Remove Rush Limbaugh from American Forces Radio

Source: PetitionOnline.com
May 27, 2004

Click here to SIGN THIS PETITION

To: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

We request that Secretary Rumsfeld remove talk radio host Rush Limbaugh from the American Forces Radio and Television Service (formerly known as Armed Forces Radio). Mr. Limbaugh, whose program is broadcast for one hour per day to U.S. troops overseas, has spent the past four weeks condoning and trivializing the abuse, torture, rape and possible murder of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. guards at the Abu Ghraib prison—gross misconduct that you have described as “fundamentally un-American.”

In recent weeks, Rush Limbaugh has: Compared the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib to a fraternity initiation; called the abuse “brilliant” and “effective”; said the guards were just “having a good time” and “blow[ing] some steam off”; likened the abuse to “a Britney Spears or Madonna concert … [or] the MTV music awards”; compared pictures of the abuse to “good old American pornography”; and said “the reaction to the stupid torture is an example of the feminization of this country.”

Limbaugh’s radio program is broadcast to American troops via the American Services Network, a taxpayer-funded radio and television broadcasting agency that reaches nearly 1 million US troops in more than 175 countries, including Iraq.

Both Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush have rightly denounced the acts that took place at Abu Ghraib – but American service men and women abroad are getting the wrong message when the Department of Defense simultaneously broadcasts Limbaugh’s condoning of what Secretary Rumsfeld has called “fundamentally un-American” acts. Limbaugh’s comments directly contradict orders issued by the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq -- which, according to the Washington Post, bar “military interrogators from using the most coercive techniques available to them in the past” -- thus undermining the military’s chain of command. The comments may also inflame anti-American sentiment abroad, putting our service men and women at risk.

In addition, as Media Matters for America detailed in a May 2 report, Meet the New Rush, Same as the Old Rush, Mr. Limbaugh has recently made several racially-charged and sexist remarks on his broadcast. For example, Mr. Limbaugh said on April 26 that women who protest sexual harassment “actually wish” to be sexually harassed. And on March 26, Mr. Limbaugh said, “A Chavez is a Chavez. These people have always been a problem.” Given the extraordinary importance of troop morale and unity during this time of conflict, we ask Secretary Rumsfeld to review whether it is appropriate for the U.S. government to broadcast such messages, which may sow seeds of discord in the ranks.

We, the undersigned, ask Secretary Rumsfeld to order the American Services Network to cease broadcasting Rush Limbaugh’s radio program immediately, before he further undermines the military’s command structure and endangers our troops.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Click here to SIGN THIS PETITION

Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' wins Cannes top prize

Source: Financial Times
By Joyce Dundas in Cannes
May 23 2004

Michael Moore's thought-provoking documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 won the top prize, the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival on Saturday, the awards being announced a day early this year.

The film had already attracted the most media attention in the Cannes competition before it even made it to the Croisette, with production company Miramax saying that parent company Disney would not release the film in the US; though Optimum will release it in the UK and it has been sold in several other territories.

The controversy surrounding the winning film has commanded almost as many column inches as the film's graphic images of prisoners' torture or its allegations of dealings between two generations of the Bush and Bin Laden clans.

The film is the first documentary to win the prestigious award since Jacques Cousteau's The Silent World in 1956.

Moore dedicated the award to his 22-year-old daughter and "to all those in the world who suffer from our actions". He said he is sure that the award will ensure that the people of America will get to see the film.

Old Boy, the other hotly-tipped movie full of the violent subject matter thought likely to appeal to jury president Quentin Tarantino, took the second spot, the Grand Prix, for South Korean director Park Chan-Wook.

Maggie Cheung took best actress in Clean. Directed by Olivier Assayas, the movie deals with a drug-addicted mother's struggle to get her son back from her in-laws.

Best actor went to 12-year-old Yagiru Yuuya for Daremo Shiranai (Nobody Knows). The child actor had to leave Cannes to take exams at school and director Hirokazu Kore-Eda picked up the award on his behalf: "I just telephoned him to tell him the good news, and he was very happy. He thinks he failed his exam, but he hopes that with this prize, his teacher might be more understanding."

It is a testament to Cannes that these original, thought-provoking films, one of them a documentary, should take the prizes in another year where the Hollywood marketing machine is touting a raft of unoriginal product.

The huge 20ft-high placards covering the outside of the famous Carlton Hotel advertise the sequel Shrek 2, remakes The Manchurian Candidate and Stepford Wives and box-office hit Mean Girls, which critics have described as a new version of Heathers.

Of particular interest was a corner devoted to Donkey Xote - donkeys are big this year reflecting the success of Eddie Murphy's fun character in Shrek - which would break Terry Gilliam's heart as he still struggles to fund his original Don Quixote script, The Man from La Mancha.

Rumours on the Croisette have Miramax boss Harvey Weinstein planning to buy his company back from Disney, which could make Michael Eisner's position at the head of that company untenable. To lose Miramax and Pixar from his stable in the same year would give Eisner's enemies, including those on the Disney board, strong leverage in their calls for his removal.

Weinstein himself added fuel to the rumour by making loaded comments at the American Foundation for Aids Research (amfAR) Cinema Against Aids dinner on Thursday.

As joint-host of the event he joked that during the celebrity auction he may need someone to bid to pay his next salary and also claimed he had his resume with him, prompting many to comment that it was unlikely to be Weinstein who would be looking for a job.

The Palme d'Or winner is being screened at a celebratory gala during Sunday's closing ceremony with the jury, which included Kathleen Turner and Tilda Swinton, paying tribute to film maker Moore in a special red-carpet event.

The full list of winners can be found at www.festival-cannes.fr

Report: Rapid arctic thaw portends warming (re: Global Warming)

Source: CNN
May 26, 2004

Scientists report Arctic ice fields are retreating at an alarming pace.

OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- Global warming is hitting the Arctic more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet in what may be a portent of wider, catastrophic changes, the chairman of an eight-nation study said Monday.

"There is dramatic climate change happening in the Arctic right now ... about 2 to 3 times the pace of the whole globe," said Robert Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, an 1,800-page report to be handed to ministers in Iceland in November.

The melting is destabilizing buildings on permafrost and threatening an oil pipeline laid across Alaska.

Inuit hunters are also reportedly falling more frequently through the thinning ice and the habitats for plants and animals have been disrupted.

The benefits for human commerce might accrue from opening up of a now largely icebound short-cut sea route from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Russia might also win easier access to oil and gas as the icecap shrinks and permafrost retreats.

The Arctic reacts most to global warming, blamed largely on emissions of gases like carbon dioxide from fossil fuels in cars and factories, partly because dark-colored water or earth, once exposed, soaks up heat far faster than white ice or snow.

"If you want to know what the rest of the planet is going to see in next generation, watch out for the Arctic in the next 5 to 10 years," said Corell. The ACIA report combines input from scientists, indigenous peoples and eight Arctic rim nations.

Some parts of Alaska have heated up 10 times more than the global average, said Corell, a senior fellow at the American Meteorological Society. Future temperature rises in the Arctic were likely to be twice the 1.4-5.8 Celsius (3-11 F) gain by 2100 forecast by a U.N.-led panel of scientists, he said.

Kyoto questions
"I think (climate change) can be stopped but we will need an aggressive response," Corell said. Global climate change may bring everything from disastrous floods or droughts to a rise in global sea levels that could swamp low-lying Pacific islands.

But environmentalists doubt that governments will decide strong action based on the ACIA report because the United States has pulled out of the U.N.'s Kyoto protocol, the main international scheme to tackle climate change.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that he favored ratifying Kyoto, which has already been backed by the other six Arctic rim nations -- Canada, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Denmark.

"The (ACIA) report underlines how critical it is that we take action as soon as possible, first under Kyoto, to reduce emissions and invest in renewable energy," said Samantha Smith, director of the Arctic Program at the World Wide Fund for Nature.

Among signs of change in the Nordic region, birch trees were taking over traditional reindeer lichen pastures, Corell said. The reindeer had to compete with elk and red deer moving north.

Corell said that the sea route between the Pacific and the Atlantic via the Arctic could open far earlier than expected by most previous studies, cutting shipping times compared to routes via the Suez or Panama canals.

"On average our models show that by 2050 the Northern Sea Route will be open about 100 days a year. Now it's open about 20 days," he said.

Guilty For 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers

Source: www.tenc.net
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel
[Posted 14 November 2001]

Dedicated to the firemen of New York.

Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon.

On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city.

The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed.

Air Force officials and others have tried to explain away the failures:

"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'" --'Newsday,' 23 September, 2001

Using information from the mass media and official Websites, we will show that this is lie.

Some of what happened on 9-11, such as planes flying into buildings, is unusual. But most of what happened, such as commercial jets flying off-course, transponder failures and possible hijackings, are common emergencies. We will show that these emergencies are routinely handled with expert efficiency based on clear rules.

The crash of the first hijacked jet into the World Trade Center made it clear the United States was faced with an extraordinary situation. This should have intensified the emergency responses of the air safety and defense systems.

The whole country was aware. For example, at 9:06 AM the NY Police broadcast:

" 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon.'"

--'Daily News' (New York) 12 September 2001 (1)

'American Forces Press Service' reported that ordinary people working at the Pentagon worried they could be next:

"'We were watching the World Trade Center on the television,' said a Navy officer. 'When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'"

--'DEFENSELINK News', Sept. 13, 2001 (2)

U.S. air safety and air defense emergency systems are activated in response to problems every day. On 9-11 they failed despite, not because of, the extreme nature of the emergency. This could only happen if individuals in high positions worked in a coordinated way to make them fail.

Such operatives would almost surely have failed if they tried to disrupt and abort routine protection systems without top-level support. The failure of the emergency systems would be noticed immediately. Moreover, given the catastrophic nature of the attacks, the highest military authorities would be alerted. Acting on their own, the operatives could expect that their orders would be countermanded and that they themselves would be arrested.

The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command. This includes at least U.S. President George Bush, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers.

In the following summary of evidence we will demonstrate probable cause for charging the above-named persons with treason for complicity in the murders of thousands of people whom they had sworn to protect.

The summary of evidence covers the following areas:

* Andrews Air Force Base and the myth of 'no available planes;'

* The air safety/air defense systems and the myth that they were not prepared;

* The actions of George Bush on 9-11 that clearly violated his positive legal and constitutional obligations and demonstrated consciousness of guilt;

* The testimony of General Richard B. Myers at Senate hearings on his nomination as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In these hearings, the contents of which were reported accurately by one lone journalist, General Myers attempted to cover up what had happened 9-11 when he was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He offered three mutually contradictory cover stories and demonstrated consciousness of guilt;

* The cover story floated by CBS evening news, September 14th. Until that time, officials reported that no planes had been 'scrambled' to intercept the hijacked planes. But following Gen. Myers disastrous Senate testimony, CBS broadcast an improved version of 9-11. In the new script, fighter jets from Otis and Langley Air Force Bases did try, but failed, to intercept the hijacked planes. This is now presented as the official NORAD story and has been repeated uncritically by media and government officials alike. We will demonstrate that this cover story is both weak and incriminating.

SECTION ONE: Why did no fighter jets 'scramble' to protect Washington D.C.?

LIE #1: 'NO COMBAT READY FIGHTERS WERE STATIONED NEAR THE PENTAGON'

As noted, Andrews Air Force base is 10 miles from the Pentagon. The media has mainly avoided talking about Andrews. An exception is 'USA Today,' the second-highest circulation newspaper in America. On one day it published two contradictory stories to explain the failure to scramble jets from Andrews prior to the Pentagon crash:

FIRST 'USA TODAY' STORY:

"Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed." --'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001 (3)

SECOND 'USA TODAY' STORY:

"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed." --'USA TODAY' September 17, 2001 (4)

Both stories are false.

Only one newspaper told the truth. That was the 'San Diego Union-Tribune':

"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.

"But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..."

--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (5)

Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It hosts two 'combat-ready' squadrons:

* the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters;

* the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped F/A-18 fighters.

These squadrons are served by hundreds of full-time personnel.

THE 121st FIGHTER SQUADRON, 113th FIGHTER WING

"Éas part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Colombia. [They] are full partners with the active Air Force"

--DC Military (6)

THE 321st MARINE FIGHTER ATTACK SQUADRON (VMFA-321)

"In the best tradition of the Marine Corps, a 'few good men and women' support two combat-ready reserve units at Andrews AFB.

"Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 321, a Marine Corps Reserve squadron, flies the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet. Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 49, Detachment A, provides maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness. "

--DC Military (6)

So Andrews AFB had at least two 'combat-ready' squadrons.

The above quotes are from www.dcmilitary.com, a private Website authorized by the military to provide information for members of the armed forces. We discovered it 24 September. A month later we found that the address had been changed and the Andrews information posted in the smallest type size. Similarly, the official Andrews AFB Website has been 'down' since mid-September. Fortunately, it can be accessed by going to www.archive.org and entering www.andrews.af.mil .

On the Andrews main page, front and center there is a direct link to DC Military. The information on the Andrews Website confirms the information on DC military. We urge everyone to check these links and download the pages as soon as possible because they may be moved or removed yet again. For Andrews, go to www.archive.org and then enter www.andrews.af.mil

Our research has been carried out mainly by volunteers. Newspapers and TV news departments have full-time research staffs. The important media have bureaus in Washington DC, just a few miles from the Andrews airbase. Why haven't newspapers and TV news programs reported the truth: that Andrews job was to protect DC?

This failure is especially striking because some media did report that fighters scrambled from Andrews, but only after the Pentagon was hit. Thus they were aware that Andrews was supposed to defend D.C.:

For example:

" Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."

--'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 16 September 2001 (7)

And:

"WASHINGTON - Éan audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon. Terrorism suddenly was at the doorstep and clearly visible through the big glass windows overlooking the Potomac River. Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and cross-crossed the skiesÉ

"A thick plume of smoke was climbing out of the hollow center of the Pentagon. Everyone on the train understood what had happened moments before."

--'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001 (8)

And:

"It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC."

--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001 (9)

The media should have demanded to know the truth about why fighter jets assigned to protect Washington didn't scramble an hour BEFORE the Pentagon was hit.

Besides fighters, tanker planes and AWACS were also readily available.(An AWACS is a flying communication center equipped with radar which can scan at least 250 miles. This is almost the full distance from the West-Virginia/Ohio/Kentucky border, where American Air Flight 77 turned around before flying back to DC.) Both General Myers and Vice President Cheney admit that these planes did not go into the air over Washington until after the Pentagon was hit.

Here is General Myers, testifying 13th September:

"When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked."

--Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation hearing 13 September 2001 (10)

And Richard Cheney on 'Meet the Press:

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.

"MR. RUSSERT: And you decided?'

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time." --NBC, 'Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) 16 September 2001 (11)

As we shall see, Mr. Cheney's statement that "the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft" is a lie. Publicly available FAA documents prove that fighter jets routinely intercept commercial aircraft under certain designated circumstances without requiring or asking for approval from the White House.

Summary of evidence is CONTINUED IN PART II

FOOTNOTES:

(1) 'Daily News' (New York), 12 September 2001, Wednesday, NEWS SECTION; Pg. 24: 'THE TRAGIC TIMELINE The sad events of the day.' the full text is available at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dn912.htm

(2) 'DEFENSELINK News,' "It Was Business as Usual, Then 'Boom'" By Jim Garamone, 'American Forces Press Service,' Sept. 13, 2001 http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09132001_200109132.html Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/def.htm

(3) 'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001, Pg. 5A, "Military now a presence on home front," by Andrea Stone. Web version is at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/military-home-front.htm Backup at: http:/.emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/usa-1.htm

(4) 'USA TODAY,' September 17, 2001 Monday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 5A, "Shoot-down order issued on morning of chaos," by Jonathan Weisman, WASHINGTON Web version is at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/pentagon-timeline.htm Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/usa2.htm

(5) 'San Diego Union-Tribune,' 12 September 2001 Homepage at: http://www.signonsandiego.com Article at: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego/main/document.html? QDesc=&FMTS=FT&QVPID=&FrameName=&QCPP=&QIID=00000008 0620146&FMT=FT Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/sd.htm

(6) As of 14 November 2001, the active link is: http://www.dcmilitary.com/baseguides/airforce/andrews/partnerunits.html Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dcmil.htm

(7) 'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 16 September 2001 Article at: http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/ wcia16.xml Backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/tel16.htm

(8) 'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001 To view this article on the Web, search for Article ID: 1075896 on: http://www.denverpost.com Or look at backup at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dp11.htm

(9) 'NBC Nightly News,' "Attack on America," (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001, "Tuesday President Bush returns to White House on Marine One," Anchor: Tom Brokaw, Jim Miklaszewski reporting. See transcript at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbc911cover.htm

(10) Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation hearing 13 September 2001 Full text at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/mycon.htm This particular quotation was also reprinted by many mainstream media sources.

(11) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001. Full transcript at: http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/629714.asp?cp1=1 Backup transcript at: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm

Carter's Crusade: Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.

By Ayelish McGarvey Web Exclusive
April 5, 2004

Former President Jimmy Carter, America's first evangelical Christian president, still teaches Sunday school at his Baptist church in Plains, Georgia, and he and his wife, Rosalynn, continue their human-rights work in developing nations through the Carter Center at Emory University. In recent months, the Carters toured Togo, Ghana, and Mali to raise awareness of the public-health needs of those nations. In February, Carter spoke about the role of evangelical Christianity in democratic politics with Prospect writing fellow Ayelish McGarvey.

Q. Republicans have been extremely successful at connecting religion and values to issues like the fight against terrorism, abortion, and gay rights. Democrats have been far less adept at infusing our issues -- compassion, help for the poor, social justice -- with any sense of religious commitment or moral imperative. Why do you thiink that is?

A. When I was younger, almost all Baptists were strongly committed on a theological basis to the separation of church and state. It was only 25 years ago when there began to be a melding of the Republican Party with fundamentalist Christianity, particularly with the Southern Baptist Convention. This is a fairly new development, and I think it was brought about by the abandonment of some of the basic principles of Christianity.

First of all, we worship the prince of peace, not war. And those of us who have advocated for the resolution of international conflict in a peaceful fashion are looked upon as being unpatriotic, branded that way by right-wing religious groups, the Bush administration, and other Republicans.

Secondly, Christ was committed to compassion for the most destitute, poor, needy, and forgotten people in our society. Today there is a stark difference (between conservative ideology and Christian teaching] because most of the people most strongly committed to the Republican philosophy have adopted the proposition that help for the rich is the best way to help even poor people (by letting some of the financial benefits drip down to those most deeply in need). I would say there has been a schism drawn -- on theology and practical politics and economics between the two groups.

Q. What has attracted conservative Christians to a party that protects corporate interests and promotes an aggressive foreign-policy agenda? How do those square?

A. There is an element of fundamentalism involved, which involves the belief on the part of a human being that [his or her] own concept of God is the proper one. And since [he or she has] the proper concept of God, [he or she is] particularly blessed and singled out for special consideration above and beyond those who disagree with [him or her].

Secondly, anyone who does disagree with [him or her], since [he or she is] harnessed to God in a unique way, then, by definition, must be wrong. And the second step is if you are in disagreement with [his or her] concept of the way to worship, even among the Christian community, is that you are inferior to [him or her]. And then the ultimate progression of that is that you're not only different and wrong and inferior but in some ways you are subhuman. So there's a loss of concern even for the death of those who disagree. And this takes fundamentalism to the extreme. This is an element of the fundamentalist cause in this country. If you are a wealthy white man, then you are naturally inclined to think that the poor are inferior and don't deserve your first consideration. If you are a wealthy white man, then you also take on the proposition that women are inherently inferior. This builds up a sense of prejudice and alienation that permeates the Christian right during these days.

Q. What issues do you see galvanizing moderate evangelicals as they go to the polls in November?

A. I've been involved in national politics now for more than 25 years. But this year we will see the Democratic Party more united than ever before in my memory, and even the earlier history that I studied before my life began. I think we're completely united with a determination to replace the Bush administration and its fundamentalist, right-wing philosophy with the more moderate qualities that have always exemplified what our nation is: a nation committed to strength in the military. I served longer in the military than any other president since the Civil War except Dwight Eisenhower. I was a submarine officer. I used the enormous and unmatched strength of America to promote peace for other people and preserve peace for ourselves.

Now it seems as though it is an attractive thing in Washington to resort to war in the very early stage of resolving an altercation; a completely unnecessary war that President Bush decided to launch against the Iraqis is an example of that. And I think that a reaction against that warlike attitude on the part of America to the exclusion of almost all other nations in the world -- and arousing fear in them -- is going to be a driving issue.

I think that the abandonment of environmental issues even endorsed by President Nixon when I was governor (as well as virtually all of the Republicans and Democrats) has been notable under the Bush administration. One of the things I learned as a young Baptist boy was to be a steward of the world that God blessed us to enjoy. And I think the abandonment of basic environmental standards by the Bush administration rallies us.

And I think the third thing is the obvious orientation of the Bush administration toward Halliburton, Enron, and other major corporations. You see this in the enormous tax reductions that have been granted to people that make more than $200,000 a year. That is another issue on which the Democrats will rally a common goal.

Q. Do you think that Democrats will be able to attract Bible-believing Christians in a year that gay marriage will be used as a smokescreen to distract attention from those issues?

A. I think so. There isn't a major candidate who has endorsed gay marriage; they are in favor of equal protection through a civil-union arrangement. I personally, in my Sunday-school lessons, don't favor the religious endorsement of a gay marriage. But I do favor equal treatment under the law for people who differ from me in sexual orientation.

A. What about abortion? How would you speak to moderate evangelicals who withhold support for Democratic candidates on that single issue?

This was an issue that I had to face when I was campaigning 25 years ago. I have always been against abortion; it's not possible for me in my own concept of Christ to believe that Jesus would favor abortion. But at the same time, I have supported the Supreme Court ruling of our country as the law of the land. And the present arrangement, whereby a woman is authorized to have an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest -- these are the things that moderates who have beliefs like mine can accept as the present circumstances in our country. The liberality of abortion is anointed by the laws of our country, including the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court.

Q. How do you think the fundamentalist Christian right has misrepresented Christianity, as well as the democratic process?

A. Well, what do Christians stand for, based exclusively on the words and actions of Jesus Christ? We worship him as a prince of peace. And I think almost all Christians would conclude that whenever there is an inevitable altercation -- say, between a husband and a wife, or a father and a child, or within a given community, or between two nations (including our own) -- we should make every effort to resolve those differences which arise in life through peaceful means. Therein, we should not resort to war as a way to exalt the president as the commander in chief. A commitment to peace is certainly a Christian principle that even ultraconservatives would endorse, at least by worshipping the prince of peace.

And Christ reached out almost exclusively to the poor, suffering, abandoned, deprived -- the scorned, the condemned people -- including Samaritans and those who were diseased. The alleviation of suffering was a pphilosophy that was enhanced and emphasized by the life of Christ. Today the ultra-right wing, in both religion and politics, has abandoned that principle of Jesus Christ's ministry.

Those are the two principal things in the practical sense that starkly separate the ultra-right Christian community from the rest of the Christian world: Do we endorse and support peace and support the alleviation of suffering among the poor and the outcast?

Q. You spent so much of your career working toward a reasonable, peaceful solution to violence and strife in Israel and Palestine. Increasing attention has been paid to traditionalist evangelicals' strong support for Israel, based on the New Testament prophecy that the reconstruction of the ancient kingdom of David will usher in the 'end times' and the Second Coming of Christ. As a believer and a peacemaker, how do you respond to this?

A. That's a completely foolish and erroneous interpretation of the Scriptures. And it has resulted in these last few years with a terrible, very costly, and bloody deterioration in the relationship between Israel and its neighbors. Every president except for George W. Bush has taken a relatively balanced position between the Israelis and their enemies, always strongly supporting Israel but recognizing that you have to negotiate and work between Israel and her neighbors in order to bring about a peaceful resolution.

It's nearly the 25th anniversary of my consummation of a treaty between Israel and Egypt -- not a word of which has ever been violated. But this administration, maybe strongly influenced by ill-advised theologians of the extreme religious right, has pretty well abandoned any real effort that could lead to a resolution of the problems between Israel and the Palestinians. And no one can challenge me on my commitment to Israel and its right to live in peace with all its neighbors. But at the same time, there has to be a negotiated settlement; you can't just ordain the destruction of the Palestinian people, and their community and their political entity, in favor of the Israelis.

And that's what some of the extreme fundamentalist Christians have done, both to the detriment of the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Think all evangelicals are right-wingers? Just as many are politically moderate. Read more about them in Ayelish McGarvey's piece, "Reaching the Choir", from the print edition.

Ayelish McGarvey, who writes a biweekly online column about religion, is a Prospect writing fellow. Copyright (c) 2004 by The American Prospect, Inc.

Interesting blog entry by Marc Perkel (re: Nick Berg beheaded by Americans, not by Terrorists)

Source: Marc Perkel Blog
May 14, 2004

Here's where you really need the tin foil hat. Look at this pic that was released today of the latest prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. Notice the white chair in the lower left corner. Now - look at the chair Nicholas Berg is sitting in!! It's the same fucking chair!!

I have some more pics but the walls are the same yellow color and the baseboard is the same color as Abu Ghraib prison. Then - as I've said before - what is Nicholas Berg doing in an orange prison jump suit? The orange jump suit is the same color as the ones used at the prison!!! Terrorists don't put the people they kidnap in orange prison jump suits!

Now - put that together with the fact that these "terrorists" are WHITE and FAT and they are wearing BULLET PROOF VESTS!! So who goes around wearing bullet proof vests all the time? People like CIA - Prison guards!

This is enough to scare the shit out of you but - Nicholas Berg was murdered by AMERICANS at Abu Ghraib prison. They staged it so as to make it look like terrorists murdered Berg.

If you have a different opinion then you tell me why they have the same plastic furniture - the same walls - the same floorboard color - and the same orange jump suit. You tell me why these terrorists are fat white guys wearing bullet proof vests. You tell me why they speak bad Arabic. You tell me why they yell like Americans when they kill Berg. I suppose the terrorist picked up those chairs at the local WalMart!

There is a dispute as to if Berg was in US custody. He was arrested by Iraqi police but they claim they turned him over to American custody. America however denies that they had him.

CNN said initially that they were sure the voice was NOT al-Zarqawi. The CIA however confirms that it is. Isn't that amazing! I listen to the voices and it doesn't sound like the voices of someone who speaks Arabic as their first language.

But you see - it's not about the voices that make you think it's not al-Zarqawi. In May 2002 Zarqawi traveled to Iraq. He had his leg amputated and had a prosthetic limb to replace it. So - for a guy with ONE LEG al-Zarqawi is VERY NIMBLE on his feet! So - make you wonder how well the CIA thought things through when they decided to play terrorist?

This is what a REAL terrorists look like. This is the picture of Daniel Pearl who was also killed by terrorists. Notice the thin brown hands - the grabbing of the hair - and the gun to the head. The guy is mean - angry. Pearl has on ordinary clothes and his hands are chained. When you look at the picture you can feel the wildness of a true terrorist. You can tell Pearl looks like he knows he is in big trouble. The clothes on the terrorists look normal for the region - but on the photos of the Berg terrorists - they look like they are in a costume.

Berg has no idea what it about to happen. He looks comfortable - perhaps to comfortable. I think they probably told him that they wanted him to pretend to be a hostage in order to get out of prison. Berg knew he was back at Abu Ghraib prison and that his "captors" were Americans - and that he was playing a role. Notice the orange prison garb in the picture.

The beheading changed the mood of the nation. Several lawmakers commented that after the beheading that it reminded them what the real issues were. So the beheading had the intended effect - that is - to inflame Americans and get them to think that torture is something that can be acceptable.

What we are seeing here people scares me beyond belief. I sit here stunned. I want to call someone but don't know who to call. If this turns out to be true - the world will experience a moment of horror unlike anything the world has ever experienced - except maybe the nuking of Japan.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO: What I've posted here isn't an absolute conclusion but asks a lot of questions that need to be answered. I need you to get everyone possible to link to this web page - or - copy it and post it on other sites. I need you to call your members in the US House and Senate. I need you to call your local radio and TV stations and get them to look at this.

Even though exposing this is bad for America - what is really bad for America is if we do this and get away with it. We can not allow America to become like NAZIs. The integrity of who we are and what we believe in must be preserved. We are a people of TRUTH and the only thing that's important is to find out WHAT REALLY HAPPENED HERE.

More strange stuff:
The link below is a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) documentary called Convoy of Death documenting the slaughter of 3000 Afgan POWs in December of 2001.

http://marc.perkel.com/images/AfghanPOWskilled.mov

A Warning to Those Who Dare to Criticize Israel in the Land of Free Speech

Source: Counter Punch
By ROBERT FISK
April 24/25, 2004 Weekend Edition

Another Case Study: Mary Robinson

Behold Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, would-be graduation commencement speaker at Emory University in the United States. She has made a big mistake. She dared to criticise Israel. She suggested--horror of horrors--that "the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation". Now whoah there a moment, Mary! "Occupation"? Isn't that a little bit anti-Israeli?

Are you really suggesting that the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israel, its use of extrajudicial executions against Palestinian gunmen, the Israeli gunning down of schoolboy stone-throwers, the wholesale theft of Arab land to build homes for Jews, is in some way wrong?

Maybe I misheard you. Sure I did. Because your response to these scurrilous libels, to these slurs upon your right to free speech, to these slanderous attacks on your integrity, was a pussy-cat's whimper. You were "very hurt and dismayed". It is, you told The Irish Times, "distressing that allegations are being made that are completely unfounded".

You should have threatened your accusers with legal action. When I warn those who claim in their vicious postcards that my mother was Eichmann's daughter that they will receive a solicitor's letter--Peggy Fisk was in the RAF in the Second World War, but no matter--they fall silent at once.

But no, you are "hurt". You are "dismayed". And you allow Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory University to announce that he is "troubled by the apparent absence of due diligence on the part of decision makers who invited her [Mary Robinson] to speak". I love the "due diligence" bit. But seriously, how can you allow this twisted version of your integrity to go unpunished?

Dismayed. Ah, Mary, you poor diddums.

I tried to check the spelling of "diddums" in Webster's, America's inspiring, foremost dictionary. No luck. But then, what's the point when Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "anti-Semitism" as "opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel".

Come again? If you or I suggest--or, indeed, if poor wee Mary suggests--that the Palestinians are getting a raw deal under Israeli occupation, then we are "anti-Semitic". It is only fair, of course, to quote the pitiful response of the Webster's official publicist, Mr Arthur Bicknell, who was asked to account for this grotesque definition.

"Our job," he responded, "is to accurately reflect English as it is actually being used. We don't make judgement calls; we're not political." Even more hysterically funny and revolting, he says that the dictionary's editors tabulate "citational evidence" about anti-Semitism published in "carefully written prose-like books and magazines". Preposterous as it is, this Janus-like remark is worthy of the hollowest of laughs.

Even the Malaprops of American English are now on their knees to those who will censor critics of Israel's Middle East policy off the air.

And I mean "off the air". I've just received a justifiably outraged note from Bathsheba Ratskoff, a producer and editor at the American Media Education Foundation (MEF), who says that their new documentary on "the shutting-down of debate around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"--in reality a film about Israel's public relations outfits in America--has been targeted by the "Jewish Action (sic) Task Force". The movie Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land was to be shown at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

So what happened? The "JAT" demanded an apology to the Jewish community and a "pledge (for) greater sensitivity (sic) when tackling Israel and the Middle East conflict in the future". JAT members "may want to consider threatening to cancel their memberships and to withhold contributions".

In due course, a certain Susan Longhenry of the Museum of Fine Arts wrote a creepy letter to Sut Jhally of the MEF, referring to the concerns of "many members of the Boston community"--otherwise, of course, unidentified--suggesting a rescheduled screening (because the original screening would have fallen on the Jewish Sabbath) and a discussion that would have allowed critics to condemn the film. The letter ended--and here I urge you to learn the weasel words of power--that "we have gone to great lengths to avoid cancelling altogether screenings of this film; however, if you are not able to support the revised approach, then I'm afraid we'll have no choice but to do just that".

Does Ms Longhenry want to be a mouse? Or does she want to have the verb "to longhenry" appear in Webster's? Or at least in the Oxford? Fear not, Ms Longhenry's boss overrode her pusillanimous letter. For the moment, at least.

But where does this end? Last Sunday, I was invited to talk on Irish television's TV3 lunchtime programme on Iraq and President Bush's support for Sharon's new wall on the West Bank. Towards the end of the programme, Tom Cooney, a law lecturer at University College, Dublin, suddenly claimed that I had called an Israeli army unit a "rabble" (absolutely correct--they are) and that I reported they had committed a massacre in Jenin in 2002.

I did not say they committed a massacre. But I should have. A subsequent investigation showed that Israeli troops had knowingly shot down innocent civilians, killed a female nurse and driven a vehicle over a paraplegic in a wheelchair. "Blood libel!" Cooney screamed. TV3 immediately--and correctly--dissociated themselves from this libel. Again, I noted the involvement of an eminent university--UCD is one of the finest academic institutions in Ireland and I can only hope that Cooney exercises a greater academic discipline with his young students than he did on TV3--in this slander. And of course, I got the message. Shut up. Don't criticise Israel.

So let me end on a positive note. Just as Bathsheba is a Jewish American, British Jews are also prominent in an organisation called Deir Yassin Remembered, which commemorates the massacre of Arab Palestinians by Jewish militiamen outside Jerusalem in 1948. This year, they remembered the Arab victims of that massacre--9 April--on the same day that Christians commemorated Good Friday.

The day also marked the fourth day of the eight-day Jewish Passover. It also fell on the anniversary of the 1945 execution by the Nazis of Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer at Flossenburg concentration camp. Jewish liberation 3,000 years ago, the death of a Palestinian Jew 2,000 years ago, the death of a German Christian 59 years ago and the massacre of more than 100 Palestinian men, women and children 56 years ago. Alas, Deir Yassin Remembered does not receive the publicity it merits.

Webster's dictionary would meretriciously brand its supporters "anti-Semitic", and "many members of the Boston community" would no doubt object. "Blood libel," UCD's eminent law lecturer would scream. We must wait to hear what UCD thinks. But let us not be "hurt" or "dismayed". Let's just keep on telling it how it is. Isn't that what American journalism school was meant to teach us?

Robert Fisk is a reporter for The Independent and author of Pity the Nation. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's hot new book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

The Washington Post Covers Saudi-Riggs-Jonathan Bush Nexus

May 18, 2004

"A political Web site written by a Democratic operative drew attention yesterday to the fact that President Bush's uncle, Jonathan J. Bush, is a top executive at Riggs Bank, which this week agreed to pay a record $25 million in civil fines for violations of law intended to thwart money laundering. Jonathan Bush, who is a major fundraiser for his nephew, was appointed in 2000 to run Riggs Investment Management Co. His association with Riggs began when he headed J. Bush & Co. [which was acquired by Riggs in 1997]... A Riggs spokesman could not be reached last evening. But [an anonymous] source familiar with the multiple federal investigations of the bank's Saudi accounts and other embassy accounts say Jonathan Bush's investment advice unit has 'no relationship whatsoever' with any of the Riggs's Saudi accounts." Hey, who is this "source"? Why should we take his or her word for it? After all, Prince Bandar is so tight with the Bush family -- they call him "Bandar Bush."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28396-2004May14.html

All evidence refutes claims of Israeli involvement in Iraqi prison affair

Source: Haaretz.com
By Yossi Melman
May 19, 2004

In a TV newscast about American jailers' torturing Iraqi prisoners, which was broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation two weeks ago, Eugene Bird, a former U.S. diplomat in the foreign service known for his pro-Arab position, pointed an accusing finger at Israel, claiming that Israeli Intelligence personnel have been operating in Iraq since the end of the war. Bird said there is a need to determine whether any foreign interrogators, implying Israelis, were among those who recommended the poor treatment of the Iraqi prisoners. The following day, the CBC had to issue a clarification that there was no evidence for Bird's claims.

The prisoner abuse affair is still making headlines. The source of rumors that Israelis were involved can be found in the Taguba report - an account of the affair written by an investigator appointed by the commander of the American forces in Iraq. The report, named after its author, General Antonio Taguba, mentions "third-country nationals," whose names are not mentioned, who were also present at the prison.

In addition, one of the seven suspects arrested in the affair is "John Israel," who is not a soldier and did not belong to the prison staff. The suspect is a contract worker with Titan, a company that provides various services to the American army in Iraq. One of Titan's board members is former CIA chief James Woolsey, who is considered a close friend of Israel. Titan, for its part, claimed that it does not employ John Israel directly, but rather via a subcontractor whose name remained undisclosed.

Still, the American media mentioned California Analysis Center Inc. (CACI) as the company that employed at least two of the suspects involved in the affair. The company specializes, among other things, in information and intelligence systems, and has won contracts from the Pentagon. CACI founder and president, Dr. Jack London, visited Israel a few months ago and received the Albert Einstein Technology Award at a special ceremony in Jerusalem sponsored by the Aish HaTorah yeshiva. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was among the guests attending the ceremony.

"Titan and CACI have close ties to the Israeli security and technology establishment," Wayne Madsen, who served on the U.S. National Security Council during the Reagan administration, wrote in a recently published article on the Counterpunch Web site (www.counterpunch.org), which reflects American radical left attitudes. CACI denied all allegations against it.

Those pointing an accusing finger at Israel also note that the U.S. Military Intelligence, which advised and handled the jailers in the Iraqi prisons, maintains close ties with Israeli intelligence. Another foundation for the rumors is the vast experience of the Israeli security services in managing prisons and interrogating Arab prisoners, as well as cases in which it was found that Palestinian detainees were tortured.

It was revealed in 1987 that the Shin Bet security services had been practicing a culture of lies since 1967. The Landau Report, named after former Supreme Court judge Moshe Landau, revealed that Shin Bet interrogators had extracted confessions from prisoners under duress and unacceptable physical and psychological torture, and had lied shamelessly in court under orders from their superiors.

This history, along with Israel's experience in interrogations, make it possible to easily refute the recent accusations involving the Iraqi prisoners. The Landau Report determined what was permissible and forbidden in interrogations, and since then, the Shin Bet has drafted clear regulations and orders for interrogators, from which there can be no deviation. Although a few irregularities were discovered, former senior Shin Bet officials have testified that the regulations were strictly followed. This was reinforced with legislation of the Shin Bet Law two years ago.

"Nothing like that ever happened," said a senior Shin Bet source, referring to the recent allegations. "We did not operate [in Iraq], and did not assist the United States in running the interrogations. This is baseless slander."

Israel's Military Intelligence runs the 504 unit that mainly specializes in handling agents, but also is responsible for interrogating prisoners of war. Military sources denied the possibility that Israeli military interrogators were involved in the Iraqi prisoner affair in any way. The defense minister's bureau said "the minister had indeed been present at a large public ceremonial event attended by U.S. congressional members, but had no acquaintance with [CACI President] Dr. London." Defense Ministry sources added that they are unaware of any connections with CACI.

Even the legal adviser to the Israeli Public Committee Against Torture, Gaby Lasky, does not believe that Israel is involved in the interrogations and torture in Iraq.

"There is no similarity between the complaints we received from Palestinian interogees and what we saw and heard about what was done in Iraq," Lasky said.

Interrogation experts point to the many differences between Israel and Iraq. Only Shin Bet interrogators participate in Shin Bet interrogations unless there is a clear military interest, and in these few cases, unit 504 interrogators are involved. Police and prison personnel hardly ever enter Shin Bet facilities. In Iraq, however, jailers were involved in the torture, and the Taguba report also revealed that female soldiers were involved in the affair. In contrast, the Shin Bet recruited a few women to its interrogations department only recently, and they do not participate in the interrogation of male Palestinians.

Some of the torture in Iraq also smacked of sexual abuse, including suspicions of the rape of a female prisoner.

"I am unaware of any participation of female interrogators in interrogations in Israel, and I have received no complaints of sexual attacks or abuse," Lasky said.

"Even if in the past Palestinian prisoners complained of sexual allusions on the part of the interrogators, a former senior official in the Shin Bet's interrogation branch said these were isolated and irregular incidents."

Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from new American documents revealed last week by a non-profit organization, the National Security Archives. These documents are CIA manuals from 1963 and the 1980s that display an impressive doublespeak lexicon. The section called "The Coercive Counterintelligence Interrogation of Resistant Sources" approves the use of "threats and fear," "pain," and "debility."

Another document states that in CIA interrogations intended to elicit information, the interrogator "is able to manipulate the subject's environment," while the 1983 manual states, "to create unpleasant or intolerable situations, to disrupt patterns of time, space, and sensory perception."

"When one reads all the American documents and reports, it is clear that the Americans did not need us to conduct interrogations," a former senior official in the Shin Bet's interrogations branch said. "The reports and the pictures of the torture, abuse and humiliation from the prison in Iraq portray a reality compared to which the interrogations of the Palestinians by us are really child's play."

Outsourcing soldiers

Source: The Stanford Daily
By Kathryn Wallace, Columnist
May 19, 2004

Outsourcing is already a campaign issue, with both presidential candidates solemnly pledging to bring U.S. jobs back home.
There is one job that Americans probably don’t know is being outsourced, and if they knew, it would likely not invoke the outrage that sending computing and telecommunications overseas has.

The job in question is that of soldiers. The United States is contracting with Indian, South American, African and even private U.S. companies to pick up arms and defend American interests in Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan and, well, everywhere the U.S. wants to be.

They used to be called mercenaries or Hessians, but now hired soldiers are called contractors. Outsourcing allows the government to hide some of the costs on the American side of a conflict, at the same time confusing the mandate. In the case of the Iraq war, the death toll is higher than we think and virtually impossible to know, since security contractors keep their business — both how many employees they have on the ground and how many come home in coffins — secret.

Just looking at the Iraqi war, does a private company or do foreigners have the same interest in maintaining peace and democratizing a nation as the government that started the war? Should we leave the ideological battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people to hired guns, those in the fight for the paycheck, foreigners?

The Bush administration may not like the critical depictions of the United States as an empire conquering countries and staking the flag and influence where they will. But, from a not-so-careful read of history, nothing smells so much like colonialization as hired soldiers.

Unwittingly, contractors fell into the news and the nation’s consciousness a month or so ago when four security contractors were killed in Fallujah, Iraq, their charred remains strung up over the River Euphrates. The victims, former military men, decorated soldiers all, were rent-a-cops in Iraq, employees of North Carolina security contractor Blackwater USA. Unlike the security guards you find at the local strip mall, Blackwater USA employees are armed with more than a billy stick and are granted more or less carte blanche to use

their impressive firepower.

Reading press reports from Iraq, it has the feel of a frontier town in the days of exploration in America. The biggest guns seem to win. With a lot of big guns commissioned loosely through the U.S. government to subcontracting company to the employee on the ground in Iraq, the picture is very chaotic. One doesn’t have to strain one’s imagination too hard to feel the Iraqi dilemma: Which Americans and which organizations are trustworthy?

The trouble with having forces outside of the domain of the military is apparent in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, where two private American companies were contracted to perform interrogations on Iraqi prisoners. The two companies, CACI International and Titan Corporation, are staffed with former government employees who answer to their bosses, not the Pentagon. It will take heaps of documents and government hearings to know exactly where things broke down, but outsourcing interrogations makes for a fractured chain of command at best.

As for the costs to contractors, private companies don’t return phone calls, but The Independent, a London paper, reported that during the Fallujah siege in the first week of April, 80 mercenaries — from the United States and other countries — died in addition to the 70 American troops who perished while fighting the rebellion.

The troop death count that first week in April was enough to earn the title of “The Bloodiest Week in Iraq.” Had the numbers reflected the true death toll of 150 in one week, the political fallout might have been uncontainable.

The Independent reported that there are as many as 18,000 hired soldiers in Iraq, tasked with protecting U.S. troops and assets. For their trouble (reference the horrifying images of the execution of Nicholas Berg) contractors make up to $1,000 a day.

The Asia Times reported this lucrative job market back in January. According to the Times, British and American subcontractors began discreetly recruiting thousands of Indian ex-serviceman known for professionalism and discipline for deployment in Iraq. The Indians, for their part, jumped on the big salaries.

Recruiting in foreign countries spiked at the beginning of this year because of the steep increase in casualties and because U.S. contractors believed there would be friendly relations between the brown-skinned Indians and the Iraqis.

Of course, this isn’t the first incidence of military outsourcing. Virginia-based DynCorp has been pumping out mercenaries for years for Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan.

While it might be politically more palatable to have well-paid civilians fight our battles than young, poorly compensated soldiers, the move to subcontract soldiering is perhaps the most strident shift in U.S. military policy, though it wasn’t publicized and most Americans don’t know about it.

It is yet to be determined how much the government knew about the gross mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but I imagine there are more horrors than this if private companies are making the hires, training them, assigning them and calling the shots.

Kathryn Wallace, a master’s student in journalism, can be reached at katwall@stanford.edu.

White House Gutted Human Rights Law (re: Gonzalez's Memo)

Source: AmericanProgress.Org
May 19, 2004

White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez's memo from January 2002 urged the Bush administration to make al Qaeda and Taliban detainees exempt from the Geneva Convention's statutes on the proper and legal treatment of prisoners. Gonzalez was aware of the risks in sidestepping international human rights laws, but the Bush administration ignored these warnings and went forward with its unorthodox treatment of prisoners. This cavalier attitude toward human rights eventually set the stage for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and other U.S. detention facilities.

The Bush administration ignored serious warnings about its decision to circumvent the Geneva Conventions and treat prisoners of war inhumanely. Secretary of State Colin Powell directly warned the White House in his own 2002 memo that gutting international law "will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops; it has a high cost in terms of negative international reaction, with immediate adverse consequences for our conduct of foreign policy; it will undermine public support among critical allies, making military cooperation more difficult to sustain; and Europeans and others will likely have legal problems with extradition." Powell was ignored by the White House.

The abuse of prisoners in Iraq is a direct result of the Bush administration's rejection of human rights law early on in the war on terrorism. President Bush set the stage for the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. By downplaying and ignoring at the start of the war on terrorism decades of U.S. support for humane treatment of prisoners, the nation's Commander in Chief created the context for the reprehensible treatment of prisoners later in Iraq. It was the president's decision to follow Gonzalez's advice in circumventing the Geneva Conventions, and the resulting failures fall squarely on his shoulders.

The White House must show a sincere commitment to international human rights laws by taking immediate steps to correct matters in Iraq. The president must develop and implement a new system for the management of detainees in Iraqi prisons and build confidence among Iraqis by making transparent and significant changes in the operation of the prisons. He must make room for participation by Iraqis and the international community. Here at home, he must launch a genuinely independent inquiry to investigate this tragedy that will greatly reduce the chance that something like Abu Ghraib could ever happen again.

Daily Talking Points is a product of the Center for American Progress, a non-partisan research and educational institute committed to progressive principles for a strong, just and free America.

An Interesting Day: President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11

Source: Center For Cooperative Research
by By Allan Wood and Paul Thompson
May 9, 2003

"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]


Photo caption: Both images taken at 9:03 a.m.: Bush takes part in a meaningless photo-op, knowing full well the US is already under attack. [left, from Booker video, right from Getty Images]

At approximately 8:48 a.m. on the morning of September 11, 2001, the first pictures of the burning World Trade Center were broadcast on live television. The news anchors, reporters, and viewers had little idea what had happened in lower Manhattan, but there were some people who did know. By that time, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon, the White House, the Secret Service, and Canada's Strategic Command all knew that three commercial airplanes had been hijacked. They knew that one plane had been flown deliberately into the World Trade Center's North Tower; a second plane was wildly off course and also heading toward Manhattan; and a third plane had abruptly turned around over Ohio and was flying back toward Washington, DC.

So why, at 9:03 a.m. - fifteen minutes after it was clear the United States was under terrorist attack - did President Bush sit down with a classroom of second-graders and begin a 20-minute pre-planned photo op? No one knows the answer to that question. In fact, no one has even asked Bush about it.

Bush's actions on September 11 have been the subject of lively debate, mostly on the internet. Details reported that day and in the week after the attacks - both the media reports and accounts given by Bush himself - have changed radically over the past 18 months. Culling hundreds of reports from newspapers, magazines, and the internet has only made finding the "truth" of what happened and when it happened more confusing. In the changed political climate after 9/11, few have dared raise challenging questions about Bush's actions. A journalist who said Bush was "flying around the country like a scared child, seeking refuge in his mother's bed after having a nightmare" and another who said Bush "skedaddled" were fired. [Washington Post, 9/29/01 (B)] We should have a concise record of where President Bush was throughout the day the US was attacked, but we do not.

What follows is an attempt to give the most complete account of Bush's actions - from Florida to Louisiana to Nebraska to Washington, DC.

Preparations

Bush's appearance at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, on September 11, 2001 had been in the planning stages since August [Booker web site], but was only publicly announced on the morning of September 7. [White House, 9/7/01] Later that same day, 9/11 hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi traveled to Sarasota and enjoyed drinks and dinner at a Holiday Inn only two miles down the sandy beach from where Bush was scheduled to stay during his Sarasota visit. [Longboat Observer, 11/21/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02]

Photo caption: The Colony Beach and Tennis Resort, where Bush stayed the night before 9/11. [Colony Resort web site]

On the night of September 10th, Bush stayed at the Colony Beach Resort - "an upscale and relatively pristine tropical island enclave located directly on the Gulf of Mexico, a spindly coral island ... off Sarasota, Florida." [AP, 07/29/01] Zainlabdeen Omer, a Sudanese native living in Sarasota, told the local police that night that someone he knew who had made violent threats against Bush was in town and Omer was worried about Bush's safety. The man was identified only as "Ghandi." A police report states the Secret Service was informed immediately. [Hopsicker, 7/22/02]

After a private dinner with various Florida politicians (including his brother Jeb) and Republican donors, Bush went to bed around 10:00 p.m. [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02] Surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02], and an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane circled high overhead. [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 25] It's not clear if this type of protection was standard for the president or whether security was increased because of possible threats.

An Assassination Attempt?

Bush awoke a little before 6:00 a.m. on September 11, pulled on shorts and an old T-shirt and laced up his running shoes. [CBS, 11/1/02] At 6:30 a.m., Bush, a reporter friend, and his Secret Service crew took a four-mile jog in the half-light of dawn around a nearby golf course. [Washington Post, 1/27/02, Washington Post, 09/11/01]

At about the same time Bush was getting ready for his jog, a van carrying several Middle Eastern men pulled up to the Colony's guard station. The men said they were a television news crew with a scheduled "poolside" interview with the president. They asked for a certain Secret Service agent by name. The message was relayed to a Secret Service agent inside the resort, who hadn't heard of the agent mentioned or of plans for an interview. He told the men to contact the president's public relations office in Washington, DC, and had the van turned away. [Longboat Observer, 9/26/01]

The Secret Service may have foiled an assassination attempt. Two days earlier, Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, had been murdered by a similar ruse. Two North African men, posing as journalists from "Arabic News International," had been requesting an interview with Massoud since late August. Ahmad Jamsheed, Massoud's secretary, said that by the night of September 8, "they were so worried and excitable, they were begging us." An interview was arranged for the following day. As it began, a bomb hidden in the video camera exploded, killing the two journalists. Massoud was rushed by helicopter to a hospital in Tajikistan, but was pronounced dead on arrival (although his death was not acknowledged until September 15). [International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, 10/30/01, Newsday, 10/26/01] The assassination is widely believed to have been timed to remove the Taliban's most popular and respected opponent in anticipation of the backlash that would occur after the 9/11 attacks. [BBC, 9/10/01, BBC, 9/10/01 (B), Time, 8/4/02, St. Petersburg Times, 9/9/02] The Northern Alliance blamed al-Qaeda and the ISI, Pakistan's secret service, for the attacks. [Radio Free Europe, 9/10/01, Newsday, 9/15/01, Reuters, 10/4/01]

Nearly three hours after the incident at the Colony, another Longboat Key resident reported a run-in with possibly the same men. At about 8:50 (when reports of the first World Trade Center crash were first broadcast), while standing on the Sarasota bay front waiting for the presidential motorcade to pass by, this man saw two Middle Eastern men in a dilapidated van "screaming out the windows 'Down with Bush' and raising their fists in the air." The FBI questioned the man, but it's not known if this was the same van that had visited the Colony. [Longboat Observer, 9/26/01]

Later on the morning of September 11, the Secret Service searched a Sarasota apartment looking for further corroboration of Zainlabdeen Omer's report of an assassination threat. Three Sudanese men were questioned for about ten hours. The Secret Service also raided a beauty supply store in Sarasota, whose owner, identified as "Hakim," told the agents that "Ghandi" was a member of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, a group fighting against the fundamentalist Muslim government in Sudan. [Hopsicker, 7/22/02]

Monica Yadav of Sarasota's ABC News 40 reported that a few days after the Secret Service visit, the beauty supply store was closed up and Hakim was long gone. Yadav also learned that Zainlabdeen Omer had suddenly quit his jobs and vacated his apartment. "All I know is he can't leave town," a friend of Omer's told Yadav. "Omer got in a lot of trouble with the law." The Special Agent in charge of the Presidential detail in Sarasota told Yadav that Bush was never in any danger and the various warnings and possible terrorist connections were all "just a coincidence." [Hopsicker, 7/22/02] Yet, as we will see below, there are more details of a threat against Bush before he left Sarasota.

Bush Is Briefed as the Hijackings Begin

After his jog, Bush showered, then sat down for his daily intelligence briefing around 8 a.m. "The President's briefing appears to have included some reference to the heightened terrorist risk reported throughout the summer, but contained nothing specific, severe or imminent enough to necessitate a call to [National Security Advisor] Condoleezza Rice." [Telegraph, 12/16/01]

While Bush was being briefed, the planes that would be hijacked began taking off. American Airlines Flight 11 was first, leaving Boston's Logan Airport at 7:59 a.m. The others soon followed, except for United Flight 93, scheduled to leave at 8:01, but which was delayed on the runway for about 40 minutes. [Boston Globe, 11/23/01] (For more information on the four flights, see Flight 11, Flight 175, Flight 77, Flight 93.)

At approximately 8:13, Flight 11 was instructed by air traffic controllers at the FAA's Boston Center, in Nashua, New Hampshire, to climb to 35,000 feet. The plane did not obey the order and its transponder was turned off. Air traffic control manager Glenn Michael said, "we considered it at that time to be a possible hijacking." [AP, 8/12/02, emphasis added] According to FAA regulations, that was the correct decision: "Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when ... there is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ... aircraft." [FAA Air Traffic Control Regulations, Chapter 10, Section 2-5 ]

Photo caption: Air traffic controller Matt McCluskey stands in the Boston tower where the Flight 11 hijack was first detected. [AP]

If air traffic controllers believed Flight 11 had been hijacked at 8:13, NORAD should have been informed immediately, so military planes could be scrambled to investigate. However, NORAD and the FAA both claimed NORAD was not informed until 8:40 - 27 minutes later. [NORAD, 9/18/01, AP, 8/12/02, AP, 8/19/02, Newsday, 9/10/02; one NORAD employee said it took place at 8:31, ABC News, 9/11/02] Indeed, before contacting NORAD, Boston air traffic controllers watched Flight 11 make an unexpected 100-degree turn and head south toward New York City [Christian Science Monitor, 9/13/01], told other controllers of the hijacking at 8:25 [Guardian, 10/17/01], continued to hear highly suspicious dialogue from the cockpit (such as, "Nobody move, please, we are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves") [Guardian, 10/17/01, New York Times, 10/16/01], and even asked the pilots of Flight 175 to scan the skies for the errant plane. [Guardian, 10/17/01, Boston Globe, 11/23/01]

Is NORAD's claim credible? If so, the air traffic controllers (including Mr. Michael) should have been fired and subject to possible criminal charges for their inaction. To date, however, there has been no word of any person being disciplined at any institution at any level for what happened on 9/11.

If NORAD's claim is false, and it was indeed informed within the time frame outlined in FAA regulations that Flight 11 may have been hijacked, that would mean NORAD did absolutely nothing for almost thirty minutes while a hijacked commercial airliner flew off course through some of the most congested airspace in the world. Presumably, that would warrant some very serious charges. Again, no one associated with NORAD or the FAA has been punished.

According to phone calls made by fight attendants Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney, the hijackers had stabbed and killed at least one passenger and two flight attendants by about 8:21. [ABC News, 7/18/02, Boston Globe, 11/23/01, AP, 10/5/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] (One hijacker may have been riding in the cockpit and begun the hijacking earlier.) After 8:21, both women apparently remained on the phone with American Airlines' headquarters for 25 minutes, until their plane crashed into the World Trade Center's North Tower. [ABC News, 7/18/02, AP, 10/5/01] These calls make NORAD's supposed ignorance of a crisis even more dubious.

Bush Leaves for Booker Elementary

Around the same time the Flight 11 hijackers were stabbing passenger Daniel Lewin - at 8:20 a.m. - Bush's briefing ended and he said good-bye to the Colony's general manager. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] The first event on Bush's schedule was what is known as a "soft event" – a photo-op with children at Emma Booker Elementary School - promoting his proposed education bill. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/11/01] After spending about 20 minutes with the children, Bush was scheduled to give a short press conference at about 9:30. [White House, 9/7/01, Federal News Service, 9/10/01]

Accounts of when Bush's motorcade left for the school vary from 8:30 to 8:39. [8:30, Washington Post, 1/27/02, 8:35, Sarasota Magazine, 9/19/01, 8:39, Washington Times, 10/7/02] One account has the Bush party leave the Colony suite at 8:30 and drive away at 8:39. Whenever he left, the motorcade traveled quickly: "The police shut down traffic in both directions, leaving roads utterly deserted for Bush's long motorcade, which barreled along at 40 mph, running red lights with impunity." [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, pp. 37-38] At 40 mph, it would take about 14 minutes to travel the nine-mile distance to the school. Several accounts say the journey took about 20 minutes [New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), St. Petersburg Times, 9/8/02 (B), MSNBC, 10/29/02], which means that Bush arrived shortly before 9:00. [8:46, ABC News, 9/11/02, 8:55, Washington Times, 10/7/02, 8:55, Sarasota Magazine, 9/19/01, "just before 9:00," Telegraph, 12/16/01, "shortly before 9:00," Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02, "just before 9:00," New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), 9:00, Albuquerque Tribune, 9/10/02]

When Did Bush First Learn of the Attacks?

Why does it matter when Bush left the resort and arrived at the school? Because this is the crucial time when Bush was first told, or should have been told, of the attacks. Official accounts, including the words of Bush himself, say Bush was first told of what was happening in New York City after he arrived at the school. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02] However, this statement does not stand up to scrutiny. There are at least four reports that Bush was told of the first crash before he arrived at the school.

Photo caption: In this map, the yellow star is roughly where Bush's motorcade is when Flight 11 crashes at 8:46, and the orange star is where he is when told about the crash a few minutes later. [Made with Yahoo Maps]

Two accounts explicitly state Bush was told while in the motorcade. "The President was on Highway 301, just north of Main Street ... [when] he received the news that a plane had crashed in New York City." [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] (See adjacent map for the location where he is told.) Another account states, "Bush was driving to the school in a motorcade when the phone rang. An airline accident appeared to have happened. He pressed on with his visit." [Observer, 9/16/01]

The first media reports of Flight 11's crash into the World Trade Center began around 8:48, two minutes after the crash happened. [New York Times, 9/15/01] CNN broke into its regular programming at that time [CNN, 9/11/01], though other networks, such as ABC, took a few more minutes to begin reporting. [ABC, 9/14/02] So within minutes, millions were aware of the story, yet Bush supposedly remained unaware for about another ten minutes.

Claims of Bush's ignorance become harder to believe when one learns that others in his motorcade were immediately told of the attack. For instance, Kia Baskerville, a CBS News producer traveling with Bush that morning, received a message about a plane crash "as the presidential motorcade headed to President Bush's first event." Baskerville said, "Fifteen minutes later I was standing in a second grade classroom [waiting for Bush's entrance]" - which means she got the news at about 8:47 - right as the story was first being reported. [CBS, 8/19/02] A news photographer in the motorcade overheard a radio transmission that Press Secretary Ari Fleischer would be needed on arrival at the school to discuss reports of some sort of crash. [Christian Science Monitor, 9/17/01] Another account notes Fleischer got the news that the crash had occurred "just minutes before," but notes that Bush was not in the same car as Fleischer. [CBS, 11/1/02] Senior presidential communications officer Thomas Herman said, "Just as we were arriving at the school, I received a notification from our operations center than [sic] an airliner had struck one of the towers...." [Marist College Magazine, Fall 2002]

Meanwhile, CIA Director George Tenet was told of the crash a few minutes after it happened. A messenger gave him the news as he was eating breakfast with former Senator David Boren in a Washington restaurant three blocks from the White House. Boren says Tenet was told that the World Trade Center had been attacked by an airplane: "I was struck by the fact that [the messenger] used the word attacked." An aide then handed a cell phone to Tenet, and Tenet made some calls, showing that at least some at the highest levels of the Bush administration were talking about an attack at this time. Tenet then said to Boren, "You know, this has bin Laden's fingerprints all over it." [ABC, 9/14/02]

Some people at the school also heard of the news before Bush arrived. Around 8:50, Tampa Bay's Channel 8 reporter Jackie Barron was on the phone with her mother, who mentioned the first news reports. At almost the same time, Brian Goff, a Fox reporter from Tampa, heard the same thing on his cell phone. [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] Associated Press reporter Sonia Ross was also told of the crash by phone from a colleague. [AP, 9/12/01 (D)] Florida Congressman Dan Miller, waiting in front of the school as part of the official greeting party, was told by an aide about the crash at 8:55, before Bush arrived. [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01]

Given all this, how could Bush have remained ignorant? Could he have been out of the loop because he was in a car? No. The previous night, Colony Resort manager Katie Klauber Moulon toured the presidential limousine and marveled "at all the phones and electronic equipment." [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] Karl Rove, Bush's "chief political strategist," who presumably was riding with Bush, used a wireless e-mail device on 9/11 as well. [Newsweek, 10/14/02] There seems to have been ample opportunity and the means to alert Bush.

Another Warning

If Bush wasn't told while in his limousine, he certainly was told immediately after he got out of it. US Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the director of the White House Situation Room, was traveling in the motorcade when she received a message from an assistant back in Washington about the first crash. Loewer said that as soon as the car arrived at Booker, she ran quickly over to Bush. "It's a very good thing the Secret Service knows who I am," Loewer later said. She told Bush that an aircraft had "impacted the World Trade Center. This is all we know." [Catholic Telegraph, 12/7/01, AP, 11/26/01]

Meanwhile, More Hijackings

Photo caption: Flight 77's intended and actual routes. [USA Today] Note the strange loop off course about halfway along the route to the west, which was the first sign the plane was hijacked. Such a large diversion is extremely uncommon, and should have triggered an immediate fighter response.

Even though Flight 175 left about the same time as Flight 11, it appears to have been hijacked much later. At 8:41, its pilot was still talking to ground control [New York Times, 10/16/01], but at 8:42 it sharply veered off course, and a flight controller noted that its transponder had been turned off and communication cut. [Boston Globe, 11/23/01, New York Times, 10/16/01] One minute later, at 8:43, NORAD was notified the plane had been hijacked. [NORAD, 9/18/01] The hijackers turned the transponder back on but used a different signal code. This allowed flight controllers to "easily" track the plane as it flew toward New York City. [Washington Post, 9/17/01] At about 8:46, Flight 77 began to go severely off course. According to regulations, a fighter is required to be dispatched if a plane strays from its official course by more than two miles or 15 degrees [MSNBC, 9/12/01]. As the adjacent map shows, Flight 77 returned to its proper course for a time, but its last radio contact occurred at 8:50. [Guardian, 10/17/01] Supposedly, NORAD was not officially notified that Flight 77 has been hijacked until 9:24 [NORAD, 9/18/01], but the New York Times reported that by around 8:50, military officials at the Pentagon were already discussing what to do about Flight 77. [New York Times, 9/15/01] Note the difference in notification times: 27 minutes for Flight 11, 1 minute for Flight 175 and 38 minutes for Flight 77.

Flight 93 wasn't hijacked until about 9:16, but by about 8:50, it was clear that at least three planes had been hijacked. Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking on NBC's Meet the Press, said, "The Secret Service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was ..." [Meet the Press, 9/16/01] Cheney never finished his sentence (interesting in itself - did he say too much?), but it seems safe to say that his next word would have been "hit." Cheney's statement makes it clear the Secret Service knew the extent of the situation well before 9:00 am.

An Accident?

Intelligence agencies were suffering "warning fatigue" from so many warnings of an al-Qaeda attack [Independent, 9/7/02], some specifically mentioning the use of hijacked airplanes as missiles (see this essay). Bush himself was given an intelligence briefing a month earlier entitled "Bin Laden to Strike in US," and it contained a warning from the British government that the US should expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02] So with the clear knowledge that three planes had been hijacked, with one of them already crashed into the World Trade Center, who would have possibly assumed that Flight 11's crash was an accident? Yet that is precisely what the official story claims. There are a number of different "official" accounts, but all of them stress that Bush wasn't told until after he arrived inside the school (contrary to the account of Captain Loewer) and that it was assumed to be an accident (contradicting Tenet being told that it was an attack).

In some accounts, "President Bush had emerged from his car and was shaking hands with local officials standing outside the school when Chief of Staff Andrew Card sidled up to him with the news." [CBS, 11/1/02] Bush later recalled that it was Card who first notified him: "'Here's what you're going to be doing; you're going to meet so-and-so, such-and-such.' Then Andy Card said, 'By the way, an aircraft flew into the World Trade Center.'" [Washington Times, 10/7/02] At a press conference later that day, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer also claimed it was Andy Card who first informed him, "as the President finished shaking hands in a hallway of school officials." [Knoxville News Sentinel, 9/11/01]

In other accounts, it was advisor Karl Rove who first told Bush. According to photographer Eric Draper, who was standing nearby, Rove rushed up, took Bush aside in a corridor inside the school and said the cause of the crash was unclear. Bush replied, "What a horrible accident!" Bush also suggested the pilot may have had a heart attack. [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director, says he was there when Bush was told: "[Bush] being a former pilot, had kind of the same reaction, going, was it bad weather? And I said no, apparently not." [ABC News, 9/11/02] A reporter who was standing nearby later said, "From the demeanor of the President, grinning at the children, it appeared that the enormity of what he had been told was taking a while to sink in." [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] One account explicitly says that Rove told Bush the World Trade Center had been hit by a large commercial airliner. [Telegraph, 12/16/01] However, Bush later remembered Rove saying it appeared to be an accident involving a small, twin-engine plane. [Washington Post, 1/27/02, MSNBC, 9/02]

In yet another account, Blake Gottesman, Bush's personal assistant, while giving the president some final instructions as they walked to the school, remarked, "Andy Card says, 'By the way, an aircraft flew into the World Trade Center.'" [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, pp. 41-42]

Told Again, Yet Still Clueless

Booker principal Gwen Tose-Rigell was waiting for Bush outside the school. "The limousine stops and the president comes out. He walks toward me. I'm standing there in a lineup; there are about five people. He walks over and says he has to make a phone call, and he'll be right back." [MSNBC, 09/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01] The phone call was with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. From a room with secure communications, Rice updated Bush on the situation. [Christian Science Monitor, 9/17/01, Time, 9/12/01] The fact that Bush immediately said he had to make an important call strongly suggests he was told about the situation while in the motorcade. But some accounts have Andrew Card saying to Bush as he gets out of his limousine, "Mr. President, you really need to take this phone call," thereby implying that Card knows what's going on, but Bush doesn't. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/8/02 (B)]

As National Security Advisor, Rice had to have had as much information as anyone. By the time she spoke to Bush, she must have known that three planes had been hijacked and that the country was under attack. We know very little about the conversation - only that Rice later claimed, "[Bush] said, what a terrible, it sounds like a terrible accident. Keep me informed." [ABC News, 9/11/02] One reporter noted: "Bush did not appear preoccupied [after the phone call] … There was no sign that Rice had just told [him] about the first attack [on the World Trade Center]." [Cox News, 9/12/01 (B)] Tose-Rigell was then summoned to a room to talk with Bush: "He said a commercial plane has hit the World Trade Center, and we're going to go ahead and go on, we're going on to do the reading thing anyway." [AP, 8/19/02 (D)]

One local reporter notes that at this point, "He could and arguably should have left Emma E. Booker Elementary School immediately, gotten onto Air Force One and left Sarasota without a moment's delay ... But he didn't." [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/12/01 (B)] The only possible excuse is that Bush was completely clueless as to what was happening. Sure enough, at a press conference on the evening of 9/11, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was asked by a reporter, "And then this morning, when Andy Card told him about the first accident, was Andy Card or Condi Rice or any of those aware of the hijackings? What did they know when they --" Fleischer cut in and replied, "No, at that point they were not." [Knoxville News Sentinel, 9/11/01] So supposedly, 15 minutes after the first crash, none of Bush's aides, not even Rice back in Washington, DC, knew a thing about the hijackings that had been reported to NORAD 20 minutes earlier? This simply is not plausible.

Bush's Confused Recollection

Bush's own recollection of the first crash only complicates the picture. Less than two months after the attacks, Bush made the preposterous claim that he had watched the first attack as it happened on live television. This is the seventh different account of how Bush learned about the first crash (in his limousine, from Loewer, from Card, from Rove, from Gottesman, from Rice, from television). On December 4, 2001, Bush was asked: "How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?" Bush replied, "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it." [White House, 12/4/01]

There was no film footage of the first attack until at least the following day, and Bush didn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] The Boston Herald later noted, "Think about that. Bush's remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit - which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit." [Boston Herald, 10/22/02] Bush's recollection has many precise details. Is he simply confused? It's doubly strange why his advisors didn't correct him or - at the very least - stop him from repeating the same story only four weeks later. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] On January 5, 2002, Bush stated: "Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida ... and my Chief of Staff – well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane..." [White House, 1/5/02]

Unfortunately, Bush has never been asked - not even once - to explain these statements. His memory not only contradicts every single media report, it also contradicts what he said that evening. In his speech to the nation that evening, Bush said: "Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans." [White House, 9/11/01] It's not known what these emergency plans were, because neither Bush nor anyone in his administration mentioned this immediate response again. Implementing "emergency response plans" seems to completely contradict Bush's "by the way" recollection of a small airplane accident.

Inside the Classroom and the Second Plane Crash

Shortly after his call with National Security Advisor Rice, Bush entered Sandra Kay Daniels's second-grade class for a photo-op to promote Bush's education policies. [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] The event was to begin precisely at 9:00, but the call pushed it back to about 9:03. [Washington Times, 10/8/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01, Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Numerous reporters who were traveling with the president, as well as members of the local media, watched from the back of the room. [AP, 8/19/02 (D)] Altogether there were about 150 people in the room, only 16 of them students. Bush was introduced to the children and then posed for a number of pictures. Daniels then led the students through some reading exercises (video footage shows this lasted about three minutes). [Salon, 9/12/01 (B)] Bush later related what he was thinking at the time: "I was concentrating on the program at this point, thinking about what I was going to say [about the plane crash]. Obviously, I felt it was an accident. I was concerned about it, but there were no alarm bells." [Washington Times, 10/7/02]

At 9:03, Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. News of this traveled extremely rapidly. In fact, some of Bush's Secret Service agents watched the second crash live on television in an adjacent room. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, in the same room as Bush but not near him, immediately received the news on his pager. [CBS, 9/11/02] Other pagers were going off as well.

Photo caption: Andrew Card tells Bush the second tower has been hit. [White House via AP] See a video of Bush's reaction here: [ABC, 9/14/02]

Chief of Staff Andrew Card was in a nearby room when he heard the news. He waited until there was a pause in the reading drill to walk in and tell Bush. [Washington Times, 10/7/02, Washington Times, 10/8/02] The children were getting their books from under their seats to read a story together when Card came in. [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Card whispered to Bush: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/11/02] Another account has Card saying: "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." [Telegraph, 12/16/01] Accounts vary as to when Card gave Bush the news. Some say 9:05 [Salon 9/11/01, New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), Telegraph, 12/16/01, Albuquerque Tribune, 9/10/02], and some say 9:07. [Washington Post, 9/11/01, Washington Times, 10/8/02] ABC News reporter Ann Compton, who was in the room, said she was surprised by the interruption and "wrote [the time] down in my reporter's notebook, by my watch, 9:07 a.m." [ABC News, 9/11/02]

The Reaction - Or Lack of One

Descriptions vary greatly as to how Bush responded to the news. It is said he "blanched" [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10/1/02], "the color drained from the president's face" [AP, 9/12/01 (D)], he "wore a bemused smile" [Orlando Sentinel, 9/12/01], "because visibly tense and serious" [Time, 9/12/01], and so on. Watch the video and draw your own conclusions (the 11-minute video can be viewed at the Center for Cooperative Research, Buzzflash, Global Free Press, The Emperor's New Clothes, or Liberty DYNU). Bush later recalled his own reaction: "I am very aware of the cameras. I'm trying to absorb that knowledge. I have nobody to talk to. I'm sitting in the midst of a classroom with little kids, listening to a children's story and I realize I'm the Commander in Chief and the country has just come under attack." [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 11/1/02] Asked again what he thought after he heard the news, Bush said, "We're at war and somebody has dared attack us and we're going to do something about it. I realized I was in a unique setting to receive a message that somebody attacked us … [I]t became evident that we were, you know, that the world had changed." [CBS, 9/11/02]

So what did the Commander in Chief do with the knowledge that the United States was under attack?

He did nothing.

Bush did not say one word. He did not ask Card any questions. He did not give any orders. He did not know who (or which country) was attacking, whether there would be more attacks, what military plans had been taken, what military actions should be taken - indeed, he knew virtually nothing about what was going on outside the room. He just sat there. Bush later recalled: "There was no time for discussion or anything." [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, pp. 83-84] Even stranger, as one newspaper put it, although the nation was under terrorist attack, "for some reason, Secret Service agents [did] not bustle him away." [Globe and Mail, 9/12/01]

Military pilots must have "permission from the White House because only the president has the authority to order a civilian aircraft shot down." [CNN, 10/26/99] But if retaliatory strikes needed to the authorized, Bush was not available. If one of the planes had to be shot down to save more lives on the ground, Bush was not available. Although several fighters had been dispatched to defend New York City, the pilot of one of the planes flying to catch Flight 175 later noted that it wouldn't have mattered if he caught up with it, because only Bush could order a shootdown, and Bush could not be reached in the classroom. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02]

Secret Service agents and other security personnel had set up a television in a nearby classroom. They turned on the TV just as Flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center. According to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill, who was in the room, a Marine responsible for carrying Bush's phone immediately said to Balkwill, "We're out of here. Can you get everyone ready?" [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] But he must have been overruled by someone, because Bush did not leave.

Meanwhile, Secret Service agents burst into Vice President Cheney's White House office. They carried him under his arms - nearly lifting him off the ground - and propelled him down the steps into the White House basement and through a long tunnel toward an underground bunker. Accounts of when this happened vary greatly, from 9:06 [New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), Telegraph, 12/16/01] to after 9:30. [CBS, 9/11/02, Washington Post, 1/27/02] Cheney's own account is vague and contradictory. [Meet the Press, 9/16/01] The one eyewitness account, by White House photographer David Bohrer, said it happened just after 9:00. [ABC, 9/14/02 (B)] It's easy to see why the White House would have wanted this event placed at a later time (after Bush's initial statement to the nation rather than after the second crash) to avoid the obvious question: if Cheney was immediately evacuated, why wasn't Bush?

The Photo-Op Goes On

After Card told Bush about the second plane and quickly left, the classroom was silent for about 30 seconds or so. [Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02] The children were about to take turns reading from a story called The Pet Goat. [AFP, 9/7/02] Bush picked up the book and began to read with the children. [Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02] In unison, the children read out loud, "The - Pet - Goat. A - girl - got - a - pet - goat. But - the - goat - did - some - things - that - made - the - girl's - dad - mad." Bush mostly listened, but occasionally asked the children a few questions to encourage them. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] At one point he said, "Really good readers, whew! ... These must be sixth-graders!" [Time, 9/12/01]

Who was really in control? Certainly not Bush. In the back of the room, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer caught Bush's eye and held up a pad of paper for him to see, with "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET" written on it in big block letters. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] Some person or people had overruled the security who wanted Bush evacuated immediately, even as Vice President Cheney was taken from his White House office to a safe location. Bush's security overruled Bush on security matters later in the day on Air Force One, but who overruled them that morning?

When Did Bush Leave the Classroom?

Nearly every news account fails to mention when Bush left the classroom after being told America was under attack. Three mention 9:12 a.m. [New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), Telegraph, 12/16/01, Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Remaining in the classroom for approximately five to seven minutes is inexcusable, but the video of Bush in the classroom suggests he stayed longer than that. The video contains several edits and ends before Bush leaves the room, so it also doesn't tell us exactly how long he stayed. One newspaper suggested he remained "for eight or nine minutes" - sometime between 9:13 and 9:16, since Card's arrival is uncertain. [Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02]

When Bush finally did leave, he didn't act like a man in a hurry. In fact, he was described as "openly stretching out the moment." [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 89] When the lesson was over, Bush said to the children: "Hoo! These are great readers. Very impressive! Thank you all so much for showing me your reading skills. I bet they practice too. Don't you? Reading more than they watch TV? Anybody do that? Read more than you watch TV? [Hands go up] Oh that's great! Very good. Very important to practice! Thanks for having me. Very impressed." [Transcribed from Booker video, Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, pp. 89-90] Bush still continued to talk, advising the children to stay in school and be good citizens. [Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02, St. Petersburg Times, 9/8/02 (B)] One student asked Bush a question, and he gave a quick response on his education policy. [New York Post, 9/12/02]

The only source to describe what happened next is Fighting Back by Bill Sammon. Publishers Weekly described Sammon's book as an "inside account of the Bush administration's reaction to 9-11 [and] a breathless, highly complimentary portrait of the president [showing] the great merit and unwavering moral vision of his inner circle." [Publisher's Weekly, 10/15/02] Sammon's conservative perspective makes his account of Bush's behavior at the end of the photo-op all the more surprising. Bush is described as smiling and chatting with the children "as if he didn't have a care in the world" and "in the most relaxed manner imaginable." White House aide Gordon Johndroe, then came in as he usually does at the end of press conferences, and said, "Thank you, press. If you could step out the door we came in, please." A reporter then asked, "Mr. President, are you aware of the reports of the plane crash in New York? Is there anything...", But Bush interrupted, and no doubt recalling his order, "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET," Bush responded, "I'll talk about it later." But still the president did not leave. "He stepped forward and shook hands with [classroom teacher] Daniels, slipping his left hand behind her in another photo-op pose. He was taking his good old time. ... Bush lingered until the press was gone." [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 90]

Think about that: rather than rush out of the room at the first chance, Bush actually stayed until after all the dozens of reporters had left! Having just been told of a Pearl Harbor-type attack on US soil, Bush was indeed "openly stretching out the moment." But he still wasn't done. Bush then turned to principal Tose-Rigell, who was waiting to take him to the library for his speech on education. He explained to her about the terror attacks and why he had to leave. [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 90] Finally, he went to an empty classroom next door where his staff was based. [ABC News, 9/11/02] Given that Bush's program was supposed to end at 9:20, he left the classroom only a couple of minutes earlier than planned, if even that. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/16/01]

Why Stay?

The reason given why Bush didn't leave as soon as Card told him the news is: "Without all the facts at hand, George Bush had no intention of upsetting the schoolchildren who had come to read for him." [MSNBC, 10/29/02] Advisor Karl Rove said, "The President thought for a second or two about getting up and walking out of the room. But the drill was coming to a close and he didn't want to alarm the children." [ABC, 9/11/02] This excuse is patently absurd, given the security risks and importance of Bush being informed and making decisions as Commander in Chief. Nor was the drill coming to a close: one drill had ended and another was about to begin - it was a perfect time to simply say, "Excuse me" and leave the room. Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport is only 3½ miles away; in fact, Booker was chosen as the location for the photo-op partly because of its proximity to the airport. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/12/02] Hijackers could have crashed a plane into Bush's publicized location and his security would have been completely helpless to stop it. Remember, Bush's schedule had been announced on September 7 and two of the 9/11 hijackers came to Sarasota that same day. [White House, 9/7/01, Longboat Observer, 11/21/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02] Furthermore, the Secret Service was aware of the strange request for an interview a few hours earlier and the previous night's report of a person in town who had made violent threats against Bush.

Indeed, a few days after 9/11, Sarasota's main newspaper reported, "Sarasota barely skirted its own disaster. As it turns out, terrorists targeted the president and Air Force One on Tuesday, maybe even while they were on the ground in Sarasota and certainly not long after. The Secret Service learned of the threat just minutes after Bush left Booker Elementary." [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/16/01]

Bush Lingers On

Once he was out of the classroom, did Bush immediately leave Booker? No. He stayed in the adjacent room with his staff, calling Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor Rice, and preparing a speech. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, St. Petersburg Times 9/8/02] Incredibly, even as uncertain information began to surface, suggesting that more planes had been hijacked (eventually 11 planes would be suspected) [CBS, 9/11/02], Bush was allowed to make his remarks at 9:30 - exactly the time and place stated on his advance schedule. [Federal News Service, 9/10/01, see the transcript of his speech here] Why hasn't Bush's security staff been criticized for their completely inexplicable decision to stay at the school? And why didn't Bush's concern for the children extend to not making them and the rest of the 200 or so people at the school terrorist targets?

At 9:16, NORAD was notified that Flight 93 had been hijacked, and at 9:24 it was notified that Flight 77 had also been hijacked and was heading toward Washington (though, as discussed above, the hijacking was known long before this). [NORAD, 9/18/01] No media report has suggested that the possible shooting down of hijacked airplanes was discussed at this time, however. It appears the discussion was not broached until after 9:55. [Washington Post, 1/27/02, CBS, 9/11/02] At about 9:26, it was either FAA head Jane Garvey or FAA administrator Ben Sliney (and not Bush) who decided to halt all airplane takeoffs in the US. [Time, 9/14/01, USA Today, 8/13/02] Additionally, no evidence has appeared suggesting Bush had a role in ordering any fighters into the skies.

Finally, to the Airport

By 9:35, Bush's motorcade was ready to take him to the Sarasota airport where Air Force One was waiting. [Telegraph, 12/16/01] At 9:37, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Bush was informed as his motorcade got near the airport. (Apparently Bush could be reached by phone in his limousine at this time.) [Washington Times, 10/8/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01] The motorcade arrived around 9:43 and pulled up close to Air Force One. Security conducted an extra-thorough search of all the baggage for the other passengers, delaying takeoff until 9:55. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/8/02 (B)]

A year later, Chief of Staff Andrew Card recalled that, "As we were heading to Air Force One... [we] learned, what turned out to be a mistake, but we learned that the Air Force One package could in fact be a target." [MSNBC, 9/9/02] This echoes the report mentioned above that "terrorists targeted the president and Air Force One... maybe even while they were on the ground in Sarasota ..." [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/16/01] This only increases the strangeness that Bush wasn't immediately evacuated at 9:03 as some of his security had recommended.

Photo caption: Dogs thoroughly check luggage underneath Air Force One. [AP]

Bush spoke by telephone to Cheney as the motorcade raced to the airport. [St. Petersburg Times 9/8/02] Supposedly, during this call Bush issued an order to ground all flights within the country. [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] The FAA did shut down the nationwide air traffic system at around 9:45. [MSNBC, 9/22/01, CNN, 9/12/01, New York Times, 9/12/01, Newsday, 9/10/02, Washington Post, 9/12/01] But other reports state that it was FAA administrator Ben Sliney who made the decision without consulting anyone. [USA Today, 8/13/02, USA Today, 8/13/02 (B)] For some time it was claimed that Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta had made the decision, but it was later revealed that Mineta didn't even know of the order until 15 minutes later. Apparently, "FAA officials had begged [the reporter] to maintain the fiction." [Slate, 4/2/02] The idea that Bush made the decision is even less plausible. In fact, there is no evidence at all to suggest that Bush had by this point made even one decision relevant to his security or that of the country.

Air Force One Takes Off Without Fighter Escort

Air Force One took off at either 9:55 or 9:57 a.m. [CNN, 9/12/01, New York Times, 9/12/01, Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02, Washington Post, 9/12/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02, AP, 9/12/01] Communications Director Dan Bartlett remembered, "It was like a rocket. For a good ten minutes, the plane was going almost straight up." [CBS, 9/11/02]

But, incredibly, Air Force One took off without any military fighter protection. This defies all explanation. Recall that at 9:03 a.m., one of Bush's security people said, "We're out of here. Can you get everyone ready?" [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Certainly, long before Bush left the elementary school at 9:35 a.m., arrangements would have been made to get fighters to Sarasota as soon as possible. Not only would it have been advisable to protect Air Force One, but it would have been only sensible as another way to protect Bush on the ground from terrorist attack even before he left the school. In Florida, there were two bases said to have fighters on 24-hour alert, capable of getting airborne in approximately five minutes. Homestead Air Station, 185 miles from Sarasota, and Tyndall Air Station, 235 miles from Sarasota; both had the highest readiness status on 9/11. Presumably, as happened at other bases across the country, just after 9:03, base commanders throughout Florida would have immediately begun preparations to get their fighters ready. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Fighters left bases on the same alert status and traveled similar distances to reach Washington, DC, well before 10:00, so why were the fighters delayed in Florida? [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02]

Military planes should have been over Sarasota by the time Bush left Booker at 9:35 a.m. Yet, as will be described below, more than one hour after Air Force One took off, there were still no fighters protecting it!

An administration official claimed, "The object seemed to be simply to get the President airborne and out of the way." [Telegraph, 12/16/01] But without fighter cover this makes little sense, because the sky was arguably more dangerous than the ground. At the time, there were still over 3,000 planes in the air over the US [USA Today, 8/13/02 (B)], including about half of the planes in the region of Florida where Bush was. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/7/02] Recall, too, that the Secret Service learned of a threat to Bush and Air Force One "just minutes after Bush left Booker Elementary." Karl Rove, also on Air Force One, confirmed that a dangerous threat was known before the plane took off: "They also made it clear they wanted to get us up quickly, and they wanted to get us to a high altitude, because there had been a specific threat made to Air Force One.... A declaration that Air Force One was a target, and said in a way that they called it credible." [New Yorker, 10/1/01]

Shoot Down Authorized - Too Late

Once he was airborne, Bush talked to Cheney again and Cheney recommended that Bush "order our aircraft to shoot down these airliners that have been hijacked." [CBS, 9/11/02] "I said, 'You bet,'" Bush later recalled. 'We had a little discussion, but not much.'" [Newsday, 9/23/01, USA Today, 9/16/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02] However, even though only Bush had the authority to order a passenger plane shot down [CNN, 10/26/99], the order was apparently given before Bush discussed it with Cheney. One flight commander recalled, "After the Pentagon was hit, we were told there were more [airliners] coming. Not 'might be'; they were coming." A call from someone in the White House declared the Washington area "a free-fire zone," meaning, according to one of the responding fighter pilots, "we were given authority to use force, if the situation required it." [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02]

Extraordinary times can demand extraordinary measures, so having someone other than Bush give this order could be understandable. But Bush was available and talking to people like Cheney after 9:30 a.m. Around this time, officials feared that as many as 11 airliners had been hijacked [CBS, 9/11/02], so why weren't Bush and Cheney even considering this course of action until about 10:00 a.m.? Was Bush being kept out of the loop in reality, or only in the media reports?

Is the lateness of this discussion merely political spin to reduce speculation that Flight 93 had been shot down? Flight 93 was still in the air after the Bush authorization, and fighters were given orders to shoot it down if necessary. [ABC News, 9/11/02] NORAD knew at 9:16 a.m. that Flight 93 was hijacked [NORAD, 9/18/01], but supposedly fighters weren't scrambled until minutes before it crashed at 10:06 a.m.

Going Nowhere as Threats Increase

Shortly after takeoff, Cheney apparently informed Bush of "a credible threat" to Air Force One. [AP, 9/13/01 (D)] US Representative Adam Putnam "had barely settled into his seat on Air Force One ... when he got the news that terrorists apparently had set their sights on the plane." [Orlando Sentinel, 9/14/01] The Secret Service had received an anonymous call: "Air Force One is next." The caller allegedly knew the agency's code words relating to Air Force One procedures. Pilot Colonel Mark Tillman was told of the threat and he asked that an armed guard be stationed at the cockpit door. The Associated Press reported that the threat came "within the same hour" as the Pentagon crash (i.e., before 10:00 a.m., roughly when the plane took off). [AP, 9/13/01 (D)] Details suggest this threat was not the same as the earlier one, but it's hard to know for sure.

In his comments at Booker, Bush said he was immediately flying back to Washington, but soon after takeoff, he, Cheney and the Secret Service began arguing whether it was safe to fly back to the capital. [Telegraph, 12/16/01] Andrew Card told Bush, "We've got to let the dust settle before we go back." [St. Petersburg Times, 9/8/02] The plane apparently stayed over Sarasota until the argument was settled. Accounts differ, but until about 10:35 a.m. [CBS, 9/11/02 (B), Washington Post, 1/27/02], Air Force One "appeared to be going nowhere. The journalists on board – all of whom were barred from communicating with their offices – sensed that the plane was flying in big, slow circles." [Telegraph, 12/16/01]

Cheney apparently called Bush again at 10:32 a.m., and told him of another threat to Air Force One. Within minutes, the argument was over, and the plane turned away from Washington and flew to Louisiana instead. [Washington Post, 1/27/02] Bush recalled: "I wanted to come back to Washington, but the circumstances were such that it was just impossible for the Secret Service or the national security team to clear the way for Air Force One to come back." [CBS, 9/11/02] Given that the rocket-like takeoff was due to a threat, this must have been another threat, possibly even a third threat.

Around 10:55 a.m., there was yet another threat to Air Force One. The pilot, Colonel Mark Tillman, said he was warned that a suspect airliner was dead ahead. "Coming out of Sarasota there was one call that said there was an airliner off our nose that they did not have contact with." Tillman took evasive action, pulling his plane even higher above normal traffic. [CBS, 9/11/02 (B)] Reporters on board noticed the rise in elevation. [Dallas Morning News, 8/28/02, Salon, 9/12/01] The report was apparently a false alarm, but it shows the folly of having Bush fly without a fighter escort.

Were There Threats to Air Force One?

The threat or threats to Air Force One were announced on September 12, after mounting criticism that Bush was out of sight in Louisiana and Nebraska during most of the day and did not return to Washington until 10 hours after the attacks. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said there was "real and credible information that the White House and Air Force One were targets." [White House, 9/12/01] On September 13, New York Times columnist William Safire wrote - and Bush's political strategist Karl Rove confirmed - that there was an "inside" threat that "may have broken the secret codes [showing a knowledge of presidential procedures]." [New York Times, 9/13/01] Had terrorists hacked their way into sensitive White House computers? Was there a mole in the White House?

No. It turned out the entire story was made up. [Washington Post, 9/27/01] The press expressed considerable skepticism about the story. For instance, one Florida newspaper thought Fleischer's disclosure was "an apparent effort to explain why the president was flown to Air Force bases" before returning to Washington. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/13/01] When asked on September 15 about the "credible evidence," Fleischer said, "we exhausted that topic about two days ago." [White House, 9/15/01] On September 26, CBS News reported: "Finally, there is this postscript to the puzzle of how someone presumed to be a terrorist was able to call in a threat against Air Force One using a secret code name for the president's plane. Well, as it turns out, that simply never happened. Sources say White House staffers apparently misunderstood comments made by their security detail." [CBS, 9/26/01] One former official who served in George Bush Sr.'s administration told Human Events Online, which bills itself as "the national conservative weekly," that he was "deeply disappointed by [Bush's] zigzagging across the country." [Human Events Online, 9/17/01] At the end of the month, Slate magazine awarded its "Whopper of the Week" to Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, and Dick Cheney. [Slate, 9/28/01]

No one knew exactly where the bogus story originated from, but "what can be safely said is that it served the White House's immediate purposes, even though it was completely untrue." [Telegraph, 12/16/01] What were those purposes? A well-informed, anonymous Washington official said, "It did two things for [Cheney]. It reinforced his argument that the President should stay out of town, and it gave George W. an excellent reason for doing so." [Telegraph, 12/16/01] When Bush was asked in May 2002 why he had flown to two Air Force bases before returning to Washington, Bush said, "I was trying to get out of harm's way." [White House, 5/21/02]

The most obviously bogus threat - the mole knowing secret codes - came from Cheney in a pivotal moment in his argument with Bush over where Bush should go. But were the other threats, for instance, the one made before Air Force One even took off, or the airline suspected of crashing into Air Force One, also bogus?

When Does the Fighter Escort Finally Arrive?

Photo caption: The approximate route of Bush's journey on Air Force One is shown in yellow. Keep in mind the plane flew in circles somewhere over Florida for about 40 minutes before heading west. Why did the first planes scrambled to defend the plane come from Ellington, Texas, and not any of the three likely Florida bases?

Much like the time when Bush left the Booker classroom, the time when fighters finally reached Air Force One is rarely mentioned, and when it is, the facts are highly debatable. According to one account, around 10:00 a.m. Air Force One was "joined by an escort of F-16 fighters from a base near Jacksonville, Florida." [Telegraph, 12/16/01] But one month later, it was reported that in Cheney's 10:32 phone call, he told Bush that it would take another 40 to 90 minutes [as late as noon] to get protective fighters up to escort Air Force One. [Washington Post, 1/27/02] Another account said, "Air Force One headed toward Jacksonville [at 10:41] to meet jets scrambled to give the presidential jet its own air cover," but it isn't said when the plane actually met up with the fighters. [New York Times, 9/16/01 (B)] We know that when Air Force One took evasive action around 10:55, there was no fighter escort. NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold later said, "We scrambled available airplanes from Tyndall [note this is near Tallahassee, not Jacksonville, Florida] and then from Ellington in Houston, Texas," but he doesn't say when. [Code One Magazine, 1/02] In another account, the first two F-16s to arrive are piloted by Shane Brotherton and Randy Roberts, from the Texas Air National Guard, not from any Florida base. [CBS, 9/11/02] All that's known for sure is that by 11:30 there were six fighters protecting Air Force One. [Sarasota Magazine, 9/19/01]

It would appear that fighters arrived some time between 11:00 and 11:30. These fighters were supposed to be on 24-hour alert, ready to get into the air in about five minutes. If we assume the fighters flew at a speed of 1,100 mph, the same speed Major Gen. Arnold said fighters used to reach New York City earlier in the day when traveling a comparable distance [MSNBC, 9/23/01 (C), Slate, 1/16/02], the fighters should have reached Sarasota in about 10 minutes. Yet they took around two hours to reach Air Force One from when they were likely first needed, shortly after 9:00.

This clearly goes beyond mere incompetence, yet no newspaper article has ever raised the issue. Was Cheney able to prevent the fighters from reaching Air Force One, perhaps to convince Bush not to return to Washington? If so, why? Did Cheney assume (or know) that Bush was in no real danger? Like so many other questions surrounding 9/11, we do not know.

Barksdale Air Force Base

Air Force One landed at Barksdale Air Force base near Shreveport, Louisiana at about 11:45 a.m. [CBS, 9/11/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01, Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] "The official reason for landing at Barksdale was that Bush felt it necessary to make a further statement, but it isn't unreasonable to assume that – as there was no agreement as to what the President's movements should be it was felt he might as well be on the ground as in the air." [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02] Ironically, the landing came only a short time after Bush's plane was finally protected by fighters.

There was quite a difference in the protection afforded Bush at Barksdale and what was in Sarasota. Bush was left unprotected at a known location in Sarasota for nearly 30 minutes. At Barksdale, a location that was at the time unknown, Congressman Dan Miller "was amazed at the armored equipment and soldiers with automatic weapons that immediately surrounded the plane." [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] Bush was driven to base headquarters in a Humvee escorted by armed outriders. Reporters and others remained under strict orders not to give out their location. [Telegraph, 12/16/01]

Bush was taken to a secret and secure place on the base. [Louisiana Life, Autumn 2002] Shortly after 12:30 p.m., Bush taped a short speech, which he wrote on a napkin. [Louisiana Life, Autumn 2002, Salon, 9/12/01, Washington Times, 10/8/02] The tape was broadcast on television at around 1:20 p.m. [Salon 9/11/01] He also "spent the next hour and a half talking on the phone," again arguing with Cheney and others over where he should go next. [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] The Secret Service felt the situation in Washington was still unsafe. [CBS, 9/11/02] Bush told Karl Rove: "I want to go back home as soon as possible." Rove answered: "Our people are saying it's unstable still." [AP, 9/13/01 (D)] Bush was told he could get to the US Strategic Command center in Offutt, Nebraska, quicker than he could fly to Washington, so he agreed to go to Nebraska. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, AP, 9/13/01 (D)]

Just after 1:00 p.m., Bush supposedly "received an intelligence report from the base commander that a high-speed object was headed for his ranch in Crawford, Texas." It turned out to be another false alarm. [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p.117] This may well be another bogus report designed to explain why Bush didn't return to Washington at this time, since US airspace was declared clear except for some military and emergency flights at 12:16 p.m. [USA Today, 8/12/02 (C)] By 12:30, the FAA reported that only about 50 of these flights were still flying in US airspace, and none were reporting problems [CNN, 9/12/01, New York Times, 9/12/01], so how could an unknown plane have been headed toward Bush's ranch 30 minutes after that?

Offutt Air Force Base

Air Force One left Barksdale for Offutt Air Force Base around 1:30 p.m. [CBS, 9/11/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01, Salon, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/11/01, MSNBC, 9/22/01, CNN, 9/12/01] The Air Force One entourage was pared down to a few essential staffers such as Ari Fleischer, Andrew Card, Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, and Gordon Johndroe [White House, 9/11/01], plus about five reporters. [AP, 9/12/01 (D)] During the flight, Bush remained in "continuous contact" with the White House Situation Room and Vice President Cheney. [CNN, 9/11/01 (B)]

Air Force One landed at Offutt shortly before 3:00 p.m. [Washington Post, 9/11/01] At 3:06, Bush passed through security to the US Strategic Command Underground Command Center [Salon, 9/11/01, CBS, 9/11/02] and was taken into an underground bunker designed to withstand a nuclear blast. [Telegraph, 12/16/01]

There, he held a teleconference call with Vice President Cheney, National Security Advisor Rice, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, CIA Director Tenet, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, and others. [ABC News, 9/11/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01, Washington Times, 10/8/02] The meeting lasted about an hour. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, Salon, 9/11/01, AP, 8/19/02] Rice recalled that during the meeting, Tenet told Bush, "Sir, I believe it's al-Qaeda. We're doing the assessment but it looks like, it feels like, it smells like al-Qaeda." [CBS, 9/11/02]

By this time, people were anticipating and expecting another reassuring public statement from Bush. [Orlando Sentinel, 9/12/01] The White House staff was preparing for Bush to address the nation from the Offutt bunker, but Bush decided instead to return to Washington. [CBS, 9/11/02]

As a side note, Warren Buffett, one of the richest people in the world, was hosting an unpublicized charity benefit inside the high security Offutt military base at 8:00 a.m. With him were business leaders and several executives from the World Trade Center, including Anne Tatlock of Fiduciary Trust Co. International, who likely would have died had it not been for the meeting. [San Francisco Business Times, 2/1/02] They watched a lot of the television coverage that morning, but it's unknown if any of these people were still at Offutt by the time Bush arrived in the afternoon.

Back in Washington

Air Force One left Offutt around 4:30 p.m. [MSNBC, 9/22/01, CNN, 9/12/01, Telegraph, 12/16/01] and landed at Andrews Air Force Base at 6:34 p.m., escorted by two F-15 fighters and one F-16. [CNN, 9/11/01] Bush then took the Marine One helicopter to the White House [Salon 9/11/01], arriving shortly before 7:00 p.m. [CNN, 9/12/01, Telegraph, 12/16/01, AP, 8/19/02]

Bush gave a nationally televised speech at 8:30 p.m. [CNN, 9/12/01, White House, 9/11/01], speaking for about five minutes. [US News, 9/14/01] In what would later be called the Bush Doctrine, he stated, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." [Washington Post, 1/27/02]

Around 9:00 p.m., Bush met with his full National Security Council, followed roughly half an hour later by a meeting with a smaller group of key advisors. Bush and his advisors had already decided bin Laden was behind the attacks. CIA Director Tenet told Bush that al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan were essentially one and the same. [Washington Post, 1/27/02]

Before going to sleep around 11:30 p.m., Bush wrote in his diary, "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.... We think it's Osama bin Laden." [Washington Post, 1/27/02]

Rewriting History

The many accounts of what happened to Bush on 9/11 are riddled with disinformation of false threats, omitted details, fudged timing, and more. But around September 11, 2002, the heavily publicized first anniversary of the attacks, there was an obvious attempt to further rewrite the story.

Chief of Staff Andrew Card claimed that after he told Bush about the second World Trade Center crash, "it was only a matter of seconds" before Bush "excused himself very politely to the teacher and to the students, and he left" the classroom. Card also stated that Bush "quickly excused himself to a holding room." [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/11/02] In a different account, Card said, "Not that many seconds later the president excused himself from the classroom." [MSNBC, 9/9/02] The Booker school video shows these statements are lies - unless "a matter of seconds" means over 700 seconds!

Sandra Kay Daniels, the teacher whose second-grade classroom Bush visited on 9/11, told the Los Angeles Times that after Card informed Bush of the second crash, Bush got up and left. "He said, 'Ms. Daniels, I have to leave now.' ... Looking at his face, you knew something was wrong. I said a little prayer for him. He shook my hand and left." Daniels also said, "I knew something was up when President Bush didn't pick up the book and participate in the lesson." [Los Angeles Times, 9/11/02] However, the Booker video clearly shows that Bush did follow along after being told of the second plane. [Video: Center for Cooperative Research, Buzzflash, Global Free Press, The Emperor's New Clothes, or Liberty DYNU]

The New York Post reported, "A federal agent rushed into the room to inform the president of the United States. President Bush had been presiding over [Daniels's] reading class last 9/11, when a Secret Service agent interrupted the lesson and asked, 'Where can we get to a television?'" Daniels then claimed that Bush left the class even before the second crash: "The president bolted right out of here and told me: 'Take over.'" When the second crash occurred, she claims her students were watching TV in a nearby media room. [New York Post, 9/12/02] This article is riddled with errors. As mentioned previously, the Secret Service was already watching the second plane crash live on television in an adjacent room at 9:03 - long before this supposedly happened. Nor did Bush "bolt" out of the room; in fact, even pro-Bush author Bill Sammon called Bush "the dawdler in chief" for taking so long to leave the room. [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 90]

Bush himself took part in the historical revisionism. In an extensive video interview shown on CBS's "60 Minutes," he again repeated his bizarre belief that he was watching television when the first crash took place. CBS also revived the false story that terrorists had broken Air Force One's secret codes, even though it was CBS who debunked that same story nearly a year earlier. [CBS, 9/11/02]

Vital Questions Remain Unanswered

Needless to say, in the anniversary hoopla, Bush and other leaders were described as "resolute," "brave," "strong," and so forth. Even the minor level of media criticism just after 9/11 that led to several reporters losing their jobs was absent. The topic of Bush's behavior on 9/11 has been barely mentioned in the media since.

There are many questions that deserve answers. So many pieces of the puzzle do not fit. Simply by reading the mainstream media reports, we can see that mere incompetence doesn't explain what happened to Bush on that day. For instance, it makes no sense that Bush would listen to a story about a goat long after being told the US was under attack, and even after the Secret Service decided to immediately evacuate him from the school. It defies explanation that Air Force One's fighter escort took two hours to appear. And it is mind-boggling that there are seven different versions of how Bush learned about the first crash.

It's doubtful that the Independent Commission investigation will look critically at what Bush did on 9/11 and why he did it. Despite the contradictory reports, no one in the mainstream media has yet demanded clarification of the many obvious inconsistencies and problems of the official version. Anyone even asking questions has been quickly insulted as anti-American, accused of bashing the president in a time of war, or branded a conspiracy nut. Only a few relatives of the 9/11 attacks have been able to raise these issues publicly. For instance, Kristen Breitweiser told Phil Donahue: "It was clear that we were under attack. Why didn't the Secret Service whisk [Bush] out of that school? ... [H]e is the commander-in-chief of the United States of America, our country was clearly under attack, it was after the second building was hit. I want to know why he sat there for 25 minutes." [Donahue, 8/13/02] But so far, few have listened to their concerns.

Because the media has failed in its role to ask these questions, much less attempt to answer them, it is now the responsibility of ordinary Americans - of you, of me, and the people we know - to gather the information, look for answers, and sound the alarm.

Allan Wood has assisted with the research for, and editing of, the 9/11 Timeline. He is also a member of 911CitizensWatch.org. Any questions, comments, or additional information regarding this article can be sent to his email: aninterestingday @hotmail.com (remove the space). Thanks to Melissa Kavonic for assisting in the proofreading of the article.

The Center for Cooperative Research needs your support. Click here to donate.