« July 21, 2004 | Main
| July 23, 2004 »

July 22, 2004

About those Saudi flights

: Michael Moore made much hay over the flights of Saudis out of the U.S. after September 11th. It's as if the 9/11 Commission went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and wanted to respond directly; it boxed a special section on page 329.

Here is a transcript of what Moore said:

MOORE (VO): It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. [Listing of flights to Saudi Arabia.] At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes [Close Up: “SAUDIA ARABIA”] carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the US after September 13th. [CU: Scan down long list of flights, focusing on the 9/13 date.] In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country....
MOORE (OS): Did we do anything when the bin Ladens tried to leave the country?
UNGER: No, they were identified at the airport. They were—they look at their passports and they were identified.

The Commission said:

Flights of Saudi Nationals Leaving the United States
Three questions have arisen with respect to the departure of Saudi nationals from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11: (1) Did any flights of Saudi nationals take place before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001? (2) Was there any political intervention to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals? (3) Did the FBI screen Saudi nationals thoroughly before their departure?
First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.
Second, we found no evidence of political intervention.We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. The issue came up in one of the many video teleconferences of the interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency discussion at his level. Clarke told us,“I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And
if they had no objections, it would be fine with me.” Clarke added, “I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House.”
Although White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card remembered someone telling him about the Saudi request shortly after 9/11, he said he had not talked to the Saudis and did not ask anyone to do anything about it.The President and Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this matter from any political appointee.
Third,we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights. The Saudi government was advised of and agreed to the FBI’s requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed. The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart.
The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures.They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.

Moore and the Commission say that it occurred after September 13th; Moore does not say that airspace was reopened. Moore and the Commission say that the Saudis were screened; Moore gives the impression that they got a pass. Moore damns with elipses instead of the full facts.

LINK | Comments (43)

We are the targets

: I flipped through a copy of the 9/11 Commission report I bought tonight and came upon this:

The lesson of 9/11 for civilians and first responders can be stated simply: in the new age of terror, they—we—are the primary targets.The losses America suffered that day demonstrated both the gravity of the terrorist threat and the commensurate need to prepare ourselves to meet it. The first responders of today live in a world transformed by the attacks on 9/11. Because no one believes that every conceivable form of attack can be prevented, civilians and first responders will again find themselves on the front lines.We must plan for that eventuality. A rededication to preparedness is perhaps the best way to honor the memories of those we lost that day.

We are the targets. We are the targets.

LINK | Comments (26)

CNN update

: I'm in the Starbucks across from Time Warner HQ; still scheduled to go on at about 10:30.

: UPDATE: Hope you didn't blink. It was quick: 20 seconds. That's TV. That's fine.

LINK | Comments (18)

Convention news feed

: Thanks to Dave Winer, here is a feed of convention bloggers. (Oddly, though, it doesn't include Dave's convention blog itself, so add this address to the list.)

LINK | Comments (11)

The 9/11 Commission report

: A few early reactions to the 9/11 Commission report; more to follow...

: The report's summary focuses far too much (though not exclusively) on Al Qaeda as the enemy. Just as the report complains about a lack of imagination (read: vision) among governments current and past, the commission lacks the imagination to see that this is a much bigger issue and enemy than one group of terorist nutjobs.

This is about democracy and civilization and the Middle East. It is about religious fanaticism. To focus just on Al Qaeda is to be just as shortsighted as the commission believes recent administrations have been.

: It is good to see that the Commission's recommendations talk about the need to reform the Middle East but it does not go nearly far enough, for it is scared to think that perhaps invading and democratizing Iraq could be a legitimate means of combatting terrorism in the future.

The language of the report is far too mushy: We must provide an "agenda of opportunity" to people in the Middle East. What is that? A UN report? Or regime changes?

: A key assumption of the report and the commission is that (as I say below but will repeat here) the government coulda, shoulda, woulda protected us against this attack and so this is governments' failure and thus government's fault. The truth is that we can't fully protect ourselves against the insane acts of evil fanatics and we must remember to blame them.

To assume that we could anticipate and thus protect ourselves against the acts of madmen is mad itself. It deludes us into a feloniously false sense of security; it only builds up a blame game for the future after the next attack no reasonable person could anticipate occurs. So much of the commission's work is built upon this foundation and that foundation is a crumble of wishes and blame.

: The commission remains downright disrespectful to New York's finest and bravest. I dare any of these suits put on the uniform of those men and women.

: It says we should "attack terrorists and their organizations." Well, yes. But do they have the stomach for literal military attacks in more countries in the Middle East? That what it will take.

: Based solely on the executive summary, the report itself lacks the vision to recognize how America and the world have changed because of terrorism and 9/11 and how the changes needed in the world are greater than any intelligence organization chart can prescribe.

This is bigger, so much bigger than a Warren Commission report. It's not about one nut -- Oswald or bin Laden -- changing the world with one act. This is, instead, about more change that is still needed in the world. And the report does not seem to step up to that plate.

LINK | Comments (24)

Vlogging (not flogging) the convention

: Lost Remote's Steve Safran will be video-blogging the Democratic convention.

LINK | Comments (10)

9/11 in HTML

: Jason Kottke performs a great service, putting the summary of the 9/11 Commission report online in HTML, with permalinks to individual sections. Thank you, Jason.

LINK | Comments (11)

On CNN tonight: How we've changed since 9/11

: I might be on CNN with Aaron Brown tonight (standing caveat: that can change) to talk about how we have changed since 9/11 because the 9/11 Commission report is being issued today (and because I was there).

I think it's a great way to handle the story of the release of the 9/11 Commission report today: pulling back to get beyond the sniping and even the nitty-gritty lessons to examine what this all has meant to us as a nation.

I'm telling you this so you can add in what you think in the comment. I'll start thinking out loud here at the same time. A start:

: Fear: The other night, I went to a focus group and heard a woman say that since 9/11, she checks CNN constantly "to make sure there's not breaking news." That hit me hard: We're afraid. When something big happens, it's going to be bad. It could affect us personally. Let no one tell you that America thinks it's invicible (not that we ever truly did); we know our mortality now, we can measure our vulnerability and give it a color code.

: Unity: I hope we have not squandered the unity that 9/11 afforded us; I fear we may have but I won't say it's too late to regain it. This is why I had such problems with the way the 9/11 Commission comported itself much of the time -- looking for blame, finding enemies within -- and that is why I certainly had a problem with Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11, finding the enemy atop. This is about us vs. them and we are not the them, damnit.

: Political shifts: On an individual level, I do believe that 9/11 grayed the blacks and whites of politics for many Americans. I certainly see that in blogs, where I find many kindred spirits. I was a liberal pacifist. Now I'm a liberal hawk. I was against Bush and still am quite unlikely to vote for him, yet I refuse to get caught up in the Mooreish conspiracy theories about the other side in politics. On a national level, I'm not so sure. We're still being portrayed as red-state-vs.-blue at every border. I've argued (on CNN, so I won't repeat myself) that we're really not a nation divided but a nation undecided. But this is all up for debate.

: Anger: I'm certainly angrier, aren't you? When I hear the news yesterday that the bastards have captured more hostages and that the head of an American was found in one of their refrigerators, bile rises. It's all so damned senseless and uncivilized and criminal and, yes, evil. On one of the 9/11 anniversaries, I gave what could be argued was an unChristian sermon in my Congregational church saying that I could not forgive or forget. I just can't.

: Family: We all hear people say this and I believe it in my own life and the lives of people around me: Family matters more since 9/11. I told you long ago that ever since that night, when I was lucky enough to return home, my children have said "I love you" whenever I leave them. They still do.

: Priorities: We also all heard people say that this would change their priorities in life. Apart from some rich folks who were lucky enough to quit their jobs and go find roses to smell, I don't think 9/11 changed our individual priorities. Life still happens.

: Patriotism: I never would have worn a flag on my lapel or my bumper. I do now. Bastards tried to kill me just because I am an American so I'll shout my Americanism.

: Isolation: Are we more isolated in the world? Sure, we are. Some are trying to kill us, others say they hate us, others won't support us. And what is -- and what should be -- the American reponse? F' em. Or at least that's my response.

: Health: My own health has suffered but that has been because of inhaling the dust of destruction. But because of that, I read stories about the many ways 9/11 had an impact on the health of Americans, from depression to sleep disorders.

I have to run now. Will be back in a bit. But please do leave your thoughts in the comments -- thoughts, contributions, not arguments with each other, please.

: UPDATE: Talking with the CNN producer just now, I was reminded of what Bill Clinton said when he introduced the Hunting of the President movie: that "in every hinge point in history we have a fight like we have now.... We will debate as we move to a new concensus about what it means to be an American in a 21st Century world." That is what is happening now: America is changed. The world is changed. We are all trying to figure out what that means and fight it out as part of that process. It's not over yet. We're still digesting the change.

: In the comments, Terry Heaton says:

On the downside, I think our obsession with assigning blame has been heightened. It has translated into a self-serving acrimony that is close to being institutionalized — the likes of which I've never before seen in my life. Blame has its place in any afterthought, but what's happened since 9/11 goes way beyond that. Moreover, I think this has expanded to much wider scope, for we've somehow convinced ourselves that "shit happens" is an illusion, and that if we just manage things well enough, we'll all be safe. We don't trust anybody anymore, and that includes the people down the street, not just those who live in faraway caves.

He's right, I think: Part of the assumption of the 9/11 Commission (more on this soon) is that we coulda shoulda woulda stopped these attacks and that that's government's failure and thus government's fault. The truth is that we can't fully protect ourselves against the insane acts of evil fanatics and we must remember to blame them.

: D Smith comments, perceptively, that we're looking at the past because we're afraid of looking at the future:

One thing I've seen, both in myself and in others at work, is that the whole thing is stressing us all out. We're more distracted, more emotional, more on edge. Many folks, myself included, sometimes have a hard time coping. Even those who are ignoring all this often seem to be doing it from a spirit of desperation. I think this is causing some health problems, physical and otherwise, although of course that's just my impression.

I think part of why there is so much heat and noise about pre-9/11 is because we can't bear to look into the future. There is essentially zero debate on where we go from here (simplistic jingoing and diatribes do not constitute debate). Even the blogosphere is consumed with the past. Nobody knows what's next and we're all too scared to really contemplate it, no matter which side we're on.

: Len Tavernetti says that we are just coming to cope with the idea that we are the big kid on the block:

At the end of the Cold War we were left standing as the biggest kid on the block. We didn't want to be the biggest kid on the block and stooped our shoulders to blend in. On 9/11 a little twirp kicked us in the groin because we were the biggest kid on the block. Now we are standing erect, admitting to all that we are the biggest kid on the block and kicking back. As such we are no longer lovable as "one-of-the-gang." We are having to adjust to being the silently respected biggest guy on the block and foresake being lovable. This is difficult for us to accept.

: Andy says it made us grow up:

9/11 was an awakening to their own mortality for many boomers. We, the safe-coddled-smug-secure-whiney, have had our way for 50 years. The world revolved around us. We invented Sex, Drugs AND Rock-n-Roll. We thought we'd live forever. 9/11 showed that death comes by surprise. We were shown that the world does not revolve about us. That there are people, thoughts, and events that do not consider our pleasure.

: Syndey Carton shows that in the end, the changes are very personal:

As for me, I constantly watch the headlines now. I turn on the news in the morning to make sure my office building is still standing (I live in manhattan). Every time a plane flies over the City, I'm afraid it's going to crash into a building. I cannot believe that flights are allowed over Manhattan. I have trouble sleeping too. I am an ardent patriot and have flags everywhere (there's one in my briefcase that's ready to use at a moment's notice, I carry it like I'd carry a gun if the law allowed). I'm certain that the stress from the fear of another terrorist attack is slowly draining me, but I really can't do much about it.

LINK | Comments (128)

A programmer's society replaces a lawyer's society

: Many of my contemporaries went to law school not to be lawyers but to learn the discipline of the craft and use it in their professions and lives. Before my time, people got classical educations instead. In the next generation, I think people will learn programming instead -- and that will have a subtle but deep effect on society.

That occurred to me this morning as I dropped my son off at computer camp. He's eagerly learning C++ now and he is already a PHP jockey. But he says he doesn't want to program for a living (though he still has many years to decide). Still, he likes the discipline and logic and impact of programming. Many of his contemporaries are doing the same these days; we all know lots of "former programmers," eh?

So I wondered what impact that will have on how the society thinks.

As a friend of mine -- a law-trained businessman -- said the other day, he comes to management as a process of questioning (read: interrogation): He keeps asking his people questions until they and he know what to do. The ex-lawyer across the table said she approaches business looking for what can go wrong and getting every contingency in writing.

Lawyers are necessarily a suspicious breed. They live by rules. They think in terms of us vs. them. They think contention. They argue for sport. They always think they can appeal to a higher authority. They aim for victory. They are patient.

All those traits have an impact on American society -- many or most of them not good. The fact that lawyers run government is at the root of many of government's problems: Government has become all about arguing, little about serving.

But now imagine if former programmers start rising to the heights of American business and government and cultural life.

Programmers are logical. They believe in cause and effect. They believe any problem can be solved if you just find the cause. When they do battle, it's with a mistake, not a person. They live in the details. They believe in openness and transparency. They also believe in following rules but the rules of reality -- what a machine can and can't do -- over the rules man made up. They believe in planning. They, too, are patient. What else?

The impact of former programmers on society will likely be good. Maybe they will help us operate more transparently. Maybe they will help us focus on solutions rather than problems.

: UPDATE: Rick Klau, a nonpracticing lawyer himself, posts a great and nicely feathered response to this post making lots of good points -- more than I made -- among them:

But I think the more important point is the underlying goal of law: to maintain the status quo, to be predictable. Programming, on the other hand, is built on a culture of innovation — not knowing what will happen is an intuitive challenge to figure out (and/or shape) what happens next. Programmers embrace the unknown.

: And Ernie Miller, displaying just the perfect law-school paranoia, says lawyers won't let it happen.

LINK | Comments (29)

Blog to book to blog

: Dan Gillmor's book about all this, We the Media, now has a blog.

LINK | Comments (10)

Give her a typewriter and she'll blog

: A monkey in an Israeli zoo has started walking like a human. Ain't evolution grand? But it appears it's not walking because it's a higher form of life:

Her veterinarian says the only possible explanation is that the monkey suffered brain damage from the illness.

LINK | Comments (13)