[lbo-talk] Why do they hate Moore?

[C. G. Estabrook]

I think you're doing a bit of gnat-straining here.  It seems clear that
Osama & co. were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, primarily because they
said so.  But the US showed itself rather uninterested in the matter: it
had another agenda, as we know from Clarke et al.

After 9/11, the US demanded the surrender of al-Qaeda from the Afghan
government, who replied that they were willing to discuss the matter and
wanted proof that Osama was responsible.  Perhaps the USG had such proof
then, but we don't know, because they refused to produce it, rejected the
offer to negotiate, and launched an aggressive war against a devastated
country, we being responsible for its devastation (from the Carter
administration on, if you believe Brzezinski).

"Eight months after the bombing, FBI director Robert Mueller could only
inform a Senate Committee that US intelligence now 'believes' the plot was
hatched in Afghanistan, though planned and implemented elsewhere."

BTW, an important point was made by Hendrik Hertzberg (whom I don't
normally like) immediately after the attack, as quoted in yesterday's
NYTBR: "The scale of the damage notwithstanding, a more useful metaphor
than war is crime. The terrorists of September 11 are outlaws within a
global polity ... Their status and numbers are such that the task of
dealing with them should be viewed as a police matter, of the most urgent
kind." --CGE

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004, Luke Weiger wrote:


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
> 
> 
> > Uh, Mueller wasn't saying simply that he lacked a current address for
> > Osama...
> 
> Mueller didn't seem to be implying (at least in the statement as quoted)
> that he had any doubts about bin Laden's involvement.  Now, if you have
> other quotations that clearly imply that Mueller had such doubts, I'd love
> to see them.
> 
> -- Luke
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>