Antiwar.com Blog

The second chapter of the 9/11 report chronicles the growth of modern Islamic terrorism, specifically the history of al Qaeda.

Why Do They Hate “US”?

One of the biggest disagreements between pro-war and anti-war pundits concerns the basis of the terrorists’ hatred towards America. Were those nineteen terrorists screaming “Down with freedom, capitalism and Western values!” when they crashed those planes? Or rather, did they scream “Down with American foreign policy!”? Bin Ladin admits to hating Western values, willing to kill all people associated with America. Still, where does this hatred come from. If you ask pro-war pundit Bill Kristol, he believes that it has nothing to do with foreign policy. The 9/11 report begins to address this issue in Chapter 2:

“Many Americans have wondered, ‘Why do ‘they’ hate us?’ Some also ask, ‘What can we do to stop these attacks?’ Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions.To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as ‘your agents'” (page 51)

But here is the kicker:

“Bin Ladin’s grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper.” (ibid.)

Saddam and Osama: A First Look

I found four instances of the supposed “Saddam/Osama” alliance in chapter two. Each indicates that there is little evidence for such a claim, and clearly no link between Saddam and 9/11. I quote each instance here: Continue reading “Notes on Chapter 2 of the 9/11 Report”

This is a test

The members of the 9/11 commission claim that their report attempts "to provide the most complete account . . . of the events of September 11, what happened and why." (xvii) I decided to buy a copy and see for myself how well they perform. Chapter One sets out to detail the events of 9/11 and the government’s reaction to it. Given that many already know most of the details of that day, I will merely highlight some of the interesting points and themes that emerge from the chapter.

Government Responsibility

It was refreshing to see government criticize itself. First on the FAA’s failure to communicate the existence of multiple hijackings:

"Several FAA air traffic control officials told us it was the air carriers’ responsibility to notify their planes of security problems. One senior FAA air traffic control manager said that it was simply not the FAA’s place to order the airlines what to tell their pilots. We believe such statements do not reflect an adequate appreciation of the FAA’s responsibility for the safety and security of civil aviation. " (page 11)

and
"Most federal agencies learned about the crash in New York from CNN." (page 35)
Symbols?
In describing Flight 93, which crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, the commission believes that the main motivation of Jarrah – the lead hijacker and pilot – "was to crash into symbols of the American Republic, the Capitol or the White House." (pg 14) Since when were those two building symbols of the American Republic? Perhaps instead, Jarrah wanted to hit at the central node of federal power. One suspects that this type of emotion saturated rhetoric will be found throughout the book.
Protect the State First, Citizens…Next
The report details the administration’s response after the attacks began:
"At 9:59, an Air Force lieutenant colonel working in the White House Military Office joined the conference and stated that he has just talked top Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. The White House requested (1) the implementation of continuity of government measures, (2) fighter escorts for Air Force One and (3) a fighter combat patrol over Washington D.C." (page 38)
Before this conference, there was a White House teleconference:
"The first topic addressed in the White House video teleconference — at about 9:40—was the physical security of the President, the White House, and federal agencies. " (page 36) Continue reading “Notes on Chapter 1 of the 9/11 Report”

Regarding our main news story today, Panel: US Support for Israel Key to 9/11 , here is the relevant page in the 9/11 report [pdf].

Notable lower page news you might have missed today:

*We reported earlier this week that Canadian authorities had approved al-Jazeera for broadcast, but the conditions are apparently prohibitive. Will David Frum finally go home now?

*You thought MREs were bad before…

*Emboldened by the Butler whitewash, Tony Blair reveals his new Five-Year Plan. I hope he wins so we can watch American “conservatives” learn to hate him again as he trades licks with President Kerry.

*Speaking of music, turns out Annie Jacobsen’s band of terrorists was, uh, just a band. Still worried? Well, Clinton W. Taylor double-checked those sketchy Ay-rabs for National Review and came to the same conclusion. Then he called for a preemptive strike on Tehran. (Just kidding – that’s Michael Ledeen‘s shtick.)

It was closer than anyone could have expected, but Madison failed to do “something no other city has had the guts to do…form an official sister city relationship with a Palestinian city.” A city council member was reduced to tears by “how ‘cruel’ and ‘hateful’ some of the statements aimed at supporters of the proposal have been.” Even if the proposal had passed, the mayor planned to veto it.

The mayor felt that “adopting the sister city resolution would be in essence a criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government. He said he did not believe that Madison should take a position on Middle East policy.” As a candidate, before the Iraq invasion, he had “passed a test pf courage and conscience” by “participating in the reading of the pledge to resist a wrong-minded war” at a gala “Not In Our Name” event attended by 2000 people.

Performing at the antiwar gala was Ben Sidran. “This is what history feels like,” the jazz great said. Now Sidran puts tribal loyalty first. Now apparently a smear campaign is what history feels like.

For far too many in the antiwar camp, it’s as if Iraq and Palestine/Israel are on different planets. Far too many who have found intolerable Bush’s exploitation of “terrorism” to invade and occupy Iraq don’t seem to mind Sharon’s exploitation of “terrorism” to wreak destruction in the West Bank and Gaza. From both a moral and pragmatic point of view, toleration of Israel’s aggression undercuts opposition to America’s. Unless the Palestinians are treated with justice and dignity, there will always be “terrorism” for the U.S. war party to exploit.

In the case of antiwar, antiBush stalwart John Nichols, columnist for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times, the disconnect can be quantified. Of the 200 columns he’s written for TCT since January 1, 2003, 87 contain the word “Iraq” while only two contain “Israel.” One of the two was a fleeting reference and neither was this year. He’s had nothing to say about Madison/Rafah and, in over a year and a half, he’s said nothing about Israel’s “network of cages.”

Nichols’ astonishing record is a reflection of the fact that there is no liberal politician of any stature in this country who has the knowledge and decency to speak out on the Palestine issue. The easier path is to just avoid offending the Jewish sensibility, never mind that when it comes to Israel, by and large American Jews are in the grip of neurosis.