Did They Let it Happen?
Updated August 5, 2006
Let's face it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put the evidence together. They Let it happen. 9-11 was not only preventable, but may have been allowed to happen.
Let me begin by asking a question: If you were President of the United States on September 11th, would you initiate an investigation to determine what security lapses had occurred that allowed such a tragedy to unfold? Of course you would. The only reason you would try to prevent an investigation is if you had something to hide. If your house was broken into and your family murdered, would you ask the police to not investigate? NO. Unless you were somehow involved. How could anyone not wish to investigate what had allowed the 9-11 attacks to transpire?
This is exactly what George W Bush did. The Bush administration tried to prevent the creation of the 9-11 committee.(1) Why would the president feel it was not necessary to investigate this? When that fight to prevent the 9-11 investigation from happening was lost, Bush tried to appoint Henry Kissinger to head the commission. Following media attention to several possible conflicts of interest questions about Kissinger, Kissinger was replaced by Thomas Kean. Bush then took steps at every turn to hinder the investigators.(2) At times, Bush even prevented the committee from having access to their own notes.(3) He even tried to prevent National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice, from testifying. When that failed, he then tried to prevent her from being required to testify under oath.(4) Why would you ever set standards for ones testimony to not include the promise to tell the truth unless the truth would somehow be damaging to you or someone under your protection? Finally, Condi did testify under oath.
Of course, we know how much that oath means to this administration. President Bush has appointed several people to prominent government positions who have already proven their willingness to lie to Congress. Appointing convicted felons to government offices is bad. Appointing convicted felons guilty of lying to Congress (5) is to spit in the face of the American people and a blatant display of the disregard this administration has for our very democracy, Congress, Constitution, and the rule of law.
Even though the national security advisor was, not everyone who testified was required to swear to tell the truth. Similar to the hemming and hawing over getting Rice to testify, George Bush and Dick Cheney were quite a pair. First they said they wouldn't testify. Eventually they gave in and agreed to testify only under certain conditions: only in secret, only in the company of each other, and (of course) without swearing to tell the truth. (6) Could you imagine if Bush Sr. had been required to testify for a Congressional investigation and refused to participate unless he was in the company of Dan Quayle? Is this the behavior of two men who have nothing to hide and have the best interest of the country at heart?
When George Bush was appointed to the Presidency, one of his first acts was to demote and reassign the man that President Clinton had promoted to a cabinet level position as terrorism czar. Under the Clinton presidency, this man, Richard Clarke, held weekly cabinet level meetings specifically on the threat of Osama Bin Laden. Those meetings we subsequently cancelled and Dick Cheney himself has been quoted as saying "Richard Clarke was kept "out of the loop" in regards to national security issues.
Shortly before her testimony before the 9-11 commission, (7) Condoleeza Rice wrote a March 22, 2004 column in The Washington Post (8) claiming that "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration,". However, a January 25, 2001 memo penned by Richard Clarke clearly states "We urgently need a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network" (9). This is in direct contradiction to Rice's claim that "no al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration". Additionally, a few weeks later, giving sworn testimony before the 9-11 Commission, Rice also claimed "...no one could have imagined planes being used a weapons..." (page 12) (10). Is that true? We all recall the reference in the August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States". Rice referred to this as an "historical document'. We were led to believe that this was the only warning. It comes out now, that she was lying. There had been warnings of planes being used as weapons 52 times (11) in the months before September 11th. Condi hadn't disclosed to the 9-11 Com,mission that they had, in fact, received these 52 warnings (12). Additionally, just two months before the Sept. 11th attacks, President Bush had to be relocated at the G8 summit in Genoa, because of a very specific threat of just that kind of an attack from Bin Laden. Egyptian intelligence services had told the United States about the threat and the warning included a reference to ''an airplane stuffed with explosives.''(12.5) Yes, Condi lied under oath to a Congressional commission. With the precedent this administration has for appointing people willing to lie to Congress, it comes as no surprise that the National Security advisor who lied to Congress and oversaw the worst lapse of national security in the history of this country is now the Secretary of state.
So here we have an administration trying to prevent an investigation, stonewalling the investigators once the committee is formed, and lying under oath about having received, at least, 54 separate and specific warnings. What more could you possibly need?
How about a document signed by all of the people appointed by Bush to the top levels of the Whitehouse, Pentagon, and State Department stating that their foreign policy ambitions hinged upon the need for some sort of terrorist attack in order to facilitate the public support needed for such an agenda? Well, we have that too.
The Project for the New American Century was established in 1997 by Robert Kagan and William Kristol and funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and the weapons and defense industries. Calling themselves, "Neoconservatives" this small group of ideologues penned a Statement of Principles (13) outlining their plan for a New American Century wherein the United States, as the world's lone superpower, would use its military might to topple regimes in the middle East and elsewhere that were unfriendly to U.S. corporate interests.
On their website you can read their document Rebuilding America’s Defenses(14) ( .pdf format ) wherein they clearly outline this goal. According to this document, (page 52) "the process of transformation," the plan said, "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, asst. director of the PNAC about what was meant by the "need for a new Pearl Harbor"(15): "They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities," Maletz said. "Without some disaster or catastrophic event," neither the politicians nor the military would have approved.
The first leg of the PNAC imperialistic agenda following the "cataclysmic catalyzing event" was to secure the oil supply of the Middle East. As far back as 1998 The PNAC was pressuring President Bill Clinton (16) for the invasion of Iraq.
Who belongs to this neoconservative think tank?
So here we have the top levels of the Whitehouse, Pentagon, and diplomatic bodies appointed by a President who displays a blatant disregard for Congress and the rule of law, who belong to a powerful and well funded organization who's agenda centers around the necessity of a "new Pearl Harbor" to fulfill their agenda, letting our defenses down in the face of 54 warnings of an impending terrorist attack, dismantling the apparatus that monitored Al-Qaeda, and lying about it before Congress and the American people. If this doesn't exemplify every bit of evidence you would need to assume that the 9-11 attacks were allowed to occur, I don't know what else you could possibly need.
On a personal note, I don't believe that The Bush administration had knowledge of just how bad the destruction of 9-11 would be. I believe that they probably assumed that the attacks of 9-11 would be more on the level of the attack on the USS Cole. I don't have any reason to believe this, but I need to believe it. Just as many people need to believe that the Bush administration wouldn't consider the loss of human life as the cost of doing business. Unfortunately, by our observations of the invasion of Iraq and the coup in Haiti, (17) we know that is not the case.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please review Title 17, Sec. 107 of the U.S. Code. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
© 2002- 2008 OLDAmericanCentury.org and OLDAmericanCentury.com