The Order to "Stand Down"

[CanuckMA]

You are correct, that hijackers did not plow planes into buildings. But, terroriss using planes as weapons is a scenario that had been widely discussed throughout the Counterterrorism Security Group (headed by Richard Clarke) since before the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympics.

Next, the 'Standard Operating Procedure' (and that there is a 'Standard Operating Procedure' about this say alot in itself) is that the military aircraft would intercept the commercial airplane that has deviated from its flight plan.

“A NORAD spokesman says its fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile.”
​

Finally, I have not ordered the military aircraft to destroy a commercial airliner. Although, as I understand the events of September 11, 2001. Richard Clarke did seek that authorization through Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in turn received positive authorization from President George Bush.

But, since the US Military F-15's (from Otis) and F-16's (from Langley) could not close the gap quick enough, this order was not put to the test.

Mike

Sorry Mike, it should hae read WOULD. as in would have ordered.

 

[Makalakumu]

Is the 911 Commission doing a good job?

FBI agent Robert Write on tape at the National Press Club said, "I can't tell you what I know, I'll be arrested. All I can say is that the Bush family vacations with the Bin Ladens."

Where is this guy? Why can't we hear what he has got in his head?

 

[CanuckMA]

Other than Osama, the Bin Ladens are as upstanding a businessman and person as any Saudi can be.

 

[Makalakumu]

I, too, have heard that Osama is the "pariah" of the family, yet how does this explain their funding of his operations. Two stories again.

 

[Cruentus]

The problem I have with the 911 commission is that it is not asking the right questions.

They are trying to find out if there was negligence on the part of the administration in regards to national defense. In other words, should the administration have been able to prevent 911 through clues that they had. So far, very little has come out inconclusively to prove that the administration knew that terrorists were going to ram planes into buildings beforehand. I doubt any of this evidence will come out from these hearings, and I doubt that any penelties will be doled as a result from this commission.

I think that the commission knows this, but it continues because it is a bi-partisen attempt to expose the Bush administration for its faults. I am not a Bush supporter, yet I feel that this is the wrong way to go about it.

9-11 happened because of foriegn policy problems, and ideological problems that we have had going at least as far back as the 80's in recent memory.

Ideological Problems:

1. Ideology - Free Trade: By having trade opened up "freely" with another country, then both the U.S. and that country will benefit from the trade relationship. Because of this benefit, then both the U.S. and that country will not wage war against one another.
Problem: This only works between 2 countries who's leaders have similar ethics, and if the trade is fair. Often times the trade is not fair, but is forced through trade commissions by the unilateral power (us), and through the idea of "mutual gain." So, other countries who are not mutually benefiting become fustrated and begin to detest the unilateral power (us) because of the relationship rather then being happy with the relationship. Depending on how skewed the benefits become, other countries may detest us enough to want to uproot our unilateral powers through trade control, lack of support, support to our enemies, or even violence. Then, ethics become an issue. When we trade with and support terrorists and dictators, our ethics and values do not match, and war is not prevented. We traded with Saddam Huessien, for example. We currently trade with and have relationships with many other dictatorships who hate us. Even though the trade is often not exactly "fair," even if it was, they still don't have the same "free trade" ethics as us, and would still work to try to harm our country. Indonesia is another example; it is a well known fact that they are a dictatorship where muslim fundamentalism is rempent, and they harbor Al Queda terrorists. Yet, we still have factories and plants over in their country.

THis ideal leads to all sorts of problems. Our policy has never been to fight for "democracy," and it has always been about "free trade," as evident from many of the dictators that we set up in power in other countries to secure our own interests.

#2 Ideology - Mutual Gain: This is related to trade as well. Mutual gain works like this; "Hey India! Let's set up a trade relationship. You make all the rice, and we'll make the cars and computers. No! We won't teach you how to make cars and computers for yourself! Plus, you are not allowed. Only certian countries have a world wide patten on the technology to make such things, and your not one of them. So don't even try it, or you'll be in BIG trouble with us! You just stick to making what your good at, which is rice. And we'll trade, rice for cars and computers, and everyone will be happy because we are both doing what we do best!"

The problem with this ideology is that how much rice does india have to produce to buy 1 car or computer. Try lots. So, in a trade relationship like this, the less advanced country will NEVER get ahead, and get beyond the third world. This may matter very little to the unilateral power who doesn't see the effects of mutual gain, but the countries involved with this relationship are filled with disdain, and are willing to oust the U.S. from their position to fix trade laws, if given the opportunity.

#3 Idealogy - Mutual Gain II, "Can I have my cake and eat it too, please?"
#4 Idealogy - Trickle down effect
I combined these two ideals because they are directly related.
This is the idea that if I, Mr. President, can secure my own financial interests while I am helping the public. Also, I can help all the wealthy companies who will help me. This will all, in turn, have a "trickle down effect" on america that will boost the economy and provide prosperity to the "average" american.

The problem with this is that there is no way to tell if the securing of self interest is truely beneficial to the public, or if it is just a fancy justification for satisfying personal interests. Furthermore, this becomes the root to how we allow ourselves to do business with terrorists.

There is more to these few ideologies, but for the sake of the fact that I have a meeting to prep for, I won't go any further. However, these are examples of where the real problem lies.

The fact is, the Bush family has had a relationship with the Bin Ladens going far back, through the Carlyle group and through oil interests. The fact is that Bush and Dick Cheney, and many of their pals had plans to drill in the largest untapped resource for oil; the caspian sea. They had made a deal with the Carlyle group, Haliburten, Unicol, and Al Queda to hire Al Queda to head of the project to run a pipeline through Afganistan to the Arabian sea so the oil could be shipped. A deal was in place, and prior to 911 the administration gave Afganistan 48 billion in aid. This money, as well as Al Queda's own wealth was used to help finance the project. Long story short, the deal turned sour, and some of the companies involved pulled out, leaving Al Queda high and dry, at at a financial loss. Low and behold, months latter, planes come crashing into our buildings.

Point? The ideology of Mutual Gain, Free Trade, and the Trickle down effect is what caused us to deal with nutcases who would be inclined to crash planes into our buildings. The conflict of interest between Bush, Cheney, and certian said companies also played a role.

Yet, how come the 9-11 commission isn't asking these questions to our administration? How come we aren't talking about structural problems in our ideology, and the way we handle foriegn policy, which are non-partisen issues?

That is my problem with the commission. It isn't addressing the real problems.

 

[michaeledward]

Is the 911 Commission doing a good job?

Much of the work of the 911 commission is going on behind closed doors; which is appropriate. The testimony taking place in public does contain a certain amount of partisan showboating, on the part of the panel, and the witness. For the conversations I have heard from commission members, the whole process is proceeding in a very non-partisan way. Even if it doesn't look that way from the public comments and testimony.

In the end, it is true that criminals perpetrated the acts that occured on September 11, 2001. It is also true that there were multiple failures on the parts of the government that are responsible for monitoring criminal activies. Some of these failures were structural, but some were, no doubt, policy based. Where that line is drawn is an interesting question that the 911 commission is trying to answer (we on the left claim it is based on Bush's policies, those on the right claim the failures were institutional).

When the final report is issued, it will be interesting reading.

One point that was leaked and that I found interesting, is that President Clinton informed President Elect Bush that Osama bin Laden would be the most important foreign policy issue of his presidency. We know that Sandy Berger had this same conversation with Condolezza Rice during the transition, but now it appears that conversation also took place one level higher.

Mike