelief, or the inability to see that level of inhumanity in another human.

I believe a lot of things are unethical within this administration (and within past ones as well, not wanting to set the neo-cons off). But I don't believe they are this cruel or inhumane...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The question rises constantly if FDR knew about Pearl harbor before hand. A million diferent "proofs" exist. Such as, but not limited to, memos from both State dept. & Naval intelligence, breaking of the japanese diplomatic purple code, a lack of air patrols to in the area the japanese aproached from, even the fact all our carries were out to sea.

On a less worldwide scale, but along the same lines is the monday morning quarterback, who can sagely say team-X should have blitzed on the play that beat them.

The most plausible answer is no, no one 'knew". That the possibility existed, yes, pople knew that. If you take the collection of information avialable and apply it in retrospect it seems someone had to have known, but in reality, no one had access to all the information or even to the majority of it.

Like any tragedy, there is a need to undersand it. Like all before, conspiracy theories will abound. I think that's human nature. It's simply hard to believe something could have happened on this scale that no one knew about.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I believe they knew, just not when but they knew something would arise. I think, in my own opinion, that they assumed they would be able to stop it in time.
We've been watching Bin Laden for years, we financed him at one point, mistakes were made and now the finger pointing begins.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The question rises constantly if FDR knew about Pearl harbor before hand. A million diferent "proofs" exist. Such as, but not limited to, memos from both State dept. & Naval intelligence, breaking of the japanese diplomatic purple code, a lack of air patrols to in the area the japanese aproached from, even the fact all our carries were out to sea.

On a less worldwide scale, but along the same lines is the monday morning quarterback, who can sagely say team-X should have blitzed on the play that beat them.

The most plausible answer is no, no one 'knew". That the possibility existed, yes, pople knew that. If you take the collection of information avialable and apply it in retrospect it seems someone had to have known, but in reality, no one had access to all the information or even to the majority of it.

Like any tragedy, there is a need to undersand it. Like all before, conspiracy theories will abound. I think that's human nature. It's simply hard to believe something could have happened on this scale that no one knew about.

I agree. I would add, too, that the question of "did they know?" is answered more thoroughly if one considers everything else that they "knew," much of it false. It's not enough to find a memo saying "beware of people flying planes into buildings" or even "beware of a major terrorist attack on September 11th 2001." We'd have to know the size of the pile of other warnings and information that it was buried in. How many other warnings and sources of information were there? After all, right now Bush is being pilloried for relying on one or two reports stating that Iraq had WMD while ignoring many others that suggested they didn't. If the standard is to wait until there's a preponderence of evidence that stands out clearly from all of the other red herrings and assorted chatter that never goes anywhere, then our government officials might very well have seen warnings and concluded, reasonably, that they were no more clear a threat than dozens of others that never panned out.

Conspiracy theories are tempting. They suggest that there is a plan, a meaning to the horrible events that life throws at us. They bring order to chaos and meaning to pointless, terrible events. They appeal to the part of us that would like to believe that 3000 people can't just die because someone's an irate lunatic. But they can.

Shanglan

 

[Boota]

They knew for a fact that the attack was coming, the likely nature of the attack and the rough time frame in which the attack would be launched. There are documents, in the public record now, all over the place of certain agencies preparing for this sort of attack while the Bush administration ignored everything presented to them.

Back in 1999 a friend of mine, who is in the military, talked to me about some of the training he was doing. He was working on rescue type stuff involving airliners hitting the WTC and the Sears Tower. (He wasn't supposed to talk about it because they didn't want to risk a panic with the public.) If a lowly soldier knew it was coming then everyone above him in the government knew it was coming. Clinton knew it was coming and made it his top priority to work against it. Richard Clarke speculates that perhaps it is because counter-terrorism was so important to Clinton that the Bush administration tried to distance themsleves from it.

Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, is a great read on the subject. It takes you inside not only the preparations for the attack, but inside the White House Situation Room during the attack. To see the things that the Bush adminsitation ignored leading up to 9-11 is infuriating. Clarke is a hero made out to be a villain once he exposed the flaws of the Bush White House. Just another disgusting act by the Usurper King.

 

[BlackShanglan]

They knew for a fact that the attack was coming, the likely nature of the attack and the rough time frame in which the attack would be launched. There are documents, in the public record now, all over the place of certain agencies preparing for this sort of attack while the Bush administration ignored everything presented to them.

Back in 1999 a friend of mine, who is in the military, talked to me about some of the training he was doing. He was working on rescue type stuff involving airliners hitting the WTC and the Sears Tower. (He wasn't supposed to talk about it because they didn't want to risk a panic with the public.) If a lowly soldier knew it was coming then everyone above him in the government knew it was coming. Clinton knew it was coming and made it his top priority to work against it. Richard Clarke speculates that perhaps it is because counter-terrorism was so important to Clinton that the Bush administration tried to distance themsleves from it.

Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, is a great read on the subject. It takes you inside not only the preparations for the attack, but inside the White House Situation Room during the attack. To see the things that the Bush adminsitation ignored leading up to 9-11 is infuriating. Clarke is a hero made out to be a villain once he exposed the flaws of the Bush White House. Just another disgusting act by the Usurper King.

Again, however - we were also simultaneously preparing for a number of other events, none of which actually occurred. Remember back when "cyber-terrorism" was thought to be the new frontier? Quite a lot of time and money was put into the possibility that a military enemy would have a go at our information technology infrastructure - enough that of course, as with many threats that fail to generate a notable impact, it's impossible to know whether it was never really a threat or whether it was averted by what preparations were made. Dirty bomb scares have a long history, as did threats about suitcase nukes and biological threats. All of these were on the docket, and most had some degree of resources or preparation devoted to them. The question is not whether any administration had some idea that such things were possible it's whether they could have pulled September 11th out of the mix as the one that was really going to happen unless drastic and immediate measures were taken.

I think it a bit unreasonable to characterize the Bush administration as uninterested in counter-terrorism. They'd investigated Moussouai (sp?) in the past, if memory serves, but could not obtain clearance to search his laptop. They were also hindered by a number of laws passed with good intentions, but limiting government ability to bribe and/or recruit agents of criminal organizations. It's a very difficult moral tightrope and I'm grateful that I don't have to walk it, but there were difficulties in balancing justice and pragmatism in deciding how to handle murderous thugs who happened to have information we wanted. We're still working out the ramifications of that one.

Shanglan

 

[Boota]

You should just read Clarke's book. It goes into detail over what the Bush Administration did and didn't do, along with the reasons given as to why they didn't. What I said isn't unreasonable at all. It is what happened, as detailed by the public records released since the 9-11 Commission.

Did they know that on September 11, 2001 that those four airplanes were going to be hijacked by those specific terrorists and crashed into those buildings? Not exactly. What they did know was damning enough, in my opinion. They knew that bin Laden intended to attack in such a manner, yet they never made any attempt to foil that sort of attack. Not even a heads up to the airlines about boosting their own security or being on alert. Nothing about locking a cockpit door or stopping the practice of allowing people outside the flight crew in the cockpit.

Bush was briefed everyday by George Tenet and Richard Clarke, among others, about the immediacy of the threat and he took action. That action: He went on vacation. Clarke took it so seriously as to cancel vacations for himself and all of his staff, but Bush just went to play golf.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I don't see this as a conspiracy theory. The facts, as stated in the massive piles of public records that have been released, tell the story. Bush apologists don't want to accept the fact that their boy was asleep at the wheel and that he is the one who dropped the ball. Everyone seems to agree that the administration must have known of the "possibility" of the attack. Seeing the intelligence that they had beforehand I don't see how a reasonable person could call these reports "possibilities" when "likelihood" is a much more appropriate word. The intelligence Bush got everyday leading up to the last two weeks before the attack were regarded as imminent. With all the evidence I don't think whether they knew or not is even debatable. It should be firmly established. The question should be, "Why didn't they do anything?"

What did they have to gain by ignoring the intelligence?

Are they evil or just incompetent?

 

[rgraham666]

Are they evil or just incompetent?

I vote for both. Which is a good thing as they will fuck up being evil.

On the other had, even incompetent evil is still no fun to be around.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Clarke was Clinton's point man against terrorism. If memory serves he was also pretty myopic, focusing in on cyber terrorism as the real threat up to and even after the bombing of the trade centers.

Obviously, if you hate GWB & co, it's easy to paint them as incompetant. Obviously too, if you are Richard Clarke, it's expedient to paint yourself as the hero, trying so hard and failing to prevent this. Objectively, I have seen no evidence that anyone, President, National security advisor, FBi dierestor, on down had acess to even the majority of the evidence we now have culled and present as proof.

Information on the possibility of terrorists training in the US was the provence of the FBI. By law, as a domestic issue, the CIA was not privy to the information. Much of the legslation now seems to be dealing with the fact information and intelligence gathering are fragmented, redundant and seriously flawed.

If you want to believe they knew, no rational argument will dissuade you. If you want to believe they didn't, no argument will work. If you have a helathy skepticism and take an objective view, then you will demand proof that gives at least the preponderance of evidence. Granted, I am not a scholar on the subject, but the preponderance of evidence I have seen, leads to the conclusion no one knew it was coming. Richard Clarke's tremendous foresight notwithstanding.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Clarke was indeed Clinton's "point man on terrorism", but he first worked for Reagan and then for Bush the elder before being appointed by Clinton. He'd served in three administrations with considerable honor and distinction, and according to what he says in his book, in his capacity as Clinton's anti-terrorism man, he had a whole host of programs going on.

Clarke also writes about how he had a meeting with Clinton about funding his new initiatives, and Clinton asked him what he would need. Clarke, swallowing hard, said "One billion dollars." And Clinton immediately said, "You've got it."

You can be skeptical about whether they knew or not, but I don't think there's any doubt that the Bush administration gave a much lower priority to anti-terrorism than Clinton. As I said, Condy Rice gave a speech somewhere on 9/10/01 about security concerns for the USA and mentioned 8 or ten issues. Terrorism wasn't even one of them.

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Clarke was indeed Clinton's "point man on terrorism", but he first worked for Reagan and then for Bush the elder before being appointed by Clinton. He'd served in three administrations with considerable honor and distinction, and according to what he says in his book, in his capacity as Clinton's anti-terrorism man, he had a whole host of programs going on.

Clarke also writes about how he had a meeting with Clinton about funding his new initiatives, and Clinton asked him what he would need. Clarke, swallowing hard, said "One billion dollars." And Clinton immediately said, "You've got it."

You can be skeptical about whether they knew or not, but I don't think there's any doubt that the Bush administration gave a much lower priority to anti-terrorism than Clinton. As I said, Condy Rice gave a speech somewhere on 9/10/01 about security concerns for the USA and mentioned 8 or ten issues. Terrorism wasn't even one of them.

---dr.M.

I don't know Clarke's record doc. And for the record, I haven't read his book. I have, however, read several books from World War Two. It's amazing how many people tried to warn the commanders at Pearl, how many officers tried to get defenses put up on the north end of Singapore, how many people warned of a German attack beofre it occured.

In hind sight, so many things should have happened that didn't and catastrophe struck. I think here the application of hindsight is what makes so many things seem obvious. At the time they weren't.

If your intent is to say counter terrorism wasn't given a high enough priority then I agree. If your intent is to say someone knew and let it happen, then I feel you need a lot of proof for that assertion.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

If your intent is to say counter terrorism wasn't given a high enough priority then I agree. If your intent is to say someone knew and let it happen, then I feel you need a lot of proof for that assertion.

No. I don't believe anyone knew and let it happen. I put that one up there with the contention that the attack was really run by the Israeli secret service. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, and as much as I dislike GWB, I don't think he's an evil man. (Whose sig line is it that says, "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence" or something like that?)

Nor do I think that the administration rubbed their collective hands in glee after 9/11 and said, "Here's what we've been waiting for! Our chance to fuck over the American people!" I don't think they work like that.

I do think that political considerations had something to do with the invasion of Afghanistan and much more to do with the invasion of Iraq. I think they've been wanting to go fool around with the middle east for sometime now, and they felt that 9/11 gave them the green light. And I really think that GWB thought that Iraq would be a cakewalk: get in, topple Saddam, and get out, all in a year and in time for victory parades down Pennsylvania Avenue in the summer before the election. It would make him look strong, decisive, and tough when faced with a problem (terrorism) that there's really very little they can do anything about.

As I've said before, there was talk in Washington about invading Iraq even before the dust in Afghanistan had settled. They really believe this stuff about bringing democracy to the middle east by making an example out of Iraq. I find that whole idea preposterous myself, but that's what they believe, and 9/11 gave them the rationale they needed to set the wheels in motion.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

You should just read Clarke's book. It goes into detail over what the Bush Administration did and didn't do, along with the reasons given as to why they didn't. What I said isn't unreasonable at all. It is what happened, as detailed by the public records released since the 9-11 Commission.

Did they know that on September 11, 2001 that those four airplanes were going to be hijacked by those specific terrorists and crashed into those buildings? Not exactly. What they did know was damning enough, in my opinion. They knew that bin Laden intended to attack in such a manner, yet they never made any attempt to foil that sort of attack. Not even a heads up to the airlines about boosting their own security or being on alert. Nothing about locking a cockpit door or stopping the practice of allowing people outside the flight crew in the cockpit.

Bush was briefed everyday by George Tenet and Richard Clarke, among others, about the immediacy of the threat and he took action. That action: He went on vacation. Clarke took it so seriously as to cancel vacations for himself and all of his staff, but Bush just went to play golf.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I don't see this as a conspiracy theory. The facts, as stated in the massive piles of public records that have been released, tell the story. Bush apologists don't want to accept the fact that their boy was asleep at the wheel and that he is the one who dropped the ball. Everyone seems to agree that the administration must have known of the "possibility" of the attack. Seeing the intelligence that they had beforehand I don't see how a reasonable person could call these reports "possibilities" when "likelihood" is a much more appropriate word. The intelligence Bush got everyday leading up to the last two weeks before the attack were regarded as imminent. With all the evidence I don't think whether they knew or not is even debatable. It should be firmly established. The question should be, "Why didn't they do anything?"

What did they have to gain by ignoring the intelligence?

Are they evil or just incompetent?

Like you, I don't think anyone knew exactly when and how, or that Bush even took Clarke seriously. He couldn't have faked the stunned-squirrel look in the famous 7-minute video. But that film is remarkable for a reason I've never heard anybody question: Bush's Secret Service contingent do nothing. Not just for the 7 minutes on film; teachers' accounts have him sticking around to shake hands with the principal and some of the teachers for 15 to 20 minutes after he left the classroom. He was in a published location, 3 miles from an airport, during an event of unknown scope involving hijacked aircraft dive-bombing buildings.

Back at the White House, the Secret Service took Cheney to a basement safe room, half-carrying him and without his permission, as they are supposed to do for the commander in chief when the country is under attack.

But the president stayed in his published location, no hurry to move him, and then took off on Air Force One without a military escort.

If thinking Cheney was in charge and Bush was expendable makes me a conspiracy theorist, where do I get my certificate?

 

[rgraham666]

I remember that old joke.

If something happens to the first President Bush, the Secret Service have orders to shoot Dan Quayle.

This is sort of the same situation.

 

[shereads]

It's futile to judge Clarke's motive or the power of his arguments without reading him. I've heard Price's book dismissed as the work of someone bent on payback; telling people that the book is well documented and that it's most compelling moments aren't narrative but quoted minutes from Cabinet meetings, doesn't budge them. There's an unprecedented body of work about the first four years of this presidency by people who were on the inside, and I can't help but be frustrated at the way the books are brushed off as irrelevent before they're read.

Clarke was Clinton's point man against terrorism. If memory serves he was also pretty myopic, focusing in on cyber terrorism as the real threat up to and even after the bombing of the trade centers.

Obviously, if you hate GWB & co, it's easy to paint them as incompetant. Obviously too, if you are Richard Clarke, it's expedient to paint yourself as the hero, trying so hard and failing to prevent this. Objectively, I have seen no evidence that anyone, President, National security advisor, FBi dierestor, on down had acess to even the majority of the evidence we now have culled and present as proof.

Information on the possibility of terrorists training in the US was the provence of the FBI. By law, as a domestic issue, the CIA was not privy to the information. Much of the legslation now seems to be dealing with the fact information and intelligence gathering are fragmented, redundant and seriously flawed.

If you want to believe they knew, no rational argument will dissuade you. If you want to believe they didn't, no argument will work. If you have a helathy skepticism and take an objective view, then you will demand proof that gives at least the preponderance of evidence. Granted, I am not a scholar on the subject, but the preponderance of evidence I have seen, leads to the conclusion no one knew it was coming. Richard Clarke's tremendous foresight notwithstanding.

 

[Op_Cit]

simple litmus tests

I don't know the factual nature of the next, but it seems it would not be hard to confirm. It was reported in one place that a mobile air defense battery was positioned at the Florida resort where Bush was staying on the night of 9/10/01. If this was shown to be true, I'd have to say case closed.

There are also a number of people who claimed to have received "do not fly" warnings that week. Some of these should be verifiable.

I do know it to be fact that they were aware of terrorist plots (from the prior year) to hijack and fly planes into buildings.

What's most damning about that? Where was the FAA notam (notice to airmen) for airline pilots alerting them to this scenario, and updating any policies they may have on that basis? (You know, like the policy that said up until then, "cooperate fully with hijackers").

People tend to say the most plausible answer is that people didn't know, but I think that is not true. It seems to be the most comforting answer, because that is what the majority will believe: not truth, but what makes them feel the best.

 

[Pure]

Variation of the thesis, based on the practice of 'deniability'.
certain High Officials took pains NOT to know about what was likely to occur.

 

[shereads]

People tend to say the most plausible answer is that people didn't know, but I think that is not true. It seems to be the most comforting answer, because that is what the majority will believe: not truth, but what makes them feel the best.

Maybe not the most plausible answer, but certainly the only one that allows us to sleep at night, keep paying our taxes like good citizens, and find a level of comfortable denial. We know that a great deal was known and not addressed. We're comfortable debating the extent of blame, dividing along lines that require nothing of any of us: it was an unfortunate lapse or it was inexcusably stupid. Either way, there's nothing we can do now that the election is over except feel awful. We can live with that.

But if a conspiracy were proven, with its purpose to shift the balance of power here and/or in the middle east, who is left in a position of power to acknowledge and address a crime of such enormity? We would be divided into camps: the good Germans who choose to believe it's for the best and the resistance fighters who risk everything to take back the country.

Which camp would any of us fall into? I have the uncomfortable feeling that I'd avoid making a choice until it became unavoidable, and then I'd see how comfortable I felt doing nothing. I honestly don't know what I'd do.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It's futile to judge Clarke's motive or the power of his arguments without reading him. I've heard Price's book dismissed as the work of someone bent on payback; telling people that the book is well documented and that it's most compelling moments aren't narrative but quoted minutes from Cabinet meetings, doesn't budge them. There's an unprecedented body of work about the first four years of this presidency by people who were on the inside, and I can't help but be frustrated at the way the books are brushed off as irrelevent before they're read.

I don't need to read the book to judge motive. I can google a hundred sites ripping it as you can a hundred sites supporting it. If you write a tell all book, while you are still employed and produce it and loose your job over it, there is strong argument for motive. If you get dismissed, then write it, there is strong argument there for motive too.

You don't like GW or his handlers, the book confirms what you already believe and thus it has resonance with you that it might not have with me. In a perfect world, I could read everything that has bearing on a subject discussed. In this imperfect world, I can afford to spend very little on books and thus I make my selections under a very fine crtieria. A tell all book by a former administration insider is going to make a very poor showing against books I really want to read.

As is I feel competent to voice an opinion based on what news sources I do have access to along with some comparative thinking. From everything I have seen, the evidence that someone in the administration knew definitively an attack was coing and did nothing is paper thin. It's based on a full look at the evidence such an attack was coming and with hidnsight, that evidence seems very compelling. But a closer look at the evidence shows no one had access to all of it or even most of it. Interdepartmental memos from differt departments, pieces of a puzzel where the Cia holds a few, the FBI holds a few, the pentagon holds a few, state holds a few etc.

In retrospect, the evidence dosen't point to evil, in my opinion, it points to a flaw in the countries intelligence gathering and coalating mechanisms. That conlclusion seems to be borne out by the attempts to streamline and eliminate the redundancy and secrecy between departments currently on the floor in both house & senate.

I am not prepared to go on a witch hunt, with the light of hindsight showing the way. The attack was unprecedented in it's scope and location. Assuming that people should have known based on fragmentory intelligence is taking in a lot of ground.

I can't say definitively that no one knew. I can say that no one has brought compelling evidence to light that any one person had all the puzzle pieces before him, much less that he put that puzzel together and then let it happen.

 

[haldir]

evil

Whether or not an individual "knew" that 9/11 ( to use your quaint american ways) was going to happen is irrellivent is it not? As other posts have already stated - a determined nutter will always manage to do what they want to do.

The real question must surely be - "Why did the US and the West fund Mr Bin Laden to fight the Russians knowing full weel his anit-american philosophy.

Also - and I know its old - why hit Iraq when the real funders and sponsors of 9/11 are Saudi's?

 

[haldir]

Just to stir the shit a bit more and to complete my drunken (ye Scottish stereotype) rant - please define "evil" in a human context and within the context ot "terrorism".

And please remember that the much revered Nelson Mandela was convicted of an actual act of terrorism.

 

[Pure]

call them saints, brothers, jihadis, terrorists, whatever. the question is, In the US, did the high up folks, military top brass, directors of the dozens of intelligence agencies, FBI, national security council, know?

or did the next in command know, but have orders NOT to tell the top fellows.

Also, how about French, British, and Israeli intelligence?

 

[shereads]

Clarke resigned, Colly, or was allowed to resign, after being removed from contact with the president and effectively demoted. For what it's worth, the books I've read by 3 sources, none of whom had very much in common (Wilson, Price, Clarke) all paint similar pictures of people and events, and in the places where there is some crossover, I found no contradictions. They would have had some work to do to get their stories straight before staggering the publication of their books, wouldn't they? And a shared agenda to discredit the president? And to discredit him on the same issues? And in Price's case, with supporting documents for every directly quoted meeting, e-mail, love note and memo?

People have been fired from other White Houses and waited until the next administration to publish their revenge. How credible is it that three people of such stature within previous White Houses who had the respect of other conservative Republican presidents, would break with the tradition of not publishing tell-all books about a sitting president; all slandering his character with similar accounts of his behavior behind the scenes; all expressing doubts about the motives for the Iraq invasion, and painting Cheney as the man in charge - if there wasn't enough truth there to protect them from libel suits? That's a lot of Bush-bashing, credited to two people (Price and Wilson) considered favorites of Bush I.


Side topic: Because you aren't suspicious of Cheney as I am, you might be the best person here to ask if there might have been a reason for the president's Secret Service contingent not to move him after they learned that the 2nd plane had hit and it was now assumed that the country was under attack. I'd ask the same about GWB or President George Clooney in the same circumstance, because their inaction that day has bothered me ever since I saw the classroom footage. Were they negligent because they were just stunned? Can Secret Service agents be stunned and keep their jobs?

If there's lots of evidence that a witch has been cooking children in the local forest, I think a witch hunt would be in order. Even if all we can do when we find her is call her names and make her feel bad.