“We’ve seen what a few imaginative fanatics with box-cutters can do with an airplane; imagine the same sort of people using the other stuff.”

Exactly - which is why it is so crucial to prevent scenarios like that from happening… which unfortunately, means taking a proactive role in world affairs.  We can’t secure our borders - that isn’t enough and isn’t entirely possible to begin with.  The ONLY way to prevent this is to be involved enough in the world to get wind of threats before they come to fruition and to have the means to defend or prevent.  You may call this “empire”, but as I said earlier, i call it survival.

There are two problems here: one is that the entire concept of empire is medieval and is irrelevant and redundant in the 21st century. The other is a much bigger problem and that is that the model or paradigm of warfare that the Pentagon is using is no longer of any use, not only to the the US but to anyone. A general called Rupert Smith who broke the siege of Sarajevo in Bosnia (he was leading UN forces at the time) with artillery, airstrikes and ground forces, has written a book called ‘The Utility of Force’ and he points out that the model of warfare in use up to 1945 which he calls ‘industrial, interstate war’ became obsolete in August 1945 when the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He points out that the next logical stage in industrial war, namely nuclear war, can never be carried out because ‘with the atomic bomb amassed armies could be no more than a target: rather than reinforcing such armies, nuclear technology as a weapon of mass destruction demands the absence of a mass as a defence; in these circumstances a large army is best used dispersed rather than massed’ and secondly, in a nuclear war ‘the very thing being fought for in interstate industrial war -the state, with its people and government and army - would be destroyed by the war. Such realities’ he writes ‘have been ignored for 45 years’. The Pentagon has gone on arming and preparing for industrial war while everything else has changed around it.

When the Soviet Union ceased to exist the Pentagon needed another global threat, so they did the sensible thing and created one. They called it Islamofascism and they created the illusion that it had attacked America. Meanwhile asymetrical warfare continued all over the world and industrial war offered no solution to it. The invasion of Iraq was not carried out to combat asymetrical warfare in any case; that could only have made sense in Afghanistan but in Afghanistan as Donald Rumsfeld pointed out, ‘There are no good targets’. What he meant by that is that there is no infrastructure to destroy, no large cities and built up areas. And industrial war is primarily a war that involves the destruction of infrastructure to shock and awe the populace and hasten surrender. Hitler called it ‘Blitzkrieg’. In spite of the targets (such as they were) being there in Iraq, the industrial war failed completely, because asymetrical warfare came to be used by the ‘insurgents’ and industrial war is powerless against it. Unless it goes to the next level which is nuclear war which can’t be used for the reasons described above. Industrial war has also failed Israel. When the Haganah and other groups were fighting an asymetrical war they won and were so successful they founded the state of Israel. But as they’ve moved further and further down the path of large scale, hugely expensive industrial war (which most of the time they’re not even using against a state, but an ethnic and religious group called the Palestinians) they have had the same disastrous failures as the Pentagon. In Lebanon in 2006 their large scale war failed completely against the asymetrical warfare of Hezbollah. In Gaza in 2008 they weren’t even fighting a war, they were shooting fish in a barrel and it has proven to be a fiasco for them - a defeat because they were seen as murderers and not soldiers because of the helplessness and weakness of their ‘enemy’. As Smith writes: ‘In the wake of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the structures of interstate industrial war were both useless and dangerous to those who sought them…none the less the paradigm was reconstructed for political and prarmatic reasons’. This is why the war in Afghanistan can’t be won. It must be hell for David Petraeus, who is, like Smith, an intelligent soldier who can see what is wrong and how it can be fixed. But, of course, when you’re dealing with the dinosaurs in the Pentagon being right is simply not enough.

Marshall—what you seem to be saying is that, because others do it (imperialism) or might do it, the U.S. has to do it.

You may be correct; human nature is still a mystery.  If people in general are inexorably attracted to death and domination, as many of them seem to be, then there will continue to be war and imperialism right up to the end.  And the end won’t be very far off, because every day our scientists and engineers build more potent weapons and construct a more complex, energy-rich, fragile world.  We started the twentieth century with crude stuff like barbed wire and machine guns and our d-and-d system managed to kill 200 million people.  We started the 21st century with nuclear weapons, ICBMs, nerve gas, biological agents, jet planes, robots, computers, cell phones, radio, television.  We’ve seen what a few imaginative fanatics with box-cutters can do with an airplane; imagine the same sort of people using the other stuff.

However entertaining Götterdämmerung may be as a movie, in real life it’ll be kind of boring when everyone’s dead.  The only practical course of action, then, the only path with any hope, is to try to get people beyond this situation of public psychopathy, that is, the state, into some better way of life.  It’s a long shot, but it’s better than what the state offers.  That is, if you think life is better than death.

What absolute garbage Marshall. America is not a force for stability and never has been - that’s the facade, but the United States has always been an iron fist in an iron glove and has created instability everywhere it’s intervened. And it has intervened without pause since 1945 and well before. You would of course say ‘Well, look at World War II.’ Indeed, look at World War II, and the division of Germany and the beginning of the rash of military bases all over the world and the beginning of the Cold War. The only thing that stopped America having an actual war with the Soviet Union was the fact that they had nuclear weapons and there are still people in the Pentagon and the CIA who plan and dream of having just such a war with Russia fought with conventional AND nuclear weapons. It was the nuclear weapons that created that particular form of stability not any virtue or wisdom from the American side, as has been proven by the military elites’ behaviour, now that there is no Soviet Union to moderate their greed and aggression.

Look at the Somali pirates, Somalia is now a basket case as a direct result of American inteference in its internal affairs. Look at Dafur: there was a peace plan in negotiation in that country when Clinton bombed the al Shifa factory, claiming it was a chemical plant. It was no such thing but the bombing took away the only source of vital medical supplies and veterinary supplies in the area. NGO’s then pulled out and the peace plan fell apart. A country that is the largest supplier of arms (light years ahead of Britain and Russia who come second and third) in the world is not a force for stability no matter how you spin it. Any desire to be that, will always be in conflict with the arms manufacturers’s profit margins. This country that’s such a benevolent force in your opinion has killed 1,000,000 Iraqis (some say far more) and created 4,000,000 refugees in that country alone. But on the positive side,  Dick Cheney’s shares in Halliburton went from $241,000 in value before the Iraq war to $8,000,000 in value by 2005. He never stopped receiving a salary from Halliburton the entire time he was Vice President. They called it a deferred salary which is just another confidence trick because the fact is, deferred or not, he was still in the employ of a company that profited to the tune of billions of dollars of tax payer money from a war he was so instrumental in starting - and while he was in the goverment. Halliburton has made an estimated $20 billion out of the Iraq war alone, they also built the prison at Guantanamo Bay and got huge contracts out of the fiasco of hurricane Katrina. Your theory is basically ‘Better the devil you know’ but your theory is both the politics of despair and not borne out by reality.

“the most (supposedly) innocent and benevolent interventionism seems to slide inexorably into imperialism, as the recent history of the U.S. shows.”

Which is not an argument for a less interventionist U.S. policy because a more isolationist U.S. policy would, i believe, lead to a more unstable and dangerous planet.  Other countries would have filled the void (and will), and most of the alternatives are less benevolent than the U.S..

Marshall:
’... You’re making a statement that few would disagree with: less war.  I support that 100%.  But the way to less war isn’t necessarily less involvement in world affairs.  In fact it can be a stabilizing force: protective alliances deter conflict for example.’

Actually a lot of people like war pretty well as long as they themselves are not put in danger and don’t have to pay too much for the fun.  But in any case, the most (supposedly) innocent and benevolent interventionism seems to slide inexorably into imperialism, as the recent history of the U.S. shows.  Two dozen or more military operations against countries which were not attacking the U.S., millions killed, and no end in sight.

“If by “outside groups” you’re talking about such as al-Qaeda, note that these are would-be states.  Osama bin Laden has been quoted as desiring the restoration of the Caliphate, etc.”

OBL isn’t the only game in town - there are non-state entities within and without the U.S. that would like to bring it down.

“the decline of warlike ideology and behavior in one state may open opportunities for people in other states to reduce their states’ warlike propensities.”

You’re making a statement that few would disagree with: less war.  I support that 100%.  But the way to less war isn’t necessarily less involvement in world affairs.  In fact it can be a stabilizing force: protective alliances deter conflict for example.

Anarcissie: “the logic of the state leads inevitably to imperialism.  The state is war.  But most people aren’t ready for ideas like that.  Nevertheless, they might be ready to get rid of, or at least reduce, imperialistic and militaristic behavior.  One evil at a time.”

Marshall:
‘How does the state get rid of war (conflict) when other entities - both state and non-state - are intent upon a state’s destruction?  Or do you blame the actions of such outside groups entirely on the state?’

As the state is a social institution whose basic function is war, it’s unlikely to get rid of war.  If by “outside groups” you’re talking about such as al-Qaeda, note that these are would-be states.  Osama bin Laden has been quoted as desiring the restoration of the Caliphate, etc.

I don’t expect states to get rid of war and imperialism, but I think they might be influenced to become less active in their pursuit.  And the decline of warlike ideology and behavior in one state may open opportunities for people in other states to reduce their states’ warlike propensities.

I always knew the Pentagon regarded September 11 as a ‘special’ date but I couldn’t understand why. I’ve been reading a book called ‘The Building: A Biography of the Pentagon’ by David Alexander. There it is in black and white - they broke ground to start building the Pentagon on September 11 1941. Alexander writes : ‘On September 11 1991, the Pentagon celebrated its fiftieth birthday’.
That would make September 11 2001 the Pentagon’s sixtieth birthday. Seems to me they threw themselves one hell of a sixtieth birthday party and the taxpayer paid the bill. Literally.

“the logic of the state leads inevitably to imperialism.  The state is war.  But most people aren’t ready for ideas like that.  Nevertheless, they might be ready to get rid of, or at least reduce, imperialistic and militaristic behavior.  One evil at a time.”

How does the state get rid of war (conflict) when other entities - both state and non-state - are intent upon a state’s destruction?  Or do you blame the actions of such outside groups entirely on the state?

diamond, that is not what I meant to imply. It is how I understand those events, and it is a failure of otherwise very intelligent people to not look closely at the scientific evidence that prevents them from reaching a similar conclusion. It is certainly not a requirement to understand something about the official story is very, very fishy.

There is a level of technical detail in much of what has been officially documented (the NISTor FEMA reports) that supports the proposal that the WTC 1 and 2 could not have completely disintegrated in less than 15 secs simply by gravity, or that WTC 7 completely collapsed in under 7 secs due to fire. The simulations that are the main prop in the official story for all three buildings are flawed. That NIST refuses independent investigators to examine the data and parameters used in the flawed simulations, or for NIST scientists to even talk about it is, first, absurd, and second violates federal regulations that state such reports are supposed to maintain an integrity of data for the express purpose of allowing competent independent researchers to do the research themselves and verify results. As the former NIST Director of FIre Science said at a large symposium, NIST ought to release the data and parameters that were used to reach their conclusions. They should.

But it does not take a degree to accept the many discrepancies in the official story. For those with a degree, there is much to ponder.

Regarding the explosions in the basements. I got wondering about the elevator shafts to the basements, the claims of jet fuel fireballs, and Peccoraro’s account. If you look at the blueprints for the North Tower, there are only two shafts that ran from basement levels to the strike zone. All the other elevator shafts that serviced zone one (the lower levels to floor 30 or so), zone two (between 30 and 74 floors) and zone three (74 and up) were sealed top and bottom by at least one, possibly two concrete floors. Only Car 50 ran from the deepest subbasement to the top floor. Only the shaft for Cars 6 and 7 ran from the 2nd subbasement to the WIndow on the World restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors. The blueprint shows this very clearly.

The NIST report documents statements from people in the building about what they experienced in the first 5 to 8 minutes. At least two hundred people were interviewed. People talked about fireballs in the subbasement levels 4 and 5. The ONLY shaft that reached from the strike zone to subbasements 4 and 5 was the Car 50 shaft. It was occupied by two people that were injured and survived when the car fell about 15 floors and came to rest at about subbasement 2. There is no explanation in the official story for what NIST documented as happening in sublevels 4 and 5. It is likely the explosions Rodriquez heard and experienced, and that Peccoraro experienced were from some other source.

Sdemetri there’s one point on which I disagree. Your statement that you can only understand what happened at the World Trade Centre if you understand science. This is simply not correct. Numerous ordinary workers have spoken out about what they saw and experienced before during and after the 9/11 attacks. People like these.

The following excerpt describes what Mike Peccoraro, a building maintenance engineer, observed:
The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop. 
‘There was nothing there but rubble’ Mike said. ‘We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press, gone!’ The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. Sergei Siletzky was a helper at WTC. At the time of the attack, he was attending class at Local 94. The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything’ he said.
They decided to ascend two more levels to the building’s lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up ‘like a piece of aluminum foil’ and lying on the floor. (Chief Engineer Magazine)

Of course, there’s no way jet fuel could do this to a 300 pound door or a 50 ton press but thermite could.

The next story is that of building maintenance worker, William Rodriguez:
William’s job included the maintenance of the three narrow stairwells in the class ‘A’ building - WTC1, the north tower. On a typical morning, he would have breakfast then begin at the top of the building and methodically work his way down. Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.
At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. ‘When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking.’ said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company. Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the 90th floor.Then there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion’s resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: ‘I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building.’ He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the tower.
A fellow worker Felipe David came into the office… ‘He was burned so badly from the basement explosion that flesh was hanging from his face and both arms.’ William asks: ‘How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man’s arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?’
( theconservativevoice.com)

What’s important about his eyewitness account is that he felt the explosions UNDER HIS FEET further down in the basement. This is standard demolition practice, to destroy the basement, both to weaken the building and so that all the millions of pieces of the destroyed building have a pit to fall into. The other important thing about his account is that he heard and felt bombs going off before ANYTHING HAD HIT THE BUILDING.

Marshall—as I said earlier in the thread, in answer to Maher’s question—the logic of the state leads inevitably to imperialism.  The state is war.  But most people aren’t ready for ideas like that.  Nevertheless, they might be ready to get rid of, or at least reduce, imperialistic and militaristic behavior.  One evil at a time.

People do sometimes use apparently voluntary relations like trade to get control of and dominate other people, but first I want to deal with, to stop, killing and maiming and terrorizing them outright as ordinary government policy.

By Anarcissie, April 7 at 11:34 am #

Okay, so your belief is that no country intervenes or provides assistance to another country without having imperialistic intentions.  Would that also cover non-governmental aid from aid groups as well?  How about trade… is that imperialistic in nature?  And of course all this would have to be two-way; each country imperializing the other.

My point is that it seems you’ve redefined “imperialism” to include any contact whatsoever between state entities.  And once again, this is so broad as to be meaningless.

“I didn’t ask you what your view of having troops in Europe was.”

That’s one of the core examples from this thread and fit your definition of imperialism, with which i disagree.

The more detailed answer to your question is that there are times when conflict is necessary, thus casualties are a given.  You call all these cases “imperialism”, and I call them by whatever they are: humanitarian intervention, preemptive action, defense of an ally that’s been attacked, response to direct attack, etc…

Here your logic:
state/state interaction=imperialism
imperialism=bad
state entity=bad
so the solution is…anarchy?

Marshall:

“Interventionism is a euphemism for imperialism”

I see.  so if we were to intervene in darfur or some other genocide situation, we’re really just being imperialistic?  I’m sure the human rights folks would like to have a word with you on that one.

They’re welcome to.  Darfur is an interesting case; apparently it is a much more complex situation than that presented in the mainstream media (as usual), but in addition there’s the question of why Darfur is especially noticed and gets big, expensive ads on the side of buses and full pages in the New York Times, while far more people have been killed and otherwise harmed elsewhere in Africa, like the Congo. (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2080265,00.html) 

But we have a classic example of “humanitarian” interventionism in the war against Serbia, which some people say killed more people than the attack on the World Trade Center.  Supposedly this attack was to stop ethnic cleansing.  But the United States wasn’t opposed to ethnic cleansing before it attacked Serbia—it supported the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia and the attempt to cleanse them from Bosnia, and later condoned the cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo.  It seems that only Serbs were not allowed to do ethnic cleansing.  Meanwhile Clinton and company were calling the duly elected president of Serbia a tyrant, a dictator, and comparing him to Hitler, leading some Serbian wit to write “Slobo, you’re a Clinton” on a wall.  But I think the real function of humanitarian interventionism was to train “liberals” to squawk in favor of imperial policies on cue.  The intervention in Bosnia was part of the set-up for the invasion of Iraq, where Clinton’s policies had (according to Madeleine Albright) already caused the premature deaths of half a million people, most of them children.  There is also some speculation that the U.S. wanted to secure the Balkans in view of its Drang nach Osten previously alluded to in this discussion, but the Serbians were proving insufficiently subservient and excessively pro-Russian.  In any case, once we lift the lid on humanitarian interventionism we see all sorts of imperial insects crawling forth, as we might have expected: “For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” 

‘The two words are not synonymous.  When i say intervention, i don’t mean “taking over the country and ruling it”, which is what imperialism is.  look ‘em up.

“whether you can justify the slaughter and torture of the innocent which empire requires, or if you take the nihilist view that all that matters is power—or what”

The view i take is that having troops in europe is not “empire”.  Nobody gets subjugated.  You’re using terms that fit your definition but they’re wrong.  You wanna redefine empire, go right ahead - but don’t expect us to be able to agree on much if you do.’

I didn’t ask you what your view of having troops in Europe was.  For all we know Europeans leaders are being paid off and like the money.  I guess you’re just going to avoid answering the actual question or otherwise coming to terms with the results of what you promote.

Anarcissie wrote:

“A more important consideration is: So what?  So what if it was a government plot?  No intelligent person with a modicum of ability to think critically doubts that there were and are people in the government who would do something like that if they had the means and oppotunity and nerve.  It just happens that there is no solid evidence that they did.  Beyond that, there are all kinds of scandalous offenses right out in the open, like carrying on the re-invasion of Afghanistan, moving missiles into Eastern Europe, putting the working class almost three trillion dollars further into debt to give the money to the rich.  These crimes are not some kind of secret conspiracy—they’re on the front page of the newspapers every day.”

Actually, we agree more than you might think. The difficulty of bringing the blatantly obvious crimes of the past admin—torture, illegal renditions, warrantless surveillance, illegal war—to justice make it very unlikely the coverup of the 9/11 attacks would ever be thoroughly investigated and reported on accurately.

With that said, I am a true believer. I have spent many hours reading technical reports from the NIST, the RJ Lee environmental study for the Deustche Bank whose building was heavily damaged, many other technical articles, even those in support of the official explanation of the collapse of the towers… and in all of it, the official explanation simply doesn’t hold up. I object to it because it is bad science. I object to it because there is solid evidence it is bad science and the powers that be, whether they accept it or not, will be told it is bad science. Being someone who doesn’t flock with others against something simply because it is an unpopular cause, I will argue in defense of knowing more about the attacks because they have had such an powerful and important affect on all of us.

There is solid evidence, but the conversation around this evidence cannot take place because it is technical in nature (whether the collapse mechanism, fire progression, the algorithms and data used in the collapse initiation simulations, or the NORAD and FAA timelines and evolving explanations) and most will not engage themselves with it. A coverup is plausibly deniable having been explained with a powerful narrative that began being broadcast literally within minutes of the first plane striking the tower.

The Internet Archive holds the TV network broadcasts for that day starting with their normal broadcasting scheduling before the first plane struck. As you watch the events unfold it is amazing to see that within minutes, literally, the general outline that is still in place today was laid out. While Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and others talk in real time about how much the building’s collapses look like controlled demolition, and talk about the likelihood of planted explosives, the “experts,” coincidentally associated with the Bush admin, all supported the narrative that it could not be controlled demolition, that the buildings collapsed due to structural damage and fire due to al Qeada associated flying planes into the buildings. WIthin minutes of the first strike this message begins to be formed. This narrative is still in place to this day.

Individuals, as you say, that have the opportunity, means and motive do do such things, and you are right, in a way, to say, “so what.” The powerful will exercise power to their own benefit. If the historical record will be formed as a result of criminal behavior on a grand scale, as I believe it has been, I will at least add to that record that it is likely not how they say it was. That may be the most I can do.

Regarding empire, you might find these interviews with John Perkins, an economic hitman, interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29GhXsx7-Rs&feature=related

“Interventionism is a euphemism for imperialism”

I see.  so if we were to intervene in darfur or some other genocide situation, we’re really just being imperialistic?  I’m sure the human rights folks would like to have a word with you on that one.

The two words are not synonymous.  When i say intervention, i don’t mean “taking over the country and ruling it”, which is what imperialism is.  look ‘em up.

“whether you can justify the slaughter and torture of the innocent which empire requires, or if you take the nihilist view that all that matters is power—or what”

The view i take is that having troops in europe is not “empire”.  Nobody gets subjugated.  You’re using terms that fit your definition but they’re wrong.  You wanna redefine empire, go right ahead - but don’t expect us to be able to agree on much if you do.

diamond:
‘Anarcissie you must be joking. Now you admit that they’re perfectly capable of it - in every way- but you just refuse to believe they DID DO IT. Take off the blinkers and face facts….

I see a lot of assertions.  I don’t see any science.  For example, I’d need to see experimental evidence about the speed with which buildings like World Trade Center 1 and 2 fell down.  Not theories or explanations or hypotheses, physical evidence, obtained by observing the collapse of similar buildings.  You are aware the buildings were peculiarly constructed, are you not?

By the way, you’re conversing with someone who observed the attack personally, and knows people who were inside the buildings when they were hit.  Some of the stories I’m reading lately are becoming rather fanciful and I’d suggest more restraint.

cyrena:
’... You say the most important consider is is “So what? So what if it was a government ploy?”
Now at the risk of seeming simplistic here, (but hang with me because I think it connects to your other questions) I would say that the most important consideration should be WHY?? It gets better if you consider the WHY, regardless of WHO you think ‘did it’. ‘

It doesn’t interest me very much.  Many people seem greatly attracted to doing evil for its own sake.  They frequently make up elaborate religious or political stories to justify their actions, but basically it seems like the same old stuff to me.  Maybe it’s bad toilet training or something, but there they are—some occupying high offices in government, others running around in terrorist bands.  As one of the Berrigans said, “Violence is the name of the Beast.”  I would only add that the remark is probably highly unjust to most beasts, but I know what he meant.

But, yes, so what?  As I tried to point out to Marshall, you can’t obtain power over other people except by means of force or fraud, usually realized as the slaughter of the innocent.  Evidently a lot of people want to do it, or find force and fraud entertaining in themselves.  It’s generally immaterial to me whether Dick Cheney or Mohammed Atta led the destruction of the World Trade Center.  It is clear that such people follow similar ideas.  The question is what we’re going to do about it.

Anarcissie writes:

•  “As for the 9/11 conspiracy stuff, I’ve already pointed out how improbable it is.  A more important consideration is: So what?  So what if it was a government plot?  No intelligent person with a modicum of ability to think critically doubts that there were and are people in the government who would do something like that if they had the means and oppotunity and nerve. It just happens that there is no solid evidence that they did.”

~~
Actually, these is. (hard evidence) but that’s an aside for the moment, since your post prompted me to what the most important consideration actually is. You say the most important consider is is “So what? So what if it was a government ploy?”
Now at the risk of seeming simplistic here, (but hang with me because I think it connects to your other questions) I would say that the most important consideration should be WHY?? It gets better if you consider the WHY, regardless of WHO you think ‘did it’.

For instance if you believe the “Official Conspiracy Theory” (And I just named it that for convenience sake, and generally reference the Report from the 9/11 Commission, which they specifically titled “The Official 9/11 Commission Report”.  – required reading for a history when it was finally published in 2004)- then you can consider the ‘WHY’ question from that perspective…in other words, WHY did the ‘terrorists’ do it? Oddly enough, (at least it has been to me for the past 7 plus years) damn near NOBODY has ever asked or actually analyzed that from a scholarly perspective.  (A few have tried but most are missing the same physical evidence that you mention here) Still, this is an important question…..WHY did these particular terrorists, (and we’ll stipulate the same Offical Commission Report to name them as ‘al-Qaeda’) commit this absolutely remarkable atrocity? (the improbability of the official conspiracy is what gave the thing away.)
Now the only explanation we ever got from GWBush, (if you recall that’s who most folks expected would provide some answers for such an atrocity) was that “They hate us for our freedoms”. So, do you think that’s why the AQ guys from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and Yeman did the deeds, or are you more likely to think there might be some other reason? It’s worth considering. (or maybe GW really meant the ‘freedoms’ we guarantee ourselves by military hegemony)

Same thing works if you subscribe to the far more probable version, which is that our own government (A relatively small neo-con cabal at the time) perpetuated a false flag operation against us and blamed it on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. For those of us who believe we have solid evidence for the fact that this was a false flag operation that simply could not have happened WITHOUT the government orchestrating it, the same question still applies.

WHY? WHY would the government, (which at the time was the PNAC crowd, since in that particular ‘Era’ (2001-2009) we had an ostensible government (GWB) and a shadow government, (Cheney-Addinton-Perle-Libby, Abrams, and others we never even knew existed) want to do such an atrocious thing to our own citizens? I mean, we’re talking the epitome of treason here. So anyone who subscribes to such a theory, should be willing to critically ask those same questions. WHY would they do it?

And the reason this is the most critical consideration is this statement that you’ve probably heard before, but I’m attributing it to Prof. Richard Falk since I heard him say it first, and this is what may seem simplistic, but is the key to the whole thing:

“The events of 9/11/2001 CHANGED E-V-E-R-Y
-T-H-I-N-G!!”

That’s pretty hard for any reasonable person to deny.

So, that might help with the ‘why’, and all the rest that it leads to. So instead of saying, ‘so what’ if the cabal did it, you can at least wonder WHY they did. Might answer the other questions.

Anarcissie you must be joking. Now you admit that they’re perfectly capable of it - in every way- but you just refuse to believe they DID DO IT. Take off the blinkers and face facts:

1. The pancake theory of collapse is completely unsustainable. If it was a pancake collapse it would have taken 96 seconds for a 110 storey building to come down. One Tower came down in 10 seconds the other came down in 8 seconds. Freefall speed. This is the speed at which an object falls through air regardless of its mass. This is part of Newton’s theory of gravity and whatever power you choose to believe Islamic terrorists have they cannot change the laws of physics. Neither can Dick Cheney, unfortunately for him.

1.A building will only fall down, meaning in this case drop through the air at freefall speed, if explosives are used. Ask any demolition expert. That is the one crucial fact in any discussion of the way these three buildings came down. All the explanations given by the Bush administration for the collapse of all three steel framed buildings (of a kind which have never collapsed from fire or being hit by a plane ever in the history of the world until 9/11) are lies and obfuscation.

2. Jet fuel burns at a much lower temperature than thermite, which can reach 4,500 degrees Fahrenheit in 2 seconds. Jet fuel cannot burn or cut steel because steel will only burn at 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and an open air jet fuel fire, such as the one at the WTC would only reach 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit. The only way that temperatures higher than 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit could be achieved would be in a blast furnace or by using thermite. The blast furnace is out of the question: that only leaves thermite.

3. Leslie Haskin a worker in one of the Towers on 9/11 has written a book in which she describes countless explosions and witnesses the terrible injuries caused by the thermite.

‘The sound and the feel of the impact were indivisible. It was huge…the building rocked from side to side. (Haskin, p.37).

A relatively small amount of jet fuel rocked a 110 storey building from side to side? In what reality?

‘The windows were shaking, and glass exploded from everywhere. Those gorgeous natural wood-grained desks, chairs and symbols of status went right out of the window, literally. They violently and in succession freed themselves through our once sealed and privileged views. Impositions of air whistled in whirlwinds and stole all that remained of useable air’. (Haskin, p.38)

This is again a description of explosives at work with the added detail of the incredible heat generated by thermite sucking all the oxygen out of the air as it burns.

And this is what it did to the people in the Towers:
‘I could actually see the ivory (bone)marrow…The burned woman trembled uncontrollably. What was left of her flesh looked like it had been boiled. It was actually slipping from her body…just hanging there…loose’. (Haskin, p. 48)
Inside the Tower it was a scene of straight out of hell. ‘…more jagged edges, more fires spread, more smoke made it harder to breathe. Explosions undoubtedly sealed more exits, trapped more people, and it became increasingly difficult to tell if we were still alive’. (Haskin, p.60)

This means explosions were continuing, long after any jet fuel should have evaporated or burned away in the small fires that a fire chief (Orio J. Palmer), who reached the upper levels of the South Tower, described.  He is heard shouting into his two way radio that there are ‘two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines (hoses)’ (Demolitions, Sofia Smallstorm).

If you think burning people alive with thermite should not attract criminal charges and its more important to talk about the economy or the wars they started on the back of this barbarous and treasonous attack you need to go somewhere quiet and think.

sdemetri:
‘Anarcissie,

Regarding the potential reach of Cheney’s influence, even after being put out of power.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/04/hbc-90004690’

What that story shows is not that Cheney can control everything, but that he can’t control everything—that he has to fight clumsy rearguard actions in the open to keep some of his dirt hidden.

As for the 9/11 conspiracy stuff, I’ve already pointed out how improbable it is.  Could have / would have speculations don’t change that.  However, I’m tired of arguing with true believers on the subject.  A more important consideration is: So what?  So what if it was a government plot?  No intelligent person with a modicum of ability to think critically doubts that there were and are people in the government who would do something like that if they had the means and oppotunity and nerve.  It just happens that there is no solid evidence that they did.  Beyond that, there are all kinds of scandalous offenses right out in the open, like carrying on the re-invasion of Afghanistan, moving missiles into Eastern Europe, putting the working class almost three trillion dollars further into debt to give the money to the rich.  These crimes are not some kind of secret conspiracy—they’re on the front page of the newspapers every day.  You don’t need any secret plots, just as, in the words of Bob Dylan, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.  All the 9/11 conspiracy stuff does, besides provide the fun of eye-rolling, is get people embroiled in irrelevant controversies when they should be organizing to struggle against the plain, overt, material harm being done to them right now.  As it is doing in this discussion, which was about the American imperialism we all (except Marshall) agree exists.

Anarcissie,

Regarding the potential reach of Cheney’s influence, even after being put out of power.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/04/hbc-90004690

Marshall—Interventionism is a euphemism for imperialism, like “global power” and all that.  What I’ve been asking is whether you can justify the slaughter and torture of the innocent which empire requires, or if you take the nihilist view that all that matters is power—or what?

Marshall, in conflict innocents DO get hurt. But that is conflict, and how a conflict starts, is continued, its motivations is not as simple as interventionalism vs isolationism.

Funding the death and torture squads of Contras in Nicaragua by illegal arms and drug sales after Congress forbid funding doesn’t fit the “either/or” argument you make. It was an ideological decision made in a paranoid quest against a perceived spread of communism in the hemisphere. A very minor socialist regime to our south, even one receiving aid from the Soviet’s was not a serious threat to our position.

And Nicaragua was not the only country “feeling the love.” John Perkins describes his role as an economic hitman:

“Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign “aid” organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.”

Providing aid, expertise, and materiel is not the same as extortion, debt manipulation, exploitation of resources. There is intervention, an extension of American ideals, and then there is infiltration, profit taking, exploitation. There is America as participant among a concert of nations, and then there is American exceptionalism.

“it is wrong to harm innocent people if one can possibly avoid doing so”

Which one can’t in the event of conflict, so you either do conflict or you don’t.  Unfortunately, conflict is a fact of life.

“But the establishment and maintenance of imperial power requires one to do just that.”

This is really just the argument of isolationist vs. interventionist foreign policy.  There are liabilities to both, but i come down on the side of interventionism because i believe that, in the longer run, isolationism will result in even larger future conflicts; thus increasing, not decreasing innocent casualties.  The “third way” would be pacifism, which ultimately results in subjugation of the pacifists - not an option in my book.

As to your list of u.s interventions, each must be considered on its merits since they all differ in motivation and execution.  Some were good ideas, others bad.  I never said we’ve made all the right decisions.  But Sting’s lyric of “there’s no such thing as a military solution” is populist idealism and poppycock.

Afghanistan did not attack you Marshall.

Satam al Sugami
Wail and Waleed al Sheri (both alive)
Abdul Aziz al Omari (alive)
Fayez Banihammad
Ahmed al Ghamdi and Hamza al Ghamdi
Mohammed al Sheri (alive)
Saeed al Nami (alive)
Majed Moqed
Salem al Hamzi (alive)
Salem Alhazmi (alive)
Nawaf Alhazmi
Hani Hanjour
Saeed al Ghamdi (alive)
Ahmed Ibrahim A. al Haznawi
Ziad Samir Jarrah

Are any of these people (dead or alive) from Afghanistan? No, they’re not. You need another excuse for why that country was invaded - apart from the oil and gas pipeline, that is.

And for those who still think the WTC wasn’t blown up you might find this interesting:

There have been scientific experiments carried out on dust from the World Trade Centre by the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and other scientific institutions, including Logical Systems Consulting in Perth, Western Australia and they have yielded results that give an important clue as to how the themite could have been placed in the World Trade Centre ‘in plain sight’. Specifically tests were carried out on red-gray chips or spheroids found in all four dust samples collected by individuals who lived in New York on 11/9/2001. The scientists found that not only were these chips thermite but that they were of a particular, very explosive but very safe-to-handle type of thermite sometimes called ‘superthermite’(The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2, p. 23).

Most of the experiments were centred on the red component of the chips. Their conclusion in essence: ‘We observe that the spheroidal residues from ignition of (the) red chips possess a strikingly similar chemical signature to a typical XEDS spectrum from a spheroid generated by commercial thermite. This similarity supports our hypothesis that the red chips are indeed a form of thermite’ (The Open Chemical Physics Journal, p.23).

But super-thermite has some really useful advantages over normal thermite, especially for people who want to put thermite in a building and have it go unnoticed.  A report on a symposim from a conference held in April 2000 shows that only the military and some U.S. laboratories had access to it. ‘The nature of the wet nanocomposites also afford an additional degree of safety. In our hands, the wet pyrotechnic nanocomposites cannot be ignited until the drying process is complete. This property should allow the production of a large quantity of the pyrotechnics that can be stored safely for some time and dried shortly before its use’ (Journal, p.26).

Furthermore, ‘the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or even painted onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint’ (Journal, p. 26). The scientific experiments on the red chips showed that they conformed to the description from the symposium of the American Chemical Society in April 2000 of ‘thin films’ of ‘hybrid/inorganic energetic nanocomposite’, meaning they could have been in paint or something like it.

And igniting the super-thermite couldn’t be easier: ‘Super-thermite electric matches’ were developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory, for which ‘applications include triggering explosives for …demolition’.

This explosive paint, it seems, can be ignited by a ‘simple electric pulse’ and these electric matches are top of the line:
‘The super-thermite electric matches produce no toxic lead smoke and are safer to use because they resist friction, impact, heat and static discharge. They can be designed to create various thermal-iniating outputs –simple sparks, hot slag, droplets or flames –depending on the needs of different applications’ (Journal, p.27). 

‘While ordinary thermite is regarded as an incendiary, super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive’. (Journal, p. 27)

Marshall:
A:“In fact, I’d bet you didn’t mean to say whatever you were saying quite that way.  Maybe you should take another shot at it.”

‘And i’ll bet you didn’t mean to equate the u.s. with hitler’s germany… or did you?  Are we about to have a “you, my friend, are worse than hitler” moment?’

I was providing an example of what you described.  If you go back and look at what you wrote, you’ll see that.  From the view in Poland, in 1939, Germany was the most powerful state around.  As I said, I think you might want to take another shot at the principle of adhering to the biggest power around.

’... Did defending europe make the u.s. world dominating imperialists? ...’

At first, the U.S. did not defend Europe.  But as it turned out the United States had no choice about getting into World War 2: it was attacked.  It was during World War 2 that the leadership of the U.S. decided that they, through the American state, ought to play an imperial role.  See Acheson’s Present At The Creation.

In regard to the use of force, one of my beliefs is that it is wrong to harm innocent people if one can possibly avoid doing so.  But the establishment and maintenance of imperial power requires one to do just that.  Hence the large number of civilian casualties in the countries whose names I have already mentioned (although I did not come anywhere near completing the list)—an inevitable outcome of imperial plans and policies.

In effect, practitioners of imperialism (“global power”) reject in principle what most of us are taught as small children, although they usual obfuscate the rejection.  However, you came right out and enunciated the principle (leading to my question about being in the Polish trenches in 1939).  Thus I find I have an unusual opportunity to examine the philosophy and find out, for example, how normal morality (it’s not right to slaughter the innocent) can be put together with imperial morality (global power, which requires slaughtering the innocent, is a good thing).

“In fact, I’d bet you didn’t mean to say whatever you were saying quite that way.  Maybe you should take another shot at it.”

And i’ll bet you didn’t mean to equate the u.s. with hitler’s germany… or did you?  Are we about to have a “you, my friend, are worse than hitler” moment?

“if you want the state to which you belong to gain and exert world domination, you have to support the killing, etc., of a lot of innocent people.”

A false premise.  I never support the killing of innocent people.  But unless you’re a pacifist (which you refuse to clarify), then you must ACCEPT the likelihood of casualties.  Do i support the killing of innocent people that took place in WWII?  Of course not.  But I accept that during the defense of europe, innocents inevitably would die.

Did defending europe make the u.s. world dominating imperialists?  No, unless that’s your definition of “world dominating imperialists” which it sounds like it might be.

I’ve made no bones about where i stand on this so i find it one sided that you refuse to explain your position. Are you a pacifist or are you not?

Marshall:
’...
“A: I take it that “pragmatic geo-politics and survival” and your previous “wanting the US to retain its global power” with which I took issue are synonymous.”

Indeed they are.  If i can choose the country i belong to, it’ll be the most powerful, best defended with the biggest claws of the litter… or a protectorate of same.’

So if you and I were Poles in Poland in October 1939, and I was patriotically fighting the Germans, and you had my back, I’d be out of luck?  I’m not sure that’s a good policy.  In fact, I’d bet you didn’t mean to say whatever you were saying quite that way.  Maybe you should take another shot at it.

’... I’m trying to decipher whether you are making an essentially pacifist argument or whether you’re simply damning the u.s. for the military actions you disagree with? ...’

There’s a certain overlap there, but anyway, why not stick with the previous subject, instead of trying to figure out what pigeonhole I fit into?

Here’s my version of the question again: if you want the state to which you belong to gain and exert world domination, you have to support the killing, etc., of a lot of innocent people.  That’s what logic shows, and it’s what history shows.  Is that what you’re up for?  If so, do you justify it morally, or are you maybe taking a nihilist position?

Anarcissie wrote:

“The Plame case is evidence for my view of things, not yours.”

Only in part. FItzgerald said Cheney’s office obstructed his investigation. How so? By denying access to information, by obfuscation. There are still secrets that even so accomplished a district attorney as Fitzgerald was unable to fathom.

Comment, however, on the assassination squad. Cheney’s office more or less directed the warrantless surveillance program, initially keeping the details of it from Bush himself. Bush signed off on it believing in what Cheney told him about it. It was only after Bush spoke privately with Comey and then with Mueller about it, and the threat of their resignations embarrassing the admin did Bush learn of the opposition to it. Cheney kept even the President in the dark.

I won’t try to convince you away from the “incompetence” defense for that admin. They were in many things. In some things, very closely held by Cheney and those reporting directly to him, Cheney’s office showed absolute secrecy and devotion to Cheney’s way of thinking and working. Deny it if you think you can. Makes no difference to me.

“States do not have friends.  They have interests.”

yes, agree with you there.

“I take it that “pragmatic geo-politics and survival” and your previous “wanting the US to retain its global power” with which I took issue are synonymous.”

Indeed they are.  If i can choose the country i belong to, it’ll be the most powerful, best defended with the biggest claws of the litter… or a protectorate of same.

“I’ll point out again that this means killing a lot of people…over 100,000 in Iraq since 2003”

While I won’t defend our adventure in Iraq (though the numbers you quote include those killed by insurgents - the majority) - Iraq was a mistake for more than one reason.  I’m trying to decipher whether you are making an essentially pacifist argument or whether you’re simply damning the u.s. for the military actions you disagree with?

And I’m afraid I differ with you on Afghanistan - which DID attack us.  AQ was simply the special operations arm of the Taliban govt. (or you might characterize the Taliban as the “governance” arm of Al Qaeda).

It’s really touching Marshall that you think the American empire is ‘nicer’ than other empires. Unfortunately you’re completely wrong.

‘President Nixon informed CIA Director Richard Helms that an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable to the United States. The CIA was instructed by President Nixon to play a direct role in organizing a military coup d’etat in Chile to prevent Allende’s accession to the presidency’-
‘Covert Action in Chile’ - Staff Report of United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities,
Washington D.C. 1975

This coup led to the overthrow of a democratically elected government and the deaths of 30,000 people, numerous rapes, abductions of children and widespread torture and false imprisonment. Nixon and the CIA knew perfectly well what fate awaited the people of Chile who had to be punished for electing a decent, civilized person whose first allegiance was to his own people and not America. He was also murdered by America’s hired killers who were paid millions of dollars for their crimes. This is why it amuses me that so many Americans can’t believe their own government would have them killed. They’ve done it often enough to other nations, and it was probably inevitable that the mad theories on the infallibility of American power and the divine right of presidents that the neo cons brought with them to the White House, combined with all those explosives, jets and missiles would eventually be turned on Americans. And surely Marshall you remember the date of the coup in Chile: it was September 11, 1973.

Marshall:

A: “There are probably millions of people who agree that the states to which they are subject are more or less controlled by or satellites of the United States.”

That isn’t much of an argument Anarcissie.  First because you don’t seem to know who any of these people are, and second because “satellite” is such a broad term as to be meaningless in this context.  At this point i don’t actually know what you’re arguing because you’re speaking in very broad, generalized terms about hypothetical people.

You had said “I know of no NATO member that believes itself to be part of an american empire.”  So I felt it was my duty to point out that belief is an attribute of persons, not of states, and that there are many persons within the NATO states who believe that the state they live within is part of an American empire.  They write books and magazine articles and web sites and blogs about it, which is how I know of their opinions.  Although I am speaking in broad, generalized terms, they are less broad and generalized than your reference to the beliefs of states, so I don’t know what you’re complaining about here.  Agreed, it is a pretty modest and tedious point and proves nothing. 

“You can decide whether you want to relate to the rest of the human race in peace and freedom or in war and domination.  Which is it?”

Your division of the world into two groups - the U.S., and the “rest of the human race” - is a form of nationalistic arrogance in itself.  It’s also naive in that it presupposes that “rest of human race=good, u.s.=bad”.  Like any country, the u.s. treats its friends better than its enemies, though according to you, our “friends” are really our “subjects”, so that’s pretty much a no-win.  We have national interests like every other state.  We’re the biggest of the bunch, but we’re fundamentally the same in most other regards and nicer than most.  Other countries have (and are trying to expand) their own sphere’s of influence - china, iran, russia, NK, etc…  even non-state actors like AQ.  And the u.s. will continue to have its own, but you seem particularly disturbed by the thought of the u.s. acting in its best interests.  I think you call this imperialism, i call it pragmatic geo-politics and survival.’

1.  The division of the world into two groups, U.S. and non-U.S., isn’t nationalistic arrogance: it’s a legal and political fact.

2.  At no point did I state or imply that the rest of the human race was good and the U.S. was bad.

3.  “States do not have friends.  They have interests.”

4.  You are quite right about states being the same.  That was my initial answer to Maher’s question.  On April 1 I wrote, “The logic of the state leads inevitably to empire.”  Not of some states, of the state, of all states.  I’m glad we agree on something.

5.  I take it that “pragmatic geo-politics and survival” and your previous “wanting the US to retain its global power” with which I took issue are synonymous.  I’ll point out again that this means killing a lot of people, including innocent, harmless people—over 100,000 in Iraq since 2003, I believe.  Yet Iraq wasn’t attacking the United States and wasn’t preparing to attack the United States.  Neither were Afghanistan, Sudan, Serbia, Nicaragua, Vietnam, blah, blah, blah—30-odd countries in all since the end of World War 2, something like 100 in the 20th century, I’ve been told.  What you seem to be saying is that anything but a constant practice of killing, maiming, destroying people’s homes and livelihoods, torture, terror, imprisonment, robbery and so on—those are the works of empire—is somehow impractical.

Can you prove it?  Because, you know, you are advocating what would otherwise be serious crimes, including murder.

sdemetri:
‘Dick Cheney’s office showed high expertise in “imagination, initiative, absolute secrecy and flawless execution” on a number of initiatives, some of which have been secret for years and are only beginning to be talked about. ...’

Then how do you know about them?

The outing of Plame certainly isn’t a very good example.  The outing itself was crude and public, the crime and the perpetrators were discovered, and only the overt, indeed, notorious exercise of presidential power kept some of them from going to jail.  The Plame case is evidence for my view of things, not yours.

“There are probably millions of people who agree that the states to which they are subject are more or less controlled by or satellites of the United States.”

That isn’t much of an argument Anarcissie.  First because you don’t seem to know who any of these people are, and second because “satellite” is such a broad term as to be meaningless in this context.  At this point i don’t actually know what you’re arguing because you’re speaking in very broad, generalized terms about hypothetical people.

“You can decide whether you want to relate to the rest of the human race in peace and freedom or in war and domination.  Which is it?”

Your division of the world into two groups - the U.S., and the “rest of the human race” - is a form of nationalistic arrogance in itself.  It’s also naive in that it presupposes that “rest of human race=good, u.s.=bad”.  Like any country, the u.s. treats its friends better than its enemies, though according to you, our “friends” are really our “subjects”, so that’s pretty much a no-win.  We have national interests like every other state.  We’re the biggest of the bunch, but we’re fundamentally the same in most other regards and nicer than most.  Other countries have (and are trying to expand) their own sphere’s of influence - china, iran, russia, NK, etc…  even non-state actors like AQ.  And the u.s. will continue to have its own, but you seem particularly disturbed by the thought of the u.s. acting in its best interests.  I think you call this imperialism, i call it pragmatic geo-politics and survival.

Dick Cheney’s office showed high expertise in “imagination, initiative, absolute secrecy and flawless execution” on a number of initiatives, some of which have been secret for years and are only beginning to be talked about. Seymour Hersh’s reporting on the assassination squad not answerable to Congress, the CIA, or the military (apparently), for instance. Cheney’s office was implicated in Valerie Plame’s outing, but we still don’t know the details.

Cheney’s office had motive, opportunity, and the means to influence NORAD, order a stand down of interceptors, plan for the destruction of the three buildings that collapsed, completely, catastrophically, unlike any other buildings of their size and construction ever or since by causes that are explained solely through the use of black box computer simulations whose workings have never been fully revealed to independent investigators.

Jumping to a conclusion of who was responsible without thoroughly considering the available evidence that strongly suggests that the official conspiracy theory is as full of holes as a fishing net is a bit like putting the cart before the horse (to mix metaphors). An enormous body of evidence exists that is left unexplained and unaccounted for by the official conspiracy theory.

The New York City Fire Commissioner (at the time) Thomas Van Essen commissioned the Oral History project in October 2001. The New York Times obtained the project archive after a four year FOIA court battle with the city. Van Essen is reported as saying he wanted the fire personnel, the emt’s, the fire fighters, etc., interviewed “before a collective memory” set in as to what they experienced as individuals, as free of collective recollections as possible. Interviews were collected from Oct 2001 thru Jan 2002, over 500. 118 of these talk about explosions they heard in the towers before they were pulverized into dust. They give 178 accounts of explosions. Many talk about secondary explosions, secondary devices, syncronized charges circling the buildings, regular blasts. Several of these accounts talk about three very large explosions just before the buildings started to collapse. The blasts described in a number of accounts are massive, lifting people off the floor and carrying and tumbling them tens of feet, while pelting them with debris. This happened at least a thousand feet from the strike zone within the first minutes of the event. Some of these explosions took place underground in subbasements with no direct access to the strike zone. Enhanced kerosene vapors igniting and destroying a 50 ton press in a third or fourth subbasement work room, knocking down walls, causing earthquake-like shaking?

Reconciling all of these testimonies with what is known to have taken place through photos, videos, other eyewitnesses yields enormous questions left unanswered by the official telling. At least one of these firefighters talked with the 9/11 Commission, and when they were determined to mold his story into the narrative the questioners wanted to hear, he walked out in frustration.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html#Cacchioli

There are those that certainly did have the expertise, and initiative to create the event. Whether that is how it all happened, we will probably never know. The questions that exist strongly indicate it is certainly NOT how we were told.

Marshall:
’“First you have to choose between domination and freedom.”

I think we disagree on the definition of “empire” because it doesn’t fit the relationship we have to the countries you mention.  We do not rule those countries, we do not manage the free elections of their democracies, we do not occupy their land or lay claim to it, we engage in free bilateral trade with them.  If NATO is the american empire, then by definition we rule NATO countries and I know of no NATO member that believes itself to be part of an american empire.  Can you name any?’

NATO members are states; states don’t believe things.  People believe or don’t believe things.  There are probably millions of people who agree that the states to which they are subject are more or less controlled by or satellites of the United States.

But, in any case, I am using the term empire less restrictively than you.  If you read some history you will find many cases of empires consisting of collections of satellites and protectorates as well as of directly-ruled territories.  Often, one sort of imperial arrangement gradually transforms itself into another.  Since you apparently wish to participate in that defense of American imperialism which relies on obfuscation, you want to pretend that all empires must resemble the Rome of Trajan.  I don’t feel like playing that game, however.

‘Your reference to choice between domination and freedom is broad and simplistic since relationships, whether between individuals or states, are far more complex than that.  But i think you’ve rightly guessed that our respective concepts of “domination” and “freedom” are likely quite different so i don’t think we’d be talking about the same thing.’

I was talking about intention, though.  Intentions can be fairly simple.  You can decide whether you want to relate to the rest of the human race in peace and freedom or in war and domination.  Which is it?

diamond:
‘Anarcissie I think you’ve answered your own question. You don’t believe that the neo cons, with the help of the CIA and the Pentagon, did it but you do believe that a bunch of Muslims who couldn’t even fly planes led by a bearded man who lives in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan did it. This might make sense to you but it makes no sense to me. ...’

Well, for me the primary problems are will and opportunity.  The part about being directed by a bearded man living in a cave in Afghanistan is pretty fanciful and as far as I know has never been proved, only asserted.  The public needed to be given someone to hate, and Mohammed Atta was dead.  Beyond that, I don’t see why, given the conditions of September 11, 2001, a bunch of Muslims, or any other kind of people, couldn’t hijack some airplanes.  I think getting four at once was something of a lucky break, but we don’t have a lot of instances of hijacking to compare their efficiency to.  I believe that NORAD and so forth are far less efficient than you think.  Again, as a Bush Administration or Zionist plot, 9/11 would have required imagination, initiative, absolute secrecy and flawless execution, something I do not see any reason to associate with either Zionist plotters or the Bush Administration.

I’ve flown airplanes and flying them around in the air is not a big deal.  It’s taking off and landing that are tricky.  If you’re going to fly one into a large building, it might not be all that difficult.  I don’t know; I’ve never tried it.

Finally, I don’t doubt that much is being kept from the public, or being quietly obscured.  That doesn’t mean Bush and company or some Zionist agents did 9/11.

It appears to me that the main function of 9/11 conspiracy theories, whether intended or not, is to derail and defame anti-war and anti-imperial arguments.

A conspiracy is when two or more connive to commit some act. A conspiracy theory is a description of the suspected conspiracy. The official story is in fact a conspiracy theory. The theory that best fits available evidence is probably the closer “truth” of what the conspiracy actually was.

diamond is correct about NORAD. In the ten years prior to 9/11 between something like 70 to 120 NORAD intercepts per year took place due to aircraft that went off their planned and monitored courses. What happened on 9/11 was an anomaly. The protocol that governs those intercepts was changed in June 2001 to require much higher authority to be given before the intercept would take place. It was changed back to something closer to the pre-9/11 protocol after 9/11.

On its face, this could be described as a coincidental change in policy that resulted in tragedy, or it could be described as a deliberate short circuiting of the system to allow for the event to take place. There may be documents that make this distinction clearer, but we don’t know that now, and nobody, including the 9/11 Commission investigated. What the 9/11 Commission concluded was the multiple stories NORAD and the FAA were in fact contradictory, but offered its own incomplete analysis as the best description. The result of this is we really have no clearer picture of why NORAD and the FAA, and the military failed to intercept. That can be described as the anatomy of a coverup. Obfuscate an issue with multiple versions, and leave the obfuscation in place by failing to subpeona those responsible and getting to the bottom of the matter.

The military has a command and control aircraft that is specially equipped with advanced radar, communications, the E-4B.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/e4b/index.htm

One of these was seen flying over the White House on the morning of 9/11 before the aircraft which hit the Pentagon did so. It is documented by major news network reports that saw and reported on it. Why that was flying over DC before DC had become a target is a question that has never been answered. Who scrambled it? Why was it there? What was it’s mission? At the same time, Cheney was in the bunker and a young military person kept those present informed about the incoming aircraft saying, “it is 50 miles out, it is 30 miles out…” and finally saying something like, “it is 10 miles out, do the orders still stand?” What were the “orders” this guy was talking about? Transportation Sec. Minetta reported this as happening. Cheney turned on the man and said, “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything different?” Within minutes whatever hit the Pentagon slammed into the side of the building.

What is the meaning of these things. Are they coincidental? What was the order obviously given well before the aircraft was within proximity of DC? Shoot down, or stand down? We don’t know, and the 9/11 Commission didn’t ask. There is no explanation of these events, the E-4B’s presence, or the conversation in the bunker, in the commission’s final report.

We don’t know.

Regarding what hit the Pentagon: The NTSB, FAA, FBI are reported to have identified the remains of whatever hit the building, but a FOIA request for the documents, methods, protocol used in identifying the craft, given it is public “knowledge” Flight 77 slammed into the building, has been repeatedly denied. All three agencies deny having those records. “Those records do not exist” is the official reply.

Again, we don’t know.

Big questions remain, and the powers that be are intent on not finding out the answers.

Come on Marshall, are you a 1. Christian?  2. Do you still believe in slavery?  3. How about women - think they deserve a vote?  4. What is your position on the death penalty?  For?  5. Civil rights and Martin Luther King, Jr holiday?  You against?  6. Gays?  Think it is a learned behavior?  7, Evolution?  Believe in it?  8. Government has no place in our society?  9. Rich people deserve everything they get?  10. Individual responsibility?  11. Tax cuts for the wealthy only?  12. You against health care for any segment?  13. Torture?  14.  Habeous corpus?  15. Chavez?  I could go on and on.  These are the whig/republican positions.

You have to try to read and understand people like Chomsky and Albert, then you can join the peace and justice movement in this futile place.  It is because of people that are told what to think the world is in self-destruct mode. Stop believing lies.

We ARE the foremost, rogue, terrorist, reactionary country in the world!

Anarcissie I think you’ve answered your own question. You don’t believe that the neo cons, with the help of the CIA and the Pentagon, did it but you do believe that a bunch of Muslims who couldn’t even fly planes led by a bearded man who lives in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan did it. This might make sense to you but it makes no sense to me. What the 9/11 operation required was skill, you said so yourself, and more than that it required technology that only the US military has. The fact is, without NORAD being stood down, (as it indisputably was) none of it could have taken place. What is supposed to have gone on that day lacks all credibility. The Air Force was more like the Air Farce.

The first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52am, about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over. This was already eight minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, and just 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower. According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at:
(153 miles – 71 miles)/(9:03 – 8:52) = 447 mph
That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph.
At 9:11 the F-15s finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was:
153/(9:11 – 8:52) = 483 mph
That is around 25.8% of their top speed.
Langley to the Pentagon
The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley AFB, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16s were flying at:
130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph
That is around 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph.
Andrews to the Pentagon
Andrews Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of the capital, is just over 10 miles from the Pentagon. One would have expected interceptors to be scrambled to protect the capital within a few minutes of the 8:15 loss of contact with Flight 11. Instead, no fighters from Andrews reached the Pentagon until 9:49, several minutes after the assault. Why would these jetfighters fly at these ridiculous speeds if their country was supposed to be under attack by mad Islamic terrorists? It beggars belief.

The same pattern of what can only be described as mysterious connivance, since it is mysterious why NORAD would connive with alleged hijackers and terrorists, went on in every instance of a ‘hijacked’ plane.  With flight 11 it was the same failure to respond, the same stalling, the same slow motion jetfighters in the sky. I don’t believe a single word that the official story tells, including ‘and’ and ‘the’. They’re lying and they’re lying for the same reason criminals always lie -to save their necks.

“First you have to choose between domination and freedom.”

I think we disagree on the definition of “empire” because it doesn’t fit the relationship we have to the countries you mention.  We do not rule those countries, we do not manage the free elections of their democracies, we do not occupy their land or lay claim to it, we engage in free bilateral trade with them.  If NATO is the american empire, then by definition we rule NATO countries and I know of no NATO member that believes itself to be part of an american empire.  Can you name any?

Your reference to choice between domination and freedom is broad and simplistic since relationships, whether between individuals or states, are far more complex than that.  But i think you’ve rightly guessed that our respective concepts of “domination” and “freedom” are likely quite different so i don’t think we’d be talking about the same thing.

The main problem I have with the 9/11 conspiracy theory is that it requires that the perpetrators be men of considerable courage.  After all, if anything revealed their role they might well have been tried, convicted and excuted for murder and treason.  But Bush’s administration and his neo-con advisors have largely been chicken hawks, quite cautious about putting their own persons in any kind of danger however much they have pushed war for others.  The kind of daring, imagination, initiative and flawless execution supposed by the theory just doesn’t fit the Bush administration.

Marshall you say I tipped my hand by pointing out that the neo cons did 9/11 but I think you’ve tipped your hand by saying ‘I fashion my own reality’. This is exactly what the neo cons said THEY did:

“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore… We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.’”
Ron Suskind, Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush, New York Times, October 17, 2004

I have to wonder why you chose those particular words.  People who will send letters with weaponized anthrax in them to senators and media outlets have no moral problem in killing their own people with thermite. As they didn’t.

David Ray Griffin has pointed out that the 9/11 Commission Report ‘lied’ about numerous facts or omitted them as documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.

1.The publicly released passenger manifests have no Arab names on them. (23)

2.The omission of the fact that Larry Silverstein had admitted that he and the fire department commander decided to ‘pull’ i.e. ‘blow up’ building number 7.(28)

3.The fact that Rudy Giuliani stated that he had received word that the World Trade Centre was going to collapse when the fire department disagreed. (30-31)

4.The fact that the damage to the Pentagon was inconsistent with it being hit by a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour. (34)

5.The fact that Donald Rumsfeld (the compulsive ‘truth teller’) had referred to ‘the missile used to damage (the Pentagon)’. (39)

6.The fact that the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for air force one after the WTC had been hit. (43-46)
7.The fact that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar. (191-192)

8.The fact that the military claimed not to have been told by the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was hit. (204-212)

9.The claim that Jane Garvey, head of the FAA, did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9.30, after the Pentagon was hit. (210)

10.The omission of all the evidence indicating that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. (224-225)

11.The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony given to the Commission that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9.26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon. (220)

12.The omission of all evidence that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane. (238-239)

13.The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93’s hijacking until after it had ‘crashed’. (227-29, 232, 253)

14.The omission of Richard Clarke’s testimony which suggests he received the shoot down authorization (Flight 93) by 9.50 am. (240)

15.The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base kept several fighters on alert at all times. (162-164)

There were numerous other failures of the 9/11 Commission to investigate matters that were fundamental to understanding how the 9/11 attacks unfolded and the Commission also displayed a puzzling lack of interest in any pre - 9/11 information that reflected badly on the Bush administration. For example the incident detailed by Ron Suskind, in which George W. Bush gave a CIA briefer the brush off when he had interrupted the President’s vacation to warn that there could be a terrorist attack. ‘All right,’ Bush told him, with complete disinterest, ‘You’ve covered your ass, now’. How patriotic can you get.

Marshall:
‘By Anarcissie, April 1 at 11:30 pm #

“Their inclusion is not voluntary; it is a choice between subjection to one empire or another, made necessary by their own imperialism and consequent ruin.”

‘Honestly I don’t know what you mean here.  It sounds as though you ascribe no free will to anyone but the U.S., and consider anyone with an alliance to us as being somehow subjugated.  That’s your opinion, but i think i’d take their word over yours.’

Many countries and groups of people in Africa, Asia and Central and South America have been attacked by the U.S. or its proxies for being insufficiently subservient.  One can hardly regard subsequent motions towards cooperation on their part or their neighbors’ as “voluntary”.  Europe, however, had already been wrecked by the imperial ambitions of Britain, Germany, and their allies and satellites, so the choice of most of the countries and people there was between American and Soviet imperialism.  While the ruling classes knew which side of the bread their butter was on, not all of the people agreed, hence the large votes the Communist Parties of France and Italy used to receive.  However, I think we can safely assign Europe from 1945 on to satellite status, the West in the American orbit and the East in the Soviet.  After the demise of the Soviet Union, NATO, that is, the American empire, promptly pushed its borders east and began a military, economic and diplomatic thrust towards the Caucasus and central Asia—the old Drang nach Osten—which led to the debacle in Georgia.  What business does the U.S. have in central Asia, if not the business of empire?  Or in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Colombia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and so on and so on?  Obviously, the purpose of the American ruling class, which has been pretty explicitly spelled out, is total global domination.  We can discuss whether that’s a good idea or not, but please, let’s not pretend this is some kind of voluntary gathering of mankind.

...

‘I’m curious where you would draw the “imperial” line then; if you don’t support u.s. isolationism, but you don’t support our global presence - what would the u.s. look like in your world?’

First you have to choose between domination and freedom.  There is no use my playing the game of giving advice if our purposes and tastes are radically different.

By Leefeller, April 2 at 10:51 am #

“Why does being an ally necessitate having the biggest Military in world money can buy?  Fear is worse now than when the Soviet Union was are favorite enemy?”

Speak softly and carry a big stick.  Fear of “whom” is worse?  The u.s.?  I disagree, unless you’re a muslim extremist.

By Anarcissie, April 1 at 11:30 pm #

“Their inclusion is not voluntary; it is a choice between subjection to one empire or another, made necessary by their own imperialism and consequent ruin.”

Honestly I don’t know what you mean here.  It sounds as though you ascribe no free will to anyone but the U.S., and consider anyone with an alliance to us as being somehow subjugated.  That’s your opinion, but i think i’d take their word over yours.

“you have failed to notice that there is a vast middle ground between imperialism and isolationism.”

Exactly - and we inhabit that middle ground.  You see us as imperialists and I don’t - certainly not in the historical tradition of unwelcome territorial acquisition and subjugation; just ask the europeans, the japanese, the turks, the south koreans; virtually any country we have forces agreements with.  But then, you don’t trust their answers because you believe they’re somehow deluded.

“You have also failed to show that the imperialism practiced by the U.S. (or rather, its ruling class) has increased its security”

Hard to prove a hypothetical.  Our global presence is a calculated balance between risk and reward.  For example by our presence in SK we intend to provide a deterrent to NK’s military threat, but we also expose ourselves to the very real potential for conflict in the event diplomacy fails or someone makes a mistake.

I’m curious where you would draw the “imperial” line then; if you don’t support u.s. isolationism, but you don’t support our global presence - what would the u.s. look like in your world?

Marshall:
‘By Anarcissie, April 1 at 11:30 pm #

Your argument works if you view the U.S. simply as purveyors of “subjugation and humiliation”.  In the context of the empire that this story references (western europe, japan, and other voluntary u.s. outposts), none of these governments or their populations views us that way and all these countries are free to kick us out when it suits them.  So i hardly see us as the oppressive empire you describe.’

The United States, like some other empires of the past, accepts the notion of satellites and protectorates as a middle stage between sovereignty and total subjection.  Western Europe and Japan have been in this category since the end of World War 2.  Their inclusion is not voluntary; it is a choice between subjection to one empire or another, made necessary by their own imperialism and consequent ruin. 

‘Your point would be suitable for an undergrad cultural anthropology paper, but it’s rather simplistic in the complex world of geo politics, religious extremism, ethnic divisions, and shared resources.  The US is definitely the big dog and we’ll take plenty of flak for it and for the mistakes we make, but that doesn’t make us the big bad wolf.’

Because something could appear in a undergrad anthro paper does not make it false.  The present medium hardly supports complex arguments.  In any case, you have not engaged the simple ones I proposed.  The totality of things is always more complicated than any collection of sentences.  So what?

‘What this issue is about is whether the world, and our country, would be safer and more peaceful with an isolationist United States.  Unfortunately countries have been fighting one another long before we came along and those fights are becoming more and more dangerous to everyone.  A more hands-off U.S. will not escape being attacked, as 9/11 and the multitude of terrorist events through the decades leading up to it prove.  So an isolationist U.S. is a deluded U.S..  If we survive, it’ll be because we looked out for ourselves by managing the space around us - forming alliances where helpful, and applying military power where necessary.  The world is a big chess board and we better be making the best moves we can.’

Speaking of oversimplification, you have failed to notice that there is a vast middle ground between imperialism and isolationism.  You have also failed to show that the imperialism practiced by the U.S. (or rather, its ruling class) has increased its security—simply assumed it on faith in the face of all the historical evidence to the contrary.  I doubt if you should be sneering at the writers of undergrad papers.

Marshall,

Why does being an ally necessitate having the biggest Military in world money can buy?  Fear is worse now than when the Soviet Union was are favorite enemy?  Always a conjured up new fear.  Fear in politics similar to religion, keeps the masses from becoming to uppity. 

If the world is a big expensive chess board, sounds like
Obama is going to save us some money on the asinine nuclear chess peaces, we could call it a military fire drill. Shuffle the military peaces around, nuclear peaces here, troops over there. 

The best defense is the biggest most expensive offense used often, no need in the military getting rusty.

It is because of ignorant people like Marshall that life is pointless.  No doubt a “Christian”.

By diamond, April 2 at 12:28 am

BEEUUTIFUL post Diamond. I would add only one thing. David Addington, (even more so than Scooter Libby who used to be Liebowitz and holds dual citizenship) was Cheney’s real right and left hand…particularly in drafting all of the illegal changes to our Constitution/signing statements and secret executive orders were all Addinton’s work), and always in the background). And while John Bolton may have been undersecretary at one point, he was eventually (by 2004) slipped into the position of UN representative from the US, despite the fact that Congress refused to confirm him. (So George slipped him in by waiting for Congress to recess) That was of course absolutely the worst appointment that could have been made in terms of a UN rep, since Bolton believes only in Israel’s superiority, and made every attempt to thwart any real progress in that conflict. But then, that’s why he was forced on us and the rest of the world.

Meantime, Marshall says this:
By Marshall, April 1 at 3:58 am #

•  “Of course the “san bernardino occupation” comparison makes no sense since the countries Maher mentions that we “occupy” have all asked us to be there.”

All WHAT countries have ‘asked us to be there’? The Japanese have been begging us to leave for decades, primarily because our troops consistently rape and abuse that population. And since when did the Koreans ‘ask us to be there?” I lost two Uncles to that action, and my stepfather was shot up and disabled for life. Is that some indication that they ‘asked us to be there’? Kind of an odd welcoming party.

Did the Philippians ask us to tear up their country and stay there forever as well? Not in the history books that I’ve read. And tell us exactly WHO it was in Iraq and Afghanistan who ‘asked us to be there’?
So, I have to disagree with Diamond on this one thing. It’s not good weed you’re smoking, but more like a cocktail of crack, PCP, with a little Thorazine thrown in for extra flavor. You’re crazier than a Betsy bug if you actually believe that we are ‘welcome’ in any of these places, when the reality is that’s why they all hate us.

Do you reckon that’s why the USS Cole was blown up? Because they ‘asked us to be there’ docked illegally in their waters? Put down that crack pipe Marshall. Nobody is buying that shit. At least not anybody who pays attention.

By diamond, April 2 at 12:28 am #

Sorry diamond, but you wait to the end of your post to tip your 9/11 conspiracy theory hand so that’s where i get to exit stage left.  can’t argue with conspiracy nuts because they fashion their own reality.

By Anarcissie, April 1 at 11:30 pm #

Your argument works if you view the U.S. simply as purveyors of “subjugation and humiliation”.  In the context of the empire that this story references (western europe, japan, and other voluntary u.s. outposts), none of these governments or their populations views us that way and all these countries are free to kick us out when it suits them.  So i hardly see us as the oppressive empire you describe.  Your point would be suitable for an undergrad cultural anthropology paper, but it’s rather simplistic in the complex world of geo politics, religious extremism, ethnic divisions, and shared resources.  The US is definitely the big dog and we’ll take plenty of flak for it and for the mistakes we make, but that doesn’t make us the big bad wolf.

What this issue is about is whether the world, and our country, would be safer and more peaceful with an isolationist United States.  Unfortunately countries have been fighting one another long before we came along and those fights are becoming more and more dangerous to everyone.  A more hands-off U.S. will not escape being attacked, as 9/11 and the multitude of terrorist events through the decades leading up to it prove.  So an isolationist U.S. is a deluded U.S..  If we survive, it’ll be because we looked out for ourselves by managing the space around us - forming alliances where helpful, and applying military power where necessary.  The world is a big chess board and we better be making the best moves we can.

You really believe, Marshall, that neo con doctrine wasn’t accepted by GWB’s administration until after 9/11? You must be puffing on some really good weed. Here’s a list of the leading neo cons:

Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle and Jeb Bush.

This is the makeup of the government that Bush put together in January 2001:

Dick Cheney – Vice-President
Paul Wolfowitz – Deputy Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld – Defense Secretary
Scooter Libby – Cheney’s Chief of Staff
Eliot Abrams – in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council (Pentagon)
Dov Zakheim – Comptroller for the Defense Department (Pentagon)- he ‘lost’ $2.3 trillion dollars from the Pentagon.
John Bolton – Undersecretary of State
Richard Perle – chair of the Defense Policy advisory board (Pentagon)
Former CIA Director James Woolsey was put on that board as well.

As Weiner puts it, ‘In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy creation in the Bush Administration’ (Weiner, p. 3).

In spite of all this they still needed that one galvanizing event, the ‘new Pearl Harbour’ that would boost military spending and unite the country behind all these ‘major-theatre wars’ they wanted to fight. This event was the 9/11 attacks. Donald Rumsfeld could hardly contain himself, and has been unable to contain himself (or button his lip) on numerous occasions ever since.

Only hours after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld ‘ordered his aides to begin planning for an attack on Iraq, even though his intelligence officials (allegedly) told him it was an al-Qaida operation and there was no connection between Iraq and the attacks’ (Weiner, p. 6) But Donnie would not be denied:

‘Go massive’ he enthused, as the aides’ notes report. ‘Sweep it all up. Things related and not’. (Weiner, p. 6)

Rumsfeld put heavy pressure on the FBI and the CIA to bring him evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. They couldn’t find any. So Donnie set up his own ‘fact-finding’ group in the Pentagon to give him what he wanted (and indeed needed) to justify the long-planned invasion of Iraq. By September of 2002 they were now so confident, with the 9/11 ‘event’ behind them, that they published ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’. This was the ‘Bush doctrine’ that Vice-Presidential hopeful Sarah Palin couldn’t identify under close questioning by TV journalist Katie Couric during the 2008 Presidential campaign. It was the usual PNAC agenda:
1.Pre-emptive war – any country that is getting too powerful or may offer some military competition or has interests or even opinions that diverge from America’s can be ‘taken down’ as a terrorist threat. Later this doctrine would include the idea that ‘mini nukes’ could be used on these recalcitrants.
2.International treaties and what others might think of America’s foreign policy etc. could be ignored if it did not serve America’s imperialistic military goals.
3.These new policies would ‘require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia’ (Weiner, p.7).

You know what kind of bastards these people are when you realize that they set up an emergency treatment centre on Pier 92 in New York, knowing that the emergency centre in building number 7 was going to be blown up. They coldly made their crazy imperial plans, knowing their own people were going to be killed and horrifically injured. They did the same thing at the Pentagon, ‘Sergeant Matt Rosenberg, an army medic at the Pentagon, was studying “a new medical emergency disaster plan based on the unlikely scenario of an airplane crashing into the place.” (Washington Post, 9/16/2001). You’ve gotta hand it to them: they really know how to do terrorism. Empires? Not so much.

Marshall:
‘Diamond - i’m well aware of the evolution of neocon doctrine.  My point is that there’s nothing wrong with wanting the US to retain its global power….’

Actually, there is, at least there is if you desire peace and freedom.  Humans are willful animals; therefore, they hate and resist subjugation and humiliation.  The only way to take power over them is by force, the threat of force, fraud, and terror—that is, by means of war.  And this war is never-ending, because, as I say, humans are willful animals and the desire to resist and fight those who rule them and push them around will always recur, even among the beaten.  To sustain this eternal war, it is necessary for the overlords and their servants to organize themselves into a structure of frozen war, that is, the state.  That is, they have to give up their freedom and often a good deal of their prosperity to maintain their power.

Many people admire war, and some actively desire it, so the drive for power, its needs, and its immediate results are not repugnant to everyone.  However, in the long run, every modern state that has attempted world domination or even continental domination has ended up bankrupt or otherwise ruined: Great Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia, Japan, Spain, and so on.  That future may dissuade even those who love war.  Or not.

Diamond - i’m well aware of the evolution of neocon doctrine.  My point is that there’s nothing wrong with wanting the US to retain its global power, and there’s nothing wrong with the US using its resources to help stabilize other regions and prevent the spread of WMD and guarantee the free market for energy resources.  I don’t get how you think Byrd had prescience about global economic downturns or how sub-prime and CDOs are somehow linked to neocon policy - but i’ll ignore that for now.

Neocon doctrine wasn’t accepted by any administration, including GWB, until after 9/11 - and then only partially.  The prescience there was that the document predicted such an event and predicted that it would only be taken seriously afterwards, which is what happened.

The current situations with NK, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, future China, and numerous global hot spots makes this foreign policy doctrine all the more apropos today.  The world is not a benevolent place and we need to continue to maintain our strength in it.

Marshall your question demonstrates that you just don’t get it.

There are those who think that the whole ‘Project for a New American Century’ thing is overblown. They relegate it to the status of a conspiracy theory but that is only because so many people don’t know the history of this group and how their extremist views and vision for America became a blueprint for foreign policy under the Bush Administration. As far back as 1992, Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, had a strategy report drafted for the Department of Defense. It was written by Paul Wolfowitz, who was Under-secretary of Defense for Policy.  In it, Wolfowitz outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq to ensure, ‘access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil’ and to stop the spread of ‘weapons of mass destruction and the threat of terrorism’ (‘How we got into this Imperial Pickle’, The Crisis Papers’,Bernard Weiner, 26.5.2003, p.5). This report called for pre-emptive attacks, and the establishment of a new world order that would only take account of the other industrialized nations in terms of intimidating them just enough so that they would never challenge America’s sole superpower status. This report was leaked and led to Senator Robert Byrd, well-known Democratic Party firebrand, speaking out against it. He called it ‘myopic, shallow and disappointing’ and concluded that the ‘basic thrust of the document seems to be this: We love being the sole remaining superpower in the world and we want so much to remain that way that we are willing to put at risk the basic health of our economy and well-being of our people to do so’ (Weiner, p. 5).  How prescient Byrd was, and how completely his warnings fell on deaf ears. Living as we do today in 20009 in the debris of the world economic system, two failed wars, the now to be closed torture camps of Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere and what has been something like a ride through the House of Horrors on a fast train we can only wish that Byrd had been heeded. Or even comprehended. But that did not happen.

What happened was what the neo cons had planned. Bush Senior rejected this document at the time, but as Weiner points out that was probably only because the political situation hadn’t yet reached a point where these extreme and dangerous ideas could or would be publicly supported. For that they needed something special. Something that would shock and awe the public and the politicians and make the neo cons’ plans and vision for the future of the world possible. Helpfully, they spelled it out. Zalmay M. Khalilzad wrote ‘From Containment to Global Leadership: America and the World after the Cold War’ in 1995. Its aim was to put forward a strategy by which America could move aggressively to ‘exert effective control over the planet’s natural resources’ (Weiner, p.5).
In 1996 Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, both leading neo cons, wrote ‘Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy’ which stated openly that the goal for the U.S. was to be ‘benevolent global hegemony’ which meant total, i.e. global, U.S domination.
The neo cons unsuccessfully lobbied Bill Clinton in 1998 to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein. In something called ‘The January Letter from PNAC’ it was suggested that America should go to war with Iraq even without the support of the United Nations. Clinton refused and said he was concentrating on al Qaida terrorist cells instead.
Then, in 2000, PNAC issued a white paper, ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century’. This document made no bones about why now was the time to move forward with its imperialist military agenda. The Soviet Union was no longer a superpower and America could ensure its ‘interests and ideals’ by being prepared to ‘fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major-theatre wars’(Weiner, p.6).

By diamond, April 1 at 5:24 pm #

...and the problem with those items is…?

You didn’t get stuck with an empire. It was intentional. In 1947 former US Vice President
Henry Wallace,said this of the ‘Greek crisis’:

‘Yesterday, March 12th, 1947, marked a turning point in American history, it is not a Greek crisis that we face, it is an American crisis. Yesterday, President Truman…proposed, in effect, that America police Russia’s every border. There is no regime too reactionary for us, provided it stands in Russia’s expansionist path. There is no country too remote to serve as the scene of a contest which may widen until it becomes a world war’. (Vidal, p. 121)

‘The Bush Administration seems to see the U.S., admiringly, as a New Rome, an empire with its foreign legions (and threat of ‘shock and awe’ attacks, including with nuclear weapons) keeping the outlying colonies, and potential competitors, in line. Those who aren’t fully in accord with these goals better get out of the way; ‘you’re either with us or against us’.  Bernard Weiner in ‘The Crisis Papers’

And no one has put the reality of what happened on 9/11 better than Arthur H. Vandenberg of Grand Rapids, Michigan, speaking in 1947, when he told a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that unless the American people were scared to death, ‘Congress would have a hard time raising the revenues to pay for a military buildup in what was still thought to be peacetime.’
                                   
The Project for a New American Century was continuing something that goes back a long way and taking it to new depths of cynicism and extremism.
                 
Key positions contained in PNAC’s ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ were:

•Develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
•Control the ‘international commons’ of space and ‘cyberspace’ and pave the way for the creation of a new military service –U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.

•Increase defense spending, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.
•Exploit the ‘revolution in military affairs’ (transformation to high-tech, unmanned weaponry) to insure the long – term superiority of U.S. conventional forces.
•Need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements. Complaining that the U.S. had ‘virtually ceased development’ of safer and more effective nuclear weapons.
•Facing up to the realities of multiple constabulary missions that will require a permanent allocation of U.S. forces.
•‘America must defend its homeland’ by
‘reconfiguring its nuclear force’ and by missile defense systems that ‘counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction’.
•‘Need for a larger U.S. security perimeter’ and the U.S. ‘should seek to establish a network of ‘deployment bases’ or ‘forward operating bases’ to increase the reach of current and future forces, ‘citing the need to move beyond Western Europe and necessary to ‘cope with the rise of China to great-power status.’
•Redirecting the U.S. Air Force to move ‘toward a global first strike force.’
•End the Clinton administration’s ‘devotion’ to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
•North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states (should not be allowed) to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies, or threaten the American homeland itself.’
•‘Main military missions’ necessary to ‘preserve Pax Americana’ and a ‘unipolar 21st century’ are the following: ‘secure and expand zones of democratic peace, deter rise of new great-power competitior, defend key regions (Europe, East Asia, Middle East) and EXPLOIT TRANSFORMATION OF WAR.

Most of this became Bush Administration policy, stated or unstated.

The logic of the state leads inevitably to empire.  However, as the world grows smaller, fewer states can even try to practice the global model.  So we observe one after the other take its turn and suffer the consequences: militarization, repression, and financial and moral bankruptcy.  Now it is the turn of the United States.

Of course the “san bernardino occupation” comparison makes no sense since the countries Maher mentions that we “occupy” have all asked us to be there.  The european wing of our empire was originally the result of preventing them from succumbing to the third reich followed by the cold war, and now represents forward bases for deployments fighting terror in the ME.  So while Marher’s monologue is entertaining, it’s not particularly enlightening.  Good for a laugh though.

Noam Chomsky notes:

“The United States is probably the only country in the world that was founded as a ‘nascent empire’ – it’s what George Washington called it. The colonies he said, were a nascent empire and they were just beginning their imperial conquest. They had to conquer the national territory. Thomas Jefferson [who] was the most libertarian of the founders effectively called for conquest of the Western hemisphere. The expansion of the colonies to what is now the national territory, is just imperialism. Historians of imperialism warn against what they call the ‘salt water fallacy’. Namely you only call it imperialism if you cross saltwater. But that is a fallacy. I mean if the Mississippi River was the size of the Irish sea, the conquest of the national territory would be called imperialism. From the point of view of the indigenous population, it’s the same whether you cross water or not. So yes the expansion itself was constant war against the indigenous population. The conquest of Florida, which was an undeclared war, the first executive war in American history without congressional authorization, the Mexican war conquered half of Mexico, then the expansion in the Caribbean, into the pacific, and after the Second World War, interventions everywhere. It’s hard to find a year of peace.”

sdemetri,

How does one enlighten the masses?

Maher is way behind the curve. His cleaned up appearance, his advertising campaign, his populist memes simply doesn’t make up for the smarmy, inept commentary he offers.

“Stuck” with an empire?

Maher, the entertainer (and nothing more), jumps on this as if he newly discovered it. As stated correctly below, empire building has been this country’s MO for nearly 70 years. Neo-liberal economic policy, the Washington Consensus, hemispheric ideological cleansing have all been contributed to by the administrations of the last 70 years in one way or another. Maher’s populist rant is just an extension of his advertising campaign. It serves his pocketbook, not to enlighten the masses.

Two words, “military complex’, there is money to be made in those weapons.

“Stuck” may not be the correct word, this has been planned for a long time.  Questions need to be asked, but the regular mass media does not ask them. 

So we try to understand the madness of the real news from web sites like TD and others, PBS,  Bill Maher and Comedy Central.

CJ:

You have told us what the Empire has done, but the question was how did we get stuck with an Empire? 

The way we got stuck with an empire that cares only about money and resources is because the liberal population of the nation got propagandized by the conservative extremists to the point they thought,  or still think, they are a part of conservatism’s steadfastness, even a majority of the churches got sucked in.  If liberals had not have had their head stuck in the sand, and realized just who the liberals are, there would never have been an attack on Iraq, or Afghanistan, because neither war was in the best interest of the population of the nation.

Lou would simply hire them out at sub-minimum wage to work his gentry operation. Lou’s gentleman farmer, doncha know. Just this evening he—seriously, folks—asked some guy on his program why, if Obama canned Wagner, the head of UAW wasn’t also canned. Dobbs blames labor for everything while pretending to be populist (of extremist nationalist sort).

Can any imagine Iraqi fighters and bombers flying over our own pointy heads daily? Not just flying but killing and destroying—by means of all-too-real WMD—Americans and American cities, towns and countryside? One of the claims made was that Saddam was hell-bent on dominating the Middle East, eventually the universe. What effrontery, what a “noiv” to even think such heresy in the face of American empire.

Well, we (not just pols, but most Americans at the start) showed the bastard how it is and how it will always be.  Not so much Iraqi people, however, as they’ve somehow carried on, continue still to resist U.S. domination.

Of course, constructing and maintaining empire isn’t simply about “policing” the world. Doing that is purely in the interest of ongoing theft of world’s resources so that Americans might continue to lead the high-life. Cheap pol talk of finding some way not to have to rely on foreign oil, notwithstanding. That talk really is only for public consumption.

The war on Iraq was about oil, not more, not less. No matter patter claiming plan was to thwart Hussein in his supposed ambition by way of use of WMD; and then of “bringing democracy,” which is code for, “You agree to give or sell dirt cheap whatever resource we demand, or else—nastiness will ensue.”

Nothing more to war on Iraq than that, no matter what Christopher Hitchens, et al. claim. There is no such thing as “just war,” no such thing as “bringing democracy” by force. These ideas would be laughably absurd were what results from attempts to justify war by such nonsense not so horrifically savage. In the interest of doing the “right” (moral) thing, naturally.

Every empire has been constructed by way of such high-minded denial of selfishly material motive—always in intellectual terms of good vs. evil, as opposed to in terms of flatly stating fact of instilled (from kid-hood on) desire. In the case of American empire just lately, the two combined into one: We deserve stuff cuz we’re just better ‘n you, see? Because we’re democratic; thus, better; thus more deserving. This would be “logic.” Actually, a fine example of Orwellian social Darwinist tautology—since because “democratically” better (good) than whoever, we regard ourselves as more deserving of stuff than (evil) other, usually saddled—by dint of some necessity under circumstances of predatory empire—with tyranny. Paid-for tyranny so long as tyrants are amenable. Lest empire be “forced” to engage in seeking out and destroying incipient democracy whenever and wherever that rears its evil head. Not merely tautology, but contradictory tautology.)

Not that Iraq was ever major source of oil for U.S. But it might be in future, along with other oil-rich Middle Eastern states. (And people wonder of why Chavez says what he says and carries on as he does? After one U.S.-backed attempt at coup?) Iraq is front and center in the Middle East, far more than Israel ever was or ever will be, though Israel serves purpose, as heavily armed U.S. base smack-dab near to center of Middle East too.

And not that Iraq has been “won,” or ever will be. Anymore than Afghanistan will ever be “won.” But what the hell? What remains of American upper and middle-class is ever more sorely in need of raw product, while children of lesser classes are ever more economically coerced into joining up to become cannon fodder on behalf of a “grateful” nation that from its founding set its collective sight on becoming the glorious empire it has indeed become.

“We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only about 6.3 percent of its population . . . our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.”
- George Kennan, 1948 (architect of the US’s policy of containment during the Cold War)

That’s how we got stuck with an empire.

This country was and is stuck in an empirical mode of thinking because we have tried to imitate the countries of Western Europe.
The founding fathers warned against this frame of mind, this way of thinking, we were not meant to be an empire not meant to be the world’s policeman! Enough already with the ‘coming and not leaving,’ even whores know when its time to leave, apparently the armed forces of the United States, once having defeated an enemy, stay and stay and stay until we, the American people become the most despised and hated of all people’s in the world.
America needs to take its fat ass and big nose and get the hell out of other people’s business. Unless there is a most obvious reason, like the government of that or this country declaring war, then leave them the hell alone. We are not the moral authority we think we are. Consider black jail sites, torture, atom bombs, of which only two have been used, by this
country, not any other, and on and on and on.
America needs to ask the worlds forgiveness for its impertinence in thinking that we are the worlds policeman and historically unique. We are not unique.
We are just like any other country that has tried to build and maintain an empire through the barrel of a weapon. Yet we cannot give up the thought that somehow, someway G-d, has blessed us. America is like
any other nation, subject to the laws of international convention, unless of course we are talking about ‘Israel!’
We the people must force our leaders to accept the inevitable, we are not the worlds power that they thought we were.

Yeah Baby!!!
Nobody’s paying US to be the Wrold Police, nor have we ever agreed to be their hired help..Time to close up these Charity shop all around the World.Handle your own national security- otherwise stop calling yourselves Sovereign nations.This includes Esp Isreal!! Stand Up or Shut Up!