Two decades ago, a somewhat infamous July 2006 poll found that 51% of Democrats believed the Bush Administration either “assisted in the 9/11 attacks” or knowingly allowed it to happen.
It's wild that in our age the oft-derided "reflexive contrarian" Michael Tracey is the one who does NOT believe in sinister cabals. And gets accused daily of running cover for sinister cabals.
The truth is there ARE some conspiracies, but they're utterly banal and usually wide in the open if you look with any kind of industry knowledge to make them legible. The real conspiracies are of the character that Michael exposed w/r/t to the law firms siphoning cash from banks by exploiting the alleged Epstein victims.
Yes, the "tell" is typically if conspiracies sound too cinematic to be real. Actual conspiracies are never that airtight. Someone always talks or makes a mistake.
The "tell" I always use: "Does this theory involve anyone keeping a secret of their wrongdoing?" I've found that people can keep secrets of good or neutral things they have done, but not one's that have significant impact from wrongful actions. Especially not someone who's graduated from university, been accepted to a govt position, and landed a role in intelligence. There's too much civility required in that process for someone without a conscience. Nevermind all the other risks of a secret being found out that have no way of being controlled. It makes much more sense to A: Not be doing anything that you don't feel is good and necessary in the first place. Getting the public to buy the real narrative is the difficulty. OR B: In the event that something "shady" is to be done (which is unlikely in my opinion), figure out a way of framing it in a palatable way so it can be done in the open with no secrets. Intelligence agencies are usually comprised of exceptionally intelligent people. Intelligent people understand that nobody "gets away" with bad faith behavior. Getting caught is not the worst consequence. The real burden is knowing what you've done. You have worry about getting caught and factor that into every significant decision you make, you give up the well-being of considering yourself a good person, you'll feel inadequate/fraudulent around good people, imposter syndrome, paranoia, the list goes on.... Life would be worse regardless of anything gained by the misdeed.
It’s an empirical fact that George Bush knew 9/11 was coming because of the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US”.
He did exactly nothing about it and remained on vacation.
It is not an empirical fact that George Bush knew 9/11 was coming. It's an empirical fact that Bush was warned about the possibility of Bin Laden striking the US. He couldn't know the future. There are plenty of predictions that are later proven false.
There was another warning on September 10th, 1998 that Osama would organize an attack involving an explosive-filled plane in an unknown American city. Another warning was about a plot to plant bombs at a mall in Washington D.C. Those never happened. The president made the mistake of assuming the same thing on August 6th.
The CIA actually released a series of these briefs today, including the one you mentioned. Do you have a reason why Bush should have treated the august 6th briefing differently than the August 10th briefing, about an attack on embassy in France that never happened?
Who was the President in 1998 and was it a president who took counterterrorism seriously or one who was fine to let it happen, because it would give him more power and money.
But there's no report of the plot being foiled or anything. It was just a warning that didn't pan out. That happens a lot, doesn't it?
For example, right now you can find predictions that AI will kill all humans before 2030 or that Russia will invade Poland in thr next few months. Do you "know" those things will happen?
Definitely not an empiracal fact. Perhaps empirical confirmation bias. Even entertaining the idea of any president knowing and allowing that sort of harm to innocent Americans shows that you were already way off in the weeds when that thought occurred.
Ending with "Happy 9/11" was offensive and tone deaf. The topic was worthwhile, but your level of emotional detachment from the significance of the day is jarring.
In his defense, the issue of humans easily becoming convinced of nonsense en masse because of unconcscious instinctual vulnerabilities (and general incompetence) is orders of magnitude more destructive and consequential, even if there's no single shocking audio/visual catastrophy like 9/11 to point to.
Michael Tracey is referring to how social media is utilized/weaponized to defer to people's sentiments. His "happy 9/11" is both intra- and inter- personal way of waking up readers and even himself(Rocky Balboa??) from their stupors.
He does do other things similar to this, such as having paid subscriptions to other writers that he dislikes(including one that threatened him at a Substack event) - again both intra- and inter- personal.
He just doesn't do his job lying down. He was built to be a journalist to the point that compared with other prominent journalists he only charges 50/year for subscription.
Indeed, Michael Tracey is not in this for fame and fortune.
Why would anyone believe anything? The neocons (still alive and well and cranking out lies) deceived US citizens with the lie Iraq was a grave danger to world war with WMD and had to be invaded and destroyed, COVID was a grave danger (in reality killed the elderly and people who were already sick) so we must stand six feet apart, isolate children, wear masks, take an RNA injection or face consequences, Biden was competent, Iran has nuclear weapons and Trump puts America first.
So the theory the CIA and Mossad planned and executed 9/11 could certainly be true as we’ve plenty of evidence they (whoever “they” are) are capable of lying and sticking with it. The one thing I’ll never believe is Bush was in on it — there’s no way he faked the look of shock and fear when he was told America was under attack.
I think word finally got around that the pedophile ring and other unlikely narratives were the result of dishonesty or delusion from Giuffre and several other "victims". But nobody is going to throw themselves under the bus and be called a "victim blamer", so politicians and media will likely let the topic fade except for the few that already committed to it as a form of income.
I'm not sure. Tracey tweets that he has never been busier with the Epstein stuff, which doesn't seem to die. To wit, the 911 commemoration involved nutcases connecting 911 conspiracies to Epstein conspiracies seamlessly.
I meant to convey that I don't think anybody with any real clout is going to be pushing for further action to be taken unless they are hoping to make money. Doing so would require either willfull disregard for the truth or reckless incompetence.
I agree with your last line but there many, many people with clout who have a wilful disregard for the truth or reckless incompetence. Across the political spectrum. There are strong incentives for it in today's media environment, and few checks and balances. Just read Tracey's twitter feed - the Epstein frenzy isn't dying any time soon.
The most polarized age groups have a ~54/44 split. A randomly selected young person will be a republican 4/9th of the time and a democrat 5/9th of the time. Not a huge difference.
In general, things are less extreme than people describe. For example, some people here in Seattle talked about how they'd never move to Idaho since they would never be able to interact with any besides republicans there. But Idaho went ~30% for Harris. It's about the same percentage of American men who are 5'11" or taller. Not exactly rare.
I have a biblical view. I believe September 11th was punishment from God. Sort of like Moses lifting up the tablets and cursing the Israelites into a miniature holocaust. We are a PAGAN nation that worships w0e-MEN and oppresses BOYS & MEN., I believe Bin Laden was an agent of God and not a bad person. I have no motive to say these things accept they are my beliefs.
It's wild that in our age the oft-derided "reflexive contrarian" Michael Tracey is the one who does NOT believe in sinister cabals. And gets accused daily of running cover for sinister cabals.
The truth is there ARE some conspiracies, but they're utterly banal and usually wide in the open if you look with any kind of industry knowledge to make them legible. The real conspiracies are of the character that Michael exposed w/r/t to the law firms siphoning cash from banks by exploiting the alleged Epstein victims.
Yes, the "tell" is typically if conspiracies sound too cinematic to be real. Actual conspiracies are never that airtight. Someone always talks or makes a mistake.
The "tell" I always use: "Does this theory involve anyone keeping a secret of their wrongdoing?" I've found that people can keep secrets of good or neutral things they have done, but not one's that have significant impact from wrongful actions. Especially not someone who's graduated from university, been accepted to a govt position, and landed a role in intelligence. There's too much civility required in that process for someone without a conscience. Nevermind all the other risks of a secret being found out that have no way of being controlled. It makes much more sense to A: Not be doing anything that you don't feel is good and necessary in the first place. Getting the public to buy the real narrative is the difficulty. OR B: In the event that something "shady" is to be done (which is unlikely in my opinion), figure out a way of framing it in a palatable way so it can be done in the open with no secrets. Intelligence agencies are usually comprised of exceptionally intelligent people. Intelligent people understand that nobody "gets away" with bad faith behavior. Getting caught is not the worst consequence. The real burden is knowing what you've done. You have worry about getting caught and factor that into every significant decision you make, you give up the well-being of considering yourself a good person, you'll feel inadequate/fraudulent around good people, imposter syndrome, paranoia, the list goes on.... Life would be worse regardless of anything gained by the misdeed.
It’s an empirical fact that George Bush knew 9/11 was coming because of the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US”.
He did exactly nothing about it and remained on vacation.
It is not an empirical fact that George Bush knew 9/11 was coming. It's an empirical fact that Bush was warned about the possibility of Bin Laden striking the US. He couldn't know the future. There are plenty of predictions that are later proven false.
There was another warning on September 10th, 1998 that Osama would organize an attack involving an explosive-filled plane in an unknown American city. Another warning was about a plot to plant bombs at a mall in Washington D.C. Those never happened. The president made the mistake of assuming the same thing on August 6th.
The CIA actually released a series of these briefs today, including the one you mentioned. Do you have a reason why Bush should have treated the august 6th briefing differently than the August 10th briefing, about an attack on embassy in France that never happened?
Who was the President in 1998 and was it a president who took counterterrorism seriously or one who was fine to let it happen, because it would give him more power and money.
It was Clinton?
But there's no report of the plot being foiled or anything. It was just a warning that didn't pan out. That happens a lot, doesn't it?
For example, right now you can find predictions that AI will kill all humans before 2030 or that Russia will invade Poland in thr next few months. Do you "know" those things will happen?
It’s not true that all warnings don’t pan out. Clinton era authorities stopped several plots.
Richard Clarke said Clinton took counterterrorism seriously and that the Bush people didn’t.
Definitely not an empiracal fact. Perhaps empirical confirmation bias. Even entertaining the idea of any president knowing and allowing that sort of harm to innocent Americans shows that you were already way off in the weeds when that thought occurred.
🤦🤦
Ending with "Happy 9/11" was offensive and tone deaf. The topic was worthwhile, but your level of emotional detachment from the significance of the day is jarring.
That was my reaction as well. Tracey is an excellent writer, but definitely tone deaf.
In his defense, the issue of humans easily becoming convinced of nonsense en masse because of unconcscious instinctual vulnerabilities (and general incompetence) is orders of magnitude more destructive and consequential, even if there's no single shocking audio/visual catastrophy like 9/11 to point to.
Hi Jason,
Michael Tracey is referring to how social media is utilized/weaponized to defer to people's sentiments. His "happy 9/11" is both intra- and inter- personal way of waking up readers and even himself(Rocky Balboa??) from their stupors.
He does do other things similar to this, such as having paid subscriptions to other writers that he dislikes(including one that threatened him at a Substack event) - again both intra- and inter- personal.
He just doesn't do his job lying down. He was built to be a journalist to the point that compared with other prominent journalists he only charges 50/year for subscription.
Indeed, Michael Tracey is not in this for fame and fortune.
Why would anyone believe anything? The neocons (still alive and well and cranking out lies) deceived US citizens with the lie Iraq was a grave danger to world war with WMD and had to be invaded and destroyed, COVID was a grave danger (in reality killed the elderly and people who were already sick) so we must stand six feet apart, isolate children, wear masks, take an RNA injection or face consequences, Biden was competent, Iran has nuclear weapons and Trump puts America first.
So the theory the CIA and Mossad planned and executed 9/11 could certainly be true as we’ve plenty of evidence they (whoever “they” are) are capable of lying and sticking with it. The one thing I’ll never believe is Bush was in on it — there’s no way he faked the look of shock and fear when he was told America was under attack.
Are there polls indicating belief in the existence of a pedophile ring today? I sus0ect it has broad bipartisan support.
I think word finally got around that the pedophile ring and other unlikely narratives were the result of dishonesty or delusion from Giuffre and several other "victims". But nobody is going to throw themselves under the bus and be called a "victim blamer", so politicians and media will likely let the topic fade except for the few that already committed to it as a form of income.
I'm not sure. Tracey tweets that he has never been busier with the Epstein stuff, which doesn't seem to die. To wit, the 911 commemoration involved nutcases connecting 911 conspiracies to Epstein conspiracies seamlessly.
I meant to convey that I don't think anybody with any real clout is going to be pushing for further action to be taken unless they are hoping to make money. Doing so would require either willfull disregard for the truth or reckless incompetence.
I agree with your last line but there many, many people with clout who have a wilful disregard for the truth or reckless incompetence. Across the political spectrum. There are strong incentives for it in today's media environment, and few checks and balances. Just read Tracey's twitter feed - the Epstein frenzy isn't dying any time soon.
Good Michael holding steady!
But, generally speaking, aren't(now weren't) Democrats - registered or otherwise - of the younger generations and older generations Republicans?
This is of course, amongst the majority um... population that are "whites". The examples cited here seem to reflect that.
Of course, there are minority-ladened issues/problems and again the divide would be similar - Internet not required.
Generally, but age isn't as much of a predictor as you might think.
Here are some exit polls from 2000.
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2000
It's split pretty evenly for different age groups. A 30-49 year old was 2pp more likely to vote for Bush than Gore.
There's a bigger split in 2024, but not that huge.
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2024
The most polarized age groups have a ~54/44 split. A randomly selected young person will be a republican 4/9th of the time and a democrat 5/9th of the time. Not a huge difference.
Thanks! That's an informed answer.
In general, things are less extreme than people describe. For example, some people here in Seattle talked about how they'd never move to Idaho since they would never be able to interact with any besides republicans there. But Idaho went ~30% for Harris. It's about the same percentage of American men who are 5'11" or taller. Not exactly rare.
I have a biblical view. I believe September 11th was punishment from God. Sort of like Moses lifting up the tablets and cursing the Israelites into a miniature holocaust. We are a PAGAN nation that worships w0e-MEN and oppresses BOYS & MEN., I believe Bin Laden was an agent of God and not a bad person. I have no motive to say these things accept they are my beliefs.