9/11: The Evil of Doing Nothing

The 9/11 Truth Movement, as it is called, is not a new phenomenon in American culture or even the world. Indeed, througout world history conspiracy theories have emerged around drastic events like 9/11. Christopher Hayes' article in The New Republic, 9/11: The Roots of Paranoia fleshes this out very well. Hayes article briefly mentions the various theories put forward by the 9/11 Truth Movement. But it seems that Hayes article is not intended to debunk the individual theories, but rather to point out that despite some strange inconsistencies and the white wash 9/11 Commission Report, no credible theory has been put forward by the 9/11 Truth Movement to counter the "official" story. Hayes asserts in the article that, "the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions".

Hayes goes on to point out that both factions of 9/11 Truth derive their premise from the Reichstag fire that allowed the Nazis to consolidate power by blaming the fire on terrorists, similar to how the Bush administration has used 9/11 to launch a seemingly endless "war on terror" and to launch frightening campaign against the Constitution. However, his larger point is that the fact that the Bush administration's policies benefited from the happenings on 9/11 doesn't prove that they were responsible for it, especially since the various conspiracy theories seem implausible. Furthermore, Hayes also asserts that the mainstream media has gone too far in the opposite direction, swallowing whole the official 9/11 story without scrutiny. These are both good points - However, the thing that Hayes is neglecting, as well as the overall 9/11 Truth Movement through its broad membership and lack of focus, is that the Bush administration wouldn't have to go to great lengths at all in order to be complicit in the horror of 9/11. In fact, the LIHOP (government let it happen on purpose) theory is lot more plausible than Hayes seems to believe, and a lot more simple than many in the 9/11 Truth Movement have portrayed it.

The Project for a New American Century

When the Bush administration came to power, it was chock full of what have come to be described as neoconservatives, a group of folks who hold a cult-like belief in the theory that the post cold war United States must expand its military, and therefore political dominance of the world, in particular the worlds energy supply. Naturally, the Near East Asia region of the world is their primary focus, as gaining a stronghold of the massive oil resources of Iraq, for example, would deprive competing powers of any leverage in this strategically crucial area. In fact, the desires of the neoconservatives are not some secretive, unconfirmed mystery. They have been open to the public for more than a decade and can be found within the philosophy and written reports of an organization called The Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

PNAC's signatories include many influential journalists, political theorists and government officials. But most striking are the many current and former members of the Bush administration, and their roles in forming policy right before and after 9/11. Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Former Deputy Defense Secretary and architect of the Iraq war Paul Wolfowitz, and Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Scooter Libby are all original signatories of PNAC. Other signatories include Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee Richard Perle, Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs Elliot Abrams, current UN Ambassador and Undersecretary for Arms Control during the first George W Bush administration John Bolton and current US Ambassador to Iraq and before that Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, among a few others.

The specific goals of PNAC contained in their various reports and other writings are like a virtual script of what has occurred post 9/11. The group famously sent a letter to President Clinton in 1998 urging him to take military action against Iraq in order to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein so that he may not use "weapons of mass destruction" to threaten US troops and allies in the region. They stressed that this should be the "aim of American foreign policy". PNAC later sent a similar letter to Republican Congressional leaders Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich, urging them to take action after the Clinton administration ignored their advice.

PNAC's report, Rebuilding America's Defenses, was released in September of 2000, only a few months before George W. Bush was sworn in after the Supreme Court stopped the counting of votes in Florida. The report outlines the necessary strategy the US must take in order to preserve, "a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy producing region, and East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other "non-state actors." It goes on to state in the very first paragraph that we must "maintain stability in the Middle East, while setting the conditions for 21st-century successes, especially in East Asia. A retreat from any one of these requirements would call America's status." The report expresses that one of the goals of US foreign policy should be to play a "more permanent role" in Persian Gulf regional security, and that to those ends, there should be an expansion of permanent US military installations in the region, as well as "deployment bases" or "forward operating bases" to increase the reach of current and future forces.

The report also lays out strategy for drastically restructuring of the military, massively increasing military spending and the advancement of "missile defense" systems and dominance of space based weaponry. But most infamously, the report states that the process of transformation is "likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor."

Ignoring Threats

Much has been made of how heroic the Bush administration has been in fighting terrorism. Then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has claimed that the administration "was focused" on terrorist threats from Al Qaeda before 9/11. Yet, upon taking office in January of 2001, Bush's Rice was sent a memo by counter terrorism advisor Richard Clark stamped "urgent" requesting a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the threat of an impending attack by Al Qaeda. The White House admits this, but claims "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." In fact, no meeting ever occurred until one week before 9/11. Furthermore, according to the 9/11 Commission staff Report, "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." Nonetheless, virtually no action was ever taken.

Even more explicit threats were ignored by the Bush administration. Although Rice claims that nobody "could have predicted" that aircraft would be hijacked and used as missiles, on August 6, 2001, the President was given a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plan could include the hijacking of an American airplane. In July 2001, the Bush Administration was also told that Al Qaeda had explored using aircraft as missiles.

Almost immediately after 9/11, on September 20^th, PNAC drafted a letter to President George W. Bush and the PNAC signatories now employed in his administration, in support of the newly declared "war on terror". In the letter they list what they believe are the "necessary steps" in leading the world "in the first war of the 21^st century". The first step listed is to pursue Osama Bin Laden, although the letter mentions Bin Laden very briefly, almost in passing. Yet the letter supports, military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country. Directly following Bin Laden on the list is Iraq, which the letter states that "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq" And that, "Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism".

Given the blatant lack of interest by the Bush administration for anything having to do with the Al Qaeda threat, it is just as plausible to believe that the administration ignored the threat of terrorism on purpose, as it is to believe it was a result of gross incompetence. After all, in the eyes of the PNAC aligned neoconservatives advising Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld chief among them, a terrorist attack on US soil by an Islamic terrorist would provide the "catalyzing", "Pearl Harbor-like event" necessary to put their plans for US dominance of the Gulf region into high gear.
The events that occurred immediately after 9/11 sticks to the PNAC script-invade Afghanistan under the pretense of hunting down Osama Bin Laden, although his capture would be relatively unimportant in the grand scheme. The real goal would be securing "stability" in Afghanistan. This would be a significant step toward dominance of a strategically important country, or as the US Energy Information Administration stated it only a few days before 9/11; "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan." In reality, a natural gas pipeline is expected to be built to transport natural gas from the Caspian Sea, through Afghanistan, and American forces are still working toward creating the "stability" necessary for permanent American military forces to protect this strategically vital pipeline. All of this is exactly the sort of priority goals described in PNAC's Rebuilding Americas Defenses report. However, with instability existing everywhere except Kabul, these plans are currently in jeopardy.

Next would be an attempt to implicate Saddam Hussein in the 9/11 attack, even though there was never any credible link. In fact, according to the then Bush administration counter terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, "in the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq." If unable to prove a link between Saddam and 9/11, they would resort to the default neoconservative position that Iraq is threatening the US with WMD in order to justify the already planned US invasion. Taking over Iraq and installing a US friendly government would act as a shining beacon of American hegemony in the Persian Gulf region. The first action after the fall of Baghdad was to open the entirety of Iraq's economy to private investment and unrestricted, untaxed trade; and the construction of permanent base structures followed shortly after. In conquering Iraq, the Bush administration will have secured the worlds second largest oil reserves and the largest untapped reserves. However, like Afghanistan, these plans are also now in serious jeopardy.

Plausibility

Is it such a stretch to believe that just a few ideologues in the Bush administration would sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans by allowing a terrorist attack to occur on US soil? Would this be an acceptable loss in seeking an excuse to launch their long sought campaign to secure US hegemony and world resources? In their twisted minds, the ends would justify the means, although given the appearance of some personal gain by Cheney, Rumsfeld and others, even that might be giving them too much credit. But, given the current tolerance of the Bush administration for the massive death toll of US troops and Iraqi civilians, it can be said that none of this is a stretch at all. No broad conspiracy would be necessary at all, just a few officials in position to de-fund and de-fang counter terrorism efforts prior to 9/11. which is a conceivable scenario based upon the testimony of Richard Clarke, other CIA and FBI sources, as well as official records.

Therefvore, if the fanatical neoconservatives in the Bush administration needed a 9/11 type event, there would be no need for any of the elaborate and crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories put forward by many in the Truth Movement. No holographic planes, no remote control pilots, no pre-planned controlled demolition or missiles fired at the Pentagon would be necessary. All they would have to do is ignore the various warnings and neglect the Clinton administrations plans to deal with and track Al Qaeda. All they would have to do then is sit back and wait, especially with an ambitious and compliant figure-head president, who in exchange for a place in history as a wartime commander-in-chief would turn a blind eye to the threat warnings presented to him in the months preceding 9/11---this was the incentive for George W. Bush, a man who mocked the pleas for mercy from Texas death row inmate Karla Faye Tucker, who has not even had the decency to attend even one funeral of a fallen Afghanistan or Iraq veteran, and who smirks and jokes incessantly like a clown when visiting injured troops. An unserious man like George W. Bush, with an established lack of deference for human life could very well make such a deal. His only concern was and is for his presidential legacy as the "decider", a moniker he proudly awarded himself. Biographer Mickey Herskowitz transcribed George W. Bush's own words in 1999: "One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief." He added, "My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it." Bush concludes by saying, "If I have a chance to invade....if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

The stated goals of the PNAC members of the Bush administration, Bush's desire to invade Iraq in order to go down in history as a commander-in-chief president, and their clearly neglectful attitude toward Al Qaeda and terrorism before 9/11 should be enough to at least make us wonder.