Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

The Attack Has Been Spectacular

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Jerry Cornelius
    Corsair of the Second Ether
    • Dec 2003
    • 98

    The Attack Has Been Spectacular

    The Attack Has Been Spectacular

    by Maureen Farrell

    "The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."-- CIA Intelligence Report for President Bush, July, 2001 (60 Days Prior to 9/11)

    "President Bush and his top advisers were informed by the CIA early last August that terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden had discussed the possibility of hijacking airplanes." - The Washington Post, May 16, 2002

    "Family members of victims of the terror attacks say the White House has smothered every attempt to get to the bottom of the outrageous intelligence failures that took place on its watch."--, June 18, 2003

    "If I did anything like this as a policeman, and killed 3,000 people, with this much evidence against me, I'd spend 100,000 years in jail." -- former New York City police officer Bruce DeCell, the Nation, June 19, 2003

    On September 11, 2001, when most were too numb to contemplate much of anything, Newsweek told us what to expect. "As a small army of fire fighters struggled to put out the flames at the World Trade Center in New York and at the Pentagon in Washington," Peg Tyre wrote, "federal law enforcement agencies had already begun marshaling agents, readying them for what promises to be the largest criminal investigation in the history of the nation."

    Nearly two years (and two wars) later, however, this huge investigation hasn't panned out. Attempts to uncover intelligence failures have been routinely thwarted; Halliburton has accomplished more in Afghanistan

    and Iraq

    than Bush's "dead or alive" doctrine; and sadly, the CIA's "spectacular attack" pertains not only to the trauma of 9/11, but to subsequent assaults on Americans' faith and trust.

    Regardless how anyone frames it, the White House duped us. From "they hate us for our freedoms" to "solid evidence" of Al-Qaeda/Iraq connections, the Administration skirted some issues and manipulated information on others. In short, Bush Inc. lied and pressured others to do the same. The game plan succeeded, however, as polls repeatedly indicated that more than half of all U.S. citizens were consistently conned into believing Iraq was an immediate threat and that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Meanwhile, millions of well-intentioned souls, unaware of how deeply Bush cronies are lining their war-profiteering pockets

    , still trust promises of Iraq's "liberation" -- even if hourly ambushes on US soldiers

    suggest Iraqis aren't exactly dancing in the streets.

    Nicholas Kristof, fresh from a trip to Iraq, told NPR's Terry Gross that women and Christians are especially vulnerable now that Iraq's Islamic fundamentalists "are winning"

    , while Canada's Globe and Mail reported that Iraq's children are in even greater peril -- with Iraq's child mortality rate, already astronomical after 12 years of sanctions, possibly "even higher since Saddam Hussein's regime fell and the United States took over governing the country."

    Given the circumstances, Iraqi rage, and the subsequent attacks, should have been foreseen. "It was predictable," Iraqi political scientist Saad al-Jawwad told the Guardian. "To any man or any woman or anybody who's living in despair what could he do? He has nothing left but to carry arms and defy the people who are here occupying his country and doing nothing for him or his family. Where is democracy? Nonexistent. Where is stability? Nonexistent. Where's electricity? Where's water?'',00.html

    Despite ample evidence that Bush misled the nation into a pre-planned war (and denounced anyone who tried to paint a realistic portrait of the aftermath), sets of razor-sharp teeth that bared for the slightest Clinton transgression have rescinded, and assorted bootlickers are now busily concocting doozies to cushion the Deceiver in Chief from blame. "Bush's reasons for invading Iraq seem to contradict reality," the Philadelphia Inquirer's Dick Polman recently wrote. "But if those claims do prove false, he won't be the first U.S. leader who has skewed evidence." If those claims prove false? <insert eye roll here.>

    Polman's "thank you, sir, may I have another?" tone notwithstanding, he chronicles a few of Bush's more blatant lies, including the president's Sept. 7, 2002 assertion that "Iraq was 'six months away' from building a nuclear weapon" ("I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said, citing a report that was apparently drafted in Brigadoon); his Oct. 7 charge that Iraq was planning "missions targeting the United States" via unmanned aerial vehicles (an impossibility, given the UAVs' limited range); the infamous State of the Union address in which Bush claimed Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger (though the CIA had long since told Cheney's office the documents containing this information were forged); and Bush's assertion that Iraq was trying to buy "high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production" (also discredited beforehand).

    Polman missed several other fibs, however, including one of the most creative -- that American soldiers had found Iraq's weather balloons of mass destruction.

    Nonetheless, Senators Jim Jeffords and Robert Byrd were among those who detected Bush's dissembling early on. "I am very disturbed by President Bush's determination that the threat from Iraq is so severe and so immediate that we must rush to a military solution. I do not see it that way," Jeffords said in October, 2002.

    "We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict," Byrd warned.

    But they, like other conscientious patriots, were up against a rising tide of coercion. Jeffords was subjected to frequent briefings by Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, President Bush and other top officials; Dick Cheney breathed down CIA necks

    ; and the White House reportedly pressured a State Department chemical and biological weapons expert to "tailor his analysis on Iraq and other matters to conform with the Bush administration's views."

    General Wesley Clark was also encouraged to engage, sans evidence, in Sept. 11 spin. "I got a call on 9/11," Clark told Tim Russert "I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. . . This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'"

    This assault didn't come solely from the White House, however. Last December, the Guardian's Brian Whitaker wrote an article on "how the American media [were] softening up public attitudes to war with Iraq," detailing ways the Washington Post, Reuters and most specifically, the New York Times' Judith Miller, spread disinformation.,00.html

    Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern credited Miller's legendary aluminum tubes scoop with providing the impetus for war -- just as the bogus "babies in incubators" story

    convinced the Senate to vote for war in 1991 "[The administration] looked around after Labor Day and said, "OK, if we're going to have this war, we really need to persuade Congress to vote for it," McGovern told William Rivers Pitt.

    Saying that the Bush administration realized that the hyped al Qaeda-Iraq connection would best resonate with traumatized Americans, this 27 year CIA veteran also concluded that, without reliable evidence, the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency would never "come around" to the administration's view and would "undercut" Bush's agenda. So the administration, McGovern surmised, said, "What have we got? We've got those aluminum tubes!"

    Though Daniel Ellsberg implored government insiders to expose Bush's lies

    and Scott Ritter tried to shed light on WMD deceit, they, like "old Europe," were vilified as a chorus of pundits targeted anyone who tried to tell the truth. "Americans broadly agree on two facts about the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq," Daniel Pipes wrote, "its brutality and the danger it poses to themselves, especially the danger of nuclear attack." While few doubted Saddam's cruelty, those who didn't blindly accept mushroom cloud propaganda were smeared on Pipes' tattle tale Web site.

    But like the FBI supervisor who thwarted field agents' attempts to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer and was later handed the "Presidential Rank of Meritorious Service" award,

    Pipes was nominated by President Bush to the board of directors of the United States Institute of Peace.

    If these incidents weren't sufficiently alarming, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (of which Ray McGovern is a member) speculate that WMDs might be planted in Iraq

    . Bush apologist Andrew Sullivan is holding out, however, hinting that two criticisms of the Bush administration's "exaggerations" (i.e. those concerning Iraq's nuclear capabilities and Saddam/Al Qaeda ties) may be premature. "I think we'll soon know more about both arguments," he added. Others believe we'll know more, too -- most likely in time for the 2004 election.

    But even if WMDs aren't found (or planted), the Inquirer's Dick Polman assures that "Americans might overlook Bush's claims because the war in Iraq was brief and had few U.S. casualties." As a matter of course, Polman also compares George Bush's lies to Bill Clinton's, as if saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" is somehow comparable to spilling both blood and treasure. Given that thousands of Iraqis and more than 200 Americans have already lost their lives (even as US soldiers are ambushed and murdered daily) and that the illegal occupation of Iraq is expected to last somewhere between 5 and 60 years, weighing the consequential trauma of Monica's soiled blue dress against the long-term consequences of Bush Doctrine-related fabrications is like wondering if Martha Stewart is as criminally diabolical as John Wayne Gacy.

    With uranium sickness already a factor and depressed soldiers aching to go home, the number of people who will inevitably suffer from Bush's lies outweighs Clinton's victims on a scale of hundreds of thousands to one. "I've been in the Gulf for five months and I'm tired of all of this," one American soldier told the BBC. "We have become a target now."

    The families of September 11 victims certainly don't appreciate Bush's duplicity and callous opportunism, either. "We've been fighting for nearly 21 months -- fighting the administration, the White House," Monica Gabrielle, whose husband Richard was killed in the World Trade Center, told Salon. "As soon as we started looking for answers we were blocked, put off and ignored at every stop of the way." Admitting that she is "disgusted" that Bush is "[using] Sept. 11 and its victims to justify his agenda," Gabrielle echoed the concerns of Kristin Breitweiser, whose husband Ronald was also killed at the World Trade Center. "I sat and listened to the State of the Union speech when Bush mentioned 9/11 12 or 13 times," she said. "At the same time, we were having trouble getting funding for the independent commission."

    Despite Dick Cheney's request that the Sept. 11 investigation be limited, the House and Senate's bipartisan joint inquiry's findings were, as the New York Times reported, "far more damaging" than expected and Bush may evoke executive privilege to keep the information under wraps.

    "Bush has done everything in his power to squelch [the September 11] commission and prevent it from happening," one anonymous 911 advocate told Salon. "The Administration, and most politicians, really don't want to get to the bottom of it, because they're all implicated in some way, in too many different areas, for too many years," former New York City cop told Bruce DeCell the Nation. But Newsweek explained the Bush strategy most succinctly: "Even as White House political aides plot a 2004 campaign plan designed to capitalize on the emotions and issues raised by the September 11 terror attacks," Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball wrote, "administration officials are waging a behind-the-scenes battle to restrict public disclosure of key events relating to the attacks."

    And so, the most devastating event in recent American history, while serving as a GOP political prop, receives less attention than the Laci Peterson case. The New York Times completely ignored the September 11 commission's latest hearings, while Breitwesier has been booked, and then un-booked, on TV several times. "I'm very disappointed in the press," she told Salon. "I think it's disgusting the independent commission is doing the most important work for this nation and it's not even reported in the New York Times or on the nightly news. I've been scheduled to go on Meet the Press and Hardball so many times and I'm always canceled. Frankly I'd like nothing better than to go head to head with Dick Cheney on Meet the Press. Because somebody needs to ask the questions and I don't understand why nobody is."

    Amazingly, the American public, who expected the government to investigate everything from the Titanic disaster to Pearl Harbor, doesn't seem to mind -- and the cascade of events that would have rocked our more scrupulous ancestors are met with disinterest. Never mind the manner in which our president was selected (or the questionable help he received along the way
    ), in the past two years, the government and media have habitually deceived us; our fears and emotions have been manipulated; investigations into Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force and 9/11 have been stonewalled; bunker governments and secret arrests have barely raised eyebrows; the country is "dangerously unprepared" to handle another terrorist attack; and future elections may, like the last one, be rigged

    . Yet public outcry is reserved for whether Ruben or Clay won "American Idol."

    This apathy is baffling, given that U.S. citizens have never been comfortable with deceit, war profiteering or blatant political posturing. In this topsy-turvy world, Truth has gone AWOL, Justice is secretly detained and the American Way has lost its way. The entire country appears to be in the throes of cognitive dissonance, with long-held beliefs about our national character challenged by facts we'd rather ignore. "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war," John F. Kennedy promised in a galaxy far, far away. And though we just waged our first full-scale preemptive war on "cooked intelligence" and assorted lies, Americans are already poised for the next preemptive war -- Sept. 11 families and U.S. soldiers be damned.

    "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster," Franklin D. Roosevelt warned as WWII loomed. Yet presidential grandfather Prescott Bush forged lucrative alliances with the Nazis anyway -- and war profiteering remains a Bush family tradition.

    Does the public realize this? Do they care? "When Kennedy got his highest rating after the debacle of the Bay of Pigs," Gore Vidal wrote, "he observed, characteristically: 'It would seem that the worse you fu*k up in this job the more popular you get.'" Perhaps that explains Bush's approval ratings? They certainly don't make sense otherwise. But then again, few things do. In many ways, tangible and not, this country isn't recognizable anymore. Take a look around. The CIA was right. The attack has been spectacular indeed.

    I woke up just in time.
    "Jerry Cornelius was based, for instance, on a young man I used to see around Notting Hill where there was also a greengrocer called Cornelius of London."

    --Michael Moorcock
  • McTalbayne
    Eternal Companion
    • Jan 2004
    • 557

    Wow. Just, wow.
    It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.


    • MJR
      Citizen of Tanelorn
      • Jan 2004
      • 281

      I agree....nice job of collecting the evidence!

      the country definitly seems on a decline. It's frustrating because the situation seems out of our hands....the American public is certainly not hearing the real story...

      As Mr. Moorcock stated elsewhere: "I do believe we are
      now in the power of the oligarchs as much as Russia is and we have to develop better strategies to deal with this fact, since it now seems obvious that the rich are able to manipulate voters pretty much at will. This is at its worst in America, where the system seems completely corrupted, but America also has the constitution to fall back on,which will allow individual states to determine their own fates. In some states the governments are as hopelessly corrupt as in Washington, but there are still individual governors who have done great work in refusing to allow the Federal Government to dictate its desires -- in issues of free speech and public health care in particular.
      Yes, we must organise ourselves as well as the 'opposition' is organised and this can sometimes mean an alliance between traditional leftist and traditional rightist parties that would have been unheard of a few years ago. We might argue over how to run a democracy, but those of us who are at root democrats are going to ensure that democracy exists before we argue over the relatively minor differences we have about how to do the best for our people.
      I think things can still change for the better. We just have to start formulating a new rhetoric, a new dynamic, which can be as successful as tht which now comes from the 'far right' (which has consciously borrowed a lot of its techniques and rhetoric from Machiaevelli, Goering, Mussolini and Stalin!).
      Good luck, pards."
      \"No, I think Space is a dimension of Time. My theory is that Time is a field and that Space exists as an aspect of Time.\" Michael Moorcock

      \"All I know about anything is \"I wasn\'t. I am. I will not be.\" Michael Moorcock


      • Jerico
        Champion of the Balance
        • Jan 2004
        • 1577

        Update Update

        Ummm... let's post something more updated.
        Bush's approval ratings are down. Less than 50%. Uh oh.
        I think the people are waking up. But will we rise up?
        The popular media is no longer "afraid" to talk about the
        deception going on. The President himself is "afraid" to
        tell blatant lies. Did you see the State of the Union address?
        He announced a new term:
        "Weapons of Mass Destruction program related activities."
        WMDs to WMDPRA. I almost rolled on the floor laughing!
        I guess the next term in the "evolution" will be WMDIPRA-- Weapons
        of Mass Destruction IMAGINED Program Related Activities! Can you
        imagine a speech on that issue alone? It would extend the speech
        20 minutes longer than usual just to say terms like that. What fuel
        for all the comedians out there! Bill Maher took that one and played
        it like a fiddle (... er more like a bazooka!) on his HBO show.
        The "fear game" has turned around and bit the Commander in Chief
        right on his ass.
        Perhaps because we live in this "Information and Technology Age,"
        (Hey we are on MWM why should I even mention it?)
        It's not so easy to do the deceptive Machiavellian stuff anymore.
        Now that we are informed, what are we going to DO?
        That's what matters! Vote dammit!!
        \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
        Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview


        • EverKing
          Eternal Companion
          • Jan 2004
          • 979


          You know, I usually keep my views and opinions to myself...I can't stand conflict with people. Here, I feel the need to express my views concerning the Iraqi War, the Bush Administration, and the direction this country is taking. This is not ment to sound informed by any means, because it isn't. If you want to attack me for my views, feel free, just don't expect much respect from me in the future.

          To boil it down: it's true that I don't think the Bush admisitration has been completely honest or candid with us. It's true that I feel things could have been handled differently. It is true that part of me has wanted a revolution (to some degree) in this country for most of my adolescence and all of my adult life. Yes, I do feel that we are heading toward ultimate destruction and at the risk of sounding nihilistic, I don't see anything wrong with that. None of that is really what matters in my opinion. At least not right now. Bush started something in Iraq and Afghanistan and I think he should be allowed to finish it, concequences be damned. I have bounds of respect for the man and his administration for having the gall to say, "to hell with what the world thinks, we're gonna' do this thing and get it over with." Well done! I say.

          (I had about another four paragraphs of rambling, but none of it had a point, so I thought I'd just leave it with what's above.)

          Go Bush!
          "In omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro"
          --Thomas a Kempis


          • Bill
            Champion of the Balance
            • Feb 2004
            • 1063

            The funny thing to me is how the arguments are all over the map.

            Bush was wrong for not acting with limited information that was clear only in hindsight (9.11)
            Bush was wrong for acting with limited information that was clear only in hindsight (Iraq)
            Bush was right to attack Iraq (when everyone else was for it)
            Bush was wrong to attack Iraq (now that Bill Maher is off the bandwagon; well, Bill was never on the bandwagon, I'll give him that)

            Personally? I think most of the arguments being made are a form of cop-out. A way for the people to distance themselves from something when it is convenient to do so. It is funny and convenient to make Bush jokes, calling him stupid and a chimpanzee, but no one is asking why. Why now? It isn't becuase of some moral indignation (well, maybe for a limited few), it is BECAUSE IT IS AN ELECTION YEAR. A WAY TO GET "OUR GUY" INTO THE OFFICE.

            The information is no different now than it was 18 months ago. There was no guarantee there were nuclear weapons in place in Iraq, and everyone knew that. There were quotes published here not too long ago of selected politicians, including Clinton and Kerry, conceding that it wasn't a given that there were WMDs, but that the threat supported action. Talk about plausible deniability. But wait: there is one thing different: JOHN KERRY'S LIFE DREAM IS AT STAKE. He has demonstrated a willingness to flip on just about any position wth little or no justification other than his own gain, so why not waffle here?

            I would love a little revolution in this country, but if we are going to ask for something, let's make sure we get it. John Kerry - or even Ralph Nader - is not a revolution, despite what Kerry must fantasize about. Revolution would be getting people to remember that this is a government by the people for the people. Revolution would be getting political parties to understand that one cannot possibly represent the needs of 275 million people with only two candidates. The compromises are too great. I want Bush's economic policy, but am I willing to sacrifice personal liberties to get it? More and more I think not. I want Howard Dean's willingness to reevaluate our priorities, but am I willing to sacrifice my economic freedom for it? I think not.


            • Whiskers
              flying cat
              • Nov 2003
              • 1950

              Mr. Clarke used a different tone in starting his testimony in a hushed Senate hearing room, saying he wanted to apologize to the families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including the scores of victims' relatives in the audience.

              "Your government failed you," he said. "Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard. But that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."

              The cat spread its wings and flew high into the air, hovering to keep pace with them as they moved cautiously toward the city. Then, as they climbed over the rubble of what had once been a gateway and began to make their way through piles of weed-grown masonry, the cat flew to the squat building with the yellow dome upon its roof. It flew twice around the dome and then came back to settle on Jhary's shoulder. - The King of the Swords