Still digging for answers to 9/11? PART II
According to a July poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East.The Internet has had a monumental impact spiking the interest in the truth of 9/11. The article goes on to describe the stirrings that started it:
The Truth Movement's recent growth can be largely attributed to the Internet-distributed documentary "Loose Change." A low-budget film produced by two 20-somethings that purports to debunk the official story of 9/11, it's been viewed over the Internet millions of times.
The recent interest in the topic has peaked in the past few weeks as blogger on all sides have been wondering who caused 9/11 and who started up all worry about it five years later in December 2006?! I have read 9/11 blamed on everyone from the Jews to President Bush to Nancy Reagan!
The Portland Independent Media Center sparks hype by announcing:
Mock Boston Tea Parties being held on 12/16. Throwing 911 Commission Report into the harbors! *spell check=mineThe Nation looks to the future and see the future of problems this recent on-line-spun-on skepticism can cause:
But the real danger posed by the Truth Movement isn't paranoia. Rather, the danger is that it will discredit and deform the salutary skepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders.
It is quite remarkable that the American people hold some must distrust of President Bush and the media that 5 years after September 11, 2006, President Bush is still trying to fill the chairman spot on the 9/11 Commission board (they keep quitting) and that more and more investigation is going into figuring out what really happened on the morning of September 11, 2001.
The 9/11 Commission published its recommendations in 2004. In it they said this:
In the 9/11 story, for example, we sometimes see examples of information that could be accessed-like the undistributed NSA information that would have helped identify Nawaf al Hazmi in January 2000. But someone had to ask for it. In that case, no one did. Or, as in the episodes we describe in chapter 8, the information is distributed, but in a compartmented channel. Or the information is available, and someone does ask, but it cannot be shared.They are, of course, talking about sharing intelligence. I think Americans are starting to demand the same sort of freedom of information. They want to know why 9/11 happened and who they can blame. They want to know every detail of intelligence that followed-- how did world leaders respond? Why did we go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Were the media completely honest with everything they knew or were they protecting intelligence (or was somebody just not asking the right questions)? I want to know if this raising demanding questions is a good thing-- another Watergate, perhaps? But no, I think everybody's favorite buddies Bernstein & Woodward were underdogs. Perhaps this is more of a blogger's hackling problem and I've just added to the noise?
What all these stories have in common is a system that requires a demonstrated "need to know" before sharing. This approach assumes it is possible to know, in advance, who will need to use the information. Such a system implicitly assumes that the risk of inadvertent disclosure outweighs the benefits of wider sharing. Those Cold War assumptions are no longer appropriate. The culture of agencies feeling they own the information they gathered at taxpayer expense must be replaced by a culture in which the agencies instead feel they have a duty to the information-to repay the taxpayers' investment by making that information available.
**edit: Forgive the wrong link! CBS.com sure didn't say that! CBSnews.com said it here.
And PS-- Not only is September 11 appearing in the news 5 years following, Princess Diana is making headlines this week after her August 30, 1997 death! Talk about a come back! Story here on news.yahoo.com.