Product Description
This is an ambitious, meticulous examination of how U.S. foreign policy since the 1960s has led to partial or total cover-ups of past domestic criminal acts, including, perhaps, the catastrophe of 9/11. Peter Dale Scott, whose previous books have investigated CIA involvement in southeast Asia, the drug wars, and the Kennedy assassination, here probes how the policies of presidents since Nixon have augmented the tangled bases for the 2001 terrorist attack. Scott shows how America's expansion into the world since World War II has led to momentous secret decision making at high levels. He demonstrates how these decisions by small cliques are responsive to the agendas of private wealth at the expense of the public, of the democratic state, and of civil society. He shows how, in implementing these agendas, U.S. intelligence agencies have become involved with terrorist groups they once backed and helped create, including al Qaeda.

CUSTOMER REVIEWS (Average Customer Rating: 4.5 based on 14 reviews)

outstanding and inspirational

Professor Scott, in his book "The Road to 9/11" provides a detailed analysis and discussion of contradictions in the 9/11 timelines, the reports, the inquiries ... In this regard, I believe that Scott writes in a manner that is quite easy to follow. It is well-written and superb in conclusions. I regret that it might have been more comprehensive - although, it introduces topics, such as the history of and manner of operations of the continuity of government.

In the concluding chapter, Scott rises to his highest potential, not only summarizing the events of that most horrific day, but, it offers the readers insights and arguments inspiring, at least, me, to seriously evaluate the credibility of statements prepared by the US federal government and examine the appropriateness of bottom-up movements to take back our government and return it to the people.

While the first 15 or so chapters were superb, the final chapter is sublime. The is well worth the purchase price, new or used.
October 01, 2008

Deep State Doublethink

Somewhere between George Bush and Noam Chomsky, who believe the 9/11 Commission Report, and David Ray Griffin, who believes "the Bush-Cheney administration orchestrated 9/11" (Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, 2006, p. vii-viii, ), there is Peter Dale Scott.

Scott doesn't say who did it, but as Ola Tunander puts it,

"Peter Dale Scott exposes a shadow world of oil, terrorism, drug trade and arms deals, of covert financing and parallel security structures - from the Cold War to today. He shows how such parallel forces of the United States have been able to dominate the agenda of the George W. Bush Administration, and that statements and actions made by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld before, during and after September 11, 2001, present evidence for an American "deep state" and for the so-called "Continuity of Government" in parallel to the regular "public state" ruled by law. Scott"s brilliant work not only reveals the overwhelming importance of these parallel forces but also presents elements of a strategy for restraining their influence to win back the "public state," the American democracy."

This is not very different from the more widely held "rogue network" theory described, for example, by Webster Tarpley, as "an outlaw network of high officials infesting the military and security apparatus of the United States and Great Britain." Tarpley sees this network as "ultimately dominated by Wall Street and City of London financiers," but many other candidates have been proposed (Bilderbergers, Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, Illuminati, CFR, CIA, Mossad, Federal Reserve, etc.).

What these two points of view have in common, if indeed they are different at all, is the idea that there is, or still is, a "public state" (or "non-rogue" network) at all. This sounds comforting, to the extent that it encourages us to think that if we can just expose and get rid of the bad guys, we can "win the country back." The latter expression brings us all the way back into mainstream politics, where anyone dissatisfied with the status quo can complain about the country having gone to the dogs and being desperately in need of change.

It is along this continuum that we lose Chomsky and other advocates of a "structuralist" or "institutional" approach, which they oppose to "conspiracy theory" generally. The system cannot be fixed, they say, by superficial reforms, or by getting rid of the bad guys, because it is based on capitalist imperialism and the profit motive. Even if the "deep state" were exposed and removed, things would not improve significantly because the public state is the real killer. Chomsky's entire (political) oeuvre is dedicated to showing how the US government (and its allies) wreak havoc in the world, not by conspiracy but openly and consistently as the logical and predictable consequence of the economic system it serves.

I think both points of view are flawed. Why Chomsky et al. refuse to acknowledge the evidence for high-level government complicity in "deep state" events like the JFK assassination and 9/11 is simply not comprehensible. They fit easily (and politically very effectively) into a "structural" analysis: both events precipitated imperialist wars -- the latter undeniably, the former arguably.

On the other hand, is this notion of a coexisting deep and public state not precisely the state of doublethink Orwell described in 1984 -- "holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them" (Orwell, 1984)? How is it possible, logically, to have both at the same time? The concepts, it seems to me, are mutually exclusive. If the deep state exists, there can be no public state, by definition. The same is true of the rogue network. There can be no rogue network within the government controlling the government, because if that is the case the rogue network is the government.

This is not "semantics." Scott is not talking about the public face, the propaganda mask, that "bad" governments use to disguise their evil nature. There would be nothing new about that. He is talking about two governments ("states"), a good one and a bad one, that are so intertwined they can hardly be told apart, like Jekyll and Hyde. This is what Scott's oeuvre is all about -- showing us how closely intertwined they are. My problem with this is that precisely because they are so intertwined, I see no point in trying to distinguish them.

Worse, Scott's theory in the end exonerates the very institutions (CIA, FBI, Military Intelligence, etc.) he impugns. Like his friend John Newman, who can present a mountain of evidence proving that Oswald was a CIA agent without implicating the CIA as an institution, Scott does not locate the deep state in the CIA or any other government agency, or in the government at all, since the "overworld" extends far beyond the US government into organized crime, international banking and finance, transnational corporations, foreign intelligence agencies, etc. Thus "9/11 was an inside job," for Scott, does not mean the (US) government did it. Ditto for JFK, and all other "deep events."

As long as this doublethink holds, one is paralyzed. One cannot blame the government, or agencies of the government, because they didn't do it. Despite the overwhelming evidence tying them to all sorts of misdeeds, they are innocent as institutions because they are, after all, part of the "public state." This is where Newman leaves us, and it is where Scott leaves us. Maybe there is something about being a former intelligence officer (Newman) or a (Canadian) diplomat (Scott) that prevents them from taking the final, logical step, which I see as inevitable. If everything, or even half, of what they say is true, the government did do it, and only the government can solve the so-called "mysteries" and rectify the situation, whereupon it follows that we must try to remake the government into a true "res publica." Rather than exonerate the CIA as an institution, for example, it should be completely reformed (or abolished) as an institution. Since this can probably not be done without reforming the overarching institution, the government, of which it is a part, we can now rejoin Chomsky et al. in calling for fundamental change. I wonder if Maj. Newman and Prof. Scott would be with us on that one.

Michael D. Morrissey
August 26, 2008

http://www.mdmorrissey.info/deepstate
There is also a useful discussion at http://www.911blogger.com/node/17364#comment
August 28, 2008

Someone asked where was Cheney on 9-11?

See 'Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil' by Michael C. Ruppert and Catherine Austin Fitts
August 10, 2008

Very useful study of the US state

The American author Peter Dale Scott shows how the richest 1% control key covert parts of the US state, including the Pentagon and the CIA. The private power of this military-financial complex has been secretly growing ever since President Truman founded the CIA. The US state serves the class interests of Wall Street's owners, not the national interest.

The US state is becoming more repressive: in 1970, 31% of California's budget went to higher education and 4% to prisons, by 2005, 12% and 20% respectively.

Scott shows how the US state built up fundamentalist Islam. From the 1950s, the CIA, allied with MI6, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, used the mullahs and the Muslim Brotherhood against secular nationalism across the Middle East. Later the CIA outsourced its operations to MI6, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, the Saudis, the Shah, the French intelligence service, Egypt and Morocco. In Latin America, the US state backed the fascist Operation Condor run by the military dictatorships of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Paraguay, funded by South Korea, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia.

Scott describes how the US and British states have fomented wars across Asia. From 1986, the CIA, MI6 and Pakistan's intelligence service launched guerrilla attacks from Afghanistan into Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In 1988 the US and Pakistani states promised to end military aid to the mujehadin when Soviet forces left Afghanistan; Thatcher and Bush ensured that they broke that promise.

Scott shows how the drive for oil determines much of US foreign policy. For example, in 1997, the Wall Street Journal stated, "The Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace. Moreover, they are crucial to secure the country as a prime trans-shipment route for the export of Central Asia's vast oil, gas and other natural resources."

In sum, Scott shows how the US state is not a force for peace and progress, as Gordon Brown fondly believes, but backs war and reaction. Its ruling class wants to continue their disastrous attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan: it believes what Kissinger said in 2005, "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."

April 17, 2008

What Was Dick Cheney Doing the Morning of 9/11?

Not a conspiracy book at all, but more a historical analysis of what's happened to US power over the past 50 years: how the "deep state" has swallowed what remained of the Public State. When people wonder why there seems to be a total de-link between what the American people desire and vote for, and what they actually get -- here is the answer. In November 2006, the US voted for the end of the Iraq War, the readjustment of the Bush Vampire tax burden, and for greater accountability(investigations, public hearings, supoenas issued, etc). What they got was the exact opposite. Why? This book is a good place to start to find the answer.

When Professor Scott gets to 9/11/01, he goes into very minute detail over the very strange discrepencies involving Dick Cheney's whereabouts from 9:25 to 9:55 the morning of the attacks. Cheney has just flat out lied about where he was and what he was doing. He tells the 9/11 Commission that he did not enter the security bunker/command post just off the EOB until 9:50. Yet several witnesses swore that he was inside the bunker(including Leon Panetta) as early as 9:25, repeatedly going off to make phone calls in the tunnel which leads from the bunker to the EOB, on secured, untraceable phones. Why lie about this? Who was he talking to and about what?

Even stranger is the testimony of an Air Force Lieutenant who kept asking Cheney the same question over and over: "Do the orders still stand? Do the orders still stand?" Eventually, Cheney got angry and responded: "Have you heard anything different?!"

What were the orders? The assumption is that they were orders to shoot down incoming planes. Yet, this query had already been asked at least once before the plane plowed into the Pentagon. And if they were the logical shoot-down orders, why would the Lt. keep asking for confirmation? Scott theorizes that the orders in fact were STAND DOWN orders.

A magnificent, chilling work by our greatest political historian.
January 30, 2008

SIMILAR PRODUCTS

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
by Naomi Klein

9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press
by David Ray Griffin

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
by David Ray Griffin

The True Story of the Bilderberg Group
by Daniel Estulin

Deep Politics And The Death of JFK
by Peter Dale Scott