Question: when does 9/11 incompetence become 9/11 LIHOP?

[paulthompson]

The subject heading is perhaps a rhetorical question, but this struck me, from a Palm Beach Post editorial:

"President Bush must be afraid that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States will produce a report showing that he ignored warnings of an Al-Qaeda strike -- and possibly specific warnings about using hijacked airplanes as missiles. An extension would push any such revelations well into the reelection campaign."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/auto/epaper/editions/wednesday/opinion_04d04c57a54cb15e0044.html

I've always thought it's a slippery slope between 9/11 incompetence theory and LIHOP theory. LIHOP still remains politically taboo, but are we starting to slide down the slope with things like recent comments by Howard Dean and Wes Clark, and media comments like this?

Let's say for instance the Bush was pretty certain that al-Qaeda would attack the US soon, but didn't exactly know when, where, or how, and nevertheless kept counterterrorism a low priority and didn't take any steps to defend the US at all? Is that incompetence or LIHOP? In my opinion, they blend into each other, and both are impeachable.

Then there's this comment in the Village Voice today too:

"Then Prince of Darkness Bob Novak, the man who outed CIA agent Valerie Plame, led the attack on Dean for raising the questions about what and when George Bush's administration knew about 9/11. Dean was painted as unpatriotic. Did Dr. Dean have no conscience? How dare he attack George Bush, our commander in chief in war? It doesn’t matter that the question of foreknowledge is widely discussed in political circles all across the country. The question of foreknowledge was fueled by a Senate Intelligence Committee report that was widely reported, not by some Commie hiding out in the Dean camp."

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0403/nh5.php

So, more and more, foreknowledge is being discussed, but as yet the media is too chicken to come right out and say it, or really do any investigation about it.

[Abe Linkman]

1. Please distinguish between LIHOP & MIHOP

PT:

How are you distinguishing LIHOP from MIHOP?

I don't understand how there can be any such thing as "LIHOP" for 9-11.

[paulthompson]

2. That's another excellent question

I think the difference between LIHOP (Let It Happen on Purpose) vs. MIHOP (Made It Happen on Purpose) is also blurry. For instance, if you've going to LIHOP, but that you find out a few FBI agents are getting close to solving the thing via the Moussaoui case and you throw some impediments in their way to make sure that doesn't happen, does that suddenly mean MIHOP?

In the absolute MIHOP theories with there being no hijackers at all, explosives in the WTC, etc, the distinction between LIHOP and MIHOP is obvious. But there's a lot of grey area, short of those kinds of theories. As with the LIHOP vs. incompetence distinction, much of it depends on the internal mentalities of the decision makers, something that's hard to know precisely or prove.

As an example, let's say you have a security guard who sees a thief running down the street after obviously robbing the bank. The guard does nothing. Was the guard just lazy (incompetence), willing to let the thief go for some reason (say, he hates the owner of the bank or whatever) (LIHOP), or paid off and in on the plot (MIHOP)? From his behavior standing on the street, you can't tell.

[gandalf]

4. Good analogy reveals the problem

As long as we simple citizens stand on the street (in the darkness, without few street lights), it is probably impossible to reach definite conclusions. That doesn't mean it is impossible to sense that something went wrong, however.
Unfortunately the underfunded and corrupt Police is not to interfere with the Presidential campaign.

[Abe Linkman]

6. Flawed analogy

We aren't talking about a situation where there is only one potential LIHOPPER/MIHOPPER (bank security guard).

There's no similarity between your running thief scenario and what happened on 9-11.

It's impossible for 9-11 to have been a LIHOP situation. It can only be a MIHOP event. The real questions are who the perps are and how did they carry out the mission (e.g. what hit the Pentagon? F-16/Cruise missile? What was the C130 doing there? etc. were explosives used in any/all of the buildings that were hit or which collapsed? ).

[gandalf]

7. Analogy

Probably it doesn't make sense to discuss this analogy too long, only one remark: The bank scenario does not imply that the only culpable is the guard. The bank manager might have switched off the security system, the police do not investigate, the press downplays the whole thing, etc.

(I did not want to propagate LIHOP here.)

[Abe Linkman]

9. That makes it MIHOP, not LIHOP

LIHOP is seeing the person sleeping on the RR tracks & doing nothing as the train approaches. When the engineer turns off the train horn so it can't be sounded, that's part of MIHOP. When a bystander disables the
crossing guard's lights & bells, that's MIHOP.

The key is whether or not ACTION was taken which was the proximate cause of the result thereof.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. There's still a difference in degree here.

Whether you make it an "active LIHOP" like I describe below, or you move that up to a lesser degree of MIHOP, there's the question of actual communication between parties.

If the Bush administration saw through intelligence reports that the attacks were coming, and actually took steps to keep normal processes blind to what was happening, then this is treasonable enough, and would damn them for all time.

But there's a further range of culpability that seems to be expounded here: that the Bush adminstration was involved in the actual planning of the attacks. The idea that they actually carried out the attacks (instead of simply allowing the attacks to happen) is what I understand to be the core of the MIHOP proposal.

Regardless, we're just arguing about terminology that's not specific enough. There's Incompetence (being surprised by the blow when you shouldn't have), there's passive LIHOP (simply taking the blow as if by surprise), there's active LIHOP (making sure you're full on in the position to take the blow), and then there's MIHOP (paying the guy to hit you).

[paulthompson]

16. active vs. passive

I like that distinction. I also like the blow to the face analogy, maybe it works better than my security guard one.

One can make active vs. passive incomptence distinctions as well, as probably other shades inbetween. For instance, I don't remember the exact quote, but one of Paul O'Neill's revelations was Bush saying to his cabinet something along the lines, someone get me the excuse I need for an Iraq war. That reminds me so much of the whole Thomas of Becket: "Someone rid me of this meddlesome priest!"

So you could have a deliberate attempt to promote incompetence, knowing that if you did a terrorist attack would hit the US sooner or later and that would give you the Iraq war excuse. That would actually be a kind of incompetence/MIHOP hybrid, where you're making it happen, but you don't actually know the details of what you're making happen.

So many different possibilities and shades.

[RH]

17. Academic or Political?

Before determining others' responsibilities wise men look to their own.

Whatever Bush or whoever may or may not have thought or done, what are the present intents and purposes?

What is the likely effect of the moot question?

Is Bush going to be up on trial sometime soon?

Or is the loose talk of letting it happen more likely to stimulate the "war against terror"?

:nuke:

[RH]

3. After the event.

;)

[frylock]

5. a kick and a thank you..

for all the work you have put into your research. Thanks, Paul!!

[Bolo Boffin]

8. LIHOP is the broadest of the positions.

At least with MIHOP, you are positing overt actions which may yet be proven to have occured. However, to my mind, MIHOP implies a degree of plan coordination with the perps - lines of communication. LIHOP has always had degrees of activity vs. passivity for me - general knowledge of the attack and method, but nothing firm, and no action taken though options for action existed: that would be passive LIHOP. Actually stopping investigators from pursuing leads, enforcing a blind eye to terrorists watch lists, these are actions which would imply an active LIHOP - a LIHOP-13, if you will.

MIHOP and active LIHOP can be easily proven or disproven, but passive LIHOP will not be so easy. The knowledge of the Bush adminstration isn't going to be the sticking point; it will be proving that there were viable preventative options that were then ignored.

[Abe Linkman]

10. LIHOP is the bush Administration's limited, modified, hangout

As more of the public become aware that the "Wacky Cave Man Conspiracy Theory" is a lie, the Administration will "promote" (passively promote via "friendly media connections of PR firm flacks") the idea that to their great shock, it appears that it might be the case that a few (but only a few) otherwise well-meaning people may have misinterpreted the "planned" (and well-timed) simulated terrorist attacks exercise that were to have been held on 9-11...and as a result, to their own great horror, they unintentionally aided the "REAL" terrorists to carry out a
"real" attack. Get that?

In other words, LIHOP is a defense strategy to be used if absolutely necessary. Since the public is so easily led (especially, considering how much disinformaiton they've been exposed to since 9-11), the Gov't knows that the public will buy into LIHOP...and then get righteously upset at people for even suggesting that LIHOP is a lie to cover up MIHOP.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Okay, now, you see?

When you talk to us, when you let us know what's on your mind, then we can address it, and discuss it, and know where you're coming from. We have a dialogue, not a combat zone.

That's actually a very ingenious insight, all my previous smartassery aside. I do think it's wrong, but it's a much better and flashier point than all that "pull it" nonsense.

Where it's good is the creative use of the several simulated attacks that were happening at the time, especially the one on that day (was that the CIA?). This might actually be used as a defense, if the Bush adminstration recognizes it as a possible defense, to lull the somewhat complacent back to sleep.

It's wrong for two reasons, I believe. First, what you're describing is not a LIHOP defense. It's an incompetence defense. If they "unintentionally" aided the terrorists, then it's not an OP defense of any stripe. it's actually a defense against any OP scenario, LIHOP or MIHOP both. If you can't prove intentionality, then it's not OP.

Now the second reason it's wrong is the way to disable BushCo from using it. There's too much information outside the realm of the simulations for the different agencies to have ignored. Bush hiding from airplanes-as-weapons at the G4 conference is well outside the scope of the simulations - no one would confuse this with a simulation. The Phoenix memo also has no logical connect with the simulations - why would work on this information be stalled because of a simulated terrorist attack?

The simulations are also contained events. They aren't actually out there sneaking through airport terminals or flying planes around the Pentagon. The one I've seen pictures of had a model built of the Pentagon and was using a toy airplane and tiny people to simulate the response. Why would anyone think the events leading up to 9/11 would have anything to do with the insulated simulation in a room that day? That's major incompetence, that's hanging incomptence.

These simulations, if so intended, will be no shield for the Bush adminstration.

[Abe Linkman]

12. bolo: Are you saying you agree it WAS MIHOP?

Wonders never cease, but there must be a "catch" here, because well, you know what I'm getting at. Free at last? If so, congratulations.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Oh, no. I think the only thing that's provable right now...

...is staggering incompetence. The Republicans are unfit to govern, particularly the ones in charge right now, and 9/11 is Exbihit A.

[Abe Linkman]

19. What incompetence are you referring to?

First, define incompetence, then explain how the "attacks" of 9-11 happened as the result (and proximate cause) of incompetence.

Take as much space as you need.

[Abe Linkman]

20. Addendum

WHO was incompetent? Specificity expected - don't just say "the goverment" or "the military". WHO was incompetent, and what specifically are you alleging shows their incompetence.

[paulthompson]

15. Layers of defense

I think Abe is right, that there are layers of defense the US can use. If straight up incompetence fails to convince, there are fall back positions.

The war game position is certainly one. The key war game to keep in mind here is Vigilant Guardian, happening on 9/11 itself. An excerpt from an essay I wrote:

NORAD was in the middle of another periodic war game, this one called Vigilant Guardian. Details are vague, except that the scenario tested "an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide" (Newhouse News, 1/25/02), and according to one NORAD employee, "everybody" at NORAD initially thought the real hijackings were part of the exercise. (Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02, Newhouse News, 1/25/02, ABC News, 9/11/02)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html

That couldn't be the defense for everything, but it could be used to defend the extremely slow fighter response on 9/11 itself.

I think another fall back explanation is the "Saudis did it" defense. Personally, I think key Saudis WERE involved, as well as key Pakistanis and al-Qaeda. There was a very obvious Pakistan/Saudi Arabia/UAE/Taliban/al-Qaeda alliance before 9/11. But I also think there was a LIHOP at minimum, if not MIHOP. Most people would be unable to simultaneously handle the "Saudis did it" and LIHOP at the same time and would consider them mutually exclusive, even though logically they're not. After all, this is the same US population that gets bin Laden and Hussein confused together.

One could also put forth the "Pakistanis did it" defense as yet another fall back position, but that's too geopolitically dicey and the evidence leads more directly into MIHOP territory. Which is why we see the Congressional Inquiry report released July 2003 focus so much on Saudi Arabia and ignore Pakistan altogether.

[RH]

18. Yes.

"it could be used to defend the extremely slow fighter response on 9/11 itself."

So why then is Vigilant Guardian not already invoked to do so?

Perhaps because it was the real reason for a slow response and a good deal more besides, hence a considerable responsibility and an embarassment to match?

9 out of every 10 conspiratorial cover ups follow a communal cock up of some sort of.