portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

The New York Times Knew...

Hindsight is not 20/20
The fact is, it's not at all clear how or why the United States failed to avert the Sept. 11 attacks. I think you have to be a fool or nut to believe that Bush or anybody else in the administration knowingly permitted the attacks to occur for any motive or reason. But, it's also obvious that the U.S. dropped the ball somewhere. This isn't a complicated or controversial assertion. Whenever thousands of Americans get murdered in a terrorist assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, almost by definition, the government didn't do its job as well as it should have.

But the government's mistakes get scrutinized. Internal reviews, external commissions, duplicative congressional hearings, competing news organizations, whistleblowers, the general public, and, eventually, historians all take their turns exploring the what-might-have-beens.

Meanwhile the critics, the press in general, and, of course, Congress share in the responsibility. Take the famed Phoenix memo. Everyone had a grand old time slapping the FBI around for ignoring warnings about Middle Eastern men taking classes at flight schools. But we now know that one of the reasons the FBI agents didn't follow through was that they were afraid of being charged with racial profiling. The head of the FBI even admitted in congressional testimony that this was a concern while simultaneously assuring Congress that the FBI would never profile.

The other night I caught some guy named Rich Lowry on CNN's "Reliable Sources" making a similar argument. Bill Press, the former host of Crossfire, shot back "That is pure FBI spin that has no basis in reality. Look, if you if you stop a black kid driving a car that's doing nothing wrong simply because he's black, that's racial profiling. If you know there are people who are trying to fly jets and learn how to turn them and not how to land them and you don't go after them because they happen to be Muslims, that's just plain stupid."

Alas, he missed the point. People like Press, and the press in general, made it impossible to carve out a public position on racial profiling that was anything less than zero tolerance. How many times had Bill Press pounded the table denouncing anything that even smelled of profiling as racist and evil? Press can claim now that targeting specific individuals who wanted to learn how to fly, but not land, would be reasonable. But the fact remains that it was people like Press who drained reasonableness from the political climate in the first place. Who can doubt that if the FBI rounded up Middle Eastern men at flight schools, Press would be up there on TV shouting "Amen!" to putrid rationalization offered by Jim Zogby?

Howard Kurtz writes today about how the New York Times more or less killed an article on al Qaeda and bin Laden on Sept. 9. It's an interesting piece, but it only highlights the point that the media has to share some of the blame for 9/11, too. The media sets the political tone and supplies the political incentives for public servants to do the right thing the right way. You can be sure that the New York Times would have been far more eager to run a story lamenting the threat of Christian conservatives than it was of Muslim immigrants.

Take the story of Johnell Bryant as recounted in the New York Times last Friday (and discussed at length in Jay Nordlinger's column today). A hapless woman who couldn't take a hint if it were driven three inches into her brain pan with a ball peen hammer, Ms. Bryant was the Agriculture Department official who interviewed Mohammed Atta for a loan. Atta asked for the aerial map of Washington hanging over her desk. He inquired about the security at Washington landmarks and whether it was true that the Dallas Cowboys' football stadium had a hole in the roof. He wanted to borrow $650 thousand dollars to buy a twin-engine plane with a really big tank. He asked if he could get away with slitting her throat. And, oh yeah, he sung the praises of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and asked her to help the organization.

And, today, Ms. Bryant says wistfully, "Should I have picked up the telephone and called someone? . . . I don't know how I could possibly expect myself to have recognized what the man was. And yet sometimes I haven't forgiven myself."

Could it be that a political climate which says it is unthinkable to think unkind things about certain groups contributed to her denial? If a Timothy McVeigh type asked similar questions would the light bulb have gone off over her head? Doubtless, the New York Times won't ask itself such questions.

We all know that prior to 9/11 there were numerous successful attacks on U.S. interests around the world. What we forget is that there were plenty of unsuccessful attacks here at home. And yet, the press rarely treated these stories as if the threat was real or imminent. It's a sad aspect of our political culture that people have to die in large numbers for us to take self-preservation seriously.

Let me interrupt this chain of thought to address the news that a would-be terrorist with a dirty bomb has been arrested. Almost immediately my e-mail box filled with people declaring "See: Racial profiling wouldn't have stopped this guy! He's Hispanic!" I guarantee we'll be hearing much more of this in the days to come.

To which the only intelligent response is, "So what?"

Not even the most rabid advocates of racial profiling consider the practice to be a silver bullet. I don't think racial profiling is the only tool America needs in the war on terrorism and I don't know anybody who does. It is a useful tool, though, when used properly. But, more importantly, its use and acceptance where warranted is a sign that the government and the culture are serious about the war on terrorism. To shout that racial profiling wouldn't have stopped Sept. 11, is to light a signal fire to let the world know you don't get the big picture. It is akin to saying "putting U.S. troops in Belgium wouldn't have stopped Pearl Harbor."

Much like racial profiling, another hallmark of seriousness is the recognition that these terrorists are Muslims. This dirty bomber may have been born Jose Padilla but he goes by the name Abdullah Al Mujahir now. Indeed, while there are examples of non-Arab members of al Qaeda, there's not been a single non-Muslim one. To date, this murderous band of fanatics has been unable to orchestrate a successful outreach program into the Quakers. And yet, there are still people who bristle and chafe at the idea the FBI should be concentrating its energies on Muslim groups.

Thank God he was caught. But, it's sad to think that in a perverse way we might have been safer in the long run if Mr. Mujahir had been successful in irradiating Chicago. Maybe then hindsight would get closer to 20/20.
Won't Take 60 Years To Sort This Out 14.Oct.2002 19:01

Land of the Blind

Do you read the paper?

Taken from:

The BBC
Thursday, 29 August, 2002, 12:00 GMT 13:00 UK

Japanese Pearl Harbor sub found

"A historic Japanese submarine has been discovered on the ocean floor a few miles from Pearl Harbor."

"The 78-foot (24-metre) submarine could provide the first physical evidence to back US claims that it fired first against Japan in World War II and inflicted the first casualties."

"The sub fell prey to a US Navy destroyer on 7 December 1941, the day of the Pearl Harbor attack."

"The newly discovered sub was believed to be the one sunk by the destroyer USS Ward more than an hour before the attack."

"Mr Wiltshire said the divers were sure the sub was sunk by the USS Ward because of a bullet hole in the conning tower and because it still had both its torpedoes."

"Historian Daniel Martinez has interviewed the crew who fired the first shot, and a pilot who saw the submarine sink."


 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2223256.stm

The FBI--remember *that* TV show? 14.Oct.2002 20:03

Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.

NEW CHIEF OF SECRET POLITICAL POLICE
by Sherman H. Skolnick 07/08/01
 http://www.skolnicksreport.com/spoliticalp.html

A unit of America's secret political police has a new Chief Terrorist. Robert Swan Mueller 3rd is the perfect choice to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When you realize what THEY and HE have been into, calling him the new head of a sinister entity will be an acceptable description.

A few items from the memory hole

[1] In the late 1920s and 30s, the FBI was in the forefront of subverting Freedom of the Press when it came to the new medium RADIO. The Bureau, under dictator J. Edgar Hoover, saw to it that no one critical of the government or harboring dissident views ever was allowed to have a broadcast license. [This fact somehow does not find its way into books and articles critical of FBI yet is known as an established fact by old-timers in the broadcast field. Chicago's WCFL, call letters for Chicago Federation of Labor, always was a joke. It was never allowed to be pro-labor or to speak out forcefully in favor of unions and the working person.]

[2] To attempt to beat down the formation of labor unions as an opposition to corporate greed, the FBI used provocateurs to bomb certain offices and warehouses and such, using the monopoly press to falsely blame it on labor violence and union organizers. The FBI had as their adjunct the "Red Squads", falsely labeling all dissidents as "Reds". [See, for example, "Protectors of Privilege Red Squads and Police Repression in America", by Frank Donner, University of California Press, 1990.]

[3] Through movie-making fakers, the FBI was given the false image of grabbing bank robbers. Such as in the 1930s. Years later, a retired key agent of the Bureau, with nineteen years of direct experience and knowledge, dared relate to me the Bureau's sordid past. That FBI boss Hoover, in important instances, took bribes from certain bank robbers given a pass. The FBI Chief connived with big-time criminals who owned race tracks and were whiskey manufacturers. To feed his ego, they allowed him to corruptly win at horse racing, his favorite pastime. One booze baron, Rosenstiel, actually set up a crooked foundation named for J. Edgar Hoover. The FBI denied there was a mafia in America. Simple reason the criminal cartel used blackmail against Hoover; they had undercover pictures of Hoover's homosexual activities. [Plenty of details in "Official and Confidential The Secret Life of J.Edgar Hoover" by Anthony Summers, Putnam, N.Y., 1993.]

[4] The offices of the Bureau in the southern states were well aware of the Ku Klux Klan and lynchings of blacks, and bombings of Jewish businesses, and outrages against some Catholics. An FBI undercover operative, Gary Rowe, was given immunity and not punished for murdering a civil rights activist, Viola Liuzzo, in the turmoil in Alabama. The FBI, in fact, gave Rowe a reward. [See, for example, "J.Edgar Hoover The Man and The Secrets", Curt Gentry, W.W. Norton, 1991.]

The Bureau, through their COINTEL Program sought to snuff out the Anti-Viet Nam War Movement of the 1960s and early 1970s. The FBI played a key role in "Operation Garden Plot", that is, to put peaceniks in the cemetery, by various bloody dirty tricks; plainly, murder. ["The 1960s and COINTELPRO In Defense of Paranoia", NameBase Newsline, No. 10, July-September, 1995.]

[5] The Bureau played a key role in covering up airplane sabotage. Such as in the Watergate Plane crash in Chicago, one month after Nixon was re-elected President, in 1972. Twelve Watergate figures died in the crash, such as Dorothy Hunt, wife of the Watergate burglar, E. Howard Hunt. Together they had blackmailed two million dollars out of the Nixon White House. They had documents of Nixon's role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The details of the aircrash, supported by 1300 pages suppressed government documents, were in a book written by me and stopped in the press cycle by the Rockefellers, major owners at the time of United Air Lines. [Alas! there are no copies of my book from 1973 available, "The Secret History of Airplane Sabotage". I hope to update it someday and post it, at least in part, on my website.]

[6] Books by assassination researchers document the dirty, bloody role of the FBI in covering up the high-level plot to assassinate President Kennedy. [See, for example, a huge heavily-documented book, "Act of Treason", by Mark North, Carroll & Graf, N.Y., 1991. detailing the role of J. Edgar Hoover.] A former FBI official, later Mayor of Memphis, Tennessee, covered up the role of the FBI in the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. [See, "Orders to Kill", by William F. Pepper, Carroll & Graf, N.Y., 1995.]

As part of this pattern of cover-up and bloodshed, is Robert Swan Mueller 3rd.

===Mueller was a key official in the Criminal Division of the Justice Department during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush. Mueller supervised the supposed investigation of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which crashed over Lockerbie, Scotland, December, 1988, about six weeks after the Elder Bush was elected President.

A group of eight or as many as fifty CIA covert operatives were onboard Flight 103. Disgruntled, they were returning from a failed mission to attempt to rescue some American hostages in the Middle East. They blamed the failure on the treasonous acts of the Elder Bush as Vice President. As we showed in exclusive stories, in the 1980s, Bush was the secret PRIVATE business partner of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. Together, they like mafioso, shook down for billions of dollars of "protection" money, the weak, oil-soaked sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf. The secret partnership details were part of the bank records sought to be suppressed by way of an unpublicized federal court suit in Chicago. I was the only reporter attending the hearing. Only one sizeable publication in America dared run my exclusive details, based on interviewing the court participants in the back of the courtroom. A populist newspaper, Spotlight, ran the detailed story on August 19, 1991.

Contrary to CIA regulations, forbidding their people to fly as a group on one airplane, this group of covert units stayed together for what they thought would be their mutual security. At least eight of them were scheduled to finger the Elder Bush for treason in the hostage rescue intentional screw-ups, at secretly arranged hearings set before Congress for early in 1989. Such as, the Elder Bush was a sizeable owner of American LaFarge, the U.S. unit of a French firm, reportedly supplying the ingredients to Saddam Hussein for the making of poison gas to be used against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War, 1980 to 1988, and also against Iraq's own Kurdish dissidents. A director of the firm was a little-known Little Rock attorney, Hillary Rodham Clinton. She and her husband, William Rockefeller Clinton, were already part of a scheme to be played out in 1992, to install Clinton as President while shadow-boxing against his CIA mentor, the Elder Bush.

Only one newspaper in North America ran a series after the crash, outlining some of the secret arrangements of the units of the American CIA that were snuffed out by the crash. That was in Canada, the Toronto Star. Prior thereto, by phone hook-up, I did radio shows in Toronto with a relative of the publisher who went on the air under a pen-name.

Some were puzzled how FBI agents showed up at the Lockerbie, Scotland crash site in some instances quicker than local authorities.

As stated in an award-winning film documentary about Pan Am flight 103 "Very strange people were at work very early on. Within a matter of three hours there were American accents heard in the town.Over that night there were large numbers, by which I mean 20, 25, 30 people arrived." As reported by British journalist David Ben-Aryeah, in the documentary by producer Allan Francovitch, "The Maltese Double Cross". Francovitch was later murdered as he was working on related documentaries.

As a member of a local rescue team recalled, "We arrived within two hours [of the crash]. We found Americans already there." As an author of a book pointed out "....as odd as the fact that Lockerbie is over 350 miles from London, which is the nearest point an American FBI agent might be. To reach Lockerbie that night from London, even if traveling by air, would have taken far more than one hour considering the sequence of events that would have had to occur. Assuming timely notification, an American agent in London would have had to have been tracked down considering the late hour, notified to pack up for an investigation, rush to Heathrow, board a waiting airplane, fly immediately to the nearest airport that could land a jet transport, obtain ground transportation from there to Lockerbie, then locate the command center. An effort that would require four to six hours at the minimum." "The Medusa File" by Craig Roberts, an investigator and former law-enforcement official.

>From the details, there evidently was PRIOR KNOWLEDGE by the American FBI and the Justice Department. And who was in charge of all this? Reportedly Justice Department, Criminal Division, honco, Robert S. Mueller 3rd. Mueller is quoted as saying in a public statement, "We have no evidence to implicate another country (other than Libya) in this disaster." [From "The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror", by David [M.] Hoffman, Feral House, Venice, California, original edition 1998, page 326 footnote.

By his doings reportedly in the U.S. and Scotland, Mueller falsely shifted the whole blame to Libya and a stop-over in Malta by some Libyans. [Hence the title of the late Francovitch's film documentary, "The Maltese Double Cross".] By so doing, Mueller shifted the focus away from the prior treasonous activities in the Middle-East of the Elder Bush, with the assistance of his sons, Jeb and George W.

The Elder Bush, as President, rewarded Mueller for his treachery on behalf of the Bush Family. Mueller "was named to head the criminal division in 1990, under President George Bush. Dick Thornburgh, then attorney general, says he relied on Mr. Mueller for some of the department's most DELICATE TASKS. Before the invasion of Panama in 1989, for instance, Mr. Bush called Thornburgh in and asked if the drug trafficking case against the Panamanian ruler, Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega, was solid. Mr. thornburgh says he relied on Mr. Mueller's assurances that the case would stand up; it did. Among the other investigations that Mr. Mueller supervised at the criminal division was the bombing of Pan Am 103, which had crashed over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988." New York Times, July 6, 2001 in a story about Mueller by Neil A. Lewis.(Emphasis added.)

===Shortly after being inaugurated as President, the Elder Bush launched the invasion of Panama in 1989, to kidnap Panama strongman Noriega to shut him up about being lured into private dope trafficking deals with the Elder Bush and sons Jeb, George W., and Neil. Playing a key role in silencing Noriega was Justice Department Criminal Division honcho Robert S. Mueller 3rd. Mueller reportedly arranged to terrorize Florida Federal Judges to lay the groundwork for them absolutely following orders to censor any mention of the Bush Family being implicated in the dope trafficking into which Noriega says he was either inveigled or was entirely innocent of, with Noriega as an Elder Bush arranged CIA operative. Bush had helped Noriega's rise to power by Bush arranging to murder Noriega's predecessor. [The Elder Bush paved the way for Saddam Hussein to the top in Iraq in similar fashion, by arranging to assassinate Saddam's predecessor.]

One of the most outspoken critics of the Justice Department and the FBI on the Federal bench in America was Florida U.S. District Judge Alcee L. Hastings, one of only a very few black federal judges in the South. The FBI, as a reprisal, framed up Judge Hastings on bogus bribery charges. To scare other Florida federal judges that they have to march to the orders of the Bush Family, the Hastings matter was quickly referred to the House Judiciary Committee which voted articles of impeachment. In the impeachment trial in the Senate, contrary to the rules, only a handful of Senators attended or were interested in any way in Judge Hastings plea that he is innocent and was framed by the FBI. The monopoly press, to show him in a bad light, played up a picture of him bending down to get past a barricade blocking the entrance to the Senate as he was on the way to the Senate trial. [Hey, I thought the whole U.S. Senate, not just a couple of them, have to sit as judges in an impeachment trial.] Leave it up to the pressfakers to get a picture of someone they want to demonize, such as prominently showing a pimple on his face. On the other hand, the Rockefellers are always shown smiling and in a good image.

The voters of Florida, however, did not buy the FBI frame up done with the apparent connivance of Criminal Division honcho Mueller. Thereafter, defrocked Judge Hastings was elected and numerous times re-elected as a Democrat Congressman from Florida's 23rd Congressional District. [Another one of the few black federal judges in the South, one from New Orleans, was likewise pickled by the FBI and removed from the bench. An hispanic federal judge in California, after hearing evidence in his court of the treachery of the FBI, pronounced them as the American Gestapo. Within a few months thereafter, as a reprisal, they attempted to send him to jail on bogus federal criminal charges. In that instance, the Judge beat back the FBI/Justice Department frame-up orchestrated by Criminal Division honcho Robert S. Mueller 3rd.

BUT, evidently the federal judge hearing the criminal charges against kidnapped General Noriega got the message. The Judge blatantly and arbitarily ruled that no mention in the court will be allowed of how the Elder Bush and his sons inveigled Noriega, as a CIA operative, into business with them, through the infamous spy-money laundry, Bank of Credit and Commerce International, BCCI. Noriega's lawyers were forbidden to defend him with his role with the Elder Bush and Bush sons, details tending to show Noriega was innocent of the criminal charges. Few in the monopoly press mentioned a fact pertinent to people of the Third World. Noriega as the head of Panama was the ONLY person of color to head up a country in the Western Hemisphere.

===Mueller, as a top honcho of the Criminal Division, was instrumental in suppressing and/or destroying evidence and scaring off and covering up about witnesses to protect the Bush Family from being exposed in their treasonous role laundering assassination funds and funds of sworn enemies of the U.S., through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. U.S. Senator John Kerry (D., Mass.) headed a subcommittee investigating dope and weapons smuggling and terrorist activities. In a heavily censored and watered down version of the facts, even the big-time newsfaker, the New York Times, in a story referring to Kerry and Robert S. Mueller 3rd, said "...John Kerry, who was already in his second term as a senator from Massachusetts when the two clashed in 1991 over whether the criminal division, which Mr. Mueller then led, had been aggressive enough in investigating the BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL, a rogue operation that had ties to drug gangs and gunrunning." New York Times, July 6, 2001, in a story by Neil A. Lewis. (Emphasis added.)

Please note. Senator Kerry is no sweet angel. He is an expert reputed blackmailer and cover up artist. He is married to the widow of the late U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, John Heinz, heir to the ketchup and canned beans fortune. Heinz died in a sabotaged plane crash in 1991, just as he was planning to expose U.S. government complicity in several domestic and foreign political assassinations.

As to the infamous BCCI, Sen Kerry himself had a conflict of interest in that he headed a group of U.S. Senators who accepted campaign funds from the worldwide spy-money laundry-murder machine BCCI. Kerry's subcommittee refused to delve into the highly pertinent Chicago branch office of BCCI and their Chicago twin, a branch of Italy's largest bank, owned in part by the Vatican, Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro, BNL. [Suppressed BNL records as to the secret private partnership of the Elder Bush and Saddam Hussein were the subject of my exclusive story, in Spotlight, August 19, 1991, referred to earlier.]

George W. Bush the tainted OCCUPANT and RESIDENT of the White House, chose Mueller to head the FBI. Mueller has repeatedly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the criminally inclined, treasonous Bush Family, that Mueller obediently follows Bush Family orders to whitewash their criminality and treason. The established FBI pattern of covering up political assassinations, falsely blaming bombings onto domestic dissidents, and such, will no doubt continue with America's new GESTAPO CHIEF, Robert Swan Mueller 3rd.

Stay tuned.
------------------------------------------------------------

Since 1958, Mr.Skolnick has been a court reformer. Since 1963, founder/chairman, Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts, disclosing certain instances of judicial and other bribery and political murders. Since 1991 a regular panelist, and since 1995, moderator/producer, of one-hour,weekly public access Cable TV Show, "Broadsides", Cablecast on Channel 21, 9 p.m. each Monday in Chicago. For a heavy packet of printed stories, send $5.00 [U.S. funds] and a stamped, self-addressed business sized envelope [4-1/4 x 9-1/2 #10 size] WITH THREE STAMPS ON IT, to Citizen's Committee to Clean Up the Courts, Sherman H. Skolnick, Chairman, 9800 South Oglesby Ave., Chicago IL 60617-4870. Office, 7 days, 8 a.m. to midnight, (773) 375-5741 [PLEASE, no "just routine calls]. Before sending FAX, call.


newspeaking and mindfucking 14.Oct.2002 21:48

everyoneinthisworldisdoingsomethingwithoutme pointoinfinity@yahoo.com

interesting someone should bring up the case of New York Times "complicity" with regards to "the war on terrorism". as i was reading the oregonian (sorry, i intentionally don't capitalize as a show of 'disrespect') this morning, i noticed a main cover story by Raymond Bonner ("Bali bombing a different terrorism" (the full version of this story is not online)) and an OP-ED piece by *the* William Safire which you'll find at the new york times website (you must register to access articles @ the site). both of these dudes are listed as contributing writers from The New York Times; it is said of Safire via other sources that he "writes from the Washington bureau of The New York Times". i just wanted to mention this instead of making an entire article on it like i was planning on doing--danke for the seque Ricky.

the first "deeper thought query" i have is: what is it with the New York Times? does the "style of writing" relate to some sort of "(social) agenda" this particular media outlet might have? i'm sure there's a good amount of research out there about papers such as the washington post and the new york times.

anyway, on to the rebut--

>>"The fact is, it's not at all clear how or why the United States failed to avert the Sept. 11 attacks."<<

--is this really "fact", or is there an attempt being made on the part of safire to 'redirect' attention from certain 9-11-relevant events which might certainly come with major corroborative evidence. we can simply say that "how" (and if the usage of "why" is bent a bit, why) the 'United States' failed to avert the attacks is by there supposedly being a certain lack of willingness on the part of white house authorities to take seriously any govt agency reports of "possible terrorist threats", even though some warnings were issues YEARS ago; such warnings came in the form of actual (alleged) bombings like the USS Cole, among other such "highly publicized" incidents. hell, i'm wondering why, as it has been suggested, the infamous USA PATRIOT Act was *truly* drafted some 2 to 3 years prior to it's enactment as a bill, even though there were 2 prominent occurrences of "terrorism" (committed by foreign interests, supposedly) here on US soil? i'm specifically talking about the OK City Bombing and the World Trade Center bombing (WTC) part one. w/ regards to that 1st WTC bombing attempt, that thing blew over "within the week" as i made observation of the glossing-over that was given the incident by the MASS NEWS MEDIA.

with the drafting and passage of such a BIG ASS BILL--some 345 pages in thickness..thicker than the average congresspersons skull--how did it only take 3-4 weeks to get this bill on the boards considering what i've mentioned about the idea that it was drafted well in advance of the imminent global terrorism threat that has time-zero on September 11, 2001? that's a lot of thinking and considering to do in the space of 3 weeks. now, continue reading mr. safire's attack on the "reasoning faculities" of "*you*", the "AVERAGE, RIGHT-THINKING, RATIONAL-MINDED AMERICAN/GLOBAL CITIZEN"; in terms of "social engineering" (remember george orwell, he was a 'journalist' himself. i have some interesting conjecture about him as soon as i finish my research...), techniques such as 'ridicule' and 'projection' are standard tools of the trade used for mindfucking at the rawest levels of the human psyche, as i see it.

also, safire seems to assert that the US "dropped the ball" with regards to some aspect of national security, showing that it is at all clear, no matter how "briefly" stated, that there is at least some semblence of a how and a why as to the apparent and necessarily subsequent failure to avert said attacks. he also admits the obvious that, yes, the US govt has the job of protecting the citizenry, not just when it is highly capable of doing so, but ALL OF THE FRICKIN' TIME. that's why they build the big war machines, isn't it, to keep *them* from getting *us*?..or do they build them to allow *us* to destroy *them*? i digress.

>>"Take the famed Phoenix memo...[warnings about Middle Eastern men taking classes at flight schools]...we now know that one of the reasons the FBI agents didn't follow through was that they were afraid of being charged with racial profiling."<<

---get the fuck out of here! we NOW know? why the hell didn't we know that RACIAL PROFILING was the issue within 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month--1 YEAR of the fuck up? uh, reminder--THE FUCK UP CAME WHEN--REPORTEDLY--THE SUPERIORS OF THE REPORTING AGENT DID NOT TAKE HIS REPORT SERIOUSLY and ignored it. this begs the question now, HOW IS IT THAT AT THIS JUNCTURE IN TIME EVERYONE IS SO WORRIED ABOUT RACIAL PROFILING? how can reportedly over 1100 (last i can remember) muslim members of the US citizenry be rounded up and US intelligence can't figure out that there is a white guy--John Lind(h) Walker--fighting beside enemy forces? why would there be any less of a threat to national security when such knowledge was supposedly had by certain intelligence agency than now after the pudding has been excavated for proof? what is being said by the FBI is essentially that "we were scared that the tan to brown-skinned or muslim peoples would dislike us so we chose not to offend anyone initially, even though WE KNEW such people were planning on blowing stuff up. however, now, we need to take action since stuff has indeed been blowed up real good, despite the fact that we could have possibly and absolutely prevented stuff from being blowed up. we're sorry *cry*, please forgive us and let us round them darkies up now, please?"

get the hell out of here. i don't have much time to respond to this particular article posting, but the arguments points can be polished and aligned to see that WILLIAM SAFIRE IS UP TO SOMETHING and IS INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO SWAY PEOPLE AWAY FROM LOOKING FOR THE LOGIC OF SAID ARGUMENTS AND UTILIZING HIGHER-LOGICAL RATIONALIZATION TO DECIDE ON THE PLAUSIBIITY OF GIVEN RATIONALES ALL WHILE ATTEMPTING TO "TRAIN AND PROGRAM" THE THINKING OF CERTAIN TARGET READERS.

(i have to end here, but i will continue my response to this article at a later time, hopefully. i've listed links below as well as text from the William Safire New York Times OP-Ed piece which i will specifically address as well)

as well, ignore the fear mongers :) some things can be reasoned away
---------------------------------------------------------

Bonner's story
 http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/front_page/103459656417941.xml

Safire's story (re-printed below)
 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/14/opinion/14SAFI.html

william safire's bio
 http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/safire/bio_safire.html

interesting spoof mentioning William Saffire's name
 http://www.c3f.com/nty1122.96.html

more Willie S
 http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1378/oped.htm

more of this sucker--compare language in this trite peace to his mondays The Oregonian guest editorial (which isn't in the online version of that rag). here's an excerpt from it:

"To meet a terrorist emergency, of course some rules should be stretched and new laws passed."--sound like a certain article publisher here, hmm?
 http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/11.16A.Safire.htm




-------------------------------------------------
reprint of Safire's October 14, 2002 OP-ED piece

Terrorism Goes Local
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

[M] ONTGOMERY COUNTY, Md.
In the endless media psychoanalysis and police profiling of the random murderer striking fear near the nation's capital, one possibility is rarely mentioned: that the sniper may be a terrorist affiliated with Al Qaeda or otherwise inspired by Osama bin Laden.

Odds are against a conspiracy. The consensus is that the multiple assassin is a domestic madman, the most recent in a long line of serial killers. Such disgruntled loners, pseudo-religious weirdos and cold-blooded psychotics lusting for fame and vengeance have plagued American society for generations.

But the venue chosen by the most recent shooter is the capital of the U.S., a primary target of worldwide terrorism. Police have speculated that the sniper might well have an accomplice, perhaps a driver or supplier, which suggests a terrorist cell. And the effect of the operation is to strike fear into ordinary Americans at the focal point of the nation's political decision-making and media coverage.

If these weekday murders are the acts of a homicidal maniac and not part of a terrorist conspiracy, then surely the plotters of last year's devastating strikes at the Pentagon and New York's twin towers are saying: What a perfect follow-up, cheap and simple and maddening. Why didn't we think of that?

The systematic sniping technique is terrorizing. Suburban schools are frequently in "lockdown," a term hitherto reserved for prisons. Gas is self-served with great trepidation. We are all looking over our shoulders outside; I think twice about taking my dogs out for a walk.

That's because the essence of the random terror is "who's next?" Unlike the mass-murder attacks of Sept. 11, which produced horrific shock followed by mourning and grim determination, the near-daily shootings of individuals produce unrelieved tension. The stress that Israelis suffer every time they get on a bus is now hitting home to Washingtonians.

Our media megaphone heightens the fear. A free press cannot be ordered to play down the news ? and a manhunt for a serial murderer has always been news since Jack the Ripper ? but now this local murder spree is national news, and the time and space to cover it sustain a nationwide tension.

Just as terrorists used our aircraft to bring down our towers, they will try to use our media to bring down the level of our resolve. After this current spate of killings is ended, and even if, as expected, the relentless rampage turns out to have been the work of one or two crazies, the example will not be forgotten in the cells of Al Qaeda. People in and near the world's great cities will be in danger of similar sieges instigated by terror networks.

Here are a half-dozen thoughts about countering pervasive fear:

1. We in the target audience should follow the story without becoming transfixed by it. It's undeniably worrisome; but if worrying is our thing, we have much else to worry about.

2. We in the media should cover serial crime without being overwhelmed by it, pulling in leads from alert tipsters without putting out panic and without elevating thugs to antiheroes.

3. Local police should improve ways to digest cross-county data, cooperate in sweeps and dragnets, and work with federal enforcement agents who are finally quelling past arrogance.

4. Congress should make it easier to identify ammunition and the weapons of individual destruction that fire it. Gun registration's time has come.

5. People who forthrightly admit to being afraid for themselves and their loved ones should consider the psychological defense afforded by common sense. In the lottery of life, the statistical likelihood of getting killed by a sniper is far less than that of being struck by lightning or winning the state-sponsored sweepstakes. That's cold comfort for the dozens bereaved, but should offer some perspective to those millions feeling personally threatened.

An overreaction to risk can be risky. For example, if informed that a threat of a smallpox epidemic had become real, people with common sense would choose to run the relatively tiny risk of vaccination.

The answer to the everyday fear so many understandably now feel is everyday courage. That is not the fearlessness that wins medals. It is the quotidian heroism built into human beings that enables us to bear those troubles that flesh is heir to.

continued rebuttal 15.Oct.2002 21:20

everyoneinthisworldisdoingsomethingwithoutme

first, on racial profiling--if racial profiling is an issue with law enforcement officials then it can be implied that there is a problem with the judgement of others on the basis of their 'race'. if it is morally wrong now to judge people on the basis of say their skin color why should an organization have this problem if somewhere along the line a policy of targetting particular individuals is being implimented. of course, the buck always stops with the officer or agent in the field--they are the ones who are enforcing such a policy.

how important is race in the determination of actual criminal misconduct? would such policies as racial profiling lead to "selective enforcement" of law and code violations becoming the norm in terms of conduct? racial profiling wouldn't necessarily cause for a decrease in any relevant criminal activity, so then why would a person worry about the race of a potential criminal when race may only be a factor to be concerned with if certains rimes committed (or in this case, crimes to be committed--maybe) were or have a racial motive, unless racism is involved? how can you tell what race a person is *truly* considered to be? how can you tell someone is a practicing racists considering that not too many people will stand up loud and pround and say "yeah, i hate them towelheads"?

so now, should racial profiling be an issue with regards to potential "muslim terrorist" considering that muslims are EVERY COLOR OF SKIN IN THE KNOWABLE UNIVERSE, principly speaking? IMO, the FBI should never have to profile suspects based on their race because imagine if some of the acts of supposed 'terrorism' being committed were being perpetrated by people presuming that certain other people--maybe even those of a different and specific race--will get fingers pointed at them. if a 'crime' is committed, i'm sure the REASONING BEHIND THE CRIME could be considered more important than who in fact is doing the crime because it shouldn't necessarily matter who is committing crime, as long as JUSTICE IS SERVED.

in a general sense, the law is supposed to treat all people fairly with the proviso being "equal justice/treatment under the law". why should certain individuals be treated differently with respect to the application of the law BEFORE (or even after) ACTUALLY BEING FOUND GUILTY OF A CRIME (though the USA PATRIOT Act took care of that small issue)? a "muslim extremist" bombs a federal building, a "white guy formerly of the US military" bombs a federal building--what's the differnce? what would it matter who did the act. should only the muslims be hooded and flown halfway around the world to answer for their crimes? why not give them bulletproof vests like that afforded to the OK city bombing suspects Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols? i digress on this issue.

>>"People like Press, and the press in general, made it impossible to carve out a public position on racial profiling that was anything less than zero tolerance."<<

--would you ricky roma tolerate one iota being stopped because of your potential intent to commit a crime or because of your race? might it get a bit old being gawked at, followed and stopped all the time?

>>"Press can claim now that targeting specific individuals who wanted to learn how to fly, but not land, would be reasonable. But the fact remains that it was people like Press who drained reasonableness from the political climate in the first place"<<

--"reasonableness" as you would see it? ;)

it can be considered "reasonable" that a person would want to learn to fly a plane but not learn to land it, all that is required for this position is that the person intent on learning how to fly NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION the notion that 'planes tend to require solid fuel for operations like flight and even taxiing' and 'the gravitational effects of the planet Earth', blah blah.

i contend simply that reason is based on humanly-independent faculties: we each have our own mind-brain complexes, we each our primarily responsible for making up our own minds.
>>"Who can doubt that if the FBI rounded up Middle Eastern men at flight schools, Press would be up there on TV shouting "Amen!" to putrid rationalization offered by Jim Zogby?"<<

--i can doubt it. there is the idea of objectivity, and the term "Amen" seems to imply that ones religious belief-structure is christianity-based.

>>" The media sets the political tone and supplies the political incentives for public servants to do the right thing the right way. You can be sure that the New York Times would have been far more eager to run a story lamenting the threat of Christian conservatives than it was of Muslim immigrants."<<

--i can understand and agree w/ you somewhat on your initial point--the media does sort of set the political tone cuz they tell people what's what with regards to the world of the politicos. they tell you how a person is supposedly thinking; they even tell you how they get along with their friends, animal and human, how they urinate, how they spend their weekends...however, i don't personally feel that public servants really worry about the "incentive" that media representation provides on behalf of the constituency: in my view, public servants seem to end up doing things their way, not necessarily the people's way; take for instance senator gordon smith's vote on the pResident's war resolution--he was supposedly an anti-war representative from what i've heard. no, public servants seem to end up thinking that they are not beholden to anybody that they might consider "below them" in the ranks and this is the main problem with politics, IMO.

i can't be sure that the New York Times (NYT) would have been "eager" to talk about christians more than immigrants who adhere to the tenets of the islamic faith; i think you are "projecting" opinion in this case mr. roma and i'm calling bullshit BECAUSE, doesn't it seem--to you--now that the media appears more willing to "CONDUCT" THE FINGERPOINTING OF THE MASSES toward the "angry (maybe rightly so, though the mass media won't express this simple and valid view, given actual US hegemony upon sovereign states all over the globe) muslims" just on the basis that muslims might just be angry, for WHATEVER reason (um, cuz they're envious of western freedom is what the mass media echoes from the mouth of the pResident and his controllers)? they do this so slyly too--by insisting that, despite BREAKDOWNS IN THE SUPPOSEDLY MIGHTIEST GOVERNMENT/INTELLIGENCE STRUCTURE IN THE WORLD, THE US (AND FREEDOM IN GENERAL) WAS ATTACKED BY MEAN MUSLIMS AND THAT *WE* SHOULD THINK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF "TERRORISM" ONLY FROM THE LATTER VIEWPOINT EXPRESSED (as well as ignoring issues raised based upon the conspiratorial aspect of the events of "9-11"), the media seems to allow for the "funneling" and focusing of human thinking (and reaction) so that people end up not thinking about THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE EVENTS supposedly going on in this chaotic world but only about HOW THEY (MAYBE *SHOULD*) FEEL AND THINK AND HOW THEY (maybe) SHOULD REACT TO THE NEWS THAT THEY'VE RECEIVED.

>>" Could it be that a political climate which says it is unthinkable to think unkind things about certain groups contributed to her denial? If a Timothy McVeigh type asked similar questions would the light bulb have gone off over her head? Doubtless, the New York Times won't ask itself such questions."<<

--given the commenting that is relevant to this querying, i will insist that based upon my determination that PEOPLE CAN THINK FOR THEMSELVES (AND THEREFORE NO "POLITICAL CLIMATE" NECESSARILY IS OR NEEDS TO BE 'DEVELOPED' FOR THEM). i will also say that "Ms. Bryant" would not appear to be in a state of 'denial'; she seems to be borderline 'apologetic'. is she apologizing for her supposed "stupidity" or for her lack of RACISTNESS? if she was in denial about being stupid, she might act as if she did make the more "intelligent" choice w/ regards to the incident, and if she was in denial about being and racists, she might say things like "i was only concerned about the safety of my fellow americans" or "i just thought he was the strangest seeming man", or something like that. basically, she would be presenting opposing attitudes, behaviorisms and thoughts if she was in denial, clinically speaking of course. please don't use logical extension in generating the presumption that this lady was/is in denial--and what would she be denying, the fact that she may have been thinking 'unkindly' about another human?

>>" We all know that prior to 9/11 there were numerous [successful] attacks on U.S. interests around the world. What we forget is that there were plenty of unsuccessful attacks here at home. And yet, the press rarely treated these stories as if the threat was real or imminent. It's a sad aspect of our political culture that people have to die in large numbers for us to take self-preservation seriously."<<

--hm, it would seem that it IS in fact up to the press to determine what is a "newsworthy" item or not--thankfully, the Pentagon has taken note of this fact and is willing to "seed" the news in order to *aid* the people in the process of them deciding which news is the important news.

from my perspective (and i used to ALWAYS watch the nationaly "nightly news"), it seems that the relevant "attacks"--the USS cole and the bombings of those 'darkies' at the fed building over there in the Sudan--were simply phased out within a short period of time. the media just forgot about these "attacks" (they weren't called attacks back then, not even in retrospect, until *9-11*). compare their "run time" with the run time of this "war on terrorism"--wouldn't it seem that this "war on terrorism" is going to run for quite a while, all day, everyday? now ask yourself, if there has been "terrorism" since the mid to late 1980s, why now all of a sudden AFTER 2000 do the evil world controllers decide to take a big stand on "terrorism", and of the global variety at that? as i would see it, there is indeed something evil occurring within the woodshed of humanity.

people die in large numbers any damn way, fuck the idea of necessary self-preservation. if you will, think in terms of volcanic eruptions. people tend to evacuate accordingly with regard to the threat, but sometimes, people choose not to evacuate. they are exercising their choice. nobody ever "has to die" to take self-preservation seriously, they just have to want to preserve their selfs (i know i'm missing a lot of logical points here, figure it out for yourself).

if people didn't ascribe to a "political culture" then maybe no one would necessarily (have to) take seriously the issues relevant to perserving the self, whether group or individual. the comment of yours that i am responding to seems to me to be another pseudo-sympathetic attempt at MIND-CONTROLLING the reader/respondent. "it's a sad aspect"--am i supposed to feel sad as well? and dying in large numbers--i suppose you're referring to the World Trade Center leveling; 3,000 plus in one sitting is a lot of people to you? what about a reported 5,000/month of Iraqi people dying--maybe they're taking self-preservation seriously as well. and what's the big deal about self-preservation; how are you supposed to preserve a self if the self is ultimately unpreservable?

anyway, since you're talking about the treatment of certain (unsuccessful) incidental acts of terrorism "as if the threat was real or imminent", why wasn't the term "terrorist" specifically--as far as i can recall--used by tom brokaw (NBC Nightly News at that time) at the time? why is all of the talk *now* about 'terrorism', but commenting before 1980--minus the Palestinian Liberation Organization badmouthing (and they weren't called terrorist, they were called "the PLO"--never were made to allude to the notion that there was some sort of terror campaign going on in the world.

i'll ask this again, now: what the hell does TERRORISM mean now? what/how is terrorism defined? is the lynching of blacks in the old south to be considered terrorism? was cross-burning terrorism? are school bullies terrorists? are union-busting bosses terrorists? how do i know i've been attacked by a terrorist.

to be continued.

"destroy all the stereotypes..." (KRS-One, lyrics "jack of spades")