LIHOP, MIHOP, or neither?

POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 3, 2005 03:33
VIEWED: 4280
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

CONNORFLYNN

Sunday, July 31, 2005 1:26 AM

I don't have a ton of time at the moment to do a long winded response. ( I'm sucking down some wine and enjoying the evening hehe). This is a great topic though, AJ!

However, I am of the opinion that there is some truth to "LIHOP" ( Let it happen on purpose ). Not to the extent that the current administration "thought" that the attacks that occurred would be as "catastrophic" as they were and "allowed" them to happen with that fore known information. I'm more of the opinion ( based on PNAC Agenda and those involved in the Intelligence and Defense Departments ) that they DID know attacks were coming and underestimated the ultimate outcome. I believe that they "Thought" that the attacks ( with acceptable anticipated losses, not the 3000 that actually occurred ) would allow them to insinuate that Iraq was involved and this would make it easier to invade Iraq. Once again, proving that they ( The brains behind the machine ) are incompetent when it comes to FULLY assessing a situation.

Rumsfeld and cronies have continually used terms like "Acceptable Losses", "Sacrifices are worth it" etc..etc..

This is a real danger when a Military Globalization Agenda is pushed. It becomes in my opinion a REAL National security risk.

I'll write more later when I have more time.

PS.. Thanks for an interesting topic AJ. I hope to gain some more insight and compare notes. I don't believe that the Administration "Made it happen on Purpose" That is a little too diabolical in my mind.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:59 PM

I think they are both nonsense. I’m certainly inclined towards neither.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

IMEARLY

Sunday, July 31, 2005 9:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think they are both nonsense. I’m certainly inclined towards neither.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

I agree wholeheartedly, the idea that any administration would willingly allow, much less participate in something on the magnitude of 911 is preposterous. For you doubters out there, remember that we are the same nation who couldn’t even conceal the identity of a solitary CIA agent, much less the knowledge of these two horrible conspiracy theories.

Go sign my Guest Book, http://www.geocities.com/thisbrownhouse
Then download Serenity, http://homepage.mac.com/rocketplane/FileSharing8.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, July 31, 2005 11:40 PM

Yeah... here I go again, agreeing with Finn. Both are pretty far-fetched.

I'm not saying the neo-cons didn't eagerly jump on it as a vehicle for their foreign policy designs, but, conspiracy? Without some pretty convincing evidence, I gotta leave this one to the nutjobs. Chrisisall?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NEUTRINOLAD

Monday, August 1, 2005 2:08 AM

neither.

SIGNYM

Monday, August 1, 2005 2:27 AM

LIHOP. The PNAC people had no interest in stopping a terrorist attack on the USA. But IMHO Bush was out of the loop on this one.

The FAA air traffic control records and tapes of air traffic controller interviews were shredded almost immediately. Bush had to be shamed by the victims' families into an investigation, and wouldn't testify under oath (and Cheney had to hold his hand). In fact the second part of the 9-11 Commission can't be completed thanks to the Bush administration witholding key witnesses. It smells like a coverup to me.

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Monday, August 1, 2005 3:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
LIHOP. The PNAC people had no interest in stopping a terrorist attack on the USA. But IMHO Bush was out of the loop on this one.

The FAA air traffic control records and tapes of air traffic controller interviews were shredded almost immediately. Bush had to be shamed by the victims' families into an investigation, and wouldn't testify under oath (and Cheney had to hold his hand). In fact the second part of the 9-11 Commission can't be completed thanks to the Bush administration witholding key witnesses. It smells like a coverup to me.

Let me start by saying the whole LIHOP/MIHOP thing is the most asinine discussion I've seen on these boards, period. Allow me to explain my position.

The LIHOP side is the more plausible of the two theories. But that would mean that GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of Central Intelligence, the chief of the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, the Chief of the Directorate of Operations, would all have to be in on the secret. At least all of these people would know. In addition, the team tracking UBL for the CIA would probably all know, in addition to the case officer who collected the information. As any intel guy will tell you (qualified, cause I was one), the chances of keeping a secret decrease in direct proportion to the number of people keeping the secret. It's no surprise there's been tension between the administration and the CIA; I have a hard time swallowing the notion that all them folk could be in on a secret that would cost all those lives, and then not tell anyone after the fact.

Another down side to the LIHOP theory is the extremely precise intel you'd have to have. The number of people that planned the 9/11 attacks was extremely small--likely a dozen or less. Which means that you'd have to have an asset inside a circle of twelve. Terrorist organizations are notoriously hard to collect on. You either have to recruit an asset on the inside, which means that you have to dissuade someone from a cause they believe in enough to die for (tough sell), or infiltrate an agent in (and you don't even want to know the lengths these folks go through to vet recruits--suffice it to say that an agent would have to do things illegal and immoral just to get in the door). Now how much more difficult to get an asset into a top-level group of twelve or less? Give me a break.

Even the most rudimentary understanding of the intelligence business will acquaint you with the reality that you never have enough info to make perfect assessments. Intel is like putting together a 1,000 piece puzzle--except you've got 10,000 pieces, and no box top. I was in the intel business for 10 years and never saw intel so good that it predicted when/where/how. You were lucky if you got "what". So the idea that the administration had this perfect intel and sat on it is absurd, to say the least. Not to mention the fact that I've not seen one shred of what would pass as credible evidence in favor.

MIHOP is even less plausible (if that's even possible). MIHOP assumes that GWB, Cheney, at least Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice put together this operation. That means that an entire machine would have to have been put in motion: logistics, recruiting, training, and on, and on. If you start all that from scratch, it will get noticed and people will start sniffing around. If you use existing U.S. assets, more and more people will get in the loop and the secret will spill. If you climb in bed with foreign terrorist groups, they would immediately declare our involvement to further weaken our resolve. No matter how you slice the pie, money gets spent, facilities used or built, people recruited and trained, planning done, intel collected...the more of that kind of activity that takes place, the more likely the secret will get out.

Now, the thing that really hacks me off about both of these is the idea that the current administration would just turn a blind eye to the deaths of all those p

SERGEANTX

Monday, August 1, 2005 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The FAA air traffic control records and tapes of air traffic controller interviews were shredded almost immediately. Bush had to be shamed by the victims' families into an investigation, and wouldn't testify under oath (and Cheney had to hold his hand). In fact the second part of the 9-11 Commission can't be completed thanks to the Bush administration witholding key witnesses. It smells like a coverup to me.

Oh, come on, Signym. If they're covering up anything it's just the bit about shooting down the plane over Pennsylvania. If you wanna talk secrets, that's the only one that seems plausible to me, and it's what they should have done anyway. Covering it up was probably prudent as well. Not saying it happened that way, but if it did, well... that's a cover-up I could live with.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Monday, August 1, 2005 5:06 AM

The tape was related to the World Trade Center attacks, not the Penna crash.

Quote:
Information provided to the commission investigating the U.S. government's response to terrorist threats prior to September 11, 2001, names an FAA quality manager in the destruction of an audiotape made in the aftermath of the 9/11 hijackings. Each of at least six air traffic controllers and some ten other employees who were on the job at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) in Ronkonkoma, N.Y., during the World Trade Center attacks gathered several hours after to recall their version of events. But that tape, which could have helped determine how the agency responded to clues that four planes had been hijacked, was destroyed before it was ever heard. In fact, officials at the ARTCC were never even told of the tape's existence. According to the report given to the 9/11 Commission by Department of Transportation Inspector General Kenneth Mead, the audiotape was crushed in the hand of the unnamed FAA employee, then cut into small pieces and tossed into different trash cans around the ARTCC building. Despite the fact that the quality assurance officer had been told to retain all records pertaining to 9/11, he told inspector general investigators he destroyed the tape because he felt making it was contrary to FAA policy, which calls for written statements. He is also quoted to have said the controllers "were not in the correct frame of mind to have properly consented to the taping" because of the stress of the day, and told investigators that faced with a similar situation, he would repeat his actions.

www.avweb.com/newswire/10_20a/briefs/187259-1.html

SIGNYM

Monday, August 1, 2005 6:23 AM

I'm going to respond to the LIHOP part of your post.

Quote:
The LIHOP side is the more plausible of the two theories. But that would mean that GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of Central Intelligence, the chief of the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, the Chief of the Directorate of Operations, would all have to be in on the secret. At least all of these people would know. In addition, the team tracking UBL for the CIA would probably all know, in addition to the case officer who collected the information...It's no surprise there's been tension between the administration and the CIA;

You're the only other person on this board who seems to have picked up this. But it's a lot more than "tension".

Quote:
I have a hard time swallowing the notion that all them folk could be in on a secret that would cost all those lives, and then not tell anyone after the fact.

It seems to me that under the then-current rules, the FBI would be the agency in charge, not the CIA.

Quote:
Another down side to the LIHOP theory is the extremely precise intel you'd have to have....the idea that the administration had this perfect intel and sat on it is absurd, to say the least.

That assumes that the LIHOP theory is that the President et al knew EXACTLY what was going to happen. I don't think anyone is trying to make that case. Let's just say he didn't do anything to enhance airport security, even with a warning that UbL was going to try and use aircraft to strike at the USA.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE