From Gore Vidal’s essay “The Enemy Within”
The media's weapons of mass distraction
The excuse given, according to Daschle, was that `resources and personnel would be taken' away from the war on terrorism in the event of a wider inquiry. So for reasons that we must never know, those `breakdowns' are to be the goat. That they were more likely to be not break -- but `stand-downs' is not for us to pry. Certainly the one-hour 20 minute failure to put fighter planes in the air could not have been due to a breakdown throughout the entire Air Force along the East Coast. Mandatory standard operational procedure had been told to cease and desist.
the media were assigned their familiar task of
inciting public opinion against bin Laden, still not the proven mastermind. These media blitzes often resemble the magicians classic gesture of distraction: as you watch the
rippling bright colours of his silk handkerchief in one hand, he is planting
the rabbit in your pocket with the other. We were quickly
assured that Osama's enormous family with its
enormous wealth had broken with him, as had the royal family of his native
But Bush Jr's involvement goes back at
least to 1979 when his first failed attempt to become a player in the big
Behind the Junior Bush is the senior Bush, gainfully employed by the Carlyle Group  which has ownership in at least 164 companies worldwide, inspiring admiration in that staunch friend to the wealthy, the Wall Street Journal, which noted, as early as 27 September 2001, `If the US boosts defence spending in its quest to stop Osama bin Laden's alleged terrorist activities, there may be one unexpected beneficiary: bin Laden's family . . . is an investor in a fund established by Carlyle Group, a well-connected Washington merchant bank specialising in buyouts of defence and aerospace companies . . . Osama is one of more than 50 children of Mohammed bin Laden, who built the family's $5 billion business.'
But Bush pere et fils, in pursuit of wealth and office, are beyond shame or, one cannot help but think, good sense. There is a suggestion that they are blocking investigation of the bin Laden connection with terrorism. Agent France Press reported on 4 November 2001 : `FBI agents probing relatives of Saudi-born terror suspect Osama . . . were told to back off soon after George W. Bush became president . . .' According to BBC TV's Newsnight (6 Nov 2001) , `. . . just days after the hijackers took off from Boston aiming for the Twin Towers, a special charter flight out of the same airport whisked 11 members of Osama's family off to Saudi Arabia. That did not concern the White House, whose official line is that the bin Ladens are above suspicion.' `Above the Law' (Green Press, 14 February 2002)  sums up: `We had what looked like the biggest failure of the intelligence community since Pearl Harbor but what we are learning now is it wasn't a failure, it was a directive.' True? False? Bush Jr will be under oath during the impeachment interrogation. Will we hear `What is a directive? What is is?'
the US had, for some years, fingered Osama as a
mastermind terrorist, no serious attempt had been made pre-9/11 to `bring him to
justice dead or alive, innocent or guilty', as Texan law of the jungle
far back as March 1996 when Osama was in
years later, John O'Neill, a much admired FBI agent, complained
in the Irish Times  a month before the attacks,
`The US State Department -- and behind it the oil lobby who make up President
Bush's entourage -- blocked attempts to prove bin Laden's