Kudos to Drudge for finding this piece. Bin Laden is starting to mimic his brothers (or sons-in-law as the case may be) in the Taliban. On a more troubling note, I read an article about 6 months ago in the New Yorker that told of the author's travels in Iraq and meeting with various officials there. They actually believe there is a giant Jewish conspiracy that controls the West. I should note that the "they" is the small group of officials that the writer spoke with, and he did not characterize any others as feeling that way. Still, the belief is there. Makes me think of the scene in "So, I Married an Axe Murderer" when Charlie's father (both characters played by Mike Myers) explains to Charlie's best friend how everything in the world is controlled by a secret organization known as the Pentaveret. They meet tri-annually (I think) in a location in Colorado known as "the Meadow". The pentaverate is the Queen, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, and Colonel before he died.
- posted by levinson @ 9/28/2001 09:24:00 AM

 
No other way to say it, Ari making an ass out of himself:

"Americans ... need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is[.]"

Okay smart guy. You know what to go do with yourself.
- posted by levinson @ 9/27/2001 01:47:00 PM

 
Part of the way through Joe Klein's article in the New Yorker, "Closework." The main thrust I got in the beginning was that the approach used in Desert Storm which was followed during the 90's will no longer work. Instead, hindsight being what it is, what we should have, and should follow is the model of attack used in Panama. Stratfor pointed out (no link, sorry) that following the Panamanian model is difficult in the middle east since we don't have the troop build-up and friendly bases from which to launch the attack. However, it would seem that the key would be to establish several bases in the region that can be used effectively for the kind of simultaneous strike missions used in Panama. This would take a level of diplomatic tip-toeing that is beyond my grasp of the region's issues, but it seems to me a more viable long-term solution than rolling divisions in for sustained occupancy. The problem with the approach I suggest is that it may not cover the point I advocated earlier that the region needs a W.W.2-style nation re-building. The kind we didn't do in Afghanistan in the early 90's. I'm not sure it's possible for myriad small-strike forces to hold a country stable while operating in other countries. Here may be a use for the UN. If the US destabilizes a nation, the UN would need to step in to hold the fort while the people recover from oppression and set up their own stable government. A process of 5-10 years in some countries. Finally there is the Saddam issue which may not be solveable without a true invasion. The variable is the true military capability under his control.
- posted by levinson @ 9/27/2001 08:25:00 AM

 
A quick and dirty overview of why Americans don't know or care about foreign affairs. Unfortunately, I think this falls well short of the mark. There is an attempt to point to Americans as different from British or French. One point that this article raises that I have read elsewhere is that the people of (for example) Saudi Arabia feel, "America is (..) supporting the Saudi [regime] ... [t]he Saudis themselves feel that America is supposed to stand for democracy, yet here they are propping up the totally repressive government they live under as long as it supports their economic interests. Here's this huge power built on notions of freedom and democracy, yet they are living in an awful country with a terrible government and there's no American support for change there." The a nice little sound bite to wrap up and throw around, but it also ignores some serious logistical problems that the casual American is supposed to be unaware of, and yet the article does not address them. Is there an active group that is opposing the Saudi regime (politically, not militarily) and are there dynamic leaders that can seriously set up a workable democracy if the regime were marginalized? It's wonderful to say the US should help throw out the Saudi royal family (and perhaps it should), but if there's nothing to take its place, then what's the point? I think this is the central problem in Afghanistan right now. The Taliban needs to go for myriad reasons (not terrorism alone), but the government in exile (the United National Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan) that was in power before the Taliban is no treat either. Its mismanagement of the country is what led to the Taliban takeover. In the case of repressive regimes that we prop up, I would like to know if there are serious opponents that are in favor of democracy. If not, the US can't govern the countries and without a realistic alternative (not simply tossing out a repressive regime and seeing who comes to the top) it's not necessarily true that we would do more good than harm to throw out the royals. Having a viable alternative government is part of an effective entry strategy, not exit strategy.
- posted by levinson @ 9/27/2001 06:18:00 AM

 
Good stuff from Andrew Sullivan today on the lies told to us about why Air Force One was re-routed. The defending of that re-routing was always a bit odd as I never heard anyone question it, but I chalked it up to the inside-the-belt gossip that goes on.
- posted by levinson @ 9/26/2001 11:28:00 AM

 
Rob sent this in correction to my post below. An earlier op-ed by Neela Banerjee dealing with the oil issue.
- posted by levinson @ 9/26/2001 09:13:00 AM

 
Finally, it's in print. Someone calling a spade a spade. It takes an economist to attempt to point the media and the country toward the cause of the attack on the US. Oil money. While other in the media quibble with each other about who is more dangerous to the country*, Krugman gets to the nub of the issue and why it's such a problem to deal with. One needs to take actions that will prevent future acts of terrorism, while not destabilizing the region and putting the oil reserves of the world at further risk. Bin Laden knows this and is shrewdly exploiting the weaknesses of the region. Stratfor analyzes the US's options militarily.




*See below for my own flaming which I now look at as making as much sense as yelling at a dog for panting when it's hot. These people have no other point to their lives than to yell at each other. Even catastrophic events can't sway them from their obsession with each other. Their actions have shown just how irrelevant they are.
- posted by levinson @ 9/26/2001 07:15:00 AM

 
Salon attempts to tackle a rather large issue in one article today, and I think it misses the mark by a wide margin. They take up the question of the media ignoring the reasons behind the attacks. We have been told that hatred was the reason. Salon's says that this is not sufficient for an explanation. It produces a couple of people who note that the crux is the American hypocrisy in the region. After that there are comments about how we don't trust democracies in the region and try to keep our friendly dictators in power. To me this simply glosses the surface, and ignores more issues than it confronts. If we accept that America tries to keep its own friendly dictators in power (take the Shah of Iran for example), we must look at who their would-be ousters are and what motivates them. Certainly the examples of Iran and Afghanistan make clear that these ousters are not necessarily the freedom and democracy loving regimes Salon says are angry with us for suppressing such ideals in the region. Moreover, these regimes have been among the largest supporters of terrorism which specifically targets civilians. Finally, to ignore the allure of controlling the oil supply coming out of the region is just foolish. While it is nice that bin Laden talks of his anger that the US has troops in Saudi Arabia and that these infidels are a stain on holy Muslim lands, one can't help but wonder if he's actually upset that the American military presence prohibits him from mounting a coup the way the Ayatollah did in order to get control of one of the world's oil centers. It's fairly obivious that bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and Mughniyeh are not particularly religious men and use Islamic teachings to corrupt and manipulate, so why don't we take an honest look at their goals.
- posted by levinson @ 9/25/2001 09:08:00 AM

 
Jane's with an analysis of suicide airliner attacks. Why is it that the mass media is devoid of this kind of analysis? I think this kind of journalism would grab ratings as high as yet another report "live from ground zero."
- posted by levinson @ 9/24/2001 11:37:00 AM

 
The Taliban is starting to remind me of a compulsive liar that has been caught and starts saying myriad insane comments.

"It is unacceptable that America issues ultimatums to the Islamic world either to listen to America's message or accept destruction[.]" But guys, isn't that what you've been telling everyone in your country since 1996? Obey the Taliban or die. That's their MO. Women who show their ankles? They die. Men whose beards aren't long enough? Dead. I love it when groups start to lose it. Thanks for the sentiment you crackpots, now run for the hills while we install a normal government.
- posted by levinson @ 9/24/2001 09:58:00 AM

 
I don't think much of his reporting in general, but the excerpts from the Rumsfeld Memo that Wolf Blitzer includes in this story are quite interesting. The final paragraph suggests an issue that is quite complicated:

'Rumsfeld said that how the nations of the world respond to the U.S. effort will determine what kind of relationship they will have with the world's only superpower. "We have to accept that, given the importance of the cause," he said. "As a result, relationships and alliances will likely be rearranged over the coming years."'

It's the first I've seen of the government saying that whatever coalition is together at the beginning, it probably will be very different at the end. At once this is insightful since all of our actions will not please the entire world. It is also food for thought in that it may mean that the US will take its actions regardless of who, if anyone, supports it. Not having the whole memo, I can't say (and I find it unlikely that we would, at the outset, contemplate the possibility of acting totally unilaterally in the world's most conflicted region) but there are two quite distinct readings one can make of this part of the memo.
- posted by levinson @ 9/22/2001 02:41:00 PM

 
I have considerable trouble viewing bin Laden as on, "the level of Nikita Khrushchev or Joseph Stalin, as sort of leader of a contending super power and the only other one in the world besides the United States" as suggested by attorney David Bruck at the end of this article. It's a nice comparison for shock value, but once examined beyond his surface assertion, it becomes laughable. 30000 dissident fantatics spread through various 3rd world havens does not a super power make. Clearly dangerous, as we've witnessed, but not a world power.
- posted by levinson @ 9/22/2001 01:19:00 PM

 
There is accelation towards Iraq being fingered as the main attackers. The closer Imad Mughniyeh is linked to the WTC attacks, the closer we come to Iraqi intelligence. Among the most quotable snippets about Mughniyeh:

"Bin Laden is a schoolboy in comparison with Mughniyeh," the magazine quoted an Israeli source. "The guy is a genius, someone who refined the art of terrorism ... We studied him and reached the conclusion that he is a clinical psychopath motivated by uncontrollable psychological reasons."

See Salon's article which brings together the information written to date on Iraqi involvement. However, Mughniyeh is known as the leader of Hezbollah which has been harbored by Iran since the 80's. Any investigation into Mughniyeh will have to look long and hard at both Iran and Iraq. The former being his host and the latter his aide.
- posted by levinson @ 9/22/2001 10:51:00 AM

 
You can always count on the Post for sheer rage.
- posted by levinson @ 9/21/2001 09:24:00 AM

 
An appraisal of Andrew Sullivan's inexcusable rhetoric by Spinsanity. As they point out in calmer terms than I attempted to, his rhetoric is extremely dangerous especially in a democracy which prides itself on debate and the ability to dissent. The assertion that dissent from the US's course of action by its own people is tantamount to aiding the terrorists is unpatriotic in its most pure form. For once you determine that those who oppose the US's policy are terrorists themselves, you must decide what that policy is. Is policy whatever the president suggests?

A good center for this question is the attempt by Bob Novak to turn dissent into partisanship. Novak is no Sullivan and at this point is simply engaging in his own partisan bickering, but perhaps Sullivan can enlighten us daily as to what is and is not the US policy so that we might not mount a fifth column (commit treason) by voicing our opinions. Back to Novak, I got a kick out of his assertion that the partisans are hidering our effort because they don't support a tax cut to stimulate the economy. That's right Bob, since the last one was so effective. Even the democrats' rebate did next to nill. I wonder when the pundits will address the issue of long-term interest rates.
- posted by levinson @ 9/20/2001 07:10:00 AM

 
In another analysis on STRATFOR we find this paragraph:

"Suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and his people are prepared to work with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but they are no great fans of his. Hussein's roots are in secular, socialist, Arabist movements from the 1950s while bin Laden's roots are in religious, traditionalist, Islamic movements from the 1980s. If there was help, it did not stem from a particularly warm relationship."

I would love a breakdown of the two movements (and any others) that shape the dense political world of the Middle East. Therein lies the ability to frame the conflict in terms acceptable and understandable to the fractions and factions of the Islamic world. Not everyone can be appeased by the manner of terrorist fighting, but this kind of description is helpful to us civilians trying to understand what our democracy must deal with in the region.
- posted by levinson @ 9/19/2001 08:49:00 AM

 
Rob pointed me the STRATFOR last week and I've been enjoying their analysis. Here they give greater insight into Murabak's (Egyptian President) calling for a UN council. Apparently he has difficulty with fundamentalist movements in his own country and his hold on the goverment may be made more tenuous. Moderate people don't like dealing with fanatics because their logic is skewed and their issues are largely irrelevant to daily life. I hope the US will make it clear that we need strong, unwavering support from all moderate Muslims. They are the vast majority of the inhabitants of many of the countries with whom we are attempting to build a coalition. Just as these attacks have rallied support from the right and left in this country, those governments should rally their people by calling the hunting of terrorism essential to the safety of all Muslims. Only by addressing the issues in terms to which citizens can relate will this war be successful. Middle Eastern countries need to make it clear to their people that this conflict is not about religion and that those who attempt to make it so are attempting to turn trajedy to their own sick advantage. This is as fundamental to success as the military action. It's wonderful that governments warn that military force may be met badly in the area, but their responsibility (if they support anti-terrorist campaigns) is to rally their people to support the cause and push the fanatics to the side. Terrorists cannot operate without shadows, and the greater light brought to the table by the true Muslims, the smaller those shadows will become and the easier the terrorist movement will be to crush.

It sounds strange, but what we need is a militant moderate.
- posted by levinson @ 9/19/2001 08:41:00 AM

 
It would seem the same old attitude is emerging amongst the leaders around the world. 1) They'd like to lecture us about how our efforts to wipe out terrorism must be humane and spare civilians. 2) They'll help us, but only if we line their corrupt pockets since they are totally inept at leading their countries effectively. All of this should be rejected by W. France has shown time and again that they are totally unwilling to seriously work at solving world problems. Chirac said he's wary of using the word "war". If a plane flew into Notre Dame, do you think he'd say the same thing? China now seems to feel the need to call world leaders and tell them to tell the US how to combat terrorism. Thanks guys, worry about your own human rights violations, when we want help oppressing our people we'll call you for advice. Both Jiang ("President" of China) and Mubarak (President of Egypt) think we should work only with "hard evidence" and that "countries not be punished" for the actions of "individuals." See, guys, the point is that the countries that harbor terrorists either physically or financially are as guilty as the terrorists. That's the point to a war on terrorism. It's not just about finding people hiding in caves. You have to knock out their ability to move. Moving and planning take both physical and financial resources.

Finally, when has a UN Council on actually accomplished anything. This is a genuine question. I'm sure it has, but I don't know when. The UN is a wonderful institution, but it has been handcuffed by corrupt nations who want nothing more than to distract the world from the problems in their own countries. They are happier to bash the US's problems and call it names. Before the UN throws its hat into this ring, it needs to reevaluate its own mechanisms and its functionary abilities.
- posted by levinson @ 9/19/2001 07:42:00 AM

 
The only thing I don't like about this article is the bit about Alexander being beat back in Afghanistan. Alexander's conquering of the world (such as it was) is one of the greatest and most distorted stories in human history. He wasn't beaten back in Afghanistan, he conquered all of it and moved on into India. His wife, Roxanne, was Afghani and came from Balkh which stood near the modern city of Mazar-i-Sharif. Why did he take her as his wife? Among other things, he had just killed her father, the king of Bactra (the name of the entire region). I realize the press likes to aggrandize everything about our current enemies, but I feel the need to correct this bit as I know the history.

On a side note, I don't think Genghis Kahn was stopped at Afghanistan either. I'm pretty sure his empire went from the middle of Russia, over to Poland, down to the Gulf of India and all the way to the Pacific (though not Japan). And while it's true that the Soviets were beaten back, it's not as though the Afghani's didn't have the help of another certain world Superpower.

Some day, perhaps, the media will get it together.
- posted by levinson @ 9/18/2001 10:19:00 AM

 
Going back a bit, I found a quote from Andrew Sullivan (yes the same one I lash out at below) that I think embodies the attitudes of our enemies. The quote is in reference to the continued attempts at and breakdowns of peace in Northern Ireland:

"You cannot negotiate peace with people whose power is entirely dependent on the will to wage war. This is anathema to many Americans steeped in the banality that peace talks are always better than no talks, that ancient conflicts can always be solved by the right facilitator. But the IRA's refusal to disarm is no mystery. War is its rationale. If power really were negotiated and shared, the IRA would be supplanted by moderate Republicans who would, by their very involvement in an Ulster government, legitimize continued British sovereignty. Why should a group that has gained everything it has through violence and murder, and whose raison d'�tre is implacable hostility to any British presence, ever decide that politics is a useful alternative? It's like asking turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving. They can't. They won't. And real peace won't break out until they do. "

This is the attitude of our enemies. They are on the fringes of society, but many have wrested control of governments in deprived countries. The only way they remain in power is through violence and oppression. The Taliban has no interest in peace with the US and welcomes this opportunity to inflame the fringes of society throughout the world. There are internal battles within other Arab countries that could threaten the coalition Bush is trying to create against terrorism, and the Taliban hopes to disrupt those countries enough that they become distracted from the goal. Moreover, the Taliban knows that the goal of destroying terrorism means destroying their terrorist control on Afghanistan. They hate the concepts of freedom and tolerance, the latter (I think) more than the former since it allows for views other than their religious fanatacism. This war will be a test for tolerant peoples to remain unified against intolerant regimes. Tolerant people are skeptical and are mindful of other points of view. There will be cries for mercy as terrorism is hunted and unfortunately, for the good of humanity those cries may have to be ignored.

In looking at Sullivan's site, I begin to understand that he may have a specific definition of the "decadent Left" of which (not reading him often) I am not aware. This attack has aroused all of our passions, and it is easy to read one's own meanings into text without contemplating the author's meaning. This has become common practice in American political debate, but there are those that try rise above this kind of induction. It will take more reading of Sullivan's archives to come to a better understanding of the "decadent Left", but I suspect (having read him over the past couple of months) he means a specific fraction of the left rather than the broader right vs. left distinctions. That being said, it continues to strike me as an awfully strident denunciation of a fraction of the American democrats in the face of an assault on the country that has never been seen. Reactions may surprise all of us.
- posted by levinson @ 9/18/2001 08:55:00 AM

 
Bush is hitting all the right notes at this point. Visiting the Islamic center was important and showed that he continues to grow as a leader. The "dead or alive" bit showed he's still the W we know, but he is certainly both focused and effective on the terrorism front.
- posted by levinson @ 9/18/2001 07:41:00 AM

 
Still trying to work out the Sullivan piece, because he's usually a level-headed guy, though I don't agree with him all the time. He's a senior editor at the New Republic and has been a strong member of the center-liberal coalition through the Clinton years (don't know about before then because I wasn't really paying attention). He astutely draws a picture of the country, but seems to go out of his way to take an extremely unwarranted and divisive swipe at the Gore voters. Essentially he sets aside a paragraph to give his opinion that he is suspicious of the centers of population, finance, manufacturing, politics and education and that he feels they could subvert the efforts of the "great red zone" (I think "great" here means large, not spectacular) to combat terrorists, all the while living in the cities which are and will remain the targets of terrorist attacks. Like it or not, when foreigners think of America, they think of its "alabaster cities", and not the "fruited plane". The threat to the terrorists is not in the central regions of the country, but on the coasts and will continue to be. Rob and I talked about the piece and he took away a very different feel than I did, but after going back, I feel stronger than I did about this paragraph essentially staining the article. Sullivan may be thinking of the protests during Vietnam as a fifth column, but to even use the term would be to understand the difference between the two. Once again you're left with political vitriol as the root of his using the term. One can make a case that without the left, America can't win a war. Coincidentally, that is also the part that is the most skeptical and wary of going to war, as it is their lives that are most in danger. Moreover, that fraction of the public has shown that it will not be bullied or intimidated by its political opponents. There are other issues I have with the article, but that paragraph remains the crux of it.

Main Entry: fifth column
Function: noun
Etymology: name applied to rebel sympathizers in Madrid in 1936 when four rebel columns were advancing on the city
Date: 1936
: a group of secret sympathizers or supporters of an enemy that engage in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or national borders
- posted by levinson @ 9/18/2001 07:31:00 AM

 
1. Stick save and a beauty. The Taliban ducks its responsibility as a government (however illegitimate it is) and passes the buck to a council.

2. If the proposed council was attacked by terrorists, would they understand that military action is needed? I doubt it.
- posted by levinson @ 9/17/2001 09:46:00 AM

 
Back on the investigative front, there is this report about the assination of the Taliban's chief opposition in Afghanistan. Of course, it's hard to sort out whether or not this was related since the country is also fighting a civil war. Again, I wonder if bin Laden could have plotted both to assassinate Massoud and attack the US at the same time.

James Woolsey is also doubtful of bin Laden being the chief architect.
- posted by levinson @ 9/17/2001 09:37:00 AM

 
As a direct contrast to those calling for a more peaceful response than what will ultimately be enacted, we have Andrew Sullivan.

"The terrorists have done the rest. The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for Bush - is clearly ready for war. The decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount a fifth column."

Here we have a man who feels compelled less than a week after the two largest buildings in the world are destroyed to start drawing political lines around the country. He predicts the reactions of the country will fall along the lines of who voted for whom in November. He assumes we're all as pathetically programmed as he is. All of us are mindless drones spouting ideology fed to us, lacking thought and devoid of analysis.

Sullivan tells us, "America has never been wealthier, and is at the end of one of the biggest booms in its history." Why is it wealthy you fool? Where is the wealth? Where are the factories that will build the arms for your, "US military presence in the Middle East [to] be ramped up rapidly, its intelligence overhauled, its vigilance heightened." They are in the cities. The blue cities. Where are the people that will enlist in the army and fight the terror? Where are the homes that, "the barbarians who would annihilate every Jew on the planet" will attack? They are in the cities of America, on the coasts. East and West. North and South. In the blue regions that Sullivan now calls decadent. Apparently those of us 8 million who now walk to work in fear every day are decadent. We who were assaulted and lost our friends and family, who watched from blocks (not hundreds of miles) away as the Twin Towers collapsed, WE are the weak, the decadent, the shy.

WE WILL BE THE FIFTH COLUMN?????????????

Crawl back in your sewer you unpatriotic swine. We Americans have a job to do. We have to right the ship and sail it into danger. We don't wait for your company because you will run and hide, you will wait for instructions to spew your divisive filth. You, Falwell, Robertson and your ilk will not join the fight, will not build our arms or fight our battles. You will hide in your enclaves and opine whether we are righteous enough. When we have made the world safe again for people like you, we'll let you know. Until then just sit quietly and wait for instructions. Don't bother attempting to be patriotic, it insults those of us that are on the front lines, that are the targets.
- posted by levinson @ 9/17/2001 09:24:00 AM

 
I read these opinion pieces that will come out more and more in the days and years ahead and wonder whether we, as a country, are happier with the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan or those of Germany, Italy and Japan. Most have been set up and aided by the US government. It is clear that what is required in these countries is the tearing down of the culture of oppression and anger (which was prevalent in both Germany and Italy prior to World War II) as well as the destruction of feudal governmental structures (the previous government of Japan). The point that I think needs to be made is that we must wage war on terrorism and all its allies. Afghanistan and Iraq currently harbor, encourage and finance terrorists. They must declare now whether or not they will continue this practice further. In coming out against terrorism, they must turn over or aid in the hunting of any and all terrorists in their countries. I tend to agree with the Taliban that bin Laden could not have been behind these attacks (I think they are beyond his capabilities), but that does not change the fact that he is an unremitting terrorist. He wears it as a badge of honor and both him and his organizations must be brought down. Governments that harbor or remain silent on terrorism must also be brought down. The culture must be changed totally. There will be civilian and military casualties. People that don't deserve to die will be killed and the anger against the US in these regions will increase. However, that anger is fueled by a fanatical culture whose only goal is continued violence to remain in power. That culture has made war on the US. We have tried to avoid making war in retaliation in the past. Unfortunately we don't have a choice any more.
- posted by levinson @ 9/14/2001 07:01:00 AM

 
An interesting analysis from William Safire on what was happening in the White House during the attacks. Most disturbing, and telling, is that the threat to Air Force One was given using codes that identified the terrorist behind the attacks as aware of US procedure with A.F. 1. This further suggests the Intelligence operations of a country, or countries.
- posted by levinson @ 9/13/2001 08:35:00 AM

 
A story from the World Tribune saying that Israeli Intelligence thinks Iraq was behind the attacks using members of bin Laden's and other cells.
- posted by levinson @ 9/13/2001 08:21:00 AM

 
I should correct something from the long post below. Bin Laden is thought to have assisted the truck bomb that exploded under the World Trade Center in 1993. If true, that represents the furthest he's ever reached and does show a willingness to attack the US on its own soil. I maintain, however, that attacking by use of four commercial jet-liners taking off from three cities nearly simultaneously and attacking specific structures is far out of his reach.
- posted by levinson @ 9/13/2001 08:17:00 AM

 
A profile of bin Laden from 1998. The furthest he has ever been thought to reach is into France, and then only once. Simply not his M.O. These attacks are far beyond his capabilities.
- posted by levinson @ 9/13/2001 08:12:00 AM

 
The official story that seems to be shaping is that Osama bin Laden is, in ways yet to be clarified, behind the attacks. Personally I find this very hard to believe. I believe that if he were asked, he would lend his support to the attack, but I think it is beyond his cognitive and financial capabilities. The attacks that are possibly linked to him are small and use vehicles to transport bombs. Also, his targets have been in regions close to his base and in countries that have had past acts of terrorism. Making the leap from this kind of terrorism to multi-city attacks that took months to recruit, plan, and execute including infiltrating two airlines and three airports simultaneously, all while staying under US Intelligence radar is, to me, too far for one man to go. Like all criminals he has a Modus Operandi, including scope and scale of operation, and he does not deviate from it. This was an attack sponsored by a country using its own intelligence operations that had knowledge of the US's operations. The soldiers may have come from bin Laden's circle, but they were recruited into a different army to fight a different kind of war. Hunt him down for the sake of the headlines if you wish, but there is something far more sinister at work here than a lunatic living in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan planning his next car-bomb attack. Make no mistake that it was a country, a current or former enemy of the US, that planned this attack using mercenaries from the comparably petty forms of past terrorism.
- posted by levinson @ 9/13/2001 08:05:00 AM

 
The range of emotions on a day like this in NYC are largely beyond description. Lying down to go to sleep less than a mile from the destruction of the World Trade Center, trying to search through the memories and reflecting on the feelings of today. Nearly in tears many many times as I saw the rescue vehicles speeding to the rubble. Smelling the burning buildings as I walked home. Still now after midnight hearing sirens three blocks away heading in and out of the destruction. The best way to communicate between myself and my family today was using the internet. Both e-mail and Instant Messenger as the phone lines were either jammed or unreliable in the early hours of the destruction. On a national level, wondering which state put up the funding and the resources for the terrorist attacks. Anger and pride. A desire to devote the next few years to rebuilding the WTC and the area around. Also waiting for the "official story" to come out. Listening to the frantic spinning and bullshit already being spewed out of Fox News (and others, that's just the channel on right now) as the historic story is shaped and the truth is quickly brushed under the rug.

I have been most filled with pride with the citizens and the officials of New York City as they rushed to provide whatever aid they could. Going to give blood and being turned away until tomorrow since the centers were already totally filled with people giving the little help they could. Also the policemen and firefighters who are working tirelessly and those that have lost their lives in rescuing those that could be saved as the towers literally collapsed around them. Living in NYC and loving architecture, a fundamental part of my life has changed profoundly.

This is the greatest city in the world and we will rise from these ashes, walk forward, mourn our dead, bear these scars and defy the swine that would bring us low, have us live in fear and force us to rebuke all that and those we work with and for to build slowly, with our shames and our vitcories, the greatest hope for humanity that has ever sprung from the ideas of man and the loins of the earth.

This is not the first nor will it be the last attack upon the United States. I will go loudly into tomorrow's great dawn.


- posted by levinson @ 9/11/2001 09:27:00 PM

 
I saw the original Drudge item referenced in this story, and now both Fox and Drudge are citing Trudeau's apology. Here it is: "The creator deeply apologizes for unsettling anyone who was under the impression that the President is, in fact, quite intelligent[.]" Yep, sounds like he's sorry. I still find it funny that both Drudge and Fox are such pathetic cheerleaders that they have stooped to covering a daily cartoon. I'm not sure it rises to the level of sad. Keep up the good work guys.

Pathetic slobs.
- posted by levinson @ 9/06/2001 01:42:00 PM