Motives for 9/11
I didn’t "get" September 11. It was worthy of a Hollywood summer blockbuster in terms of spectacle, and had immense symbolic value, but I was never sure exactly what bin Laden was up to. ….
I had to start from the premise that bin Laden isn’t dumb. After all, he pulled off a pretty spectacular act of terrorism and seems to have eluded an intense subsequent manhunt. So he would have known that 9/11 wasn’t good public relations and most of the world would recoil in revulsion from the images of innocent men and women leaping into oblivion as the iconic towers burned and collapsed. …
But did he also know or suspect that we, who have had no wars fought on our soil for almost 150 years and who have been blessedly free from the acts of terrorism all too familiar to so much of the rest of the world, would rush to throw away our precious freedoms with both hands for the empty promise of "security" and launch a precipitous and ill-planned assault on Afghanistan? Did he know we would route the Taliban in some areas, only to kill thousands of innocent people and leave most of the country controlled by warlords and vulnerable to the return of his austere fundamentalism? Did he know he himself could elude capture?
Could he have known or suspected that we would not be content to invade Afghanistan, but might be inspired to settle old scores with Saddam, whose regime was as distasteful to him as it was to us? Did he know we would pursue this dogged course in spite of worldwide protests and without our customary allies? Did bin Laden guess how easily we would become convinced to hate Saddam for crimes that bin Laden committed? Did he assume that the fallout from our invasion, the civilian deaths, the damaged mosques, the collapse of infrastructure would bring Iraq much, much closer to the Islamic theocracy he espouses? Surely he could not have dreamed we would provide the world with images of murder and torture, of American soldiers forcing pork and liquor and unnatural sex on Iraqi prisoners and ordering them in their suffering to praise Jesus while cursing Allah?
When he masterminded the attack on the Twin Towers, did he guess that all he had to do was start the ball rolling and then retreat into his cave for a few years while we went about proving we could do a pretty passable imitation of the Great Satan he thinks we are?
Are we that easy? Maybe we should ask Chalabi.
The Unanswered Questions of Nick Berg’s Murder
Just your address belies any objectivity you might claim. It’s apparent that your agenda is to discredit our government and that you will piece some facts together to suit your ends. At this point I don’t see any sinister plots except the one you’re throwing out there, apparently hoping to play to a gullible and uncritical audience.
You imply that because various questions are said to be unanswered it could indicate our government’s involvement in Mr. Berg’s murder. Yet, for being so quick to criticize our government, you’re very uncritical in the facts you relate. Your statement about the validity of the video and the gold ring are examples. You refer to "some" questioning the validity of the video. Who is the "some" you’re making reference to? You provide no context to allow a person to judge the assessment. Would it undermine your credibility? Also, these terrorists are radicals who have hijacked Islam to further their aims. Why would you expect them to be consistent in obeying one stricture, not wearing a gold ring, and so inconsistent in disobeying another, murder? (I couldn’t find the prohibition of wearing a gold ring in the Koran so perhaps you could provide the cite).
Why are you willing to accept the numerous assumptions necessary to portray our government’s involvement and be so dismissive of the clear and convincing evidence provided and the history of the terrorists themselves? Certainly, you should know that these terrorists play to the media and use it to affect what they perceive to be weakness in our country. They use mouthpieces such as yours to sow dissent, create fear and to create the illusion that they are victims instead of perpetrators. You do know that don’t you?
What I find so ironic, and pathetic, is that the very freedoms you cavalierly use, without journalistic responsibility in this case, are defended by the very government you apparently disdain and wish to weaken. The people you’re so willing to give aid and comfort to are the very ones who would kill you for a similar critique of their governance. Were you this passionate and indignant about the tens of thousands killed under Saddam? Have you cast a critical eye toward any movement opposing us in the Mideast in order to gain a sense of perspective? Do you have any idea how long you and this rag would survive under a radical Islamic government not to mention an Islamic government? Perhaps a little reflection on your part would add some balance to your "reporting."
Your story failed to convince me of anything other than of your lack of investigative rigor and evenhandedness. You are overly ready to convey half-truths and "unanswered questions" as a basis to imply our government’s complicity in murder. You are overly ready to dismiss equally plausible scenarios indicting the terrorists and their proven propensities. Your bias is apparent therefore your credibility is zero.
Anthony Gregory replies:
I never implied our government was involved with Berg’s murder. All I did was present the least controversial questions that have yet to be unanswered. You might have interpreted those questions to implicate the U.S. government, but I never drew such a conclusion.
You say that I refer to "’some’ [people] questioning the validity of the video," but I "provide no context to allow a person to judge the assessment." Perhaps you didn’t notice the bright red hyperlink in my sentence in which I mention the alleged gold ring discrepancy. I invite readers to click on it and "judge the assessment" for themselves. I don’t particularly buy it myself, which is why I said, "There has been little progress on these types of questions."
I do value free speech and a free press, but the current administration has flouted these values with its prohibition on photographing caskets returning from Iraq and Bush’s signing of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which makes it a crime for many American nonprofit groups to mutter the names of national candidates 60 days before a general election. The Founding Fathers established the First Amendment to protect us against our government’s encroachment on our freedom of speech because they knew that our own government would always pose a greater potential threat to our freedoms than foreign enemies. The Bill of Rights was meant to guarantee a "weak" government, limited to protecting our rights. What we have today is a massive central state that routinely violates our economic and civil liberties and sends Americans to die in no-win wars. The Founders would be enraged with our government as it now stands.
I certainly am grateful to live in America, which is still the best country on earth. Patriotism and pride in one’s country and appreciation of the freedoms that we still have require us to practice "eternal vigilance," in Thomas Jefferson’s words, in criticizing the government when we think it is wrong and demanding that it answer reasonable questions – even, and especially, at wartime.
For all the freedoms we enjoy we owe a debt to all the great men and women throughout American history who stood up and asked difficult questions, and who willingly voiced their dissent when the government went beyond its Constitutional limits. It’s not always easy being a true patriot, loving the country more than the government, in the midst of wartime hysteria. But somebody has to do it.
I really feel sorry for the family of Nick Berg. However, what in the world was he doing in Iraq? These are the questions his family have to answer. (My son had a chance to go. I strongly advised him not to, after all this is a war zone.) …[H]e was not, so it seems, on any official business. So it is his fault and his alone that he got killed. Stop this nonsense, about the government’s fault.
Anthony Gregory replies:
Certainly people who voluntarily go to Iraq should go at their own risk. It is sad, however, that the US government has helped to make so many places in the world so dangerous for Americans.
You completely miss the obvious, and you are the ones who are losing the war on terror for the US. Why don’t you antiwar people explain why 2 rooms full of lethal gasses discovered in Iraq have been completely squelched by the liberal media and people like you! You deserve to wear a burka for the rest of your lives for the havoc you are wreaking in this war and the thousands of US soldiers you are helping Al Qaeda and the Iraqis to kill every day! You are un-American and you are seditionists who deserve the same treatment that Berg got. Ultimately you will get it because you support those who would be most likely to do it.
Anthony Gregory replies:
There you have it. What the pro-war voice of America has sadly become.
AP: Video Shows Iraq Wedding Celebration
Looks like another cover-up by the US military of war crimes. We need an independent commission to investigate what is going on in Iraq and around the world regarding how the military is handling the "war on terrorism."
Pat Tillman and the Culture of Death
Ilana’s pathetic attempts to distance herself from the Neocons won’t ever erase the fact that she was parroting them once upon a time. She’s about as "libertarian" as Perle or Feith:
"…Other infidels are Iraq, Iran and Osama’s native home, Saudi Arabia. The killers must be annihilated, and governments who aid them must be targeted with a vengeance."
– Ilana Mercer, "Lawrence of Arabia, R.I.P.," WorldNetDaily, September 15, 2001
Ilana Mercer replies:
Most scribes, except the robotic types who stuck with tinny tenacity to the, "Yes, September 11 was rather awful, but it’s all America’s fault and we deserved it," had a very visceral reaction to September 11. I was no different.
Once the dust settled, and the sadness and rage dissipated, my position was consistent and unwavering: 1) I supported action against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, although not the "nation building" exercise there, 2) I supported covert operations targeting al Qaeda members and cells. As I wrote elsewhere: "The government can be encouraged, for example, to lift a 25-year-old ban on US involvement in foreign assassinations. Operations that surgically eliminate terror cells are also acceptable." I also ventured that mercenaries should be deployed to hunt down targets like bin Laden. What’s the alternative, to subpoena bin Laden to The Hague? "All in all," I wrote, "the American people need to tell their government they will not tolerate the military’s clodhopper’s traipse around the world." 3) I documented the ramp-up to war on Iraq, and unwaveringly and consistently denounced the war from the get-go.
I think these positions are correct, although I have come to expect that fanatics like the reader classify any sensible self preservation as neoconservative. As luck would have it, my position angers both the pacifist fanatics and the neoconservatives, so I doubt I’ve been doing much parroting.
The assertion that those who are "fabulous" should avoid military service in the age of "ideological war" is truly despicable elitism. And Ms. Mercer actually seems to think that ideological war is a very recent development. Does she think, for example, that World War II was a non-ideological war?
If the US were to act in its Smithian enlightened self interest it would dump Israel as an ally. From the Lavon Affair to the USS Liberty to Jonathan Pollard Israel is one truly crappy ally. Then, of course, there all the unnecessary enemies it makes for us all over the Muslim world.
Ilana Mercer replies:
It is uncanny what some readers will do to distort meaning. Where on earth did I say that only the "fabulous" should avoid enlisting?
I have no doubt that if real danger arose, young Americans would fight for their country. But I would hope that when faced with a war of choice, young people – fabulous or not so fabulous – would opt for peaceful market activity instead. It’s a shame that they seem eager to enlist when the case for war is far from clear cut.
I know it has become acceptable to compare the tin-pot tyrant, Saddam Hussein, to Hitler. I’m also vaguely aware of all the weird (you can say that again) World War II revisionism espoused by many libertarians. I happen to think Hitler was a very real danger. Most reasonable people will agree that we did good to help our allies stop him.
As for elitism, it’s "despicable" only to egalitarians who wish that they could distribute natural abilities and attributes like they distribute other people’s wealth.
Thank you Charley Reese. All of us, especially those of us working daily to rid the US of the practices that led to Abu Ghraib and to the whole ill-conceived US war and occupation in Iraq, need to seek, find and exclaim over the green frogs, the beautiful stones, and every bit of beauty around us we can find! …
~ Mark Taylor, professor of theology and culture, Princeton Theological Seminary
Everyone Is Lying
I can’t believe your editorials any more than I believe Bush and his folks. You have printed that the US bombed a wedding party, yet the latest reports indicate it was NOT a party with children (at 3AM, in the middle of nowhere with people firing weapons in the air) but a meeting place for insurgents. I can’t believe how everyone presents lies based solely on their political perspective rather than waiting for the TRUTH to emerge. And NO ONE seems to have the nuts to apologize for reporting the wrong information when it is shown later that the original reports were erroneous.
You are as bad as the White House liars. You and they just put out what you want to believe and that’s it. Too bad for the rest of us. We can’t seem to get ANY truth from anyone. Oh, please don’t tell me that you have correspondents in Iraq that reported the "wedding party" story directly to you, or that some Iraqis themselves, themselves being the paragon of truth, sent you this information. So why did you parse out this story to put on your website as if it were in fact, undisputed truth. Oh, I guess you’ll say something like, "well it was reported by so and so and we aren’t responsible for the content, we just report it. You’ll have to talk with so and so if you want accountability for the story." As far as I am concerned the US, the Iraqis, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Iranians, etc., etc., are ALL lying, and you people are part of that extremely large group. God help us.
Eric Garris replies:
We have printed both accounts on a daily basis. However, the most recent reports indicate it was a wedding, even if they were "bad guys."
The Pentagon now admits there were women and children, and Gen. Kimmitt’s new position is "Even bad guys have celebrations."
Associated Press has a video of the wedding and another video they took after the attack showing some of the same people in the wedding video lying dead. (See "AP: Video Shows Iraq Wedding Celebration.")
