Oct 4, 2026 · 30 min · 12 segments
CounterSpin provides a critical examination of the each week’s major news stories, and exposes what the mainstream media may have missed in their own coverage. Produced by the national media watch…
Janine JacksonHostSarah AndersonGuest
[upbeat music] "Never forget" is the mantra for the 2001 attacks that killed some 3,000 people here in New York City, at least another 184 in Virginia, and then another 40 on Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.
But what exactly are we being tasked to remember? Gregory Shupak visits the question recently for fair.org, noting that media retrospectives on both the attacks on the day themselves and on the wars that the US prosecuted in its aftermath held telling indications that some facts were not in fact learned.
The New York Times, for example, played a critical role in dampening questions about an open-ended global war on terror, and their remembrance rationalized the violence that the US unleashed under that vague premise.
The Times editorial board asserted, quote, "The war against the Taliban and the Qaeda forces there was a justified and necessary response to the attacks.
Within months, the US military destroyed Al Qaeda's camps, even if killing Osama bin Laden would take nearly a decade, and drove the Taliban from power," close quote.
But there was an alternative, namely reaching an agreement with the Taliban for bin Laden to be extradited from Afghanistan, a possibility that existed before and immediately after 9/11.
As The Washington Post reported on October 20th, 2001, quote, "Over three years and on as many continents, US officials met in public and secret at least 20 times with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice.
Talks continued until just days before the September 11th attacks, and Taliban representatives repeatedly suggested they would hand over bin Laden if their conditions were met, sources close to the discussions said.
Throughout the years, however, State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the US justice system," close quote.
Then, just a week after the US invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to discuss handing over bin Laden if the US stopped bombing Afghanistan and provided evidence that bin Laden was involved in nine eleven.
In other words, far from being necessary, the Afghan war was a choice the US made when diplomacy appeared to be a viable option.
And we now know those twenty years of war had disastrous effects on Afghans and resulted in the Taliban, in fact, returning to power.
But again, the New York Times retrospective claims that invading Afghanistan was justified, even though it was clearly illegal under national law, and those claims seem to rest on the unstated idea that because bin Laden was in Afghanistan with the Taliban's permission, attacking Afghanistan was okay.
The piece describes going to war with not just the attack's plotters, but with their protectors in Afghanistan.
But Chupak couldn't find any New York Times editorials contending that it would be justified for, for example, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iran, or Iraq to bomb and occupy the United States following the devastating violence the United States had wrought in each of those nations.
Papers of record in this country presented war as the only response to the September eleventh, two thousand and one attacks, as if war were a surgical, careful operation and there were only minor details to work out.
For the New York Times, quote, there is no doubt that this week's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were the opening salvos in the first American war in the twenty-first century.
Less clear is just what sort of war this will be and how the United States can ensure that it prevails, close quote.
[upbeat music] "Never forget" is the mantra for the 2001 attacks that killed some 3,000 people here in New York City, at least another 184 in Virginia, and then another 40 on Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.
But what exactly are we being tasked to remember? Gregory Shupak visits the question recently for fair.org, noting that media retrospectives on both the attacks on the day themselves and on the wars that the US prosecuted in its aftermath held telling indications that some facts were not in fact learned.
The New York Times, for example, played a critical role in dampening questions about an open-ended global war on terror, and their remembrance rationalized the violence that the US unleashed under that vague premise.
The Times editorial board asserted, quote, "The war against the Taliban and the Qaeda forces there was a justified and necessary response to the attacks.
Within months, the US military destroyed Al Qaeda's camps, even if killing Osama bin Laden would take nearly a decade, and drove the Taliban from power," close quote.
But there was an alternative, namely reaching an agreement with the Taliban for bin Laden to be extradited from Afghanistan, a possibility that existed before and immediately after 9/11.
As The Washington Post reported on October 20th, 2001, quote, "Over three years and on as many continents, US officials met in public and secret at least 20 times with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice.
Talks continued until just days before the September 11th attacks, and Taliban representatives repeatedly suggested they would hand over bin Laden if their conditions were met, sources close to the discussions said.
Throughout the years, however, State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the US justice system," close quote.
Then, just a week after the US invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to discuss handing over bin Laden if the US stopped bombing Afghanistan and provided evidence that bin Laden was involved in nine eleven.
In other words, far from being necessary, the Afghan war was a choice the US made when diplomacy appeared to be a viable option.
And we now know those twenty years of war had disastrous effects on Afghans and resulted in the Taliban, in fact, returning to power.
But again, the New York Times retrospective claims that invading Afghanistan was justified, even though it was clearly illegal under national law, and those claims seem to rest on the unstated idea that because bin Laden was in Afghanistan with the Taliban's permission, attacking Afghanistan was okay.
The piece describes going to war with not just the attack's plotters, but with their protectors in Afghanistan.
But Chupak couldn't find any New York Times editorials contending that it would be justified for, for example, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iran, or Iraq to bomb and occupy the United States following the devastating violence the United States had wrought in each of those nations.
Papers of record in this country presented war as the only response to the September eleventh, two thousand and one attacks, as if war were a surgical, careful operation and there were only minor details to work out.
For the New York Times, quote, there is no doubt that this week's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were the opening salvos in the first American war in the twenty-first century.
Less clear is just what sort of war this will be and how the United States can ensure that it prevails, close quote.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.