9 11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA - Amazon Noir

Page 36
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA war being fought against real and
formidable enemies, why was it not possible now? Pro-Bush spokesmen were
forced into such contortions as arguing that the current situation was
infinitely more dangerous than any moment of World War II, or of the
Cold War. For those who remembered the Cuban missile crisis, when one
hundred million Americans might have died in the first hour of a nuclear
exchange, these notions were patently absurd. Alarmed by the threat of a
rapid and credible investigation being raised by the agitation of
Torricelli and a small group of like-minded senators, Bush took the
highly unusual step of asking House and Senate leaders to limit the
inquiry to the House and Senate intelligence committees, whose
proceedings are generally secret. Senate Democratic leaders wanted a
broader investigation, involving some committees that would be free to
air their findings. But even the Democrats had already narrowed the
focus to intelligence failures preceding the terrorist attacks. In
ruling out any serious probes, Bush attempted to wrap himself in the
banner of military necessity in the prosecution of his alleged war on
terror; a senior administration official said, "The president thinks
it's important for Congress to review events in a way that does not
unduly burden the defense and intelligence communities as they are still
charged with fighting a war." Bush made this request of Senate Majority
Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD) during a breakfast meeting with
congressional leaders. Daschle told reporters that Cheney had "expressed
the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take
resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism."
Daschle said he agreed with the demand by Bush and Cheney to "to limit
the scope and the overall review of what happened." In other words, the
supposed opposition was agreeing that there was no need to prove the US
government's official version of events. What were they hiding? ("Bush
Seeks To Restrict Hill 9/11 Probes, Intelligence Panels' Secrecy Is
Favored," Washington Post, January 30, 2002) The milquetoast Daschle was
a poor substitute for a real opposition leader. His capitulation on the
board of inquiry issue set the tone for a series of Democratic Party
surrenders that lasted for the duration of 2002, and which included
abdicating to Bush the constitutional monopoly of the Congress on the
power to declare war. And what happened to Torricelli? He was owed much
by his party. As head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee,
he was often given credit for the 2000 election victories that brought
Senate Democrats from 45 seats to 50. Soon after that, he became the
target of corruption charges regarding his campaign finances and gifts
he had allegedly accepted. For years, he had been profiled as a severe
critic of the intelligence agencies. In January 2002, Torricelli
supporters hailed US Attorney Mary Jo White's decision not to pursue
prosecution of Torricelli for accepting illegal gifts as a vindication.
But even on that occasion, the New York Times kept up the pressure for
Torricelli to be skewered, arguing in an editorial that "the allegations
against Mr. Torricelli are serious and cry out for prompt investigation
and resolution in a manner worthy of