Book them!

The human weapon of mass destructive journalism Judith Miller has apparently 'fessed up to receiving advance intel leaked to her two months before the Sept. 11 attacks, intel which suggested that Al Qaeda was gearing up for a major attack on the U.S. She

In an interview with AlterNet published yesterday, she says -- brace yourself ---

"I had begun to hear rumors about intensified intercepts and tapping of telephones. But that was just vaguest kind of rumors in the street, indicators … I remember the weekend before July 4, 2001, in particular, because for some reason the people who were worried about Al Qaida believed that was the weekend that there was going to be an attack on the United States or on a major American target somewhere. It was going to be a large, well-coordinated attack. Because of the July 4 holiday, this was an ideal opportunistic target and date for Al Qaida.

My sources also told me at that time that there had been a lot of chatter overheard -- I didn't know specifically what that meant -- but a lot of talk about an impending attack at one time or another. And the intelligence community seemed to believe that at least a part of the attack was going to come on July 4. So I remember that, for a lot of my sources, this was going to be a 'lost' weekend. Everybody was going to be working; nobody was going to take time off. And that was bad news for me, because it meant I was also going to be on stand-by, and I would be working too.

"I was in New York, but I remember coming down to D.C. one day that weekend, just to be around in case something happened … Misery loves company, is how I would put it. If it were going to be a stress-filled weekend, it was better to do it together. It also meant I wouldn't have trouble tracking people down -- or as much trouble -- because as you know, some of these people can be very elusive.

"The people in the counter-terrorism (CT) office were very worried about attacks here in the United States, and that was, it struck me, another debate in the intelligence community...''

There's more, much more. Not the least of which is this:

"At the time I also had had a book coming out. Steve (Engleberg, then an editor at the Times), Bill Broad and I were co-authors of a book about biological terrorism. So we were working flat out on that book trying to meet our deadline. I was desperately trying to get my arms around this series that we were trying to do on Al Qaida. I was having a lot of trouble because the information was very hard to come by. There was a lot going on. I was also doing biological weapons stories and homeland security stories. And in Washington, if you don't have a sense of immediacy about something, and if you sense that there is bureaucratic resistance to a story, you tend to focus on areas of less resistance.

"Our pub date was Sept. 10th. I remember I was very worried about whether or not the publisher was actually going to get copies of the books to the warehouses in time...''

To be honest, I don't completely blame Miller here. This was a slippery story to double source. Her editors wouldn't go with what little she had -- although they were more than happy to do so later when she helped march the U.S. unto war with all those smoking guns and mirrors on WMDs. But I just gag when she excuses not chasing this down because of a book deadline.

Attytood takes a similiar tack on the journalism.

(T)he decision not to publish pre-9/11 is a toss-up. But why, in God's name, was this information not published in any clear and meaningful way immediately after 9/11, on the pages of the Times itself. Doesn't anyone think that information of advance warnings of the attack in the highest levels of Washington is something that the public needed to know in those early days after the attacks?

Instead, from what we can gather, the information has dribbled out... some of it in a 2005 article in Columbia Journalism Review, and some of it today in a story on an alternative, progressive Web site. Who exactly was the Times protecting in not writing this article in September 2001, immediately after the attack, and why?

And:

So this is now the third time that the timing and flow of a news article with major impact on the electorate and the American political debate was affected by journalists working on a book, and the conflict that posed with their responsibility to newspaper readers. The others are Bob Woodward's withholding of information about the CIA-Valerie Plame case he uncovered during his book research, and James Risen's warrantless wiretapping scoop, which was finally published in the Times after he finished writing a book on the same subject.

There's got to be a better system here. In theory, we think that newspaper reporters writing books is a good thing, certainly for the career of the reporter and usually for the reading public. But must the public's right-to-know be a casualty, time and time again?

Just one more thing: Miller's interview makes it very clear -- as if we didn't already know -- that the White House knew that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent, that its own counter terrorism people were warning of an attack -- and were being ignored.

Oh yeah: One more just one more thing. According to the nice people in the Star library, the Times has not yet reported on this.

Comments

[Bill-Muskoka]

Antonia,

I notice this statement:

'There was a lot going on. I was also doing biological weapons stories and homeland security stories.' in her interview. Excuse me but there was NO Homeland Security before 9/11!

So, is it a mispeak or a covering lie?

Regardless, Bush sat reading 'My Pet Goat' and staring into space instead of springing into action. I guess his handlers had not prompted him on what to do if the country fell under attack?

Sounds to me like Miller is trying to cover some WDC arses! Nebulousity, excuses, and THEY KNEW!

Anyone question the WTC body count BTW? I do. Normally there are 50,000 people in the WTC and the body count was under 4,000. Coincidence? I cannot accept that!

Would they have been able to move, say 46,000+ into the WTC in 15 to 20 minutes?

[amj]

Yeah, I booked that lie/blunder about Homeland Security too. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! I don't trust a single word that professional mouthpiece, Miller, utters.

The entire 9/11 oh-fish-all story reeks, it's bloody rotten from the head (potus) down. And I'm convinced that not only did the Bush admin (particularly the PNAC clan) have advance knowledge, they were in on it.

[Stephen Reeves]

Of course if the White House had announced an attack was imminent they would have been accused of scaremongering,etc etc.
They may have known an attack was soon, but no how or where.
Those that believe the Bush was behind the whole thing, really have mental problems, Bin Laden admitted to it for heaven's sake.
As for the body count what is the commentator above getting at??, is he saying that 40,000 died and we have not been told, or that 40,000 were told to stay away that day.(that many Jews!).

[Antonia Z.]

I agree with Stephen here on the body count issue. I think the original 50,000 applied to the entire WTC complex, not just the two towers. Overall, people had time to escape and the majority of those who died were those trapped above the points of impact.

However, I think the media should have pursued the story. It could have been handled with delicacy so as not to alarm people. (Although Lord knows, alarm would have helped. Imagine, for example, if the airline staffers who checked in those guys with one way tickets and box cutters were on the alert?? Or how about all those guys taking flying lessons without learning how to land?)

It was shocking how shocked everybody was -- not just by the horrific act itself but also by the existence of such groups as Al Qaeda.

That "They hate our freedoms'' nonsense was allowed to breed in a climate of ignorance fostered by a celebrity crazed media culture. Foreign news was forsaken for stories of Anne Heche's lunacy. In the end, this obsession with trivia led to the belief that the hijackers were Iraqi and that attacking Iraq would put a stop to terrorism.

Connect the media dots!

Guilty, guilty, guilty.

No wonder they all went nuts later waving the flag.

[amj]

sr, "Those that believe the Bush was behind the whole thing, really have mental problems..."

If you say so. lol

[Stephen Reeves]

I remember the summer of 2001 was the shark attack time, anyway, I was not aware that there were any Iraqi's involved in the attacks, I had thought that they were Saudi/Egyptians by way of Europe, or are you saying that the media misled people into believing they were Iraqis? I dunno, I presumed the attack on Iraq was the WMD thing, and the Afghanistan involvment was because of 9/11.
Mind you, their is a truism in "they hate our freedoms", I mean those guys do think we are kind of decadent, it may have been overplayed by the Right, but then again some of the Right hate our freedoms as well.Damm now I am confused, oh for the simple days of the Cold War.

[Antonia Z.]

Actually, the 911 Truth movement is growing like gangbusters. There are still many unanswered questions, many anomalies. Some are whacko. But not all.

I almost fell off my chair when I saw a story about it in a recent issue of Maclean's and another in today's National Post.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/education/article.jsp?content=20060515_126915_126915

Here are two organizations that are still demanding answers. Make of them what you will.

http://www.911truth.org/
http://www.septembereleventh.org/

Oh, and some of you might find this interesting. (Grain of salt and all that.)

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

FYI: I just provide the links here. I am not endorsing these sites, nor their content. I don't have time to comb over every page or link in them.

[amj]

AZ, "I think the original 50,000 applied to the entire WTC complex, not just the two towers."

A,

While I'm not questioning the body count, I do recall that 50,000 was the estimated number of people who worked in the Twin Towers, not the entire complex. I got that info from CNN on the day of the attacks, fwiw.

[sheena]

Geez, you guys are so impatient. Don't worry, you'll get your 50,000. Just might take another couple of years.

The toxic waste dump that is the remains of the WTC will haunt for a long time still. The water cooler buzz in lower Manhattan these days is about the move to demolish the former Deustch Bank building near the site. It's still covered by tarps to this day with creepy jagged damage you never see on TV.

Citizens are convinced that the building poses a massive health hazard and that knocking it down will poison the air even further.

No public hearings have allowed the man on the street to voice an opinion.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/379303p-322095c.html

[Bill-Muskoka]

Antonia,

You hit the nail on the head when saying:

'That "They hate our freedoms'' nonsense was allowed to breed in a climate of ignorance fostered by a celebrity crazed media culture. Foreign news was forsaken for stories of Anne Heche's lunacy. In the end, this obsession with trivia led to the belief that the hijackers were Iraqi and that attacking Iraq would put a stop to terrorism.'

The key phrase being: 'celebrity crazed media culture.' EXACTLY!

The media have become like a bunch of rock concert groupies hoping the fame will magickly transfer to them by their proximity! In short form its called Egomania!

The U.S. media, especially, is so deficit of foreign news that informs, rather than merely points towards countries whose actions spuriously support the mantra of WDC, that is the nations own worst enemy called ignorance! The result is gross distortion and media bias tailored to excite the fanatics with people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and all the others on both extremes.

When Rick Mercer did his 'Talking to Americans' skit on THH22M we all laughed. Are we laughing now?

I read Al Jazeera online simply because it presents indepth reporting of the 'why' things are in the world, not merely the Middle East. Want to know the real state of the petroleum fiasco? They covered it in detail. Want to know about what is happening in Europe? They cover it in detail.

Our own media is U.S. obsessed. We have serious issues all across Canada, and while Toronto may, or may not be, the Centre of The Universe to some, the realities of our far north, our resources, and people are the real Canada.

Now, regarding the 9/11 WTC issues. We all might recall that CBC presented a program on 'Fifth Estate' dealing with exactly the same issues raised by Michael Moore's 'Farenheit 9/11', and did it well before his movie was released.

They presented facts such as G.H.W. Bush meeting with the Bin Laden Group on the morning of 9/11, that the Saudi airplane got special dispensation to fly off home even though the entire North American airspace had gone to red alert, etc.!

These are not propaganda statements they are called facts! Those who merely proclaim people are 'out of their mind' really are saying 'Get out of my mind because I don't want to deal with the questions you raise!'

Its a principle of human nature exhibited by those living in a self-defined world of accepted delusions. the same thing is happening with the movie, and before with the book, 'The DaVinci Code'.

Some people simply cannot open their minds to question authority, or even examine their beliefs in a manner that leads to truth. They are too afraid of what they might find and be unable to deny. To me they simply have no faith, just a form of religion.

The media has played the role of the 'brain washer' to the masses by not doing their professed job and inundating the masses with trivial nothingness. Now, the people are doing it for them.

What is that line Jack Nicholson screamed at Tom Cruise? Oh yes, 'You can't handle the truth!' That is the mentality of those thinking they are in power beit the WH, Pentagon, Vatican, Ottawa, or some media mogul. They are wrong!

[Disco Stu]

Antonia, I read a few different blogs when I can, and I glance at your blog whenever I want to get the pulse of someone who is a passionate defender of public broadcasting. I started reading this thread and I must say your objectivity is seriously compromised. You want to blame 9/11 on Bush so bad that you cannot even think rationally anymore. Do you actually think that Mr. Bush allowed this tragedy to occur? Do you think ANY leader would not do everything in their power to stop such a tragedy if they knew it was coming? Of course not. I am sure the CIA did see an increase in terrorist intelligence leading up to 9/11, but I am also sure that they did not know where and when or even how an attack would occur. Secrecy and deception is what makes terrorist activity effective. It's time to face the truth Antonia, your hatred (yes hatred, there is no other way to describe it) of Mr. Bush and all things American has clouded your judgement and you then allow yourself to be influenced by conspiracy theorists like the ones you mention above. I know you say you are not endorsing them, but by linking to them you are indeed endorsing them. Anyway,I admire you defense of public broadcasting, but please try to be more objective when you present an issue, people will take you a loy more seriously if you do, otherwise you sound like any other old, tired run-of-the-mill socialist who dominate the media.

[Mark Federman]

Whether or not the so-called BushCo was responsible for the tragedy of September 11, 2001 is quite beside the point right now. (That is, it will become of historical interest five to ten decades from now, when future political historians will finally have relatively unfettered access to documents and relatively unspun testimony.)

The key issue for today is, irrespective of the motivation for the event itself, has BushCo used that tragedy as justification for a plan of control - both domestically and internationally - that had been well documented years before? (just Google "american empire" or "pax americana" or "project for the new american century")

It is not a matter of "hating America" to point out that most of its Bill of Rights, and Constitution, have been violated by the very people who swore to uphold it. It is not a matter of "hating America" to point out that the Executive Branch has repeated declared itself above the law in a country that was founded, and is nominally administered, on the rule of law.

In a country in which the majority of people are functionally illiterate, and the overwhelming majority are both innumerate and scientifically illiterate (see Jay Ingram's column in Saturday's Star), logic and critical thinking cannot overcome massively disseminated political propaganda (from both ideological sides), and jingoistic indoctrination. Nor can it overcome the xenophobic paranoia that is currently the top agenda item of those who would exercise totalitarian, theocratic control.

I do not hate America - I hate what it has become (I would otherwise say, "evolved into," but then again, in this case, I cynically think that there WAS intelligent design to explain the current outcome), primarily because of political and business leaders who would not have been allowed on the Mayflower by their Founding Fathers. Interestingly to me (and I will acknowledge that my personal views tend to be on the political left), I had the opportuntity to have a conversation with a staunch, right-wing, traditional Republican recently: His views on these issues were, for all intents and purposes, identical to mine.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Mark Federman,

That was an extremely accurate statement, to say the least.

I am descended from those who originally came to the New World. George Mason wrote the Declaration of Indedependence and stated the precepts of what true civilization entailed. It was written against the excesses of a men, not the Crown, although the man who sat upon the Throne reserved for the Chosen of God by the day's ascension was found wanting.

The vision was one of equality and that of a true leader towards a future for all, not inherited authority, neither were the absolutes of the era considered by him or the Founding Fathers (and Mothers BTW) to be acceptable in light of their beliefs

There was a paradigm shift in history to be accomplished, wherein, competency outweighed inherited authority and rights.

The course of history has rather ungracefully returned them to the days before such foresightful thought was penned.

Fear, propaganda, and greed have proven to be the gratest threat to that dream, lived so long ago. While it is not too late, the mounds and walls of discent loom large and foreboding before us all.

May we find the courage and intenstinal fortitude to persevere against those forces which promulgate the end of freedoms so honourbly won with the blood of so many!

[Stephen Reeves]

Whether or not the so-called BushCo was responsible for the tragedy of September 11, 2001 is quite beside the point right now
--------------------------------------------

Well they are still debating whether Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbour, so I guess 9/11 will be debated for much longer, beyond our lifetimes.