Erin Costa

ENGL 102-057

Causal Argument Essay

26 February 2012

Did The United States Government have

 Foreknowledge of September 11th?

            After reviewing the actions of the government on September 1, 2001, it is evident that Government officials in the United States had substantial evidence and foreknowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Taking into account their actions on this day it is also evident that the government acted leisurely on one of the most tragic attacks on our country. There is much more that key individuals in the United States government should have done to protect their country against this day, especially with their foreknowledge of the events that occurred. This unsettling evidence and the unanswered mysteries that occurred on September 11th are the reasons why we live in a nation of fear and untrusting behavior towards our government.

            "Promptly" may not have been the best term to describe the government's reaction to the September 11th attacks. In an airborne attack, the military can issue the backup of fighter jets in just minutes. When there are situations, like those of 9/11, the military follows certain defense procedures. However, on 9/11 the military never sent jets to defend against the hijacked airplanes, even though they have full procedures to take into action when dealing with these exact situations. Griffin and Scott (9/11 and American Empire) once again add, “These changing stories suggest that the military has been trying to cover up the fact that a ‘stand down’ order was given on 9/11, canceling the military’s own standard operating procedures for dealing with possibly hijacked airplanes" (7). The absence of any defense in this extreme situation leads to many questions. More specifically, why did the United States government fail to prepare every defense tool possible when they were warned about these attacks? The most probable conclusion of the military’s lack of defense is that they may have been following a stand down order on September 11th. Why would a stand down order be given on the day of a major terrorist attack? In a time full of warnings of attacks, the government should have never placed a stand down order. The government made an irresponsible and dangerous act for our country. Similar to our military, there was a delay of action in the White House on September 11th. Vice President Dick Cheney has certain procedures to follow in emergencies such as 9/11. However, he was running a little too slow on that day. In addition 9/11 and American Empire  states, "According to this claim, therefore, Cheney did not take charge until about 20 minutes after the Pentagon had been hit (at 9:38)" (8). It took Cheney twenty minutes to react to the events and to begin giving orders to begin defense, a procedure that should take only minutes. The government seemed to react to the events on 9/11 with ease. A government that is entitled to protect its country in emergencies, instead decided to stand down. This ease leads to the uneasiness of investigators, gaining information that gives the government less and less credit for handling the events on 9/11, turning the minds of citizens into confusion.

            Amidst the accusations against the government during the time of the 9/11 attacks, there is one defense that is making a stand. Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States during 9/11, came out publicly defending the government's actions regarding 9/11. Cheney announces in his interview with The Washington Times, "I think it would have been unethical or immoral for us not to do everything we could in order to protect the nation against further attacks like what happened on 9/11'" (Ward). This is his defense against all of the evidence uncovered, leading Americans to believe the Bush administration did not do enough to prevent 9/11. Cheney uses the words 'unethical' and 'immoral' to describe how he would view his administration if they did not do everything in their power to protect their country against invasion. Cheney provides a powerful defense he uses to insure that our government fully intended and carried out the necessary procedures to protect our country. A very popular and effective defense against 9/11 is that it improved our country. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (Without precedent) write, "September 11, 2001, was a day of unbearable suffering. It was also a day when we were united as Americans. We came together as citizens with a sense of urgency and of purpose" (344). Many say, like these authors suggest, that September 11th brought us together as a country and that all the horror in that day could be worth the good that came out of it. Our country today is a lot stronger and more aware of tragedies that could happen. Additionally, our government has done much more to protect our nation against these possible dangers. Cheney continues by saying, "'I thought the legal opinions that were rendered were sound. I thought the techniques were reasonable in terms of what [the CIA was] asking to be able to do. And I think it produced the desired result. I think it's directly responsible for the fact that we’ve been able to avoid or defeat further attacks against the homeland for 7 1/2 years'" (Ward). Dick states that America had been protected fully from foreign attacks for the remainder of his time in office. It is true that the government served to protect our country fully after 9/11. It is true that the government prevented any further attacks to be pursued. It is true that the government deserves to take credit for this planning and protection. However, that does not explain the events prior to 9/11; the events and warnings this administration disregarded that resulted in the attack that wounded our country forever.

Fig. 1.This photo represents an interview accusing Bush of foreknowledge of 9/11 (livingislam.org).

            Most Americans believe that the 9/11 attacks were completely unexpected and that the United States government was blindsided by these attacks. Yet, there are many pieces of evidence that have been released since the attacks that prove otherwise. According to 9/11 and the American Empire, "CIA Director George Tenet said that ‘the system was blinking red'"(5). An actual CIA director that served during the time of 9/11 spoke out on behalf of the events leading up to 9/11. Tenet makes it very clear that there were many warnings about a possible attack on America. He says 'the system was blinking red', implying that there were so many warnings that were nearly impossible to miss; the government just disregarded them (9/11 and the American Empire). The 9/11 Commission Report adds, "Also, there had been many warnings during the summer of 2001, several from foreign intelligence agencies, that there was going to be a spectacular attack on the United States in the near future" (5). The United States had received warnings not only from its own intelligence agencies, but even foreign intelligence. Yet, the United States still did not take them seriously enough. With all of these warnings, the government should have been fully expecting an attack. Likewise, they should have planned for an attack as well as do everything in their power to prevent danger from impending. The government could have easily looked far more thoroughly into these warnings. With the power and abilities the United States government holds, these attacks should have easily been prevented. A final warning in a news article explains, "The memo received by Bush on 6 August contained unconfirmed information passed on by British intelligence in 1998 revealing that al-Qaeda operatives had discussed hijacking a plane to negotiate the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the Muslim cleric imprisoned in America for his part in a plot to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993" (Burke, and Vulliamy). This warning was by no means vague, it contained information on exactly what type of attack al-Qaeda planned to carry out. The information given to George W. Bush provided him with direct evidence that al-Qaeda planned to hijack a plane, quite possibly to damage the World Trade Center. How much clearer of evidence could the government have received about this matter? Yet, even with all of this evidence, they still did not act enough to protect our country like they very well could have done. Instead of enforcing high levels of airport security, like there is today, they simply didn't react to this warning. If the government had placed plans and protection against this specific type of attack, it may have never happened. The thought is an extremely unsettling idea. Why would a government with such power, not act upon warnings that had the potential to be so destructive towards their country?

            The role of a government is to protect its country from any foreign or homeland attacks. There have been attacks in history, such as Pearl Harbor, in which the government was almost totally blindsided. However, the attacks on America during 9/11 were completed foreseen by the government; the administration just did not choose to take the signs and warnings seriously. Dick Cheney was correct when he said that his administration protected our country for the following seven and a half years after 9/11. They enforced incredible protection to make sure another attack would never be allowed to happen. Unfortunately, his defense does not explain or excuse their actions before 9/11; the numerous warnings they received regarding a possible attack that they chose not to act upon. If our government had, in fact, provided the protection they so often promise, 9/11 would not be the disastrously historical day it is for our country today. The nearly three thousand casualties lost that day could quite possibly still have their lives. In addition the war we still continue to fight in the Middle East may not have been so long and treacherous. The actions of the United States government prior to, and during, the 9/11 attacks provide a discomfort for many Americans. Will we be fully protected if threatened with another attack, or will the government simply disregard any warnings and allow our country to become crippled once again?

Works Cited

LeeH., H., and K. ThomasH. Without precedent: The inside story of the 9/11 commission. New York, NY: Random House Inc., 2006. Print.

The 9/11 commission report, final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the united states. 1. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004. Print.

Griffin, David Ray, and Peter Dale Scott. 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Volume 1. Northhampton, MA: Olive Branch, 2007. Print.

Burke, Jason, and Ed Vulliamy. "Bush Knew of Terrorist Plot to Hijack US Planes." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 18 May 2002. Web. 05 Feb. 2013.

Ward, Jon. "EXCLUSIVE: Cheney Defends War on Terror's Morality." The Washingtion Times. N.p., 18 Dec. 2008. Web. 06 Feb. 2013.

Griffin, David Ray. "The Destruction of the World Trade Center:Why the Official Account Cannot Be True." The Destruction of the World Trade Center:. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2013.