These competing cliches have become a touchstone of sorts in the case of a certain recently dethroned uber-goalie, and a number of local Canucks bloggers are hot-under-the-collar in response to journos insisting that the team’s only path forward is moving Luongo out to free up cap space.

It was with the goalie-gets-you-there hypothesis that many Canucks fans simply assumed that Roberto Luongo, with his ostensibly justified high salary, made it a foregone conclusion that the Canucks could go deep this year (and last year) into the playoffs.

But is it true?  Can you buy your way deep into the playoffs by splurging big on a marquee goalie?  I decided to test the theory. 

Here are a couple of quick tables that map out goaltender salaries, starting with Conference Finalists:

Chicago Blackhawks
	Starting Goalie: Khabibulin, Nikolai AGE:  35 $6.75 Million	Backup: Huet, Cristobal AGE:  32 $5.625 Million
Pittsburgh Penguins
	Starting Goalie: Fleury, Marc-Andre AGE:  23 $5.00 Million	Backup: Garon, Mathieu AGE:  30 $509,000
Detroit Red Wings
	Starting Goalie: Osgood, Chris AGE:  35 $1.417 Million	Backup: Conklin, Ty AGE:  32 $750,000
Carolina Hurricanes
	Starting Goalie: Ward, Cam AGE: 24 $2.667 Million	Backup: Leighton, Michael Age: 27 $600,000

… and here’s another showing the dropouts from the Conference Semifinals:

Vancouver Canucks
	Starting Goalie: Luongo, Roberto AGE: 29 $6.75 Million	Backup: Labarbera, Jason AGE:  28 $461,000
Washington Capitals
	Starting Goalie: Varlamov, Simeon AGE: 20 $155,000	Backup: Theodore, Jose AGE: 31 $4.5 Million
Boston Bruins
	Starting Goalie: Thomas, Tim AGE: 34 $1.1 Million	Backup: Fernandez, Manny AGE: 33 $4.333 Million
Anaheim Ducks
	Starting Goalie: Hiller, Jonas AGE:  26 $1.3 Million	Backup: Giguere, JS AGE:  31 $6 Million

Here’s what may have changed:  with today’s salary cap consciousness, overspending on a goalie means that it becomes more challenging to build a team in front of him.  This is a reality which, as I pointed out the other day, is hitting Gillis in the face at the moment with the Sedins asking for a fortune and more than 10% of the team’s salary budget tied up in one player, Roberto Luongo, and another big chunk presumably being allocated to The Twins.

Perhaps more interesting than the above table is this chart I whipped up (covering the regular season, 2008-2009) which shows that splurging on goalies doesn’t necessarily deliver absolutes either:

What’s the lesson from all this data?  First:  clearly, individual salary is not entirely predictive of individual performance.  Second:  When you account for outliers like Chicago, Detroit and Carolina, there is a slight inverse corresponence to goals against and goalie spending (ie. you get scored on more when you spend less on goalies) for NHL teams.  However, the margin of difference is only about 20%, and this year four of the six biggest goalie spenders were gone within the first two rounds.  Only Chicago (which is extremely top-heavy on goalie salary) and Pittsburgh (at $5.5M) remain among the big-spending playoff teams.  What makes the difference at the top end?  A hot rookie.  Or, in the case of Detroit, an underappreciated veteran with a bad agent.

Chicago found itself in a fortunate position this year with a fairly low player salary budget (so many rookies and sophomores) that it could invest in fairly known quantities in Huet and Khabiboulin.  That’s depth that may be required to take them through the next two rounds in the playoffs, and it is a strategy that is quite unique to the NHL — but shows that Chicago is the first team to truly embrace the cap and turn a limitation into a key advantage.

So for the playoffs this year, there’s a really interesting opportunity to see which strategy prevails.  What does this mean for the Canucks?  As the very sage Ben Nevile, one of my commenters pointed out the other day, Schneider could be the difference — but for now, he’s very much a wildcard.

The Canucks could indeed trade Luongo if Schneider were to make a Cam Ward-ian appearance at the beginning of next season, and this could provide the team with an immense advantage overall … but until then?  Gillis is hamstrung, unless he can throw together a deal to move Luongo and get a veteran lower-priced goalie in return as a part of the package, which is quite possible.  But few teams have the cap room, and you’d hope to move him to the East Coast so as to prevent having to deal with him on a routine basis all season long (I doubt very much he’s interested in moving to Edmonton anyway).

The major lesson of the above analysis, therefore, is that a goalie on his own might get you through a season — but not the playoffs.  That takes a broader depth chart, thanks to video preperation, off-ice scoring strategy, and the isolation of a goalie’s weaknesses that emerges from playing him 6 or 7 nights in a two-week period.  Had Luongo not been injured and had such a slow recovery when he did return, I’m sure he could have propped the Canucks up to a league-leading points total … but with modern-day goalie-busting techniques, such as he and Varlamov felt in their respective final games, teams can no longer (if they ever could) ride the goalie through the playoffs.

The Canucks in particular are at a dangerous precipice between the pipes… but from threat comes opportunity.  Do the Canucks trade their best player to address both?

Below is a chart on several key players, some relevant data, and what I think I might try to do:

	Roberto Luongo Age: 30 Salary:  $6.75mm Expires:  2010 W-L:33-13-7 GAA: 2.34
It becomes quite difficult to solidify a reputation as the best goalie in the league when you continually play for dog teams that can’t perform in the playoffs.  This team (and every team you’ve played for) leans far too heavily on your unique talent but east of Cambie street you get very little respect in this league.Giving you the captaincy (even without the C sewn on) was a bullshit PR move and could only have served to cause you to lose focus and get off the bead of what it is that you do so well.  Get back to being “just” the greatest goalie ever, stick with us through some changes, and for emotional balance leverage the two guys you have in your own back yard that have lots of mental toughness and carried weak teams through the playoffs:  Richard Brodeur and Kirk McLean.  The armchair GM would be happy to hire them as consultants to focus on the mental aspects of your play.
	Mattias Ohlund Age: 32 Salary:  $3.5mm Expires:  2009 25 points
I think we’re going to lose you to an East Coast team in bidding this summer. Vancouver fans don’t respect your contribution enough.  I think you’ve had a tough couple of years trying to fit into the Vigneault system, which has required you to take too many penalties and lose focus from your offensive play.I don’t want to lose your grit, but the budget’s tight.  I’d like to sign you to a multi-year contract at your present salary, but I doubt you’d go for that considering who’s been calling.  So I would hope to keep you here with a two-year at $2.5mm — and it’ll be hard to find room under the cap for that.  You’re a franchise player.  Stay here 3-4 more years and we’ll retire your jersey, give you a shot at a cup with some rebuilding, and you can play in front of the home crowd for Sweden in 2010.
	Sami Salo Age: 35 Salary:  $3.5mm Expires:  2011 25 points
What, are you made of porcelain?  We need you to play a whole season.  Please ensconse yourself in bubble wrap and suspend yourself with bungee rope in a lcoked room between games.  We’d like the keys to your Porsche — we’ll be sending a driver in an armoured, padded vehicle with a 7-point safety harness to pick you up for games from now on.If you can put together a full season you’re awesome — but we can’t keep backfilling you.  Fans love you.  I like saying your name with a Squire Barnes lisp.  What the hell: you can’t go anywhere, we’re not trading you… get out of my office and back to the gym (though please pick up some tensor braces and make sure you stretch thoroughly in order to prevent injury or strain).  Please do not buy a Segway or any two-wheeled vehicle.
	Taylor Pyatt Age: 27 Salary:  $1.575mm Expires:  2009 19 points
You are six-feet four, and you weigh 235 lbs.  In today’s NHL that is neither lean enough to be fast, nor thick enough to be tough.  You’re a UFA this summer.  I don’t understand why Vigneault continues to throw you on the ice in critical situations — end of the game, power plays, penalty kills, etc.  You are almost always behind the play.You were a healthy scratch several times in the past two years.  You are being given chances to showcase your skills (probably because we were hoping to trade your ass) but you’ve really let us down.  19 points in 69 games, especially given the guys you’ve played with, means you haven’t been a factor at all.You have NO grit, speed, nor puck-handling dexterity.Happy to let you go — but if you want to stay here 1) figure out what kind of player you are, 2) hire a personal trainer and develop this summer, and 3) we’ll pay you $1M on a one-year contract.  Sorry about your tragic loss, but this is a business.
	Mason Raymond Age: 23 Salary:  $833.33K Expires:  2010 (RFA) 23 points
In your case, I don’t think the stats have told the story.  You’re a hungry, fiery player with grit and I feel that AV has completely underutilized you.  For a 6’0 guy to be the team’s fastest skater is impressive.  You’ve gotten your feet wet in the league, you played your way onto this roster, and you’ve tasted the playoffs.  Now you need to play your way up to the second line.  I think you could be huge as a forechecker and your hands are awesome.This is your sophomore NHL summer.  You’re only 165 lbs. soaking wet.  Would like to see you bulk up without losing speed, just to prevent you from getting knocked around too much.  Work on the upper body, not just the legs, and eat a sandwich once in a while.  You’re great kid, now get out of my office so I can deal with the next guy.
	Willie Mitchell Age: 32 Salary:  $3.2mm Expires:  2010 23 points
Hockey loves the hometown boys.  Port McNeill is pretty close to Vancouver.  Check.OK somebody liked you last summer and gave you a pretty rockin’ deal despite a weak season.  This year you did a lot better, so she time is right to keep that momentum and own the zone.  At times this year I watched you and you seemed to have your head in the clouds, crossing over inexplicably and floating the puck when a slap-pass was required.  Your turnover stats look pretty bad.  You are, though, a big part of the breakout.  If Ohlund goes this summer, you’re a huge part of the defensive corps and the younger kids will be looking to you for leadership.  At times you seem disinterested in defensive play.  Get angry in September and find your grit.Step up, and we’ll renew next summer — no probs.  Want you to finish your career here.
	Alex Burrows Age: 28 Salary:  $2mm Expires:  2010 51 points
You have played your way onto every team throughout your career.  With 52 points in 82 games you have really delivered in 2008-2009, particularly since AV has not always played you on top lines.  You’re probably the fittest player on the team, and a role model for guys making twice your salary.Your unique attribute is your work  ethic.  You need some bulk up top, because when you eventually settle into second line left-winger status you’re going to get tossed around like a bean bag.  I think you’re going to look like the bargain of the century in two years.  We’ll get you a speedy centre to get things going.
	Kyle Wellwood Age: 25 Salary:  $998K Expires:  2009 27 points
I’ve known and played with a lot of guys like you who never got the chance to play in The Show.  You’re immensely, naturally gifted as a player but as a teenager it always came so easily to you that you never really developed a work ethic.  After a few years with the Leafs you became a guy constantly on the bubble, and nowadays that is what is driving you.Wake-up call:  We signed you and put you on waivers (for no really good reason) last year after you failed the fitness test, and nobody even called.This is it.  I’ll sign you right now for $800K for a year because I know I’m the only guy who’ll take a chance.  You’re still on the bubble.  We saw flashes of brilliance this year, but you’re still falling behind.  That’s OK if you use this summer as your time to train like crazy, make me a liar, and come back to camp in lean and mean shape with some speed that can match those hands.  Keep skating all summer.
	Mats Sundin Age: 38 Salary:  $7mm Expires:  2009 28 points
You’re no Neidermeyer.  You’ve proven that you can’t sit out half the season and expect to compete in the NHL.  You came back from semi-retirement old and slow and not nearly pissed-off enough.  You hoped the Sedins and Luongo would carry you to your ring but we did not get the leadership on the ice I’d expect to see from a guy who’s been a consistent 70-80 point-getter for 10 years — and one that we paid $4 million bucks for.So yes, this is goodbye.  There’s no role on this team for you, but I think you knew that.  I always knew you were a summer rental.  See you at the retirement press conference, and enjoy the flight back to Sweden.  And when the Rangers call?  Don’t do it.  You’ll smear your glorious Leafs legacy (choke).
	Ryan Kesler Age: 24 Salary:  $1.75mm Expires:  2010 59 points
When we originally signed you, we thought you were the next Trevor Linden.  It hasn’t exactly been an easy path, and so you were often on the bubble.  This past year you really shined.  What I’d like to see you deliver is a 75-80 point season in 2009/2010 as a center.  If so, you could be our future and we’ll hit you with a contract at least as sweet as your wild-eyed three-year, $2.475-million entry level contract a few years ago.Time to step up and deliver on the promise that we saw when we passed up Mike Richards and Corey Perry for your ass.  I’d like to think you could be the captain of the team but not yet.  One more season like this year’s and we’ll talk about it when you’re up next sumer.  You play better when you’re hungry.  You ought to be a second-line centre by now.
	Kevin Bieksa Age: 27 Salary:  $3.75mm Expires:  2012 43 points
This was the best year of your career, despite a couple of injuries that had us leery.  You’ve showed real toughness at times and delivered 43 points offensively which made you the top-scoring D-man on the team.We have however noticed your defensive play suffering.  You’ve made some brutal bets on the pinch and lost, creating momentum-killing 2-on-1s and leading to some highlight reel goals for other teams.  Luongo can only do so much to cover for a defenseman who’s not even in the play.  Additionally, while we like your grit, we hate your timing.  Pitchforking that guy in Game 5 vs. Chicago with 6 minutes to go almost definitely cost us a Game 7.Clean it up and work on your D game and you’ll be worth every penny.
	The Sedins (H D) Age: 28 Salary:  $3.58mm Expires:  2009 82 points each
You each got 82 points this year — one each per game — with no injuries.  Once again, you were absent for much of the playoffs.  You need to understand that people will key in on you and work with the Right Winger we give you.  Because you are a package deal, any team that signs you to a big contract is going to mortgage their whole future to do so.  I know the Rangers will call. Anyone who can sign you both won’t be able to field a very good team beyond your line.We have invested a lot in you and consider you to be franchise players.  I would match any offer up to $4mm each and for 3-4 years, but above that I’m pretty hamstrung by trying to surround you with the league’s best goalie and a strong D.  But ANYONE who signs you at your presumed asking price, given that there are two of you, will be challenged to surround you with a talented team.
	Alain Vigneault2007 Jack Adams award winner 2007/08: 39-33-10 2008/09: 45-27-10
Some coaches are able to work their magic in the locker room, some do it by running perfect practices, and others do it behind the bench.  In the regular season great practices, and solid locker room and off-ice leadership keep teams healthy, prepared, and in-the-game.  In the playoffs, though, coaches do their work behind the bench.As this was your first career NHL playoff run as a coach, I guess we can’t be too harsh with you for losing.  I have to be honest — watching what happened in Chicago, where the Hawks clearly changed the entire complexion of the play without any adjustment or response from the Canucks — I wanted to fire you.  But then, reflecting on the stats of the regular season, I think we just need to develop you and get you some help.Speaking of which…
	Trevor Linden Requires no introduction.
Hey Trev, ‘sup?  Feeling refreshed after a year off, freed from the shackles of watching Naslund flail as a Captain and watching the NHLPA eat itself alive trying to maneouvre with that weasel Gary Bettman?We miss you.  Fans still show up to games wearing #16 jerseys.  You cast a long shadow, my friend, and rumour from some former Canucks players has it that even thought you didn’t wear the “C” these last few years in Vancouver, you were.  Suffice to say:  You cast a long shadow.Within the next 16 months, Ryan Walter or Rick Bowness will be moving on.  I’d say you’re a shoo-in for Assistant Coach.  The salary sucks, but face it — you bleed blue and green.
	Cody Hodgson Age: 19 Salary:  $875K Expires:  2011
I think we made the smart decision growing you slowly this year, sending you to the Battallion, letting you play on Team Canada in the Canada-Russia series, and now pulling you up to the Moose.  Your play has been exceptional — now you know what it’s like to spread your wings and rock the ice and be a dominant force.Next season please arrive at camp prepared to play in the NHL.  Speed and dexterity are your biggest assets, and you’re big enough not to get tossed around.  Toughness and grit will have to come over time.  You’d make a great roommate for Burrows — only you’re a little more talented than Burrows — because he’ll keep you focused on your fitness and work ethic.  Don’t let this go to your head, we’ll give you a lot of PP ice time next year, probably playing on the Right Wing.
	Marian Gaborik MINNESSOTA Age: 34 Salary:  $3.2mm Expires:  2009
Wanted:  RIGHT WINGER who can hold his own with the Sedins, stand in front of the net when he has to, and wire shots top-corner while hapless defensemen chase the Swedes around in the corners.  Hey Marian, know anybody?Oh that’s right… your pal Pavol is on the Canucks, hit 53 points, and will be here til summer 2010.  Unless of course we can’t attract you as a free agent this summer, in which case we’re going to trade his ass (he nets a $4 million salary).  Since your injury makes you a bit of a risk, I’ll throw $3.5mm on a one-year contract to you but would discuss anything up to $4.0mm on a two-year deal.  If the latter, then you’ll be riding to games in the bubble van with Sami Salo.We’ll try you with the Sisters, and if that doesn’t work out I’m sure you’ll enjoy spinning around the ice with Demitra.  And hey, Willie’s here too… you remember him?
	Ossi Vaananen Age: 28 Salary:  $1mm Expires:  2009
I checked my magic 8-Ball: “future hazy”.  Will re-sign for 2 years at $875K.  Otherwise, seeya.  Thanks.  See you in September.  PS – there are too many vowels in your name.
	Alexander Radulov Age: 22 Salary: $919K Expires: 2009
Ok now, if ever there is a Russian player destined for first-line greatness in the NHL, it is 22-year-old Alexander Radulov.  He is, though, the centre of a huge controversy between the NHL and the Russian Kontinental Hockey League.  Last year, though he was signed to a pithy $1mm contract with the Predators, he ended up inking a three year deal worth $13mm with the KHL’s Salavat Yulaev Ufa.  This contract was signed days before a treaty agreement was reached between the NHL and KHL regarding transfer of players. The Russians view this as payback for the yanking of Ovechkin and Malkin, among a host of others, into the NHL from domestic clubs. What’s happened to the Preds now is essentially what might have happened to the Canucks had they not been able to lure Bure overseas after picking him so many years ago.  This summer, the stage is set for a Battle Royale between the NHL and the KHL’s Alexander Medvedev — the outcome of which might mean Radulov’s return to the National Hockey League as an unrestricted free agent.  This will be THE story of the summer.
	Maxim Afinogenov Age: 29 Salary: $3.5mm Expires: 2009
Building on the Russian Right-Winger theme:  Hey Max!  How would you like to play with the twins?  I know things have been sucking in Buffalo lately.  You need a change of pace!  Your scoring is off, but I think you’ve got potential.I’d throw you a three-year, $3.0mm bone to head over to Vancouver where the ladies will love ya, the Sedins will pass to you, and you can head back up the roster to the first line and net around 75+ points.  Sound good?  Sign here.

Going back over this post, I have committed the Canucks to around $50mm, give or take $2mm.  For instance I’d obviously be happy to say goodbye to Pyatt were Afinogenov to be lured to the team.  But with a cap of $56.7mm next season for team salaries, that leaves very little room and I have filled 15 of 23 roster spots.

According to HockeyBuzz O’Brien, Bernier, Rypien, and Hansen are also key free agents this year.  They will be demanding salary bumps and presently the four of them account for about $4.5mm all in.  Add to that Edler’s $3.25mm salary, Demitra’s $4mm, and various odds & ends, and that’s another $9mm unaccounted for in my planning.

The reality is that the Canucks are not going to be able to strengthen the roster substantially from within the Free Agency market.  The youth movement, as Chicago has evidenced, where underpaid young players overperform, is where teams get a solid strategic advantage these days. This places heavy emphasis on Hodgson to crack the lineup and be a dominant player in 2009-2010, as the Canucks don’t have much else under development.

That said, a couple of things happened this past year:  1)  Salaries inflated across the board, but teams are seeing revenue decline, and 2) The economy collapsed, and the NHL started talking about lowering the cap in the next few years.  This will see teams being far more conservative in their offers to Free Agents, which will be enhanced by the frankly startling diversity of talent that is set to hit the market in June.

So:  Will Ohlund take a pay cut to stay with the only NHL team he has ever known?  Will Bernier (and other teams) recognize that he’s not worth $2.5mm yet?  Will Hank and Daniel bankrupt the team that has developed them into Top 20 players by making a big cash grab, or would they like a shot at the cup?  If they reach for a $6mm salary each, as some suspect, the twins and Luongo alone could account for more than one third of the team’s salary cap at nearly $20mm.

Mike Gillis has a real problem.  If few or none of these situations plays in his favour, then I suspect it’ll be 5 or more years before they have a team in contention… and they’ll have to do something the Canucks are rarely successful at doing:  developing a group of players from the draft into top-line players right away.  It could be a very long winter indeed, even by Vancouver fans’ standards.

… all of which underpins the fact that, strong or not, this was probably Vancouver’s best chance at a Stanley Cup for the past 15 years, and at least the next 5.

—- http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030916/ZNYT01/309160363

SBC Won’t Name Names in File-Sharing Cases*

By SETH SCHIESEL New York Times September 16, 2003

* • Discuss this story <to turn over the names of their customers who are otherwise known only by the murky screen names and numeric Internet Protocol addresses used in cyberspace.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Ben Franklin (1706-1790) Historical Review of Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania.

On 27 October 2002

The Observer, London

The ENEMY WITHIN by Gore Vidal

On 24 August, 1814, things looked very dark for freedom1s land. That was the day the British captured Washington DC and set fire to the Capitol and the White House. President Madison took refuge in the nearby Virginia woods where he waited patiently for the notoriously short attention span of the Brits to kick in, which it did. They moved on and what might have been a Day of Utter Darkness turned out to be something of a bonanza for the DC building trades and up-market realtors.

One year after 9/11, we still don’t know by whom we were struck that infamous Tuesday, or for what true purpose. But it is fairly plain to many civil libertarians that 9/11 put paid not only to much of our fragile Bill of Rights but also to our once-envied system of government which had taken a mortal blow the previous year when the Supreme Court did a little dance in 5/4 time and replaced a popularly elected president with the oil and gas Cheney-Bush junta.

Meanwhile, our more and more unaccountable government is pursuing all sorts of games around the world that we the spear- carriers (formerly the people) will never learn of. Even so, we have been getting some answers to the question: why weren1t we warned in advance of 9/11? Apparently, we were, repeatedly; for the better part of a year, we were told there would be unfriendly visitors to our skies some time in September 2001, but the government neither informed nor protected us despite Mayday warnings from Presidents Putin and Mubarak, from Mossad and even from elements of our own FBI. A joint panel of congressional intelligence committees reported (19 September 2002, New York Times) that as early as 1996, Pakistani terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad confessed to federal agents that he was learning to fly in order to crash a plane into CIA HQ.

Only CIA director George Tenet seemed to take the various threats seriously. In December 1998, he wrote to his deputies that “we are at war” with Osama bin Laden. So impressed was the FBI by his warnings that by 20 September 2001, “the FBI still had only one analyst assigned full time to al-Qaeda”.

From a briefing prepared for Bush at the beginning of July 2001: “We believe that OBL (Osama bin Laden) will launch a significant terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.” And so it came to pass; yet Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, says she never suspected that this meant anything more than the kidnapping of planes.

Happily, somewhere over the Beltway, there is Europe-recently declared anti-semitic by the US media because most of Europe wants no war with Iraq and the junta does, for reasons we may now begin to understand thanks to European and Asian investigators with their relatively free media.

On the subject, “how and why America was attacked on 11 September 2001”, the best, most balanced report, thus far is by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed… Yes, yes, I know he is one of Them. But they often know things that we don1t-particularly about what we are up to. A political scientist, Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development “a think-tank dedicated to the protection of human rights, justice and peace” in Brighton. His book, The War on Freedom, has just been published in the US by a small, but reputable publisher.

Ahmed provides a background for our ongoing war against Afghanistan, a view that in no way coincides with what the administration has told us. He has drawn on many sources, most tellingly on American whistle-blowers who are beginning to come forth and bear witness ? like those FBI agents who warned their superiors that al-Qaeda was planning a kamikaze strike against New York and Washington only to be told that if they went public with these warnings under the National Security Act. Several of these agents have engaged David P. Schippers, chief investigative counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee, to represent them in court. That majestic Schippers managed the successful impeachment of President Clinton in the House of Representatives. He may, if the Iraqi war should go wrong, be obliged to perform the same high service for Bush, who allowed the American people to go unwarned about an imminent attack upon two of our cities as preemption of a planned military strike by the US against the Taliban.

The Guardian (26 September 2001) reported that in July 2001, a group of interested parties met in a Berlin hotel to listen to a former State Department official, Lee Coldren, as he passed on a message from the Bush administration that “the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action the chilling quality of this private warning was that it came-according to one of those present, the Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik-accompanied by specific details of how Bush would succeed…” Four days earlier, the guardian had reported that “Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military action against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington… (which) raises the possibility that bin Laden was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats.” A replay of the ‘day of infamy’ in the Pacific 62 years earlier?

Why the US needed a Eurasian adventure

On 9 September 2001, Bush was presented with a draft of a national security presidential directive outlining a global campaign of military, diplomatic and intelligence action targeting al-Qaeda, buttressed by the threat of war. According to NBC News: ‘President Bush’ was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaeda but did not have a chance before the terrorist attacks… The directive, as described to NBC News, was essentially the same war plan as the one put into action after 11 September. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly… because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf”.”

Finally, BBC News, 18 September 2001: “Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani foreign secretary, “was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. It was Naik1s view that Washington would not drop its war for Afghanistan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.”

Was Afghanistan then turned to rubble in order to avenge the 3,000 Americans slaughtered by Osama? Hardly. The administration is convinced that Americans are so simple minded that they can deal with no scenario more complex than the venerable lone, crazed killer (this time with zombie helpers) who does evil just for the fun of it ’cause he hates us, ’cause we’re rich ‘n and free ‘n he’s not, Osama was chosen on aesthetic grounds to be the frightening logo for our long-contemplated invasion and conquest of Afghanistan, planning for which had been “contingency” some years before 9/11 and, again, from 20 December 2000, when Clinton1s outgoing team devised a plan to strike at al-Qaeda in retaliation for the assault on the warship Cole. Clinton1s National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, personally briefed his successor on the plan but Rice, still very much in her role as a director of Chevron-Texaco, with special duties regarding Pakistan and Uzbekistan, now denies any such briefing. A year and a half later (12 August 2002), fearless Time magazine reported this odd memory lapse.

Osama, if it was he and not a nation, simply provided the necessary shock to put in train a war of conquest. But conquest of what? What is there in dismal in dry sandy Afghanistan worth conquering? Zbigniew Brzezinski tells us exactly what in a 1997 Council on Foreign Relations study called The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperitives.

The Polish-born Brzezinski was the hawkish National Security Adviser to President Carter. In The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski gives a little history lesson. “Ever sense the continents started interacting politically, some 500 years ago, Eurasia has been the centre of world power.” Eurasia is all the territory east of Germany. This means Russia, the Middle East, China, and parts of India. Brzezinski acknowledges that Russia and China, bordering oil rich central Asia, are the two main powers threatening US hegemony in that area.

He takes it for granted that the US must exert control over the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia, know to those who love them as “the Stans”: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan and Kyrgyzstan all ‘of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and most powerful neighbors-Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China signaling’. Brzezinski notes how the world’s energy consumption keeps increasing; hence, who controls Caspian oil/gas will control the world economy. Brzezinski then, reflexively, goes into the standard American rationalization for empire. We want nothing, ever, for ourselves, only to keep bad people from getting good things with which to hurt good people. It follows that Americas primary interest is to help ensure that no single (other) power comes to control the geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.”

Brzezinski is quite aware that American leaders are wonderfully ignorant of history and geography so he really lays it on, stopping just short of invoking politically incorrect manifest destiny. He reminds the Council just how big Eurasia is. Seventy-five percent of the worlds population is Eurasian. If I have done the sums right, that means weve only got control, to date, of a mere 25 percent of the world1s folks. More! Eurasia accounts for 60% of the worlds GNP and three-fourths of the world1s known energy resources.”

Brzezinskis master plan for our globe has obviously been accepted by the Cheney-Bush junta. Corporate America, long over-excited by Eurasian mineral wealth, has been aboard from the beginning.

Ahmed sums up: Brzezinski clearly envisaged that the establishment, consolidation and expansion of US military hegemony over Eurasia through Central Asia would require the unprecedented open-ended militarisation of foreign policy, coupled with an unprecedented manufacture of domestic support and consensus on this militarisation campaign.

Afghanistan is the gateway of all these riches. Will we fight to seize them? It should never be forgotten that the American people in either of the twentieth century1s world wars but President Wilson maneuvered us into the first while Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into striking the first blow at Pearl Harbor, causing us to enter the second as the result of a massive external attack. Brzezinski understands all this and, in 1997, he is thinking ahead-as well as backward. “Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” Thus was the symbolic gun produced that belched black smoke over Manhattan and the Pentagon.

Since the Iran-Iraq wars, Islam has been demonised as a Satanic terrorist cult that encourages suicide attacks – contrary, it should be noted, to the Islamic religion. Osama has been portrayed, accurately, it would seem, as an Islamic zealot. In order to bring this evil-doer to justice (“dead or alive”), Afghanistan, the object of the exercise, was made safe not only for democracy but for Union oil of California whose proposed pipeline from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan to Pakistan and the Indian Ocean port of Karachi, had been abandoned under the Taliban1s chaotic regime. Currently, the pipeline is a go-project thanks to the junta’s installation of a Unocal employee (John J. Maresca) as US envoy to the newly born democracy whose president, Hamid Karzai, is also, according to Le Monde, a former employee of a Unocal subsidiary. Conspiracy? Coincidence!

Once Afghanistan looked to be within the fold, the junta, which had managed to pull off a complex diplomatic-military caper, abruptly replaced Osama, the personification of evil, with Saddam. This has been hard to explain since there is nothing to connect Iraq with 9/11. Happily, “evidence” is now being invented, but it is uphill work, not helped by stories in the press about the vast oil wealth of Iraq which must ? for the sake of the free world- be reassigned to us and European Consortiums.

As Brzezinski foretold, “a truly and massive and widely perceived direct external threat made it possible for the president to do a war dance before congress. “A long war!” he shouted with glee. Then he named and incoherent axis of evil to be fought. Although Congress did not give him the FDR Special-a declaration of war-he did get permission to go after Osama who may now be skulking in Iraq.

Bush and the dog that did not bark

Post – 9/11, the American media were filled with pre-emptory denunciations of unpatriotic conspiracy theorists, who not only are always with us but are usually easy for the media to discredit since it is an article of faith that there are no conspiracies in American life. Yet, a year or so ago, who would have thought that the most corporate America had been conspiring with accountants to cook their books since ? well, at least the bright dawn of the age of Reagen and deregulation. Ironically, less that a year after the massive danger from without, we were confronted with an even greater enemy from within: Golden Calf Capitalism. Transparency? One fears that greater transparency will only reveal armies of maggots at work beneath the skin of a culture that needs a bit of a lie-down in order to collect itself before taking its next giant step which is to conquer Eurasia, a potentially fatal adventure not only for our frazzled institutions but for us the presently living.

Complicity. The behavior of President George W. Bush on 11 September certainly gives rise to all sorts of not unnatural suspicions. I can think of no other modern chief of state who would continue to pose for warm pictures of himself listening to a young girl telling stories about her pet goat while hijacked planes were into three famous buildings.

Constitutionally, Bush is not only chief of state, he is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Normally, a commander in such a crisis would go straight to headquarters and direct operations while receiving the latest intelligence.

This is what Bush actually did-or did not do-according to Stan Goff, a retired US Army veteran who has taught military science and doctrine at West Point. Goff writes, in The So-called Evidence is a Farce: “I have no idea why people arent asking some very specific questions about the actions of Bush and company on the day of the attacks. Four planes get hijacked and deviate from their plan, all the while on FAA radar.”

Goff, incidentally, like the other astonished military experts, cannot fathom why the government’s automatic ‘standard order of procedure in the event of a hijacking’ was not followed. Once a plane has deviated from its flight-plan, fighter planes are sent up to find out why. That is law and does not require presidential approval, which only needs to be given if there is a decision to shoot down a plane. Goff spells it out: The planes were hijacked between 7:45 and 8:10 am. Who is notified? This is an event already that is unprecedented. But the President is not notified and going to a Florida elementary school to hear children read.

By around 8:15 am it should be very apparent that something is terribly wrong. The President is glad-handing teachers. By 8:45 when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the North Tower, Bush is settling in with children for his photo op. Four planes have obviously been hijacked simultaneously and one has just dived into the twin towers, and still no one notifies the nominal Commander-in-Chief. ‘No one has apparently scrambled (sent aloft) Air Force interceptors either. At 9:03, Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower. At 9:05 Andrew Card, the Chief of Staff whispers to Bush (who) ‘briefly turns sombre’ according to reporters. Does he cancel the school visit and convene an emergency meeting? No. He resumes listening to second graders… and continues the banality even as American Airlines Flight 77 conducts an unscheduled point turn over Ohio and heads in the direction of Washington DC.

‘Has he instructed Card to scramble the Air Force? No. An excruciating 25 minutes later, he finally deigns to give a public statement telling the United States what they have already figured out ? that there1s been an attack on the World Trade Centre. There1s a hijacked plane bee-lining to Washington, but has the Air Force been scrambled to defend anything yet? No.

At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 degree over the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and the Pentagon is not evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air Force in the sky over Alexandria and DC. Now the real kicker: a pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires from across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of the building at 460 knots.

When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator. This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on the freeway at rush hour by buying her a video driving game There is a story being constructed about these events.

There is indeed and the more it is added to the darker it becomes. The nonchalance of General Richard B. Myers, acting Joint Chief of Staff, is as puzzling as the Presidents campaigning-as-usual act. Meyers was at the Capitol chatting with Senator Max Cleland. A sergeant, writing later in the AFPS (American Forces Press Service) describes Myers at the Capitol. While in an outer office, he said, he saw a television report that a plane had hit the World Trade Centre. “They thought it was a small plane or something like that,” Myers said. So the two men went ahead with the office call.

Whatever Myers and Cleland had to say to each other (more funds for the military?) must have been riveting because, during their chat, the AFPS reports, the second tower was hit by another jet. “nobody informed us of that,” Myers said. “But when we came out, that was obvious. Then, right at that time, somebody said the Pentagon had been hit.” Finally, somebody thrust a cellphone in Myers hand and, as if by magic, the commanding general of Norad ? our Airspace Command ? was on the line just as the hijackers mission had been successfully completed except for the failed one in Pennsylvania. In later testimony to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Myers says he thinks that, as of his cellphone talk with Norad, the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft, It was 9:40 AM. One hour and 20 minutes after air controllers knew that Flight 11 had been hijacked; 50 minutes after the North Tower was struck.

This statement would have been quite enough in our old serious army/air force to launch a number of courts martial with an impeachment or two thrown in. First, Myers claims to be uninformed until the third strike. But the Pentagon had been overseeing the hijacked planes from at least the moment of the strike at the first tower: yet not until the third strike, at the Pentagon, was the decision made to get the fighter planes up. Finally, this one is the dog that did not bark. By law, the fighters should have been up at around 8:15. If they had, all the hijacked planes might have been diverted or shot down. I don1t think Goff is being unduly picky when he wonders who and what kept the Air Force from following its normal procedure instead of waiting an hour and 20 minutes until the damage was done and only then launching the fighters. Obviously, somebody had ordered the Air Force to make no move to intercept those hijackings until… what?

On 21 January 2002, the Canadian media analyst Barry Zwicker summed up on CBS-TV: That morning no interceptors responded in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which are 12 miles from the White House Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the “Incompetence Theory”. Incompetence usually earns reprimands. This causes me to ask whether there were “stand down” orders.?? On 29 August 2002, the BBC reports that on 9/11 there were only four-fighters on ready status in the north-eastern US. Conspiracy? Coincidence? Error?

It is interesting how often in our history, when disaster strikes, incompetence is considered a better alibi than well, yes, there are worse things. After Pearl Harbor, Congress moved to find out why Hawaiis two military commanders, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, had not anticipated the Japanese attack. But President Roosevelt pre-empted that investigation with one of his own. Short and Kimmel were broken for incompetence. The truth is still obscured to this day.

The medias weapons of mass distraction

BUT PEARL HARBOR has been much studied. 11 September, it is plain, is never going to be investigated if Bush has anything to say about it. In January 2002, CNN reported that Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit the Congressional investigation into the events of 11 September The request was made at a private meeting with Congressional leaders Sources said Bush initiated the conversation He asked that only the House and Senate intelligence committees look into the potential breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry Tuesdays discussion followed a rare call from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request

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 operating procedure had been told to cease and desist.

Meanwhile, 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 Osamas enormous family with its enormous wealth had broken with him, as had the royal family of his native Saudi Arabia. The CIA swore, hand on heart, that Osama had not worked for them in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Finally, the rumour that Bush family had in any way profited by its long involvement with bin Laden family was ? what else? ? simply partisan bad taste.

But Bush Jrs involvement goes back at least to 1979 when his first failed attempt to become a player in the big Texas oil league brought him together with one James Bath of Houston, a family friend, who gave Bush Jr. $50,000 for a 5 per cent stake in Bushs firm Arbusto Energy. At this time, according to Wayne Madsen (In These Times ? Institute for Public Affairs No. 25), Bath was the sole US business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden In a statement issued shortly after the 11 September attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Ladens in Arbusto. In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests after several reincarnations, Arbusto emerged in 1986 as Harken Energy Corporation.

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 Ladens alleged terrorist activities, there may be one unexpected beneficiary: bin Ladens 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 familys $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. Agence 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 TVs News-night (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 Osamas 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 wasnt 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?

Although the US had, for some years, fingered Osama as a master-mind 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 requires. Clintons plan to act was given to Condoleezza Rice by Sandy Berger, you will recall, but she says she does not.

As far back as March 1996 when Osama was in Sudan, Major General Elfatih Erwa, Sudanese Minister for Defense, offered to extradite him. According to the Washington Post (3 October 2001), “Erwa said he would happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over (US officials) said, “just ask him to leave the country. Just dont let him go to Somalia”, where he had once been given credit for the successful al-Qaeda attack on American forces in 93 that killed 18 Rangers.” Erwa said in an interview, “We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they (US officials) said, “Let him.”

In 1996 Sudan expelled Osama and 3,000 of his associates. Two years later the Clinton administration, in the great American tradition of never having to say thank you for Sudans offer to hand over Osama, proceeded to missile-attack Sudans al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory on the grounds that Sudan was harboring bin Laden terrorists who were making chemical and biological weapons when the factory was simply making vaccines for the UN.

Four years later, John ONeill, a much admired FBI agent complained in the Irish Times a month before the attacks, “The US State Department-and behind it the off lobby who make up President Bushs entourage ? blocked attempts to prove bin Ladens guilt. The US ambassador to Yemen forbade ONeill (and his FBI team) from entering Yemen in August 2001. ONeill resigned in frustration and took on a new job as head of security at the World Trade Centre. He died in the 11 September attack.” Obviously, Osama has enjoyed bipartisan American support since his enlistment in the CIA1s war to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But by 9/11 there was no Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, indeed there was no Soviet Union.

A World Made Safe for Peace and Pipelines

I watched Bush and Cheney on CNN when the Axis of Evil speech was given and the long war proclaimed. Iraq, Iran and North Korea were fingered as enemies to be clobbered because they might or might not be harboring terrorists who might or might not destroy us in the night. So we must strike first whenever it pleases us. Thus, we declared “war on terrorism” ? an abstract noun which cannot be a war at all as you need a country for that. Of course, there was innocent Afghanistan, which was leveled from a great height, but then whats collateral damage ? like an entire country ? when youre targeting the personification of all evil according to Time and the NY Times and the networks?

As it proved, the conquest of Afghanistan had nothing to do with Osama. He was simply a pretext for replacing the Taliban with a relatively stable government that would allow Union Oil of California to lay its pipeline for the profit of, among others, the Cheney-Bush junta.

Background? All right. The headquarters of Unocal are, as might be expected, in Texas. In December 1997, Taliban representatives were invited to Sugarland, Texas. At that time, Unocal had already begun training Afghan men in pipeline construction, with US government approval. BBC News, (4 December 1997): A spokesperson for the company Unocal said the Taliban were expected to spend several days at the companys (Texas) Headquarters a BBC regional correspondent says the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea. The Inter Press Service (IPS) reported: some Western businesses are warming up to the Taliban despite the movements institutionalization of terror, massacres, abductions and impoverishment. CNN (6 October 1996): The United States wants good ties (with the Taliban) but cant openly seek them while women are being oppressed.

The Taliban, rather better organized than rumoured, hired for PR one Leila Helms, a niece of Richard Helms, former Director of the CIA. In October 1996, the Frankfurter Rundschau reported that Unocal has been given the go ahead from the new holders of power in Kabul to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to Pakistan This was a real coup for Unocal as well as other candidates for pipelines, including Condoleezzas old employer Chevron. Although the Taliban was already notorious for its imaginative crimes against the human race, the Wall Street Journal, scenting big bucks, fearlessly announced: “Like them or not, the Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history.” The NY Times (26 May 1997) leapt aboard the pipeline juggernaut. The Clinton administration has taken the view that a Taliban victory would act as counterweight to Iran and would offer the possibility of new trade routes that could weaken Russian and Iranian influence in the region.

But by 1999, it was clear that the Taliban could never provide us the security we would need to protect our fragile pipelines. The arrival of Osama as warrior for Allah on the scene refocused, as it were, the bidding. New alliances were now being made. The Bush administration soon buys the idea of an invasion of Afghanistan, Frederick Starr, head of the Central Asia Institute at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in the Washington Post (19 December, 2000): The US has quietly begun to align itself with those in the Russian government calling for military action against Afghanistan and has toyed with the idea of a new raid to wipe out bin Laden.

Although with much fanfare we went forth to wreak our vengeance on the crazed sadistic religious zealot who slaughtered 3,000 American citizens, once that war was under way, Osama was dropped as irrelevant and so we are back to the Unocal pipeline, now a go-project. In the light of what we know today, it is unlikely that the junta was ever going to capture Osama alive: he has tales to tell. One Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld1s best number now is: “Where is he? Somewhere? Here? There? Somewhere? Who knows?” And we get his best twinkle. He must also be delighted ? and amazed ? that the media have bought the absurd story that Osama, If alive, would still be in Afghanistan, underground, waiting to be flushed out instead of in a comfortable mansion in Osama-loving Jakarta, 2,000 miles to the East and easily accessible by the Flying Carpet One.

Many commentators of a certain age have noted how Hitlerian our junta sounds as it threatens first one country for harbouring terrorists and then another. It is true that Hitler liked to pretend to be the injured ? or threatened ? party before he struck. But he had many great predecessors not lest Imperial Rome. Stephen Gowans War in Afghanistan : A $28 Billion Racket quotes Joseph Schumpeter who, “in 1919, described ancient Rome in a way that sounds eerily like the United States in 2001: “There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Romes allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be invented The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors.” We have only outdone the Romans in turning metaphors such as the war on terrorism, or poverty, or Aids into actual wars on targets we appear, often, to pick at random in order to maintain turbulence in foreign lands.

As of 1 August 2002, trial balloons were going up all over Washington DC to get world opinion used to the idea the Bush of Afghanistan had gained a title as mighty as his fathers Bush of the Persian Gulf and Junior was now eager to add Iraq-Babylon to his diadem. These various balloons fell upon Europe and the Arab world like so many lead weights. But something new has been added since the classic Roman Hitlerian mantra, they are threatening us, we must attack first. Now everyone is more or less out in the open. The International Herald Tribune wrote in August 2002: The leaks began in earnest on 5 July, when the New York Times described a tentative Pentagon plan that it said called for an invasion by a US force of up to 250,000 that would attack Iraq from the north, south and west. On 10 July, the Times said that Jordan might be used as a base for the invasion. The Washington Post reported, 28 July, that “many senior US military officers contend that Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat” And the status quo should be maintained. Incidentally, this is the sort of debate that the founding fathers intended the Congress, not the military bureaucrats, to conduct in the name of we the people. But that sort of debate has, for a long time, been denied us.

One refreshing note is now being struck in a fashion unthinkable in imperial Rome: the cheerful admission that we habitually resort to provocation. The Tribune continues: Donald Rumsfeld has threatened to jail anyone found to have been behind the leaks. But a retired army general, Fred Woerner, tends to see a method behind the leaks. “We may already be executing a plan,” he said recently. “Are we involved in a preliminary psychological dimension of causing Iraq to do something to justify a US attack or make concessions? Somebody knows. That is plain.

Elsewhere in this interesting edition of the Herald Tribune wise William Pfaff writes: A second Washington debate is whether to make an unprovoked attack on Iran to destroy a nuclear power reactor being built with Russian assistance, under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, within the terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of which Iran is a signatory No other government would support such an action, other than Israil’ (which) would do so not because it expected to be attacked by Iran but because it, not unjustifiably, opposes any nuclear capacity in the hands of any Islamic government.

Suspect states and the tom-toms of revenge

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. As the parent of armies, war encourages debts and taxes, the known instrument for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, or the people Thus, James Madison warned us at the dawn of our republic.

Post 9/11, thanks to the domination of the few, Congress and the media are silent while the executives, through propaganda and skewed polls, seduces the public mind as hitherto unthinkable centres of power like Homeland Defence (a new Cabinet post to be placed on top of the Defence Department) are being constructed and 4 percent of the country has recently been invited to join Tips, a civilian spy system to report on anyone who looks suspicious or who objects to what the executive is doing at home or abroad?

Although every nation knows how ? if it has the means and the will ? to protect itself from thugs of the sort that brought us 9/11, war is not an option. Wars are for nations not rootless gangs. You put a price on their heads and hunt them down. In recent years, Italy has been doing just that with the Sicilian Mafia; and no one has yet suggested bombing Palermo.

But the Cheney-Bush junta wants a war in order to dominate Afghanistan, build a pipeline, gain control of the oil of Eurasias Stans for their business associates as well as to do as much damage to Iraq and Iran on the grounds that one day those evil countries may carpet our fields of amber, grain with anthrax or something.

The media, never much good at analysis, are more and more breathless and incoherent. On CNN, even the stolid Jim Clancy started to hyperventilate when an Indian academic tried to explain how Iraq was once our ally and friend in its war against our Satanic enemy Iran. None of that conspiracy stuff snarled Clancy. Apparently, conspiracy stuff is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.

As of August, at least among economists, a censensus was growing that, considering our vast national debt (we borrow $2 billion a day to keep the government going) and a tax base seriously reduced by the junta in order to benefit the 1 per cent who own most of the national wealth, there is no way that we could ever find the billions needed to destroy Iraq in a long war or even a short one, with most of Europe lined up against us. Germany and Japan paid for the Gulf War, reluctantly ? with Japan, at the last moment, irritably quarreling over the exchange rate at the time of the contract. Now Germanys Schroder has said no. Japan is mute.

But the tom-toms keep beating revenge; and the fact that most of the world is opposed to our war seems only to bring hectic roses to the cheeks of the Bush administration (Bush Snr of the Carlyle Group, Bush Jnr formerly of Harken, Cheney, formerly of Halliburton, Rice, formerly of Chevron, Rumsfeld, formerly of Occidental). If ever an administration should recluse itself in matters dealing with energy, it is the current junta. But this is unlike any administration in our history. Their hearts are plainly elsewhere, making money, far from our mock Roman temples, while we, alas, are left only with their heads, dreaming of war, preferably against weak peripheral states.

Mohammed Heikel is a brilliant Egyptian journalist-observer, and sometime Foreign Minister, On 10 October 2001, he said to the Guardian: Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaeda as if it were Nazi Germany or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaeda has been penetrated by US intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organization and sophistication.

The former president of Germanys domestic intelligence service, Eckehardt Werthebach ( American Free Press, 4 December 2001) spells it out. The 9/11 attacks required years of planning while their scale indicates that they were a product of state-organized actions. There it is. Perhaps, after all, Bush Jnr was right to call it a war. But which state attacked us?

Will the suspects please line up. Saudi Arabia? No, no. Why we are paying you $50 million a year for training the royal bodyguard on our own holy if arid soil. True the kingdom contains many wealthy well-educated enemies but Bush Snr and Jnr exchange a knowing look. Egypt? No way. Dead broke despite US baksheesh. Syria? No funds. Iran? Too proud to bother with a parvenu state like the US. Israel? Sharon is capable of anything. But he lacks the guts and the grace of the true kamikaze. Anyway, Sharon was not in charge when this operation began with the planting of sleepers around the US flight schools 5 or 6 years ago. The United States? Elements of corporate America would undeniably prosper from a massive external attack that would make it possible for us to go to war whenever the President sees fit while suspending civil liberties. (The 342 pages of the USA Patriot Act were plainly prepared before 9/11.) Bush Snr and Jnr are giggling now. Why? Because Clinton was president back then. As the former president leaves the line of suspects, he says, more in anger than in sorrow: “When we left the White House we had a plan for an all-out war on al-Queda. We turned it over to this administration and they did nothing. Why Biting his lip, he goes. The Bushes no longer giggle. Pakistan breaks down: I did it! I confess! I couldnt help myself. Save me. I am an evil-doer!

Apparently, Pakistan did do it ? or some of it. We must now go back to 1979 when the largest covert operation in history of the CIA was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Central Asia specialist Ahmed Rashid wrote (Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999): With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistans ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war, waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals, from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistans fight between 1982 and 92 more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghanistan jihad. The CIA covertly trained and sponsored these warriors.

In March 1985, President Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 166, increasing military aid while CIA specialists met with the ISI counterparts near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Janes Defence Weekly (14 September 2001) gives the best overview: The trainers were mainly from Pakistans ISI agency who learnt their craft from American Green Beret commandos and Navy Seals in various US training establishments. This explains the reluctance of the administration to explain why so many unqualified persons, over so long a time, got visas to visit our hospitable shores. While in Pakistan, mass training of Afghan (zealots) was subsequently conducted by the Pakistan army under the supervision of the elite Special Services In 1988, with US knowledge, bin Laden created al-Qaeda (The Base); a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across 26 or so countries. Washington turned a blind eye to al-Qaeda.

When Mohammed Attas plane struck the World Trade Centres North Tower, George W. Bush and the child at the Florida elementary school were discussing her goat. By coincidence, our word tragedy comes from the Greek: for goat tragos plus oide for song. Goat-song. It is highly suitable that this lament, sung in ancient satyr plays, should have been heard again at the exact moment when we were struck by fire from heaven, and a tragedy whose end is nowhere in sight began for us.

Copyright Gore Vidal

www.karalla.com eme [at] karalla [dot] com 212 860 8900

———–

October 6, 2002 The De Facto Capital By FRANK RICH The New York Times

They got it right the first time. New York was the capital of the nation at its birth. The first presidential inauguration, in 1789, wasn’t far from ground zero, and the first presidential residence, at 3 Cherry Street, was on a spot now occupied by one of the supports for the Brooklyn Bridge. George Washington slept there, but not for long. In a political deal purportedly made on a downtown sidewalk, Alexander Hamilton traded away the location of the capital to Thomas Jefferson to entice the South to give the federal government power to assume state debts. A year later, Congress and the president decamped to Philadelphia, and a decade after that, they settled into a new federal city next to which the City of Brotherly Love seems like Shangri-La. As Jack Lait and Lee Mortimer, two New York tabloid reporters of a later day, would assess the fateful final choice of a national capital in their 1951 best seller, ”Washington Confidential”: ”The founding fathers, whose infinite wisdom gave us a Constitution and form of government well nigh perfect, located the seat of that government in a stinking, steaming swamp.”

The country’s seat may still be mired in that swamp, but its heart, soul and brains are more evident than ever in its first capital, 200 miles to the north. While New York has long been the nation’s center of culture, finance, fashion and media, the city in the aftermath of Sept. 11 cohered into something more than the sum of its perennially celebrated parts. After its highest towers were taken down, New York rose from its initial shock to illustrate in real time what America actually is, a huge and resilient democracy animated by citizens of every conceivable stripe, pursuit and ethic (from those who gave their lives for others at the World Trade Center to those who looted its shopping mall). Instead of seeming, as it often had, like an eccentric island adrift from the rest of the country, the city found itself valued instead as a concentrated representation of the whole. That outsiders would regard it as the true American capital was proof that Americans now define themselves far more by their cultural choices, most of which are tweaked and marketed by the information factories of Manhattan, than by their choice (if any) of political party. Not that New York is shy about offering political leadership if it spots a vacuum. When the White House’s occupant was nowhere to be found on the day the country needed him most, New York went so far as to offer up its own chief executive as the nation’s paterfamilias. America is still grateful.

Even at the literal level, New York is more representative of American political values than the official capital. Washington, where I grew up and where my family has lived since the Civil War, is still a colony where the voters are denied the full rights of self-determination. Its citizens and public officials alike remain in thrall to a federal government over which they have virtually no say, in the shadow of a president who serves as the de facto prince regent of the tourist precincts, the only part of the city most Americans see. Washington is less an exemplar of democracy than an agglomeration of marble facades paying unctuous tribute to that aspiration. George W. Bush, and he is hardly the first president to do so, treats it as a politically obligatory diorama that he can flee any and every chance he gets.

New York doesn’t think of itself as competing with Washington — the same cannot be said of the reverse — but periodically it does so, if only to let the world know who’s really boss. After World War II, suburban Virginia tried to lure the fledgling United Nations to metropolitan Washington, until someone belatedly realized that an international citizenry would not take kindly to segregated schools. In 1959, the Washington Board of Trade mounted an elaborate campaign to make the ”Capital of the Free World” the site of the 1964 World’s Fair. According to one account, the D.C. advocates’ hard sell leaned heavily on the annual cherry-blossom festivals, the ”colorful parades constantly held when distinguished foreign guests visit the city” and ”the elaborate and dignified presidential inauguration celebrations.” That was all it took to persuade the World’s Fair Commission to reach unanimity in awarding the plum to Robert Moses’s posse from New York.

This year brought the Olympics bake-off. To increase its odds as a site for the 2012 summer games, Washington entered into a shotgun marriage with the more plausibly urban Baltimore. The capital’s confidence was such that it took for granted a Washington Post report in July that D.C. and San Francisco were ”the apparent front-runners,” beating out New York and Houston. The next month brought the shocking news that it was Washington that had been eliminated along with Houston (the only other city that can match both its toxic summer weather and complement of former Enron executives). After this defeat, there was much local muttering that ”politics” was the culprit and that Washington might have been punished because of the unpopularity abroad of the incipient war on Iraq.

How much easier for Washingtonians to blame Saddam than to take a hard look at their own city. D.C. may have talked a good game about sports to the U.S. Olympic Committee, but for three decades it has lacked a major-league team in the most American sport of them all. It purports to be as up to date as the new economy, but the signature digital-era companies to put down roots there, AOL and MicroStrategy, are synonymous with the dot-com bust. The capital’s Maryland and Virginia suburban enclaves are famous for having some of the country’s most over-the-top houses as measured by square footage but none of the most imaginative architecture.

Such is Washington’s appeal to tourists that it did not make the list of the Top 10 North American cities in this year’s Travel and Leisure magazine readers’ poll. (New York came in first.) The capital’s restaurants can’t compete with those of Vegas, let alone New York, Chicago and the Seattle-to-Los Angeles culinary axis of the West. Its taxicabs have a suspect fee structure as gerrymandered as the map of Congressional voting districts. While New York has contributed to the American language such joyous words as ”whoopee” and ”hot dog,” Washington has coined ”inside the Beltway” and ”Department of Homeland Security.” America’s songwriters and poets have repeatedly celebrated Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too — not to mention San Francisco, Chicago and St. Louis — but where is that romantic lyric about the capital? ”Hail to the Redskins” will have to do.

First appearances can be deceptive to new visitors to D.C. Edmund Wilson once observed that Washington, ”after other American cities, seems at first such a relief, so agreeable,” but ”turns out, when one has stayed there any length of time, to have little personality of its own and to come to taste rather flat.” Or as Cindy Adams wrote this year: ”Even folks who live in Washington don’t want to be there. The high point for a visitor? Catching a glimpse of Trent Lott in Person? I mean, please.”

By contrast, you have to pry people away from New York. The gaping wound only deepened the citizenry’s already intimate connection to their city. In the poignant opening episode of the post-9/11 season of ”Sex and the City,” Carrie went so far as to choose the city over sex, spurning the advances of a Fleet Week sailor after he committed the sin of knocking her town. It was the patriotic thing to do.

New Yorkers who were out of town on 9/11 felt desperate to return. Since then, we seem inexorably drawn to the watering holes and restaurants and merchants downtown, as if to fill in the shadow of death with the lubricious glow and laughter of irrepressible life. We are more aware of our neighbors than before: not just the firemen and the cops and the family that lost someone, but the guy who lost his business in the undertow, the guy who is trying to rebuild, the all-American Sikh cabbie who bedecks his windshield with flags lest he be victimized (as in New York he has generally not been) by guilt-by-turban. The fate of ground zero is, inevitably, a noisy political and aesthetic debate, but whatever acrimony may attend it, it is also a classic American project: a battle between money and values, between commerce and art, between powerful interests and upstart citizenry, between past and future, all staged on an open 16-acre expanse that is urban America’s largest frontier.

Not only were the dire predictions of a mass exodus wrong, but the reverse may be happening. A New York Times/CBS News poll in August found that the number of inhabitants who think that New York will be a better place to live in 10 or 15 years is the same as it was the month before the attack. Manhattan’s residential real-estate values were clocked this summer at 15 percent higher than they had been pre-Sept. 11; signed contracts on apartments were up this July over last, too, reflecting the possibility that more people are arriving than leaving, even during an economic downturn. Neighborhoods reinvent themselves faster than anyone can keep count, from Harlem to the Lower East Side. Queens, generally an also-ran in any five-borough hipness sweepstakes, shows signs of becoming the new Brooklyn (though it still lacks its own Zagat). The Museum of Modern Art lives in Queens now, and so do a disproportionate number of artists, writers, dancers and musicians — including the novelist Jonathan Safran Foer, who is only the latest in a long list of Washington-spawned talents (from Duke Ellington to Paul Taylor) who fled the capital’s culturally parched environment to reach full bloom in the enriching concrete of New York.

In Washington, there is far more culture than there used to be, but spectacle, in keeping with the town’s own bombastic aesthetics, tends to be the hottest ticket — blockbuster shows at the National Gallery, Disney musicals and the Bolshoi on tour. Cities as small as Minneapolis and Seattle have a more lively indigenous arts scene than Washington. The plight of culture in the capital is symbolized by the Kennedy Center, an afterthought not even deemed worthy of its own stop on the city’s part-time Metro system. A world-class impresario, Michael Kaiser, has at last been imported to revive the place, and this summer he performed a Heimlich maneuver in the form of the well-received Sondheim Celebration. But half the weekend audience was New Yorkers, to whom Kaiser may have to continue to cater. The low-slung performing arts barn on the Potomac has for so long been isolated from the best American culture, high, middle and pop, that its annual low-rated televised honors have of late been reduced to bestowing some of their medallions on Brits rather than native genius. (This year’s Kennedy Center knight, Paul McCartney, has taken a rain check.) Such is President Bush’s respect for the capital’s temple of culture that among his first appointments to its board was Bo Derek.

With the exception of the B-list Hollywood names who get all dressed up (once, anyway) for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, artists turn up in the city en masse only when Congress is posturing about the arts and humanities endowments. As for what American pop culture thinks of Washington as a city, as opposed to a government, one need only look at ”Minority Report,” in which the capital’s defining trait, even years in the future, is its historically high crime rate. The movie’s point seems to be that nothing short of the ability to arrest suspects before they commit a crime would have enabled D.C.’s benighted police force to crack a case like Chandra Levy’s.

New York is hardly without crime, but it also has the positive side of urban friction: the manifest humanity that results when millions of people of all kinds are packed together to make a go of it. The fundamental DNA of the city has never changed. It has always been a gateway for immigrants as well as an arena for big money. Its crowds have been large and raucous from the start. That ”culture of congestion,” in the phrase of the architect Rem Koolhaas, leads to a nonstop chain reaction of serendipitous human fusion, creative and sexual and economic, that is as American as you can get. The byproducts include hyphenated talents, melting-pot families, a constant, bubbling hands-on laboratory for social, political and cultural change in which the experiments alternately succeed big and fail catastrophically, in full public view.

At some point, Washington had its own dreams of being a sizzling capital. In ”Political Terrain,” Carl Abbott writes of how in the late 19th century it was still hoped that D.C. ”could aspire to be the Rome of America in the arts, the Berlin of America in education and the Paris of America as a city of beauty and pleasure.” But the city stood still while those roles were respectively claimed by New York, Boston and San Francisco. (Though George Washington had offered to help endow a major university for the new capital, few of its grandees seconded his enthusiasm.) Despite early hopes that the federal district might be an economic hub, it was as hard for capitalism to take root as culture. As Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace write in ”Gotham,” it became apparent early in the 19th century that the United States ”would have two centers, one governmental, the other economic.” It was a ”separation of powers as emphatic as anything in the Constitution” with ”no parallel in the Western world.” The American capital that emerged was, in John Kennedy’s famous formulation, a city of ”southern efficiency and northern charm” — a rare point of agreement between him and Richard Nixon, who pronounced Washington ”a city without identity” and voted with his feet to spend most of his political exile in New York prior to his 1968 comeback.

If Washington has an indistinct identity, it does have its own DNA — that of a town of transients. When legislative sessions were far briefer than they are now, Congress and the Supreme Court took residence in temporary quarters, then fled to better climes (as they still do when in recess). ”The greatest and most respectable business that is done in Washington is keeping boarding houses,” said an 1829 handbook for new arrivals. It wasn’t until well into the 20th century, as the federal government expanded during the New Deal (with its hefty infusion of F.D.R. New Yorkers) and World War II, that the city’s population did as well. By then it had long since missed out on the great wave of turn-of-the-century immigration that gave New York and every other East Coast metropolis their human and cultural variety. Even now, the capital lacks the ethnic spectrum of other major American cities. In the 2000 census, the Asian population of New York — almost 10 percent of the city’s eight million inhabitants — was substantially larger than the entire population of D.C., where the Asian population is only 2.6 percent. Though the number of Hispanics is rising in Washington as elsewhere, in 2000 they still made up, at most, 9 percent of the city, as opposed to a quarter of New York.

When the W.P.A. assembled its guidebook to the capital during the Depression, the authors seemed almost desperate to imbue their subject with distinction. One wistful accolade paid tribute to the city’s ”profusion of shade trees.” When the book was revised in 1942, the district’s most distinctive aspect was played down — the references to the second-class citizenship of its black residents, who like all Washingtonians had no right to vote, even in presidential elections, but who also continued to suffer many of the deprivations of slavery, from discrimination to poor public health and schools. In a 1983 reissue, a new editor set the record straight, but noted as compensation that ”it is easier to find one’s bearings in Washington than in other American cities.” (So true, and so what?)

Though opponents of full home rule for the District then and now can give all sorts of highfalutin constitutional arguments for their position, the perennial sub rosa reason for its substatus remains the same as it was before anyone had heard of Marion Barry’s coke bust or of the hapless current mayor, Anthony Williams, whose fraudulent nominating petitions contained ”signatures” from New York celebrities like Martha Stewart and Billy Joel. In 1965, Washington became the first major American city in which blacks outnumbered whites by more than 10 percent. Given the Republican Party’s inability to attract large numbers of black voters, it has hardly been in any rush to empower more of them at the price of likely handing the Democrats two voting seats in the Senate and one in the House.

The only time the capital’s residents had true self-rule was during a short-lived biracial governance experiment during Reconstruction, soon ended by white resistance. Though Washingtonians can now vote for president (since 1961), they have but a single nonvoting member of Congress. Under their limited form of home rule, in place only since the early 1970’s, the City Council, the mayor, the budget and even citizen-passed ballot initiatives can all be overruled by congressmen from states whose constituents’ firsthand knowledge of the capital may be limited to the compulsory school trip. It could be argued that nowhere in the country is the plantation mentality still more embedded in civic life than in an African-American city whose citizens lack the full rights of citizenship, even as their Army National Guard units are called on active duty for the war on terrorism. This antediluvian, or at least antebellum, state of affairs makes D.C. a strikingly anachronistic capital of America in the 21st century, whatever its validity as a capital before the passage of the 13th Amendment. Indeed, America’s capital has less democratic autonomy than President Bush this year demanded of the Palestinians.

Whatever Washington lacks in actual democracy, it makes up, of course, in monuments. But what represents the spirit of modern America more than the Statue of Liberty? The view of Lait and Mortimer, Washington’s churlish chroniclers of the 1950’s, still holds. They likened the city’s tourist appeal to that of Hollywood’s Forest Lawn cemetery, where busloads of Americans come to visit the movie stars’ graves. ”Its gleaming public buildings of white marble are like so many mausoleums,” they wrote. ”Where it doesn’t look like a cemetery it resembles a movie set. It has a feel of unreality.” But if politics is show business for ugly people, as the old joke has it, you can’t push the Hollywood analogy too far. ”Washington is dominated by elected and appointed functionaries who are schooled to believe they must never be caught having fun,” Lait and Mortimer wrote. ”Therefore, after dark, it is more like Paducah than Paris.” Unlike New York, which has winked at mayoral girlfriends from Jimmy Walker’s to Rudolph Giuliani’s (and doesn’t care where its current bachelor mayor spends his weekends), Washington was the last to discover John Kennedy’s sex life and is still as open-mouthed as an Edvard Munch screamer when contemplating Bill Clinton’s.

Washington’s idea of a Hollywood sex symbol is a cast member in ”The West Wing” — no matter whom — because what could be more erotic than a powerful government bureaucrat? The city’s idea of an intellectual is a Sunday-morning talking head; its literary apotheosis is the trade journal. Its loudest academic posturing emanates from the so-called university without students, the think tank, invented by the Brookings Institution in 1927 and a major Washington growth industry since the 1970’s. The think tanks’ tenured ”professors,” with grandiose titles that might have been lifted from the Marx Brothers’ ”Duck Soup,” are often out-of-office ideologues with more position papers than books to their credit. Only in this heady environment could William Bennett be mistaken for Harold Bloom and CNN’s ”Capital Gang” for the Algonquin Round Table. Unlike decision makers in other capitals, Washington’s power elite don’t routinely commingle with top-rung scholars, scientists, novelists, artists and musicians who might broaden their thinking beyond the parameters set by the city’s army of lobbyists and single-issue advocates.

Though Washington suffered its own grievous wound on Sept. 11, it remains as insular as it was before the attack. As the country’s official capital, it is to New York as Ankara is to Istanbul, Canberra is to Sydney, Brasilia is to Rio. Strolling through downtown and past the alabaster public buildings on a beautiful afternoon, you find that the sparse pedestrian traffic is often limited to government workers in cookie-cutter garb and cadres of tourists hoping to find some semblance of urban brio after having had their fill of the National Air and Space Museum. (They’d be better advised to hightail it to the city’s black or gay enclaves or even the suburbs.)

Take a similar walk through the central commercial districts of New York, whatever the borough, and you’ll find not just animated sidewalks packed with locals but also signs of a city in perpetual renewal, pursuing creation and demolition with equal abandon, always testing the limits. That hope, that drive, that hunger to keep moving no matter what, is America at its highest throttle. Should the Olympians come to the true capital, they won’t automatically own the town, as they would if they had landed in Washington. In New York, they’ll find that no sooner do the games begin than they are locked into the even tougher competition of winning the city’s favor, just like every other newcomer who has ever come here with dreams of going for the gold.

Frank Rich is a Times columnist and a senior writer for the magazine.

———–

But then it hit me. Frankly, as we mourn and whimper this truly tragic incident — veritably bathing in its horror and angst — we are showing those crazed lunatics that they are right. We Americans (and by this I mean North Americans) are hard on the outside but, as Paul Simon says, “Soft in the middle”. We were kicked in the nuts but we did not maintain. We buckled.

My mother and I always have to resist the urge to giggle at funerals. Even on such somber occasions there are little humours which, in an atmosphere where all emotion is amplified to Eleven, those little humours cause highly inappropriate outbursts. Those outbursts inevitably result in the gaze of those who are obviously better able to maintain their stoic grief; keeping with the aesthetic of the event.

At the risk of drawing such glares upon myself, and upon our friends at Salon, I present this very funny piece.

-Ian.

——– http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/09/07/forbidden/index.html

Forbidden thoughts about 9/11 From gloating about getting off work to enjoying the “country road” ambience of lower Manhattan to hating on-the-make firemen: A spectrum of improper responses to the terror attacks.

– – – – – – – – – – – – By Damien Cave

Sept. 7, 2002 | Black smoke, orange flames, falling bodies and crashing planes. Our brains are branded with the images of Sept. 11 — and our public selves are programmed to say the right things about them. But what did we really think when we first confronted this colossal event? What seditious words arose, never to be articulated in polite company? And when the smoke had cleared, replaced by a fog of analysis, grief, patriotism and hero worship, we selected our official opinions with care. What did we really believe? What forbidden thoughts did we keep to ourselves?

The outpouring of expression began just hours after the World Trade Center towers collapsed. One year after the trauma, that flow is cresting with the publication of dozens of books, many of them meant to help put the events and our emotional reactions into perspective. Among the more reflective tomes are those that attempt to act as records of our thoughts, feelings and actions at the time of the tragedy and immediately after. Many of them do an admirable job.

Dean E. Murphy’s “September 11: An Oral History,” for example, contains dozens of compelling personal stories: everyone from traumatized firemen to heroic survivors to those who rushed to the towers in search of lost relatives is represented, often in searing, literary detail. The fact that each person’s story was dictated rather than interpreted by the author testifies to the power of the tragedy — and, perhaps, to the brilliance of Murphy’s interviewing and editing.

But even though Murphy’s contribution stands out as one of the more enlightening commemorative books, it doesn’t necessarily cover the full range of our response. Like so many of the other books now on shelves — with titles like “Out of the Blue,” “Men of Steel” and “Strong of Heart” — Murphy’s oral history treats 9/11 as a devastating tragedy that led only to pain and sadness, or heroism and bravery. It is not a complete record of our reactions, but rather (as the book jacket claims) “a tribute to the spirit of cooperation and the outpourings of empathy that marked that day for so many people in the United States and abroad.”

What Murphy and many other authors miss is the fact that cooperation and empathy were not the only emotions of the day; they were simply the publicly expressed emotions of the day. Many of us didn’t just feel sad or angry or proud in the face of the day’s horrors — or when President Bush and the media requested it. We also felt indifferent, confused, selfish, annoyed and, in some cases, even happy or excited. We had thoughts that we couldn’t explain or control, thoughts we didn’t express, except perhaps in whispered conversations.

A few rebellious thinkers with access to the media actually unleashed their forbidden thoughts, electrifying and infuriating a tender and almost universally righteous public. Some of these blurters issued contrite retractions, a few held firm in the face of public denunciation, sure to earn footnotes in future histories of the events.

All these forbidden thoughts are sometimes painful or mortifying to hear. Many could be accurately described as disgraceful. But they emerged from our mental ether, and they deserve to be part of the record of that day and its aftermath. They are necessary evils to be countenanced in an honest analysis of the time. They keep us from creating a distorted, overly sentimental picture of our national reaction to disaster. And perhaps, as in therapy, these are the most useful thoughts to confront as we attempt to recover from the violence of the day.

We asked friends, colleagues, acquaintances and strangers to share the thoughts about Sept. 11 that they had — or heard — and tried to hide. Surely there are many more, and we invite readers to contribute theirs by e-mail to forbidden [at] salon [dot] com. For now, we offer what we have collected in the past few weeks.

“I was actually moving the week of 9/11 and I just wanted to find a way to get out of work so I could pack. When the attack happened, I was thinking, This is so cool. I can go to the dentist and still have time to get everything done.” — Ruth Wagner, 28, an editor in New York

“It’s gorgeous out. Turn the television off.” — Author Barbara Garson’s response to her husband’s phone call telling her that the towers had been attacked.

“Thank goodness they got those buildings. I’ve always hated them! They’re so ugly.” — New York woman, overheard in London on the day of the attacks

“[My boyfriend] is a surfer and when he was dismissed from work, he was stressing not about the attacks but about how to get to the beach. He left me in Manhattan to go surfing on Long Island.” — Wagner, on how her friends reacted

“We walked to [my friend’s] apartment in SoHo at about 10 p.m. on Thursday the 13th. The streets below 14th were deserted of cars, and for the most part, of people. A light haze of smoke and dust hung in the air. It was still and warm and surreal. And incredibly beautiful. I wished that New York could be like that more often. How many times will the middle of Broadway feel as if it were a country back road?” — Kimberly Oliver, 33, a Manhattan marketing consultant

“Jeez, I’m a New Yorker. And now I’ll never get to go up in the Twin Towers.” — Wall Street worker, name withheld, in a bar during the week of the attacks

“Best special effects I ever saw.” — Two teens on a corner in downtown Manhattan, just hours after the collapse

“You should take a picture.” — Novelist Colson Whitehead, to his wife, while watching the towers burn with a large crowd in Brooklyn

“What a great fucking action scene.” — New York film producer, describing the attacks less than a month after they occurred

“I’m sorry to say it, but it was the most exciting day of my career in journalism. It was really fuckin’ fun.” — A New York reporter

“On the big day, my husband [a journalist] had to go to work immediately. He was covering the story all day and all night. I was sent home from work. I was glued to the television all day, dialing the numbers of all my relatives in New York (I’m from there originally), and of course getting through to no one. I was scared and alone and panicking.

“I called up my boyfriend — Do I have to use the word ‘lover’? It’s so cheesy — who was also sent home from work. We went to a local Chili’s, drank gin-and-tonics and watched the TV. Then we got a hotel room together and in between making love, we watched the events unfolding on the TV.

“So basically I used the day off as an excuse to get a hotel room with my boyfriend. But the truth is I was scared and devastated by the events and it felt right to spend it with someone I loved.

” I’ve never told anyone this and it feels great to finally let it out. Especially since I know for the rest of my life that every year when 9/11 comes I’ll think of how I spent it having sex with my secret boyfriend. I don’t regret doing it, though.” — Texas woman, name, age and occupation withheld

“I volunteered downtown for a few weeks right afterwards with a group of actors. They put me in a coffee shop. Most of the people were doing it as a social outing, a way to get publicity, a way to make themselves important. There was a lot of talking on the cell phone. There were a lot of propositions. A 21-year-old national guardsman proposed to me.

“It was there where I started to hate cops and firemen. The cops in the middle of the night were kind and friendly and appreciated the coffee and the food and the company. We all shared being freaked out together. But come daybreak? A bunch of fat cops throwing our food around because it wasn’t good enough — we didn’t have skim milk for coffee, or it wasn’t the right kind of bread.

“I’m sure some people treat service people that way, but it was beyond my comprehension — especially while they talked, not quietly, about retiring because they were making so much overtime and their pensions were based on their previous year’s earnings. All while we stood out there all night for free making them hot coffee and soup.

“And really, what’s all this shit about the fireman being heroes? That’s their job, to be heroes. That’s why they signed up. Once a month you go run into a burning building and grab a cat and the rest of the time you sit in the firehouse and play cards.

“I used to think all firemen were hot. I now think they are slimy. At least four times last October I was in a bar where a fireman was so forward and sleazy, saying things like ‘It’s been so hard. You can’t believe it’ while pawing me. I’m sure his buddy who died running into a building on fire would feel vindicated by this slimeball getting laid, but I’m not going to participate.” — Anne, 31, an advertising sales manager in New York

“I hated the New York Times profiles of all the deceased. It’s just that everyone they wrote about — all 2,000 people — were depicted as really nice, really devoted parents who came home every night at 5 p.m. to make dinner, play with the kids, never missed a soccer game, and proposed to their girlfriend in a really sweet, creative way. I would read these profiles every day and think, yeah right. Was everyone in the WTC a super amazing person? Someone who worked there must have been an asshole.” — Female reporter at a major business magazine

“‘Throw him/her in the rubble,’ became the standard response to annoying people for months to follow. Easily the worst [reaction], though, was the dramatic reenactment performed by me and two of my friends a couple of days after the attacks, but you’d kinda have to see it to believe it. Suffice it to say, when my two friends, playing the towers, were hit and collapsed, I stayed on my knees flapping my arms: Yep, Building 7 on fire. Pretty shameful.” — New York book editor, 29

“Since I tend to be self-referential, I read [the New York Times’] ‘Portraits of Grief’ — at least the early ones, the ones in September and October, when there were more details about the deaths — as object lessons in why one should never aspire to be a model employee. So here’s what I learned and took to heart:

“* Come in late — and never come in early just to make up the time if you have to leave early. (Several people died this way.)

“* Run errands on company time — preferably in the morning. (See above: That’s what saved some workers.)

“* Never come back a day early from vacation so you can take a day off in the future. (The way one mom did: She came back so she could be off for Halloween. It would have been better for her to call in sick on the 31st.)

“* After you give notice, never tell your boss you’ll stick around until they find someone (as the pastry chef for Windows on the World did). — A 46-year-old magazine editor in New York

“I know it’s not PC right now to be sick of flag waving and ‘God Bless America,’ but I really, really am. I just feel like the whole thing has been cheapened by our culture’s saturation of patriotism.” — Network news producer, 29, in New York

“Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a ‘cowardly’ attack on ‘civilization’ or ‘liberty’ or ‘humanity’ or ‘the free world’ but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word ‘cowardly’ is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others.” — Susan Sontag, in the Sept. 24 issue of the New Yorker

“Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani transformed from a crazed, intolerant zealot into a sensitive and compassionate leader. Wasn’t his new subdued personality just the effect of his cancer medication?” — An editor and writer in New York who served at least 2,000 meals and helped about 600 families file relief claims between September and New Year’s

“I was upset that Bush would get an undeserved boost in popularity. I also worried that support for valuable domestic programs would be diverted to the war effort.” — 29-year-old lawyer from Arlington, Va., on her initial thoughts after the attack

“The day of 9/11, [my friend and I] spoke frequently, as we always did, being that we were inseparably close. The next day she called and said that she was walking in her neighborhood and some ‘Indians wearing saris’ were walking down the street and she spit on them — it was her patriotic duty. I was stunned. She continued to say that everyone at [her company] felt the way she did: that Indians were responsible and that they should all be sent back to their home countries.

“I tried explaining that India is predominantly Hindu and at that point they thought the terrorists were extreme Muslims from Afghanistan. She didn’t seem to care at all. Incidentally, we no longer speak.” — Soozan Baxter, a 27-year-old Indian woman, who has since moved out of New York, recalling her close friend, a graduate of Stanford University

“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” — Ann Coulter, in a Sept. 14, 2001, column that focused on the death of Barbara Olson, wife of the U.S. solicitor general, Ted Olson

“If I see someone come in that’s got a diaper on his head and a fan belt [wrapped] around [it], that guy needs to be pulled over and checked.” — Rep. John Cooksey, R-La., speaking to a network of Louisiana radio stations. On Sept. 20, he retracted the statement. “I chose the wrong words,” he said, according to media accounts.

“The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.'” — The Rev. Jerry Falwell, in a Sept. 13 appearance on “The 700 Club.” He later apologized for making the statement.

“There is a God — Barbara Olson is dead.” — unattributed

“I sort of felt, hey, they finally caught up to us. All the dirt the U.S. has thrown finally came back around to kick us hard where it hurts.” — Dave Elsaesser, 28, a work-readiness instructor at a San Francisco nonprofit

“I had a thought, when it first happened — the kind of conspiracy thoughts that liberal college students have who studied poli sci and read too much about Nicaragua or Colombia — that maybe the Americans let it happen so that they could use it as a tool to get serious in Iraq. Then the buildings fell and all the liberal poli sci hippie stuff drained out of my body and for the first time ever I felt, kill them all. — Anne, the New York advertising sales manager previously quoted

– – – – – – – – – – – –

About the writer Damien Cave is a senior writer for Salon.

—–

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/09/11/forbidden_letters/index.html

Forbidden thoughts about 9/11: The readers respond

From “It was only white people” to hoping to get a 212 cell phone number to “I hope my father died,” readers share their secret reactions to Sept. 11.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

printe-mail

Sept. 11, 2002 | Last week, in a story about the forbidden thoughts that crept or leapt into the minds of otherwise polite Americans as they heard about the attacks on Sept. 11, or the events that followed the disaster, we invited readers to reveal their own quiet heresies via email. Hundreds of readers wrote, and a selection of their responses are printed below.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

I knew a guy who narrowly escaped getting hit by a falling body. The first e-mail he sent out, two hours later, was, “Hey, how do we get ahold of all the new 212 cell numbers that’ll be available?”

I had another friend who watched the towers go down from Brooklyn, didn’t know what to do to get out his sudden rage against Arabs, so he opened his refrigerator and started throwing out all his Middle Eastern food, yelling as he tossed items one by one into the garbage: “Fuck this baba ghanoush! We don’t need their fucking pita bread!” I won’t even tell you what he did to the hummus.

— Name withheld

My husband and I were playing Jenga afterward. When the Jenga collapsed, I shouted “North Tower.” Then the second round of the game, we shouted, “South Tower.” Now we don’t call it Jenga anymore. We call it North Tower.

— Marisa

For the first month, every time they would show a picture of Osama bin Laden on television, I couldn’t help but think that his face looked so sweet and kind. I kept thinking there had to be some mistake because he kinda reminded me of my dad’s side of the family, who are all such gentle and loving people. Interestingly enough, I got over that. Now every time I see him, I want to kick his bony ass up and down the street.

— Amanda E.., an Iranian woman in New York

When I heard there was a terror attack downtown, I hoped the situation would degenerate into urban guerrilla warfare. I was really psyched to go out and kick some Islamist ass.

— Dave Gottlieb, student

At the time, my first thought was, “Holy shit. That’s badass. I wonder what their ideology was. Hopefully they weren’t Muslims.”

— Name withheld

I worked at a prominent chain of sex stores. On Sept. 11, I worked there all day, and as weirdo after weirdo came in, oblivious to the fact that hijacked airplanes had just crashed into and destroyed American landmarks and killed thousands of people (at that time, people were guessing up to 50,000 plus), I thought, Godammit. Of all the times to be on commission at a fucking sex store …

— Tim Link

In the days and weeks that followed the attacks I found myself worrying about the rescue dogs that were working the site. There were reports in the media almost daily about injuries to the dogs (and in some cases deaths) and I found myself wondering if it was really that important to recover things like concrete splashed with the victim’s DNA.

— Name withheld

I watched from my window, not on television, as the twin towers fell. As shocked as I was, I felt that this was not my problem as a black person. The people who worked at the World Trade Center were mostly white men, and so they had nothing to do with me as a black woman.

When there was an outpouring of grief and donations from every corner of the United States, I said to myself, If those planes had flown into a housing project and the victims were poor blacks and Latinos, people in Missouri wouldn’t give a damn. When I heard that there had been over $1 billion in private donations, I asked myself where was this money before? Why hadn’t it been donated to help the homeless, children who do not have access to an education, people who do not have access to healthcare? Here we have people rushing to write checks to people whose families will be taken care of by insurance or their employers.

To me, 9/11 was just another example of the American paradigm of deservedness and white entitlement. We are not all Americans; the white investment banker, the white fireman, the white police officer, the white EMT, they are Americans.

— Name withheld

There’s always been a joke among African-Americans about black folks and white folks during a disaster. My father was quick to point out a black woman who had managed to get out of the towers when she was actually on a floor above where the plane hit and she was still trying to get out of downtown when the reporter stopped her.

The fact that tons of white people just stood there near the towers looking before they fell cracked him up. It confirmed the stereotype of white folks never thinking anything is ever going to happen to them. And since black people are used to fucked-up crap happening to them all the time they were trying to get the hell out of there.

Of course I spotted a few African-Americans looking lost. My dad just said that they’ve been around white people too damn long. Real black folks run.

— Name withheld

My father was one of those people who was supposed to be in the city that day but didn’t go in that morning due to a freak coincidence. I hate him.

I wish he’d died in the attacks, because then memorializing him would have been easy. I wouldn’t have ever had to hate him again because he would have been one of the people lost in 9/11. As we waited to get in touch with him, I prayed we’d never find him. No one knows this.

— Name withheld

What cheeses me off the most about the Sept. 11 attacks is that it gave Americans a newer, better reason to be narcissistic. Before they were just (in their own eyes) the world’s No. 1 providers of liberty, entertainment and industry. Now they’re the world’s No. 1 victims, too.

— Name withheld

Dubya should write Osama a thank-you note. Remember the campaign slogan “I’m a uniter, not a divider”? Osama got the job done for him.

— Paul Lorentz

“Well, I guess Gary Condit’s relieved.”

–overheard by Josh Anderson, 30, Arlington, Va., during the week of 9/11

2001 was a great year for me; I hated the twin towers and I hated the Taliban and now they’re both gone!

— Lesbian feminist from Greenwich Village

I love to watch the footage, over and over. I’m looking forward to the anniversary just because the videos will be played again. People claim they don’t like to see the images, but I don’t believe it for a second. I was sorry I missed footage of people jumping, because you just don’t see that too often and that is rarely replayed.

— Graphic artist, 41, Chicago

A friend of mine noted, as all the flag bumper stickers and crap started getting slapped up all over houses, cars and work cubbies, that some people weren’t even really sticking the stickers on their cars — they were scotch-taping them to the inside of their car windows. It was as if they knew that their surge of patriotic feeling would fade, and they wouldn’t want to be left looking like a hick with the stupid flag sticker left on their car. Totally cynical, but I think that’s true.

— Maggie, Massachusetts

I’ll admit my first thought was, Thank God, I won’t have to hear [name withheld] bitch about her marriage anymore. Her husband worked in the WTC and they were on the road to a messy divorce. Of course, then I spoke to my friend, who was now the proud widow of a martyr — and has since claimed full benefits. The hypocrisy of her attitude, especially as she spoke about him in the reverent tone normally reserved for saints when he was once known as TB (short for ‘The Bastard’), nearly made me physically ill.

While I no longer associate with her, mutual friends have told me she now claims they had a storybook romance — sure, if the author is Jackie Collins.

— Name withheld

The deification of firefighters was the result of guilt. Most white-collar people never think of blue-collar workers at all or dismiss them as insignificant. When yuppies realized that firefighters would brave flames to save their sorry, self-centered lives they suddenly became ridiculously reverential. There is no convert like a new convert.

— Name withheld, New York

“Oh, it started before 9. The casualties will be investment bankers.”

— Name withheld, on a first thought noting that banking is one of the few professions in NYC that gets going before 9 a.m.

My husband, a rather spiritual and caring person, truth be told, was incredibly pissed at how the reaction to the attacks messed up sports for the next week. Florida (his team) was supposed to play Tennessee in football the next weekend. It was, of course, canceled, and played closer to the end of the season. Florida lost, and lost the chance to be national champions as a result.

He’s convinced that if they’d played Tennessee when they were supposed to, they would have won … yada yada. He still talks about it.

— Name withheld

When the towers started collapsing and all chaos broke loose, I felt actual excitement. Here was an event that broke banality. Finally, here was something meaningful. I had grown so tired of the meaningless fluff our continent had become so enamored with. Here was an issue of raw emotions. I was glad that this was happening to snap people back into reality, to snap them back to mortality. My last sinful thought was that of genocide — lets just send nuclear missiles to all of the Middle East and let it be done once and for all.

— Name withheld

9/11 was three days before my wedding on 9/14. Honestly, my first selfish thought upon learning that all the airports would be closed until further notice was, now my mom and the rest of my family would not be able to attend. We held the wedding anyway, with half the guests, and no one felt like dancing or celebrating.

I still feel a little used by that, especially since my first anniversary will be eclipsed by one-year later specials and flag wavers.

— Aubrey Wilder, 25

On 9/11/01, I just kept going out to stare up at the sky. It was so quiet and empty — and yes, actually beautiful — without jets and vapor trails everywhere. What corner of Antarctica will I have to visit to to see another completely empty sky from horizon to horizon?

— Name withheld

As a good Oberlin College alumni, I was horrified by my own cowardice in the face of 9/11 and its fallout. I wanted to be safe, at any cost. I thought that maybe me and my progressive friends had it wrong, had always had everything wrong, that we should go forth and bomb and destroy and invade and do whatever necessary to guard “our way of life,” a phrase I have always hated.

Also, in thinking about the possible end of the world, one of the thoughts I was most upset by went something like this: “FUCK. If we’re all barricaded in bunkers we won’t be able to go to the movies anymore.”

— Lisa B., 34, writer and professor

I played the part, of course; I expressed the mandatory shock, outrage and sadness while watching events unfold with co-workers. I was, in outward appearence, the very picture of solemnity and sympathy. Inside, though, I was excited. I got the same weird sense of roller-coaster joy I do when a hurricane comes up the coast or a blizzard shuts down the city. In the chaos of the initial reports, I found myself disappointed to find out that some of the early reports of additional targets being hit were erroneous.

As the second tower collapsed, I found myself with a terrible sense of satisfaction. It was almost like, somewhere deep in the parts of my soul that don’t see the sun, I was rooting for the event to be even bigger — for it to cut so deeply through the banality of daily life, that things would never be the same. I suspect I am not alone. Whether it’s shark attacks, wars, school shootings or child abductions, something in human nature gives people a sick thrill in such horrific voyeurism. That’s what drives the infotainment industry we like to call the nightly news. In the Civil War, spectators went out to watch the battle.

Until fairly recently, watching public executions was regular entertainment for the masses. Few have the guts to admit it publicly, but we’re all monsters.

— Michael Middleton

I was an EMT at the time as well, and I remember the frustration and rage at how the Emergency Medical Technicians were getting nothing in the way of kudos or hero worship or anything. No, it was firemen-this and firemen-that and think of all those poor lost firemen. Statues and commemorations and speeches, lord the speeches — EMTs and firemen are two very different beasts!

Stop mentioning just the one of them! I’m sick and tired of the goddamn heroic firemen! In the secret depths of my soul, I think they get all the attention because they have spiffier uniforms.

— Katharine, college student, Bryn Mawr, Pa.

I’m a college debater and the topic last year (decided in August) was international terrorism. What I kept thinking all day was, Damn, my research is completely useless. Those assholes!

— Name withheld

I started a doomed business last year and at the time of the attacks I was two months behind on my mortgage and facing foreclosure on my house. Somehow, mixed in with fears concerning WWIII, attacks on the West Coast, and the welfare of my New York friends, my mind kept saying, Maybe my mortgage company was in one of the towers. The thought was accompanied by this involuntary, gleeful little zing of hope. Maybe the records were destroyed. Zing. I might not have to pay my mortgage for years until they sort this out. Zing.

— Name withheld

When the planes hit … and when it was clear that they were planes bound for L.A. … and when it was clear that a massive conflagration had ensued in the towers … I reached for my calculator. This is a chemistry class thermodynamics problem, went my illicit, cold, train of thought. I use a TI-83 graphing calculator. I used it in my calculus classes at an Ivy League school.

I used it in my chemistry and physics classes there too. I got A’s in the classes. Calorimeter problem, I thought; the carbon-hydrogen bonds of that jet fuel are breaking like crazy, releasing energy like crazy, raising the temperature like crazy … I began to think about the contribution that the rakelike penetrating crash into steel could make to increasing the surface-to-volume ratio of the fuel tank’s contents — and therefore exposure to vaporization and combustion. More C-H bonds breaking simultaneously. Yes, the temperature (delta T in the equation) would render the temperature in the container one that would make solid steel into molten steel.

And then there were the people. I set about calculating the number of people who could be expected to have arrived at work in the towers, the number descending the stairs upon the first plane hit, the rate at which they could walk the stairs in an orderly fashion below the affected floors and the timing of the melting of the towers. Conclusion: that the numbers gone would be the number of people at work on time on a sunny, bright Tuesday in September that would surely have beckoned some to stay in bed with legs happy, moving against deliciously crisp sheets, breathing a late summer breeze through the window … or to go buy corduroys and a work of fiction … or to escape to the Catskills … or to get to work early to turn over a new leaf. Yes, about 3,000 would be gone.

Calculating morbid stuff: It’s cold, it’s utilitarian, throws Kantian ethic to the wind, reduces people to numbers … and is very pragmatic if we want to stop and think about what is going on. As Congress sang and swayed, I hit numbered buttons.”

— Jen

Within 12 hours of the tragedy, it occurred to me that they’ll never, ever show that great episode of the “The Simpsons” where the family goes to New York and Homer has to take a whiz in the World Trade Center.

— Daniel Price, 31-year-old writer, born in Manhattan, corrupted in Los Angeles

I was really annoyed with people saying, “I could have been there, blah blah.” You weren’t, so stop dwelling on it.

— Meredith, 25, public relations executive in Washington

The night of Sept. 10 I had an amazing one-night stand with a hot, swarthy Middle Eastern man. I lived in Battery Park City at the time. The next morning, we gazed at my spectacular view of the World Trade Center. The last thing I said to him was, “The R train? Just walk toward those two towers.” Fifteen minutes later the first plane struck. I spent the whole day thinking (among other things), He did say he was Israeli, right? I didn’t just fuck a terrorist, did I? I hope he made it out!

— Female, 30, from New York

Sept. 12 I heard some people talking about the different state quarters. Shuffling through their pockets they pulled out a few and noted that the New York quarter had a picture of the Statue of Liberty on it. “Heh, heh, lucky they didn’t put a picture of the twin towers on it,” one said.

— Name withheld

Being largely ignorant of which businesses were located in the WTC, I searched the Web with faint hope that any of my various credit card or student loan debt records might have been destroyed.

— Name withheld

Q: What’s Osama bin Laden’s favorite football team?

A: The New York Jets.

— Terry Forte, who says the joke was conceived on Sept. 12

So, I remember feeling that people who weren’t from New York were assholes. That they were interested in fetishizing my memories. Total strangers were probing deeply into the most terrifying experiences of my life and I hated them for it. Even my tears would not stop their questions. Even with my tears they could never understand.

–Aimee Dawson, of Brooklyn, N.Y.

This is just another reason for people on the East Coast to feel more important than the rest of the country.

— Name withheld

The people on Flight 93 were not goddamn “heroes” or “warriors,” they were passengers on the wrong plane. If I have to hear about Todd Beamer and “Let’s roll” one more time I am going to puke.

— Houghton

During the whole awful day, I was kind of excited that something had finally happened for MY generation so I didn’t have to listen to my grandparents bitch about Pearl Harbor endlessly and ask why doesn’t my generation get some direction.

— Todd VanDerWerff

The first thing I did when I saw the first tower fall on 9/11 was whoop and holler with joy. I know for a fact that there were federal law enforcement agents in the WTC (including FBI and Customs). My family and I were victimized by the feds for a victimless crime in the past. I am an American citizen, but I hoped that as many of them would die as possible.

I’m really disgusted by Lisa Beamer, professional widow. First of all, she allowed herself to be used by the Bush administration less than a week after her husband’s death by appearing at Bush’s speech. That totally horrified me that she could go and wave to the cameras (all the while looking frail and injured, yet calm and self-possessed) and her husband had just died! And she’s continued to take advantage of every media opportunity and now she’s written a book!!!!

You know, there are lots of things I’d like to be famous for, but having a dead hero husband isn’t one of them. That’s one situation I wouldn’t take advantage of!

— Name withheld

For nearly every single day since Sept. 11, 2001, I’ve been saying, “When’s the other shoe going to drop?” The dirty secret that I’ve never revealed to anyone is that there’s a part of me that actually wants it to drop. Rationally, not really — I’ve got family and friends who would be in serious danger if something happened in our major cities.

But the little devil on my shoulder keeps saying, “Come on already, let’s get this fucking apocalypse OVER WITH.” I mean, there are times when I’d almost feel relieved if something happened — it would be better than this awful waiting accompanied by an overwhelming sense of looming doom.

— Female writer, living in Texas

I work in central New Jersey and live very near the New Jersey entrance to the Holland Tunnel. I take the train to work and once the towers went down, you couldn’t ride a train toward New York, even if you were going to get off before reaching the city.

A guy in a cubicle near mine offered to give me a ride, but there was a sign up that the highways going toward the city were closed too. I had no way to get home.

Our human resources department reserved a block of hotel rooms for employees who were stuck. I appreciated the room, but the hotel wasn’t very nice and sheets felt like sandpaper. I was very annoyed at the hotel for forcing me to sleep naked between uncomfortable sheets.

— Name withheld

The Sept. 11 attacks, and the interest rate drops that followed, allowed me to move into a house with a very affordable mortgage. The thing I’ve never told anyone was that day all I could think was, This is got to cause the economy (and rates) to drop, and now I can finally get out of the apartment. The thing I’m even more ashamed of: In the weeks that followed I sometimes thought to myself, Now if only another attack happens, I’ll be riding the lowest interest rates in the last hundred years.

— Name withheld

The Friday night before 9/11, I met a girl at a party and got her phone number. On Monday the 10th, we made a date to go to a party on Thursday the 13th. She called me on 9/11 to make sure I was OK, and we kept our date. We ended up going out four or five nights a week for the next month, having a glorious time, enjoying wonderful sex, and laughing a lot.

There was a true sense of freedom and peace after 9/11; that media crap about all New Yorkers coming together was real, and it made the city a really nice place to live, and a great place for romance. Plus, it was terribly exciting to know that I was living in the middle of history. For the rest of my life, when I look back on being in New York during and after 9/11, I’ll remember having some of the best times of my life.

— Noah Tarnow, freelance editor in New York

We were living in D.C., but it didn’t really faze us that terrorists had hit our very own city. We attempted to go to the movies where a homeless man kindly told us that no movies were being shown that day; grudgingly ate at the only food establishment open –Taco Bell — and ended up renting Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson Lee’s staged X-rated extravaganza. We did the nasty all day (no thanks to Tommy and Pam), convincing ourselves that what we were doing was life affirming. And it was.

— Name withheld

My sister moved to Brooklyn on the night of Sept. 10. On the morning of the 11th, she and her best friend coped the best way they knew how: They climbed to their roof with a bottle of tequila, watched the towers burn, and toasted the day with a black-humor contest. Whoever could think of the grimmest, ugliest, most horrifying joke would win.

My sister called out, “To an unobstructed view of lower Manhattan!” and tossed off her tequila. The winning toast turned out to be, “To employment opportunities in the New York Fire Department!”

— Ivy

I frantically called a friend’s cellphone in lower Manhattan. An elementary school teacher, he was evacuating students when I rang. He was in sight of the just fallen towers. He said, “When the radio played ‘It’s Raining Men’ this morning, I didn’t realize they were serious.” When I reminded him of this charming comment some months later, he didn’t remember making it.

— Robert O’ Shaughnessy, Washington

On Friday Sept. 14, I was in a shopping mall getting some last-minute items for a vacation trip the following day. I had mixed feelings about taking the trip, but it was too late to change the dates. On my way out I saw two people walking through the mall carrying candles, and I saw three others standing outside as I left. I held my tongue, but what I really wanted to say was, “You’re deeply moved by the recent events, and the only place you can think of to share your grief is a shopping mall? Why not go to the church or house of worship of your choice? Or maybe the mall is your house of worship?”

Driving home, I saw a bunch of people on a busy street corner. One of them was waving a big American flag and people were trying to get drivers to honk their horns. It was all I could do to keep from rolling down the window and shouting: “Thousands of people lost their lives, and you’re acting like your team just won the World Series.”

— Mitch Hellman

– – – – – – – – – – – –

About the writer Damien Cave is a senior writer for Salon.

———–

http://www.salon.com/travel/food/feature/2000/03/10/bardo/

For the already ordained, Krispy Kremes are the guilty pleasure of millions of otherwise health-seeking Americans, and the trend is sweeping the nation. The two main ingredients (lard and sugar) have positioned the humble Krispy Kreme as the Moped of cuisine — divinely pleasurable but outrageously embarrassing.

And yes, I will admit, they’re good. And yes, they’re coming to Canada.. the beach-head for the assault having already been established at the buttresses of Tim Horton’s Eagle’s Nest of Mississagua, Ontario.

Is Krispy Kreme truly the next Starbuck’s?

-Ian.

——

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2002/nf20020228_4105.htm

FEBRUARY 28, 2002

STREET WISE By David Shook

Chewing Over Starbucks and Krispy Kreme

Investors are finding both outfits plenty tasty. In the long run, however, they may find more dough in java than in pastries

In the wake of Enron’s collapse and accusations of financial shenanigans at many other companies, investors these days are looking for balance sheets and business models they can easily grasp. So what could be more appealing than coffee and doughnuts, or Starbucks (SBUX ) and Krispy Kreme (KKD )? The two companies share some important similarities. Both have become icons for America’s quick-fix snack habits, hooking millions of consumers on their products. Both have benefited in the past year from being in recession-proof businesses. As stocks, the two have also been hot-growth names that occasionally get pummeled as investors bail out (Starbucks, now at $23, has actually done better year-to-date than Krispy, now at $37.50).

As investments, however, they have some major differences — in growth prospects, competitive position, and valuation. Especially in this rocky climate, Starbucks likely has more advantages for investors to consider. A MATURE BREW.  Their most significant divergence is that the two companies are probably at very different stages in their life cycle. In many ways, Krispy Kreme, which went public two years ago and launched a bold expansion strategy using the proceeds, looks like Starbucks 10 years ago. Back then, Starbucks had as many doubters as coffee fans. Critics said its $4 gourmet lattes would be a ’90s phenomenon. Now, it’s clear that Starbucks is more like McDonald’s in the ’80s: Well-liked by consumers worldwide and found on every street corner.

Starbucks’ strategy of selling premium coffee with piped-in jazz music, comfortable seating, and well-trained staffers has clearly paid off. In its most recent quarter, which ended Dec. 31, 2001, sales increased 26%, to $910 million, up from $722 million for the same period the year earlier. Net earnings for the quarter were $68.4 million, or 17 cents per share, an increase of 40% (including a $13.4 million gain from the partial sale of Starbucks Japan), compared to $49 million, or a split-adjusted 12 cents a share a year earlier.

And just like with ’80s-era McDonald’s, international growth seems to be next on Starbucks’ list. It’s jumping into Mexico City, Tokyo, Athens, and Hong Kong, along with many other European, Asian, and Latin American markets. It already has more than 650 coffee shops outside the U.S. and plans to open 100 more this year. Moreover, the coffee brewer still sees plenty of expansion opportunities in the U.S. Starbucks has 3,154 stores in North America and plans to open 525 more this year.

SQUEEZED SHORTS.  Krispy Kreme, by contrast, is still trying to prove itself. It’s a much smaller company, although its rapid sales growth has already given it a 118% market gain over the past year. Its sudden rise has brought doubters out of the woodwork — short sellers who love to bet against it, figuring a rocket stock like Krispy Kreme has to fall eventually.

However, since the company’s initial public offering less than two years ago, short-sellers have been squeezed repeatedly. Krispy has continued to defy critics as the stock climbs steadily, buoyed by robust earnings growth each quarter. Comparable store sales jumped 13.1% in its most recent quarter, vs. 2% for Starbucks.

Now comes the hard part: It’s still unclear just how far Krispy can take its concept of providing sugary, fat-laden doughnuts for the masses. It has 218 stores and expects to have 59 new full-service bakeries and 10 to 15 smaller shops this year, all in North America. Systemwide sales for the fourth quarter ended Feb. 3 increased 46%, to $183 million, according to the company’s preliminary estimates.

And Krispy expects to meet earnings estimates for the 2002 fiscal year when it announces bottom-line profits on Mar. 8. It aims to report earnings of 44 cents a share for the 2002 fiscal year and 61 cents a share in the 2003 fiscal year.

GOLDEN BEANS.  That’s attractive growth, but investors have already priced it into the stock. Starbucks, which is up 17% this year, has a price-to-earnings ratio of 42, while Krispy Kreme, which has slid 15% year to date, has a p-e of 96. That leaves room for a lot more downside if the doughnut maker can’t deliver on its ambitious targets.

Starbucks is also the more financially sound of the two — an important consideration in this skittish business climate. The Seattle-based coffee king ended the year with more than $300 million in cash and virtually no debt. Also, it consistently posts free cash flow — a measure of how much more money a company makes than it spends each quarter.

Krispy Kreme, by contrast, has just $45 million in cash and about $9 million in debt. Nor has it been able to post free cash flow every quarter. “Starbucks has always been cash-flow positive. The company just has the model down right,” says Doug Cristopher, analyst for Crowell Weedon & Co. DIXIE SHOWDOWN.  Finally, Starbucks benefits from less competition than Krispy Kreme, analysts say. Small gourmet chains such as Timothy’s World Coffee, a Canadian company with stores along the East Coast, haven’t been able to compete with Starbucks in the U.S. Timothy’s closed its U.S. operations in January, citing the sluggish economy.

Meanwhile, Krispy Kreme’s main competitor, Dunkin’ Donuts, a division of British food-and-spirits giant Allied Domecq, has been pushing into North Carolina-based Krispy Kreme’s home turf — the American South. Massachusetts-based Dunkin’ doughnuts says it plans to open more than 300 new stores south of the Mason-Dixon line, setting itself up for a head-to-head run against Krispy Kreme.

While Starbucks can rely on overseas growth, Krispy Kreme doesn’t have a clear global strategy. The global doughnut market, with more than $5 billion in annual sales, is almost entirely contained in North America, and it isn’t clear how much of an appetite Europeans, Asians, and Latin Americans will have for Krispy Kreme, says Greg Schroeder, analyst for Fulcrum Global Partners in New York. “Outside the U.S., there just isn’t a big market for doughnuts,” he says. “Coffee on the other hand is a global commodity. Europeans and Japanese drink more than we do.”

While 2002 is likely to be a strong year for both companies, regardless of how quickly the recession ends, the fact remains that coffee and doughnuts don’t represent the same value for investors. They may go hand-in-hand in the morning — Starbucks serves Krispy Kreme doughnuts in many of its java joints — but just as caffeine-addicted weight-watchers might buy the coffee and shun the doughnuts, Starbucks may also be the wiser choice for investors.

Part I: MicroStrategy’s CEO Sped to the Brink http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2889-2002Jan5.html

Part II: At the Height of a Joy Ride, MicroStrategy Dives http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6157-2002Jan6.html

Part III: Once Defiant, MicroStrategy Chief Contritely Faces SEC http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11212-2002Jan7.html

Part IV: ‘Maybe an Older, Wiser Visionary’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16533-2002Jan8.html

…and below is the whole text of the article series. You should love me for all of this copying and pasting.

——

MicroStrategy’s CEO Sped to the Brink

By Mark Leibovich Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, January 6, 2002; Page A01

First of four articles

There were times, when it was all going right, when Michael Saylor would stare out the huge oval windows of his leased Gulfstream jet and fixate on the Rocky Mountains passing below him. He would marvel at how he was covering more territory in five minutes than the western settlers covered by wagon over several months.

This was back in 2000, at the height of the Internet age. In a few Nasdaq months, Saylor’s newly public firm, MicroStrategy Inc., had gained a stock value that exceeded the total worth of his former employer, the venerable DuPont Co.,198 years old. In a few Nasdaq seconds, Saylor could amass more wealth than his father had in his 30-year Air Force career.

It didn’t matter that MicroStrategy was just a software maker that helped companies manage their inventory and customer information. Saylor had what he called “the dot-com halo,” the aura that came with being not just a business, but a revolutionary one. He become an icon to his “constituencies,” as he called them — the media, Wall Street, his employees. He wasn’t building a firm as much as a belief system.

“We’re purging ignorance from the planet,” Saylor often declared in his high, throaty voice. He was on a “crusade for intelligence,” one that sounded just grandiose enough to be plausible at a time when technology chief executives stirred such exuberance, rational or otherwise.

On Feb. 4, 2000, with MicroStrategy’s shares at $142 and his paper wealth shooting into the billions, Saylor hosted a 35th birthday party for himself at Cities, the fashionable Adams Morgan restaurant. “Guess who’s old enough to run for president?” the invitation said, and Saylor duly announced his candidacy that night, a would-be standard bearer for “The Technology Party.” He was kidding. Or seemed to be. But at the time it seemed weirdly possible.

Then, just a few weeks later, it all crashed — a flip of fortunes that was sudden even by the exaggerated norms of the late 1990s and the early part of 2000. Saylor’s life and companybecame object lessons in how ephemeral success could be in the new economy, how perspective could be so easily lost, and how myths — and stock fortunes — could so easily vanish. When MicroStrategy’s story began to unravel, at least some industry and Wall Street watchers believe, it signaled the end of that era. “This one popped the bubble,” wrote James Cramer, columnist for TheStreet.com. “MicroStrategy forever changed the Internet mania.”

In a starkly compressed time frame, Saylor was transformed from a new world titan to an age-old parable: “It’s the same story in a way of a classic Greek tragedy,” said Don Griffith, a former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer who grew up with Saylor in the Dayton suburb of Fairborn, Ohio. “It’s the story of Icarus and Daedalus. Mike was the guy who flew too close to the sun.”

Saylor grew up wanting to be an Air Force fighter pilot, attended MIT on an ROTC scholarship and entered business after a heart murmur grounded him. He often applied flying metaphors to his corporate rise. He spoke of how the “juice” of high-speed business can either “skyrocket” an entrepreneur or “blow him up.” He also did some of his best thinking in the back of the Gulfstream, the night sky heightening his solitude. These were mostly peaceful meditations. But not the one on the flight that Saylor remembers best.

Late on Friday night, March 17, 2000, Saylor was flying to Washington from San Francisco. It was a few days before MicroStrategy was scheduled to sell newly issued stock to the public, which would help the company pay for its CEO’s manic expansion plans. The sale was expected to raise $2 billion — the largest public offering in software industry history.

Saylor was returning from a “roadshow,” the ritual that comes before a stock issue in which executives promote their companies to big investors and fund managers around the country. By every appearance, Saylor’s meetings were going well, and shares of MicroStrategy finished the week at $226.75. “I’m at the top of the world, everybody loves me,” recalled Saylor, who was then the wealthiest person in the Washington area, at least on paper. “Everybody loves the company, we’re hitting the cover of every magazine. . . . I was household.”

But Saylor knew that he had a secret. A week earlier, MicroStrategy’s financial auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, had called into question some of the company’s accounting records. The accountants wanted MicroStrategy to restate some of its financial reports, a potentially devastating step that could send Wall Street into a selling panic. Negotiations had raged all week between officials of MicroStrategy and PricewaterhouseCoopers to determine the need for, or magnitude of, a restatement. Meanwhile, Saylor continued to pitch his company to eager investors in Chicago, Kansas City, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

When the roadshow ended, Saylor flew home, sullen and alone on a beige leather sofa in the back of the $40 million jet. “I know the gods have this wicked sense of humor because of what they did to me,” Saylor said later. “They put me in a position where I was simultaneously the most successful person of my generation and in hell. All at the same time.”

Like the company he still leads, Saylor seems diminished and weary by what he calls “my ordeal.” In the same way that presidents, in their photographs, look as though they’ve aged eight years for every four they’ve been in the White House, Saylor, now 36, seems to have aged about six since his 35th birthday. His boyish flop of brown hair has gone half gray. His fresh round face has become jowly and bearded. His chest-out walk, once the stomping gait of a man who knew exactly where he wanted to go, has acquired an uncertain slump.

In a series of interviews between May and January, Saylor seemed at once humbled by his experience and bitter. At times, he drew comparisons between himself and victims of diseases or violent crimes. “I don’t think that the trauma or stress I felt is any worse than the stress that a father feels when his son has leukemia,” Saylor said last summer, describing his feelings during his company’s sudden fall. “Or whose wife is dying. I think it’s the same . . . in my case, it was my company catching leukemia.”

Saylor always fancied his mission to be a seminal one. His role models were Caesar, Churchill, Gandhi and Gates. He decorated his basement with framed press clippings about himself. He kept a sculpture of Rodin’s “The Thinker” in his office and he had a searing need to believe that MicroStrategy was doing work for the ages. And, for a while, his constituencies needed to believe in him as well — in all his possibility, in all the new economic rules that his success seemed to prove.

As it turned out, Saylor earned his place in history through the narrative of his rise and swoon. This series of articles reconstructs that story. It is based on interviews with Saylor and more than 100 people who have known, watched or worked with him. It is also based on court documents, company memos and internal e-mails that were provided to, or summarized for, The Washington Post by officials at MicroStrategy and sources involved in private lawsuits and an SEC investigation of the company.

What emerges is a vivid dispatch from one of the most perplexing and tumultuous periods in economic history. It also provides one of the great, and largely unseen, corporate dramas in the evolution of the Washington area as a major technology center.

At the story’s hyperkinetic center is Michael Saylor, who became the exemplar of two eras, boom and bust, in their greatest extremes. And it all happened in a matter of days.

“I guess,” Saylor said, smiling at the thought, “that I represent a strange piece of history.”

‘Hit the Floor Running’

The thinking went like this: If Thomas Edison were to write a book about his life and legacy, it would be called “Electricity.” So Michael Saylor believed that he should write a treatise of his own, called “Intelligence.”

His pursuit — to make the species up-to-the-second smarter — was so elemental to civilization that it needed to be distilled in a book, one of those really big books, maybe more than a thousand pages. Not for vanity’s sake, but for history’s.

On Jan. 31, 2000, before a meet-and-greet with former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, Saylor met with the literary agent Amanda “Binky” Urban in Midtown Manhattan to discuss “Intelligence.” She was intrigued by the idea, and they agreed to keep in touch.

People throughout Saylor’s life describe him as the smartest person they have ever met. “Usually you find a guy with [Saylor’s] intellect in the back of some lab, interacting with rats,” said Joe Robert, a Washington area real estate maven who befriended Saylor during his rise. But Saylor was no outcast, Robert said. He could converse on diverse topics and with multiple audiences: He could quote from Augustus and “Caddyshack” alike, talk circuitry with engineers, numbers with financiers, Big Vision with investors and bachelorhood with the media.

He loved music, played the tenor sax and trombone as a teenager, and would later teach himself guitar and piano. He was valedictorian at Park Hill High School in Fairborn, where he lived from age 11 with his parents, brother and sister in a small aluminum-sided duplex on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. He was raised in a taut, Southern Baptist household, steeped in chore regimens and vice-free conservatism — no cussing, smoking, drinking. “Hit the floor running, son,” Chief Master Sgt. Jerry Saylor would yell into his son’s bedroom, after waking him at 6 a.m. with a loud clap. The $50,000 ROTC scholarship Saylor earned from MIT was worth five times the amount of his family’s entire savings at that time.

John Sterman, a marketing professor at MIT, said Saylor was “always an unusual fellow, far more serious than most at MIT. . . . a student you wouldn’t forget.” For a class project, Saylor built a computer-simulation model that applied the ideas of Plato’s “Republic” to an ideal civilization. To meet his undergraduate thesis requirement, Saylor, inspired by Machiavelli’s “Discourses,” wrote a computer program that simulated the reactions of varied government systems to calamities such as famines, plagues and war. He graduated with highest honors, earning a degree in aeronautics and astronautics, as well as one in science, technology and society.

Saylor started MicroStrategy in 1989 with Sanju Bansal, his MIT roommate and fraternity brother. Saylor had spent two years writing computer models for DuPont’s titanium dioxide business, but wanted to start his own business. He persuaded his boss to give him a $250,000 consulting contract to continue building computer models. The deal came with office space near DuPont’s headquarters in Wilmington, Del.

In 1992 MicroStrategy developed an early version of the product that would become its franchise: software that allowed companies to extract useful bits of information from their unwieldy corporate databases. By using the software, for instance, McDonald’s could learn that a Chicago franchise was four times more likely to sell Big Macs on winter Friday nights than was a franchise in Miami (where customers disproportionately preferred filet-of-fish sandwiches). While seemingly trivial, such data would prove vital to the companies, and even as other software companies were developing similar “data-mining” products, as they were called, Saylor and Bansal were able to impress and attract an early array of Fortune 500 customers.

In 1994 Saylor and Bansal moved the company and its 50 employees from Wilmington to Tysons Corner, figuring it would be easier to lure elite workers to the Washington area, “a major center of civilization,” Saylor said. MicroStrategy doubled its revenue every year between 1994 and 1997.

‘Information Everywhere’

Part of Saylor’s marketing savvy in the late 1990s sprang from his unwillingness to stay confined to the niche of back-office technology. No matter how solid MicroStrategy’s business and product was, Saylor felt restless. What Saylor craved — and ultimately sold — was a higher corporate purpose for MicroStrategy: He wasn’t so much making tools as much as he was “freeing information.” He wasn’t a seller of data-mining software but a purveyor of “intelligence,” just as Bill Gates’s mission at Microsoft wasn’t simply to sell software for personal computers but to put “a computer on every desktop.”

In computing history, which Saylor studied closely, the dominant companies have been the ones that could shroud the unsexy functionality of their products in the sleek possibility of What Could Come Next. As Internet, database and wireless technologies evolved, Saylor said, information would soon become an essential utility, “like water,” and MicroStrategy would be the company that spread it everywhere. Enlightening McDonald’s about its Big Mac sales was just a start of a grand technological crusade that would eventually “purge ignorance from the planet.”

By the time MicroStrategy held its initial public offering of stock in 1998, Saylor was gaining little notice for his data-mining products and plenty for his vow to spread “information everywhere.” He began to pitch his company’s software products in mystical rhetoric. The back cover of MicroStrategy’s prospectus — published in conjunction with the IPO — included a boldface quotation from science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Shares were priced at $6 for the June 11 offering (adjusted for a Jan. 4, 2000, stock split), and they doubled by midday. On the Merrill Lynch trading floor that morning, Saylor grinned as he noted that “MSTR,” MicroStrategy’s ticker symbol, was listed on the Nasdaq ticker right after “MSFT” (Microsoft), a company that Saylor idolized.

“Warning,” a message flashed over the trading floor. “Do not confuse MSTR with MSFT.”

The Grand and the Grandiose

On the surface, MicroStrategy seemed the prototype of the democratic new-economy workplace: Employees could wear jeans to work and were always free to e-mail the CEO with ideas. But these egalitarian appearances belied the company’s military ethos, with Saylor as a ubiquitous general in a theater of his own creation. To a degree that is unusual among even the most obsessive entrepreneurs, MicroStrategy has been Saylor’s life. He worked late into most nights, often seven days a week.

Saylor fervidly protected his ownership stake in the firm, and this insistence almost led to the company’s demise before it left Wilmington. In 1994, the firm’s senior managers — Sid Banerjee, Dave Sherwood, Steve Trundell, Eduardo Sanchez, Ed Jurcisin and Manish Acharya — were working long hours and receiving relatively low salaries. When they asked for an equity stake, Saylor and Bansal resisted until the managers finally walked out en masse on a Friday. By Monday, the group had retained a lawyer. Negotiations ensued, and the dispute was settled when Saylor and Bansal agreed to grant the managers a collective 7 percent of the young firm.

Saylor was even more hesitant to give any ownership stake to outside investors, particularly venture capitalists, a species he publicly loathed and distrusted. He feared that venture capitalists — or other big investors — would “dilute the vision” of his company. At the time of the IPO, Saylor retained a remarkable 73.1 percent, or 22.5 million, of the company’s shares (Bansal held another 12 percent). This effectively allowed Saylor to do as he pleased with his firm, unconcerned by any possibility of ever being overruled, taken over or forced out by other investors.

Saylor’s childhood bred in him a strong sense of insularity and control. “I’m very at home in paternalistic environments,” Saylor said. Each winter, he took his employees on a Caribbean cruise (no spouses allowed) to promote corporate solidarity. New workers underwent a rigorous “boot camp” where they were drilled on the arcana of MicroStrategy’s business and required to complete an outdoor ropes course. Saylor’s top lieutenants comprised a brainy fraternity of longtime male pals, several of whom had attended MIT together. Executives who came from other companies often had brief and unpleasant experiences at MicroStrategy.

Saylor was prone to volcanic impatience. “Are you trying to kill us?” Saylor would boom in meetings, or invoke a well-known Gatesism, “That’s the stupidest [expletive] thing I’ve ever heard.” If a person was talking too slowly, Saylor would often take out his Dell laptop and start doing other work. His longtime associates viewed him with a mix of awe and dread: They marveled at his zooming technology mind and also spent a lot of time anticipating what might preoccupy or set him off next. One executive compared the dynamic of MicroStrategy’s executive team to “alcoholics around a dinner table.”

When he was not speaking, Saylor’s eyes would assume a sunken deadness. He spoke in a robotic cadence, as if delivering social graces — “Nice to see you again” — by dint of some how-to program embedded in his skull. He would sometimes talk with such energy that his face twitched. He habitually slammed doors, even when he was not upset. Even his closest friends say Saylor can often be long-winded, tiresome and just odd.

But Saylor could also be inspiring, generous and loyal. He rarely fired people. “You had to really underperform at MicroStrategy to get fired,” said Manish Acharya, who left the firm in early 1999. He recalls firing someone with Saylor — and how Saylor spoke of being “traumatized” for days afterward.

Saylor’s loyalty was returned: MicroStrategy’s turnover rate — about 7 percent in 1997 and 1998 — was low among software companies. With only moderate irony, employees would dub themselves members of the “cult of MicroStrategy,” and Saylor was their charismatic leader. A television monitor in the lobby played a constant loop of Saylor’s speeches.

If they bought into his mission, Saylor told prospective employees at the end of their boot camp sessions, they could help him “bend reality through sheer force of will.” Saylor’s boot-camp sermons lasted hours, sometimes up to nine. “Heaven for me is a microphone and a captive audience,” Saylor said, and he relished the gamesmanship of sales and motivational talks, “that deer-in-the-headlights moment when you know you’ve flipped someone,” he said in 1998.

“I’ve never seen someone who could transfix a room like Mike Saylor,” said Mark Bisnow, who was an aide to Rep. John Anderson and Sen. Robert J. Dole, and whom Saylor hired in April 1998 to be his personal publicist, or, officially, his chief of staff. Bisnow’s mission was, in Saylor’s words, to “put me in front of the right people” — Binky Urban and Robert Rubin, among them. Bisnow ran Saylor’s public life as a permanent branding campaign, which seemed about perfect to Saylor.

“I’m a political leader,” Saylor declared to Washingtonian’s Harry Jaffe in early 2000. “I have a nation. I have constituents. I have investors.” Bisnow worked tirelessly on his behalf, calling anyone, anywhere, who might be worth Saylor’s seduction. Saylor eventually started calling Bisnow his “secretary of state.”

Others called him worse. Several MicroStrategy executives and board members complained — usually privately — that Bisnow had become an unchecked agent of Saylor’s ego. One Washington technology chief called Bisnow “Michael’s crack dealer,” feeding Saylor’s addiction to attention.

“If he ever had any impulse of restraint, Bisnow would push him back in the other direction,” said a longtime MicroStrategy executive who left the company in 2000. Profiles of Saylor included his soliloquies on his ideal wife and the detail that he had a butler, Brian. It was said that Saylor looked like Tom Cruise and dated Queen Noor, King Hussein’s widow (whom he says he has never met).

“I was delighted to help the world discover Mike Saylor,” recalled Bisnow, who left the company last year. The people who criticized Bisnow at MicroStrategy “complained all the way to the bank,” he said.

In late 1999 and early 2000, a recurring source of Saylor’s fascination — and, in turn, the media’s — was his plan to build a “Versailles” on 48 acres in Great Falls. He issued a 100-page request for proposals from architects and sent memos to his public relations staff that outlined some basic features he envisioned for his compound — rooftop conservatory, nine-hole golf course, Japanese gardens. He referred to the compound as “my 21st-century villa,” though Bisnow cautioned him that the term “villa” connoted the Italian leisure class, not the intellectual renaissance he was now leading.

“Mike let himself become this image that kept feeding on itself,” said his friend, America Online co-founder Jim Kimsey. “After a while it’s drinking your own bathwater. After a while it became hubris.”

‘Hey, Mike, You’re Rich’

Saylor had lived a sheltered life: He spent his teenage nights eating ice cream at Friendly’s and lifting weights in his garage with his best friends, Griffith and Tom Spahr, who would later join him at MicroStrategy. They played board games and dabbled in Dungeons and Dragons. “Mike was always the Dungeonmaster,” Spahr recalled, referring to the player who controls the game. “He liked to create and control situations.”

When Saylor arrived at MIT, he had never eaten Chinese food, owned just one suit (beige polyester) and sported a frizzy thin mustache. He confined his friendships mostly to his fraternity, Theta Delta Chi, and had few girlfriends in college or afterward. “Michael recently decided women are an incredible time sink,” Bansal told The Post in 1996.

Until recently, Saylor almost never drank. On the eve of his IPO, aboard a Gulfstream II, MicroStrategy Chief Financial Officer Mark Lynch offered Saylor a celebratory glass of Blue Ribbon Scotch from a $160 bottle. Saylor declined, put the glass aside, took a few sips of champagne and devoured two pink Hostess Sno Balls.

After a day of meetings in New York in January 2000, Saylor and Bisnow went to the bar of the Four Seasons hotel only to find a 45-minute wait for a seat. They turned to leave when Bisnow said, “Hey, Mike, you’re rich, why don’t we do what they do in the movies, hand the maitre d’ a big tip and see what happens?” Bisnow handed the guy a $20 bill and the men were seated.

Around that time, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and his wife, Teresa Heinz, invited Saylor to a private dinner at their Georgetown home. Saylor was flattered that a U.S. senator would care to hear his grand ideas, and when Bisnow mentioned that Kerry might also care about his bank account, he seemed surprised. After the dinner, Saylor was asked by a Kerry aide to host a fundraiser, which he did, despite tending toward conservative views and being a lifelong admirer of George Will.

Saylor was always impressed by wealth, not so much for what the money could buy — although that was enviable too — but for the power, credibility and status that came with it. “When you’re worth a certain amount, you get the attention of everyone in the room,” Saylor said in 1998. In preparing for MicroStrategy’s IPO that year, Saylor offered to sell “friends and family” stock — coveted shares that are usually reserved for company insiders — to a special class of people he dubbed “influencers.” These were the top executives at about 200 nationally known firms, carefully selected by Bisnow. About 5 percent of these “influencers” accepted the shares, according to a source familiar with their apportionment.

As Saylor’s celebrity and wealth grew, he gained entry into increasingly rarefied Washington circles. He attended several of President Bill Clinton’s functions, often arranged by Democratic fundraisers such as Beth Dozoretz. At one reception for Clinton at the Georgetown home of financier Jonathan Silver, the president called on him during a question-and-answer session and Saylor launched into an extended talk about how technology made it possible for every American to carry a panic button, a kind of wireless 911 device. With the proper resources, Saylor said, the government could “significantly cut rape and violent crime.” Clinton asked Saylor to send him a memo on the subject, but he never heard back from the White House.

The Wonder Boy of the Club

Most of Saylor’s powerful new friends came from the burgeoning club of Northern Virginia entrepreneurs said to be transforming Greater Washington from a plodding government enclave into a hotbed of new money and industry. The members included, among others, Joe Robert and James Kimsey, financiers Mark Warner and Russ Ramsey, and entrepreneurs Mario Morino and Jonathan Ledecky. Saylor sought out their companionship and advice at black-tie functions and private dinners. He recruited Ledecky to join the MicroStrategy board and, later, John Sidgmore, the vice chairman of WorldCom. Saylor spoke of the importance of being a good member of the community and of surrounding himself with mentors.

In return, Saylor was embraced as the oddball wonder boy of the local technology sector. “He was sort of adopted as a pet, a curiosity,” said one wealthy local entrepreneur, a friend of Saylor’s. In late 1999, Saylor joined Robert, Kimsey and others on a Caribbean cruise on a 165-foot boat belonging to Hollywood super-agent Mike Ovitz. One afternoon, after drinking tequila shots the night before, Saylor went scuba diving and became sick, vomiting his lunch and inciting a feeding frenzy by a swarm of tropical fish. A few weeks later, Kimsey bought Saylor a bottle of fish food for his birthday.

In time, Saylor became weary and suspicious of several of the local multimillionaires who had become his friends. The more successful he became, people at MicroStrategy recall, the more Saylor would speak of how much smarter and more creative he was than the other younger entrepreneurs he was often grouped with. He began to tune out many of the “mentors” he had cultivated, confiding to at least two friends that AOL co-founder Steve Case was the only person in the Washington tech community whom he considered a peer. (Saylor says that this might have characarized his views at various points in the late 1990s, but that he has since become more humble and less judgmental)

As MicroStrategy’s share price catapulted ever higher, Saylor became fixated by it, checking several times a day. He knew precisely where the stock had to go for him to be a billionaire, or 10-billionaire. Saylor looked to investors not just for money but for a kind of intellectual ratification. He believed in the stock market’s “qualitative ability” to anoint visionaries. “In the marketplace, Nasdaq is the god,” Saylor said.

On the days his stock fell, Saylor was more prone to piqueish fits of micro-management. One day in December 1999, Joe Payne, MicroStrategy’s vice president of marketing, was flying out of Dulles International Airport on a family vacation when he received a call from Saylor on his cell phone. “You’re causing corporate death,” Saylor said acidly and asked why a press release announcing a new partnership agreement had not been issued. Payne explained that the new partner was not ready to announce the agreement.

“Well,” Saylor said, “it’s causing corporate death. The stock is down today. And the reason the stock is down today is because we haven’t gotten that press release out.”

When the stock rose, Saylor was not good at the practiced indifference that CEOs are supposed to evince, especially in front of their employees. Instead, he would casually walk around the office talking about how many paper millions he’d just made as he ate lunch.

There was an honest ebullience about him that was at once crass and refreshing. On MicroStrategy’s annual staff cruise in January 2000, shares rose 19 percent in a single day, and all 1,600 employees were in the Cayman Islands! “We should go on cruises more often,” joked Saylor, who made nearly a billion dollars that day, the dot-com fantasy in a nutshell.

Except that Saylor despised the notion that MicroStrategy was comparable to some dot-com-lately, like he was some newly minted MBA starring in an online toy store. This, he felt, ignored his company’s 11-year track record, its profits, his huge vision. His was not an “Internet company,” he said, it was an “intelligence company.”

“In defense of those who were appealing to Michael’s egomania, he was several cuts above the dot-commers,” Bisnow said. “He had a very solid business software company. And he had these incredible gifts. He could have been someone very memorable, for reasons other than why he ultimately will be.”

Seizing a Halo

MicroStrategy could have continued as just a “very solid business software company.” But that would not have made Saylor memorable, much less historic. So it became clear to Saylor that for the recognition he felt he deserved, he had to be part of Wall Street’s love affair with the Internet. “We were second-class citizens here,” Saylor recalled of MicroStrategy’s status as a mere “software” company. “And time was running out. We needed to get into that halo box.”

This meant trumpeting how his company would thrive in the online world, how Internet and wireless networks could spread freshly mined information “everywhere.” He launched a subsidiary, Strategy.com, that delivered information not to businesses but directly to consumers: weather updates, traffic reports, sports scores via phone, Internet or wireless tools.

Of course it was just a start in the context of the larger dream Saylor was peddling: One day soon, he promised, people would have devices in their ears that would tell them how to avoid clogged highways or incompetent heart surgeons or dangerous neighborhoods. Such intelligence would circulate “everywhere,” cleansing waste, inefficiency and risk from our networked ecosystem. It sounded slightly nutty, but when Saylor was preaching, it could sound oddly imminent, too.

On Jan. 27, 2000, MicroStrategy announced that its revenue for 1999 would be $205.3 million, nearly double the previous year’s. Saylor announced the company’s 16th consecutive quarter of revenue growth and a profit of $3.8 million. The new numbers solidified his cachet as an Internet visionary who could actually make money. He was profiled on “60 Minutes,” in Time and Newsweek (headline: “Caesar and Edison and . . . Saylor?”), and the framed press clippings he hung in his basement began to trail up the staircase and into the first floor of his house.

Shares of MicroStrategy jumped from $225 to $246 on March 7. The price continued upward as Saylor, Mark Lynch and Nick Weir, the head of Strategy.com, began their roadshow in Europe. Investors in London, Geneva and Paris begged to buy the increasingly pricey shares. The stock closed that Thursday, March 9, at $283.

On Friday, Saylor, Lynch and Weir flew back to Washington, with plans to begin the U.S. leg of the roadshow on Monday. On the people mover at Dulles, they checked messages and learned that shares of MicroStrategy had jumped another 30 points. The stock closed that day at $313 after hitting $333 in the early afternoon. Saylor had made another $1.3 billion while he crossed the Atlantic. He was now worth $13.6 billion.

“Do you ever get the feeling things are going just a little bit too well?” Saylor said to Weir as Saylor stepped into his waiting limousine.

“Yes,” Weir said, “and it scares the hell out of me.”

Staff researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this report.

Next: Damage control.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

—-

At the Height of a Joy Ride, MicroStrategy Dives

By Mark Leibovich Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, January 7, 2002; Page A01

Second of four articles

Michael Saylor, the founder and CEO of the bull market sensation MicroStrategy Inc., was enjoying a sunny weekend at his home in Vienna. His paper fortune had just hit $13.6 billion, which was $4.5 billion more than it was the previous weekend and $6.2 billion more than it was the weekend before that.

But that Sunday, March 12, 2000, the company’s chief financial officer, Mark Lynch, received a call at home from Warren Martin, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, MicroStrategy’s financial auditors. Martin told Lynch that the firm’s national office was reviewing three large contracts that MicroStrategy had booked the previous fall. Could MicroStrategy possibly delay the $2 billion stock offering it had planned for later that month? Martin asked.

Impossible, Lynch replied. The company had already begun its roadshow, the tour that leads up to a stock offering in which top executives pitch their firms to big investors in several cities. Martin told Lynch he would get back to him.

Lynch explained the situation to Saylor the next day during a roadshow stop in Philadelphia. Saylor was unconcerned at first. He assumed that Pricewaterhouse’s past approval of MicroStrategy’s financial statements would insulate the company from having to revise its numbers. “Please make this go away,” Lynch told Saylor, and Saylor went back to what he loved most, delivering evangelical pitches for MicroStrategy.

In early 2000, investors were falling heavily for “Mike’s Come-to-Jesus speech,” as some MicroStrategists called it. And they were not the only ones hearing his ever more sweeping declarations. “I think my software is going to become so ubiquitous, so essential, that if it stops working, there will be riots,” Saylor told the New Yorker’s Larissa McFarquar in an article that appeared that March. “I mean that literally. I mean that people will die this year because they didn’t buy my software.”

Friends and aides warned Saylor to tone down the rhetoric, telling him he risked sounding offensive or ridiculous. His staff and MicroStrategy’s board members reminded him to stay focused on business “fundamentals” — operations, finance, customer service. But Wall Street was the oracle that Saylor heeded the most, and he relied heavily on Lynch to please it.

Lynch, then 37, was affable, soft-spoken and well liked at MicroStrategy. With a sheepish, Woody Harrelson-like disposition, he was viewed as a sort of everyman ambassador to the volatile Saylor. He was one of the few people in the chief executive’s inner circle who did not talk like a whiz kid or boast an MIT or Ivy League pedigree. Lynch, who attended Penn State University, worked hard, avoided confrontation and was one of the few outside executives who succeeded at MicroStrategy, largely, in the words of one insider, “by being a good soldier.”

Lynch was also gifted at “managing Mike.” This meant he could steel himself from Saylor’s outbursts and also keep the chief executive happy while he performed his increasingly difficult job. What was clear to anyone inside MicroStrategy was that Lynch was under enormous stress. As the company revised its business model to suit the online mania of the late 1990s, Lynch and his small financial team faced tricky accounting challenges. They were no longer a simple “business intelligence” company that made its money by licensing software to firms that helped them mine their corporate databases for useful information.

Now MicroStrategy’s expanded business was more complex. It included Strategy.com, Saylor’s fixation, which delivered information such as weather updates and sports scores directly to consumers by phone, computer and wireless tools. The subsidiary made deals with companies such as Ameritrade, the online brokerage that used MicroStrategy’s software to relay stock quotes to its customers. MicroStrategy could no longer account for every deal as a straight-forward, one-time transaction. Once-simple questions about how and when to account for sales were opened up to interpretation.

Quietly, and over several months, people within MicroStrategy had raised questions about the company’s accounting methods. Some midlevel officials who came to work at the company from larger software firms such as Oracle or Sybase were amazed at how much revenue MicroStrategy was able to book up-front. While a deal might span for several years, MicroStrategy would often take credit for a large proportion of the money at the start.

Likewise , the audit committee of MicroStrategy’s board of directors — Ralph Terkowitz, a vice president of technology at The Washington Post Co., and Frank Ingari, chief executive of Wheelhouse Corp. — had repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of Pricewaterhouse’s reviews of its books. Terkowitz and Ingari met regularly with Lynch and Warren Martin. Terkowitz and Ingari told Martin that Pricewaterhouse’s quarterly audits seemed sparse and undetailed, board sources said, especially given the mounting revenue that MicroStrategy was recording.

Each time they complained, Martin reassured Terkowitz and Ingari that the accounting was “accurate and conservative.”

Saylor said later he was never made aware of the audit committee’s concerns about Pricewaterhouse’s work. But suspicions about MicroStrategy’s accounting had also entered the public domain. In November 1999, the Center for Financial Research and Analysis, a Rockville firm that studies corporate financial statements, issued a report that expressed “concern about the quality of MicroStrategy’s September quarter revenue and earnings” as well as “the timing of revenue and income recognized in the September quarter.” Then, a brief article by David Raymond in the March 6, 2000, Forbes magazine cast suspicions about three deals that MicroStrategy had recorded in the third and fourth quarters of 1999.

None of this particularly troubled Saylor. Warren Martin had approved everything, after all. Nor did the skeptics seem to bother Wall Street — indeed, MicroStrategy’s stock price jumped $21 on the issue date of the Forbes piece. And Saylor was feeling emboldened. “I feel that if I don’t succeed,” he was quoted saying in the New Yorker, “it’s an abomination in the eyes of God.”

An Urgent Message

Continuing the roadshow, Saylor and Lynch arrived at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Houston late Monday night, March 13. Lynch had a message waiting from Martin when he checked in: Call him back at 10:30, East Coast time, the message said. He would be his office.

Worried by the urgency of the message, Saylor and Lynch called Martin together from Saylor’s suite. Martin put John Dirks, the head of Pricewaterhouse’s national technology practice, on the phone. Dirks, whom Saylor had never met, said he had reviewed some contracts booked in the previous quarter and concluded that the original accounting had been done incorrectly. Saylor’s face became red.

“We believe it would be appropriate for us to retract the previously audited financial statement of December 1999,” Dirks said, according to a source familiar with that conversation. He suggested that MicroStrategy issue a press release announcing it would be restating its revenue figures from the previous quarter.

Dirks focused on a large deal that MicroStrategy had struck the previous fall with NCR Corp, a computer equipment and services firm. MicroStrategy sold $27.5 million worth of software and services to NCR for NCR to “resell” to its own customers. As part of the transaction, MicroStrategy agreed to pay $25 million in stock and cash to NCR for one of its business units and a data warehousing system. Some stock analysts saw the deal as a virtual revenue wash, but MicroStrategy still issued a press release on Oct. 4, 1999, hailing its “52.5 million agreement with NCR.” MicroStrategy recorded $17.5 million in sales from the NCR deal in the quarter that ended that Sept. 30. NRC accounted for the deal in the following quarter.

Without that $17.5 million, MicroStrategy’s revenue for the third quarter would have dropped nearly 20 percent from the previous quarter, instead of growing by 20 percent. It would have reported a loss of 14 cents a share instead of a profit of 9 cents. And it would have fallen well below Wall Street’s expectations, making it unlikely its stock price would have risen as much as it did the following month, when Saylor and a group of company insiders sold shares at a collective value of $82 million.

The firm’s accountants had approved MicroStrategy’s financial statements until as late as Jan. 26, 2000. They were acting now, they privately told MicroStrategy officials, in response to the Forbes article, which had examined the NCR deal in detail. Citing an ongoing client relationship with MicroStrategy, Pricewaterhouse refused to respond to several written questions for these articles. Dirks and Martin also declined to comment through Pricewaterhouse spokesman Steven Silber.

“Wait,” Saylor said to Dirks and Martin, his voice cracking, “you guys signed off on this.” If MicroStrategy issued a press release, he said, “there will be a collapse of confidence and trust in our company that will cause great collateral damage.”

Everyone agreed to talk again the next morning. Lynch bought cigarettes, and neither he nor Saylor slept that night.

At midnight Washington time, Saylor and Lynch called the Arlington home of MicroStrategy’s chief counsel, Jonathan Klein. This set off a flurry of sleep-jangling calls between Klein, other MicroStrategy attorneys, executives and members of the company’s board of directors.

On the Road Again

Late on Tuesday, Lynch returned to Washington to join a group of MicroStrategy accountants, lawyers and board members who were meeting with Pricewaterhouse. Saylor continued his roadshow, except for a trip back to Washington where he announced that he would spend $100 million of his own money to start a free online university, a plan that was previewed on the front page of The Washington Post.

Back on the road, Saylor would call Klein in Washington after every pitch for updates. The meetings centered on small computations, arcane rules and subjective analyses, but Saylor told his executives they were really about something else: “Whether we live, or whether everything will end.”

Lynch slept a total of eight hours over those five days. The numbers they discussed fluctuated widely.

On Sunday, March 19, at 4 p.m., MicroStrategy’s board of directors, made up of many of the prominent local businessmen Saylor had cultivated during his rise, convened around a large table in a 14th-floor conference room of the company’s Tysons Corner offices. In addition to Saylor, Terkowitz and Ingari, the board included Worldcom Corp. Vice Chairman John Sidgmore, who had joined the board a week before, entrepreneur Jonathan Ledecky; and MicroStrategy co-founder Sanju Bansal. The board voted to issue an accounting restatement the next day.

At the end of the day, they were joined by top company executives, lawyers and a crisis public relations team that was brought in from New York. “It will be a PR victory for us if our stock doesn’t drop 100 points tomorrow,” Ledecky said.

But Saylor grew more frustrated by what he was hearing. He became especially agitated with Ralph Ferrara, a securities law expert from the Washington office of Debevoise & Plimpton who spoke to the board about the accounting problems. As Ferrara was making a point about the possible ramifications of the restatement, Saylor cut him off, according to two sources who were in the room. Saylor told Ferrara that none of the information he was providing was new to him.

“If you know all this,” Ferrara snapped back, “then you’ve ruined your company.”

Stunned, Saylor remained silent for several minutes while Ferrara continued, sources recalled. Saylor, who does not remember this specific exchange, said he never acted in any way that would have “ruined the company,” and if Ferrara had accused him of it, he would have responded immediately.

After Ferrara continued for a few minutes, the sources said, Saylor began banging his palm on the table in boredom. He said Ferrara was lingering on unimportant detail and he told him to move on to the next item. “Michael, my D and O [directors and officers] insurance only covers me up to $15 million,” Ledecky said, glaring at Saylor. “After that, they come after my own assets. So I want to hear this.” Saylor’s eyes bulged, he went silent again and Ferrara continued.

Saylor recalls the tension in that meeting to be a result of “our company heading into a horrifically difficult period.” Up until six days before, he added, “everyone told me I was doing a perfect job.”

As midnight approached on March 19, Saylor called his family to inform them of the announcement to come. He spoke longest to his mother, Phyllis Saylor, the dominant figure in Michael’s life. She doted on her son, and friends said Saylor often credited her with instilling a belief that he could “do great and enormous things.”

“There’s gonna be a lot of bad publicity,” Saylor explained to his mother, who had recently accompanied her son to the White House millennium party. “People will write bad things about me.”

“I loved you when you were a paper boy and a $30,000-a-year engineer,” Phyllis Saylor reassured her son. “And I’ll love you just as much tomorrow.”

Hate Mail

The angry messages started as soon as Glenda Thomas, Michael Saylor’s executive assistant, arrived at work the next morning, March 20. Hate mail, electronic and hand-delivered. “I hope you burn in hell” phone calls. Profane threats against her boss that brought tears to Thomas’s eyes.

MicroStrategy had issued a press release at 8:06 a.m. announcing its restatement. Instead of claiming a 1999 profit of $12.6 million, as it had previously announced, the company now said it would show a loss of about $34 million to $40.3 million. Revenue for that year, previously reported at $205.3 million, would be reduced to “between approximately $150 million and $155 million.” The company also reduced its 1998 revenues from $106.4 million to “between approximately $95.9 million and $100.9 million.”

Saylor held a conference call with stock analysts just after 9 a.m. Six employees crowded into the office of Sid Banerjee, MicroStrategy’s vice president for worldwide services to listen on a speaker phone. Banerjee charted MicroStrategy’s share price on Yahoo’s financial Web site. Every few minutes, while Saylor spoke, Banerjee pressed the “refresh” button on his browser; and every few minutes, Banerjee would see that the stock had dropped by another double-digit dollar amount.

Saylor remembers little about the day. He did interviews, about 20, his face filling office televisions next to a diving graph line of his company’s share price. By the time the markets closed, MicroStrategy’s shares had lost 62 percent of their value — dropping from $226.75 to $86.75. The public stock offering was postponed, so was a planned share split. Five class action lawsuits were filed. Shareholders lost a collective $11.1 billion.

At 4:01 p.m., Saylor received a digital page from a Strategy.com stock service: “Hello, Michael,” it said. “Your portfolio is down $6.1 billion.”

Gallows Humor

Saylor figured the trouble would blow over quickly. Privately, friends said, he was both angry, mostly at PricewaterhouseCoopers, and quick to play down the company’s culpability for the restatement. He resisted the gallows humor that swept the company’s hallways and e-mail network. When an employee showed him the front page of the March 21 New York Daily News, a close-up of Saylor’s with the headline “LOST $6B IN A DAY,” Saylor did not smile.

One Sunday a few weeks later, Saylor called about 30 of his top executives to a meeting in a basement conference room at the McLean Hilton. He said he was determined to keep growing, keep hiring people and keep pumping resources into Strategy.com, an increasingly unpopular service within the top ranks of the company given how expensive it was to run.

There was growing sentiment to refocus on MicroStrategy’s core business of “business intelligence software,” which was bringing in most of the revenue. For months, a few executives had been referring to Strategy.com as “Mike’s pet,” while others simply called it his “dog.” But Saylor clung to Strategy.com, symbol of big possibilities and key to Wall Street’s bestowing him the dot-com halo he so coveted.

Saylor’s overriding message at the Hilton was that the restatement was trivial and that everything would settle back to normal. But many “constituencies” were not cooperating, especially the media, where Saylor’s pumped-up image was suffering a harsh deflating. He began devoting more time to managing public relations. He spoke of the press in increasingly Nixonian terms. “Our enemies SHOULD NOT own our news ticker,” he wrote in a May 18, 2000, e-mail to several members of his marketing and public relations staff. “I need you guys to fix this. Issue one press release per hour if you must.”

“When we let negative press releases pile up on that ticker,” he wrote in another e-mail that day, “we are allowing those who would see us fail clogg [sic] our arteries and attach weights to our limbs.”

But it was becoming clear to Saylor that the unpleasantness would not be short-term. Lawyers were everywhere. There were class action attorneys, smelling fresh kill, as they often do when companies suffer huge stock losses after a tacit admission of past errors (in this case, MicroStrategy’s restatement). Lawyers for the Securities and Exchange Commission began to snoop.

MicroStrategy retained an A-list cast of Washington lawyers to defend it, among them Ferrara and Brendan Sullivan of Williams & Connolly. Saylor was represented personally by Harvey Pitt of Fried, Frank Shriver and Jacobson — and, according to a filing with the SEC, Saylor’s personal legal representation cost the company $1 million in 2000.

Bansal was represented by Neil Eggleston, formerly of the Clinton White House, and Lynch by Bruce Baird of Covington& Burling. Robert Fiske, the former Whitewater prosecutor, represented the outside board of directors. There were scores of other private lawyers to go with MicroStrategy’s own in-house lawyers. The free-wheeling cult of MicroStrategy had lawyered up.

Everyone seemed suspicious, choosing words carefully with old friends. Press releases were vetted, sometimes for days. If information was flowing at all, it was behind doors. Board meetings, several of which occurred in the days before and after March 20, became more heated. This was a change from prior meetings, which Saylor tended to dominate. Saylor was bluntly urged to bring in more experienced help.

There was concern that certain executives, particularly Lynch, were in way above their depth and experience, especially given the company’s mounting financial troubles. Several members of MicroStrategy’s board and legal team were pushing Saylor to fire Lynch immediately. But Saylor resisted, believing that the board just wanted to do something to make itself look tough.

There were practical reasons for Saylor to keep Lynch. One was that to hire a new chief financial officer and educate him about MicroStrategy’s finances would take months, but MicroStrategy had just a few weeks.

By April 13, it was due to file with the SEC its “10-K” financial form, which would include extensive details about its restatement. If the company failed to file it, Nasdaq could “de-list” the company, or no longer include it on its exchange. Lynch, who told Saylor he would do whatever he wanted him to do — including resign — worked 80-hour weeks from mid-March to mid-May. He resumed smoking and lost 10 pounds.

In a board meeting that Spring, Saylor asked the board if they had “lost confidence” in his ability to lead the company, sources close to the board said. No, was their answer, but they had reservations, concerns that only mounted through the summer.

But ultimately, any move to remove Saylor would have been moot because the chief executive held more than 75 percent of the voting power on important company decisions. Board members were essentially advisers, powerless to make him do anything he didn’t want to do. This contrasted with another “constituency” that Saylor feared could “torch the whole thing:” the SEC.

Staff researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this report.

Next: Facing the SEC

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

—–

Once Defiant, MicroStrategy Chief Contritely Faces SEC

By Mark Leibovich Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 8, 2002; Page A01

Shortly after March 20, 2000, the worst day of Michael Saylor’s life, one of his blue-chip Washington lawyers, Brendan Sullivan, promised him that everything was about to get worse.

This was just after MicroStrategy Inc., the company Saylor led, had been forced to issue a “restatement” of its recent financial records, effectively turning two years of profits into two years of losses; it was after the company’s stock price fell from $226.75 to $86.75 a share in a single day of trading.

“This is going to be like getting on a raft at the top of the Grand Canyon,” Saylor recalled Sullivan telling him. “You’re going to go all the way to the bottom and you’re going to hit rapids every step of the way. And you just gotta hold on.”

Still, Saylor was defiant, even after MicroStrategy’s shareholders lost a collective $11.1 billion in a single day. “Mother Teresa never quit during a down quarter,” he told Reuters on March 20, “and what we’re doing is just as important.” He maintained that MicroStrategy’s mistakes had been negligible. He told friends that his company had been the victim of “bean-counter sophistry” from its auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and from the “jackals” in the press.

But there was something Saylor feared ­ the Securities and Exchange Commission. Its chairman, Arthur Levitt Jr., had placed a high priority on scrutinizing corporate accounting standards, especially for the fast-growing technology firms. To have an SEC investigation pending for months, or years, can kill a young firm, especially a cash guzzler such as MicroStrategy, which needed to raise money in the aftermath of its aborted $2 billion stock offering. The SEC, Saylor would say in his preferred “Star Trek” parlance, could “vaporize us.”

On April 13, MicroStrategy announced that the commission had begun an investigation into its accounting practices. The same day MicroStrategy also disclosed that it had overstated revenue for the previous three years, not just two.

Nearly all SEC investigations end in a settlement. But just the idea of it ran counter to Saylor’s natural impulse to fight. His attorneys warned that fighting was a bad idea if he wanted the keep control of his company; MicroStrategy’s fate and that of its founder, they said, would depend largely on Saylor’s ability to abide compromise and show contrition. Whether that was possible was not yet clear.

The SEC had a team of five lawyers and two accountants working on the MicroStrategy case. It was led by Gregory S. Bruch, a Stanford-trained investigator, who is described by a former colleague as an “aggressive do-gooder” determined to “teach lessons in the interests of public good.”

Bruch (pronounced “Brew”), a former Eagle Scout from Independence, Mo., often expressed bemusement at the arrogance of the new-technology zillionaires of the period. During the MicroStrategy investigation, Bruch read many of Saylor’s internal e-mails and was amazed at some of the things that seemed to preoccupy the entrepreneur: finding the right person, for example, to compile his speeches and ideas and write a history of the company.

Explanation Questioned

After the restatement, Saylor’s explanations of MicroStrategy’s accounting problems began to sound increasingly dubious to many of his own executives. In the first weeks after March 20, executives recall, Saylor had relied on a simple, two-pronged excuse: “Software accounting is complicated” and “The auditors were signing off.” But many people within MicroStrategy were beginning to think the company was wrong, at least on the timing issue ­ the easy-to-discern notion that company officials had counted certain deals in quarters that they knew had ended when the deals were signed.

Saylor himself was on record as saying he knew the practice was wrong.

“There’s a difference between 11:59 and 12:01, the last day of March,” Saylor said in a Washington Post interview in June 1999. “One of them is you go to jail if the thing gets signed at 12:01 [and you record it the day before]. One of them is the stock is up $500 million and the other one is you’ve just torched the life and livelihood of a thousand families.”

It had become apparent, largely through statements from some MicroStrategy customers in the press, that the company had made a practice of “turning the clock back” at the end of certain quarters. Or it was operating by a flawed clock. Either way, not everything could be blamed on PricewaterhouseCoopers.

While his attorneys, particularly Jonathan Klein, the company’s general counsel, told Saylor to stop talking to the press, Mark Bisnow, the Washington political veteran who became Saylor’s personal publicist, told Saylor that candid apologies would be his best strategy and the quickest route to rehabilitation.

Bisnow cited the example of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was then challenging George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination. After McCain was tainted in the Keating Five scandal of the early 1990s, he transformed himself into what Bisnow called “the gold standard of integrity.” McCain achieved this by repeatedly admitting his mistakes, Bisnow said.

“Everyone knows you’re brilliant, but the one thing everyone comments on is your need for humility,” Bisnow wrote in an e-mail to Saylor in April 2000. “A lot of people, especially in the high tech industry, know that accounting issues are complicated. . . . Now is the time to show that this is a time of great education for you, that you are prepared to emerge a new person from this experience.”

Saylor enjoyed the McCain parallel, Bisnow said. But Bisnow became frustrated that Saylor ignored the part about admitting wrongdoing. Saylor himself said he never felt the comparison was fully “appropriate” to his own situation.

Saylor saw himself as an outsider snared by the Washington culture. “I come from a naive, sort of a lower-middle-class family,” he said later. “I didn’t understand the media. I didn’t understand politics. If I were a Kennedy, I would get it.” He told one associate that “Janet Reno would not rest” until she indicted him.

Before appearing at a shareholder meeting that June, Saylor became furious at a speech that had been prepared for him by MicroStrategy’s vice president of marketing, Joe Payne. The speech had a penitent tone and included an apology to shareholders.

“I’m not saying this,” Saylor said to Payne, shaking his head. “It makes it look like I did something wrong.”

But Saylor read the speech verbatim, in a flat monotone like a hostage forced to speak on TV. Shares of MicroStrategy jumped $3.88 that day, closing at $42.44.

Running Out of Cash

Meanwhile, his company was running out of cash. Within a few weeks of MicroStrategy’s restatement, the company fell out of compliance with the conditions of a credit line it held with Bank of America. This forced Saylor to personally guarantee the terms of the company’s lending, an unusual move by a chief executive, and also a sign of Bank of America’s unease with MicroStrategy’s financial status. The previous fall, Saylor had liquidated $42 million of his stock assets ­ his only personal stock sale to that point. The sale provided a thin cushion for MicroStrategy, which needed $6 million just to meet its payroll every two weeks, according to a company source.

Saylor, despite his enormous stock holdings, was vulnerable to personal bankruptcy unless the company could raise money fast ­ and ongoing SEC investigations are no selling point.

In June, MicroStrategy sold about 4 percent of its outstanding shares and accepted a $125 million investment from a group led by Promethean Asset Management LLC of Chicago. But the Promethean investment hurt MicroStrategy in the long-term because of a provision that allowed Promethean to gain more shares if the company’s stock price dropped after the purchase date ­ which it steadily did. In investment circles, such provisions have been called “death spirals” because a firm’s stock price often falls after taking on such financing, and as the price drops, the company has to issue more stock. MicroStrategy was eventually forced to renegotiate the deal.

But in June 2000 the Promethean deal provided MicroStrategy with a temporary life jacket. Saylor, however, was increasingly scared for his job.

Bruch was convinced that MicroStrategy’s top executives should be held responsible for the accounting problems that led to the restatement of results. “This was not a case of incompetence,” Bruch said in an interview, referring to Saylor, MicroStrategy co-founder Sanju Bansal and Chief Financial Officer Mark Lynch. “These were not bumblers. They’re smart guys. If there were errors made, you expect there to be a random distribution of errors. It wasn’t.” Rather, he said, there were consistent “errors” made in the company’s favor.

Beltway securities lawyers tend to be an incestuous group, often moving freely between the SEC and private practice. A prime example is Harvey L. Pitt. Pitt represented Saylor before the SEC and is now its chairman. Ralph Ferrara, a securities law expert who represented the firm and had shared an office with Pitt at the SEC in the 1970s, also interviewed with the White House for the job, according to sources familiar with those discussions.

Unlike many dealings between competing legal interests, SEC and private lawyers are often cooperative. A company’s legal team will conduct an investigation of the firm it is representing, then present its findings to the SEC. A lawyer’s credibility with the SEC is vital, especially because the attorney could be working with the agency, or for the agency, again.

Between April and June of 2000, Bruch and Ferrara oversaw parallel investigations of the company. They scrutinized several years of MicroStrategy documents ­ filings, contract drafts, memos and, most compellingly, e-mails. The most incriminating were from Lynch, who would use terms like “scorching the earth,” often in response to pressure from Saylor to achieve “maximum results,” said an SEC source who had viewed the e-mails.

In June, Ferrara and his partner John Tuttle met with Bruch to discuss their mutual findings. In the following weeks, the parties held a series of discussions about settling the case. Ferrara argued ­ and Bruch became convinced ­ that barring Saylor and Bansal from the company would probably kill it and would only hurt shareholders more. Still, Bruch was prepared for a long fight, even though it was far from certain that he could win a case against the three executives if it went to trial. PricewaterhouseCoopers’ role would be a “litigation risk,” he said in an interview, meaning that a jury would be likely to view the accounting firm’s advice as a mitigating factor in assessing MicroStrategy’s guilt.

As he negotiated with Ferrara, Bruch asked variations on the same question: “How do I get comfortable leaving these guys in here?” A recurring point of contention involved a single word: “fraud.”

SEC officials believed this was a case of fraud, while Ferrara argued against including the word in the SEC’s complaint. Bruch used a favorite term whenever Ferrara threatened to refuse a settlement that included a fraud charge. “If you do that, then we’ll unleash the hounds,” Bruch would say, meaning that the SEC would expand the scope and tone of the investigation, and that could take years.

As it turned out, Ferrara was able to avoid a charge of fraud against the company ­ but not Saylor, Bansal and Lynch as individuals. This was an important point for Ferrara. If the company had been cited for fraud, it would have become even more difficult for MicroStrategy to raise money. The company also agreed to add an experienced outsider to the audit committee of its board of directors ­ something it had said it would do before, but never had.

But before he agreed to anything, Bruch needed Saylor, Bansal and Lynch to answer detailed questions about how the accounting fiasco happened. They needed to explain the fine print of some of their contracts, what they meant by certain colorfully worded e-mails. “I need to be convinced that these guys “get it,” Bruch told Ferrara.

Saylor, Bansal and Lunch each had his own counsel, his own concerns and his own grievances: Bansal felt unfairly targeted, given that his main charge at the company was to bring in deals, not record and account for them. Lynch said he felt squeezed between Saylor’s ambitious revenue demands and PricewaterhouseCoopers’ willingness to approve the company’s numbers.

Saylor complained in various private forums about Lynch, saying things like “My CFO didn’t do his job,” or that Lynch was “too aggressive.” But he was also worried that Bansal and Lynch could quit, breaking up their circle and opening up the possibility of lawsuits between them that could further damage the company.

Bruch insisted that Saylor, Bansal and Lynch had to sign on to the final settlement together. Lynch was the most conflicted, but in the end all three agreed. The contours of a deal were set that would allow Saylor to keep control of his company, but with a big qualifier: He would have to explain to the SEC that he understood his company’s mistakes and how they had happened.

On the night before his appearance before the SEC in November 2000, Saylor went home early, around 8 p.m. He called his mother. He tried to soothe himself, sat down at his piano and played Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata.

Questioned at SEC

The next day, Pitt told lawyer jokes as he and Saylor rode in a Lincoln Town Car to the SEC. Saylor kept taking deep breaths and worried about his ability to remain disciplined and contrite over several hours. In the commission’s basement hearing room, Pitt sat on Saylor’s left, Ferrara on his right.

Pitt, undeterred by a “No Eating” sign, spread out a smorgasbord of Diet Cokes, bottled water, fruit, sandwiches, chips and a five-pound tin of deluxe nuts, which he offered to everyone in the room.

Across from them were the seven SEC officials who had worked on his case. Bruch sat in the middle, flanked by Laura Josephs, a seasoned investigator, and Jay Balacek, a former Harlem beat cop. Josephs, sick with pneumonia, asked general questions to start, then drilled down to the fine points of contracts and internal e-mails. Her questions came in a methodical flurry, interrupted by a hacking cough.

The interview began at 9:30 a.m. and ended at 6:30 p.m. with a 45-minute break for lunch. Sources on both sides said Saylor was deferential and earnest, admitting he had not put the “financial infrastructure” in place to manage a company growing as fast as MicroStrategy. One person in the room described him that day as “almost elfin.”

Saylor recapped the story of MicroStrategy, how he always wanted it to be a force for a better civilization and how he was sorry for all the pain he had caused his shareholders. Again and again he apologized, saying that as CEO, he bore responsibility for everything that happened. He asked to be allowed to learn from his mistakes.

As he finished speaking, Saylor’s voice cracked and his eyes welled with tears.

Saylor Keeps Job

It could have been an act ­ SEC officials were fully open to that possibility. Saylor seemed so well-prepped by his lawyers, “like a guy who needed to be trained in how to talk to people as equals,” said an SEC source who was in the room. But Saylor had demonstrated the requisite contrition. He gave good answers on small points, didn’t stonewall or argue. He could keep his job.

Still, the SEC’s findings, issued in mid-December, provided a detailed account of how Saylor, Bansal and Lynch were complicit in manipulating MicroStrategy’s financial reports. “Each knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that MicroStrategy’s financial statements were materially misleading.” At the end of each quarter, the SEC said, “Saylor, Bansal and Lynch discussed, within a range, the financial results they would like to report in the just-ended quarter and whether to forestall recognizing some revenue.

“To maintain maximum flexibility to achieve the desired quarterly financial results, MicroStrategy held, until after the close of the quarter, contracts that had been signed by customers but had not yet been signed by Saylor, Bansal and Lynch. Only after Saylor, Bansal and Lynch discussed the desired financial results were the unsigned contracts apportioned, between the just-ended quarter and the then-current quarter, and signed by either Bansal and Lynch and given an ‘effective date.’ In some instances, Bansal and Lynch signed contracts without affixing a date, allowing the company further flexibility to assign a date at a later time.”

In other instances, the SEC said, Saylor, Bansal and Lynch knowingly booked revenue from deals before the contracts were signed.

Saylor, Bansal and Lynch agreed to pay fines of $350,000 to settle the SEC’s charges of civil accounting fraud ­ the largest fines that the SEC had ever levied in a case that did not involve insider trading.

The executives also agreed to “disgorge” a combined $10 million of what the SEC labeled “ill-gotten gains” on stock sales ­ $8.3 million by Saylor, $1.6 million by Bansal and $138,000 by Lynch. Lynch, who had already resigned as chief financial officer to become vice president of business affairs, was barred from practicing accounting before the SEC for at least three years.

In agreeing to pay the fines, Saylor, Bansal and Lynch did not admit or deny wrongdoing. Saylor, Lynch and Bansal all declined comment on their SEC settlement.

On the day the settlement was announced, MicroStrategy’s stock closed at $15.38.

Next: Aftermath.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

—–

‘Maybe an Older, Wiser Visionary’ Chastened Wonder Boy Back to Business Roots

By Mark Leibovich Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 9, 2002; Page A01

Last of four articles

In the summer of 2000, Michael Saylor began coming to work late and leaving early. He spent most weekends in the Hamptons. This is not unusual for CEOs in summer, but it was uncharacteristic of Saylor, who rarely went a full weekend without seeing his office at MicroStrategy Inc. and had not taken a vacation since a 1997 trip to London with his mother.

Saylor seemed depressed and withdrawn around the office, repeating platitudes — “We’re working hard, we’ve got a great team” — to people he had known for years. He was “totally checked out,” one executive said, although given Saylor’s fixation with MicroStrategy’s “personal intelligence network,” Strategy.com, they had become accustomed to operating without Saylor’s engagement in the company’s main business, data-mining software.

While Saylor seemed increasingly isolated at work, friends said, he didn’t like being alone. He always took a small entourage with him when he went to Long Island, filling a time-share Hawker jet with new friends such as venture capitalist Mark Ein, real estate developer John Mason and the occasional MicroStrategy pal like Paul Williams.

Despite MicroStrategy’s travails, the summer of 2000 was part of Saylor’s ongoing introduction to the moneyed culture. Williams remembers one of the first weekends they spent in the Hamptons. They were visiting friends, walking up a stone driveway to a huge house while a huge American flag waved in a sea breeze over parked Porsches and Mercedes-Benzes. “How did we get here?” Saylor said to Williams. “Do we really belong here?”

As the summer wore on, Saylor became more comfortable in that setting, but something changed. He began to drink, according to friends, who had always known him as a teetotaler. Alcohol had carried a strong stigma in the Saylor home when he was growing up. His maternal grandfather was an alcoholic.

Saylor said that his drinking should be viewed in the context of his broader personal evolution. “By the summer of 2000, I began taking a more normal view of what a social life should be,” he said.

But what was striking to those who knew him was how drinking exaggerated his already outsized personality. Friends said he could be a sloppy, space-taking drunk who nuzzled up too close to people, putting his arm around them whether he knew them well or not.

After attending a party at the home of rapper Sean “Puffy” Combs, in which all the guests were required to wear white, he threw a bash at his home celebrating his own favorite color — “the black party.” He frequented Cities in Adams Morgan and Cafe Milano in Georgetown. At least two MicroStrategy officials received calls from people who were concerned that they had seen Saylor drunk in public, or at least carrying on loudly, and they were worried about how it might look, given the company’s very public struggles.

Back in the late 1990s, Saylor would tell his new employees that if they were up to his mission, they could “bend reality through sheer force of will.” But as the Nasdaq continued its crash through the end of 2000, and the U.S. economy followed in 2001, reality had become harshly formidable. Longtime employees were leaving MicroStrategy; morale was tumbling, and so was the stock. By the beginning of 2001, shares of MicroStrategy had sunk into single digits. That April, MicroStrategy said it was scaling back plans for Strategy.com, the subsidiary that Saylor had once considered the cornerstone of its effort to deliver “information everywhere.”

Unlike many Internet highfliers, MicroStrategy had an established business to fall back on when the bubble popped: The company refocused on data-mining software, tools that cull information from databases so businesses can analyze customer habits and trends.

“I sell carburetors” is how Saylor now describes his work, underscoring the utilitarian dullness of his core product. “If you ask me about my life, I’m going to say this week I worked on Carburetor Version 3. Next year, I’ll say carburetor Version 4. It’s all about carburetors.”

MicroStrategy’s annual shareholder meeting last July seemed about three eras removed from the momentous gatherings Saylor hosted the year before, such as the massive Super Bowl party MicroStrategy held at FedEx Field. About 60 shareholders showed up at the Dulles Marriott, slumped on green felt-covered seats in Salons B and C, just off the lobby, next to a training session for employees of Gates Rubber Co. in Salon D.

“We went into the jungle, and the jungle was a pretty ugly place,” Saylor told the shareholders. He took questions — four questions that took 40 minutes to answer. When he finished and thanked everyone for coming and for their continued support, there was no applause.

A ‘Wake-Up Call’

Saylor’s relations with his board of directors had been deteriorating for several months, culminating last summer, when MicroStrategy’s shares dipped below $4. In one-on-one and group meetings with Saylor, the board — which included well-known local business figures such as WorldCom Inc. Vice Chairman John Sidgmore and entrepreneur Jonathan Ledecky — had criticized Saylor for, among other things, clinging to Strategy.com until it had burned too much money, for refusing to cut staff and for his apparent disengagement from the company.

The July 14 shareholder meeting was a pivotal day. Several people who attended that meeting — including members of the board — found Saylor’s performance to be lackluster, unfocused and uninspired. He was a very different CEO from the wonder boy who had dazzled so many roomfuls on his way up.

In a heated meeting that followed, the board confronted Saylor about his slipping performance. He was defensive, according to a source close to the board, but he took a clear message from the discussion: The board wanted him to step down as chief executive. He could stay on as chairman, but MicroStrategy needed someone new to lead it day-to-day. Several seasoned candidates were interviewed.

But Saylor refused to relinquish his CEO job to any of them, and there was nothing the board could do about it. Saylor had designed MicroStrategy’s ownership structure so that he held complete control of all company decisions. Not only did he own a large majority of the company’s shares, but he also insisted that there be two “tiers” of shareholders: Class B shareholders (himself and a small group of company insiders, who received 10 votes on important company decisions for every one share owned) and Class A shareholders (everyone else, who received one vote per share).

The board could have voted to fire Saylor anyway. And Saylor could have then fired his board and brought in a new group. That was viewed as an endgame scenario by everyone, given the signal it would have sent to Wall Street — at least the part of Wall Street that still paid attention to MicroStrategy. Firing Saylor was never put to a formal vote. One member described the dispute with Saylor and his board as a “Mexican standoff.”

In retrospect, Saylor said, the board drama was a “wake-up call” for him to abandon his grandest ambitions. No longer would it be his mission to spread information everywhere. He would take his job more seriously, he said, and “abandon blind hope as a strategy.”

Today Strategy.com has been shut down. In systematic layoffs, MicroStrategy’s staff has shrunk to 850 (down from a high of 2,400). Saylor has abandoned his plans to write a book, and he has removed the articles about himself that he had framed from his basement wall. They are now stored in his garage, replaced by van Gogh prints. His office, which once included a sculpture of Rodin’s “Thinker,” is now completely unfurnished except for a pillow embroidered with the words “You never know how many friends you have until you own a home in the Hamptons.”

Saylor remains what he calls “household” — as in a household name — but largely on the strength of his No. 1 ranking in Fortune magazine’s “Billionaire Losers Club” (lost: $13.53 billion) and his once-grandiose plans.

“For the last 18 months, I’ve had to deal with everyone in town wanting to know how my mansion is going,” he said one day last summer over dinner at the Capital Grille in Tysons Corner, downstairs from MicroStrategy’s new, smaller offices. His voice was rising, and people at adjoining tables were peering back at him.

“There’s no house,” said Saylor, who instead of the grand house he once planned lives in a large brick Colonial in McLean. “I’ve been ridiculed in the press for expressing the hope of building a house one day. Like, how much more ridiculous could it get to be ridiculed not for something you’ve done, but for something you’ve whimsically spoke about doing?”

Saylor is still extremely rich. His holdings in MicroStrategy are worth close to $200 million. He liquidated about $10 million last year to diversify his financial holdings and, in the long term, realize his plan for an online university.

He has become used to a certain lifestyle, stepping out of his big limousine at the Legg Mason tennis tournament, riding it around Adams Morgan and Georgetown, inviting people into the back seat to see a Santana concert on his DVD player. He jetted weekly to the Hamptons again last summer, this time staying in a large home he rented in Bridgehampton. He threw a “red party” at Cities to celebrate his 36th birthday. He wore black leather pants and a new red sweater that Brian, his butler, bought specially for the occasion. (Brian the butler has since been replaced by Herman the butler.)

Looking back on his “ordeal,” Saylor is sometimes wistful. Since March 20, 2000, Saylor said, he has grown more humble and less judgmental and more sympathetic to humanity. On other days, he is sarcastic and bitter. “No one should articulate any grand notion,” he said, shaking his head. “And I refuse to apologize for that. Do I regret that I got bludgeoned? Yes. Do I regret that I got bludgeoned because I made the mistake of being passionate and idealistic? Yes. That was my sin. I was youthful and naive.”

Saylor often uses metaphor to describe his experience and its meanings. He was an innocent boy swimming in the ocean, he said, when a magical tidal wave came, a tidal wave of funding, fame and techno-mania to go with swells of adulation to reinforce everything his mother used to tell him: that he was put on earth to “do great and enormous things.”

“The little kid’s on a surfboard, and the tidal wave lifts him 300 feet in the air, right? What do you think that child would do? That child would try his best to stand up on his board.”

But instead he crashes violently into the rocks.

“And he deserves something better than for some journalist after the fact to say, ‘Ha, ha, ha, he thought he could ride a 300-foot wave. Now, look what it got him. . . . Let that be a lesson to other presumptuous little kids who would dare to stand up on that wave in the future.’ ”

But all the little kid wanted to do was surf, Saylor said with a pleading insistence. “It’s like a gleeful satisfaction people take in order to ridicule idealists who actually wanted to do something decent.”

He turns to music metaphors, craftsman metaphors. He compares himself to the homecoming queen who tries out for the cheerleading squad but trips and falls and finds that suddenly everybody hates her. He spins metaphors of extreme violence — rape metaphors, a knifing metaphor. When he is reminded in a later interview that such graphic comparisons could be distasteful to some, he said, for the record, that it is not his intention to offend anyone.

He said he hopes these articles will reflect MicroStrategy’s “going-forward attitude” — how the company has become more focused, how its software wins technology “bake-offs” against its competitors. The latest versions of MicroStrategy’s software, he said, are the carburetors, actually the engines, that allow Safeway to track a package of, say, Chips Ahoy cookies as it passes through a checkout scanner in the District and alert inventory managers in a warehouse of a potential “out-of-stock situation” well before the store runs out of cookies.

Friends say Saylor is fully reengaged at work. His board seems to agree, and the calls for him to leave as CEO have subsided. He has returned to his business roots, one executive said, and the burden of being an “industrialist” has been lifted. “I’m still a visionary,” Saylor said. “I’m a bit more mature, maybe an older, wiser visionary. And I realize today that if your vision is your vision, that and a quarter gets you a cup of coffee. But if you can make your vision your customer’s vision, then you have a business.”

Still, Saylor hardly seemed reconciled, often speaking of how things could have turned out differently.

What would have happened, for example, if John Dirks, the PricewaterhouseCoopers official who recommended that MicroStrategy “restate” its financial records in March 2000, had taken a vacation instead?

He went from being a first-class citizen in Washington to a fourth-class citizen, Saylor said, and now he has scratched his way up to being a second-class citizen. He illustrates his boomeranging fortunes with numbers: He was invited to the White House 10 times in 1999 and early 2000, he said, but not once in 2001.

Even his most avid critics say that Saylor was, in part, a product of his times. Saylor’s sins were more in the realm of breaking rules he believed he could, said Greg Bruch, the SEC lawyer who led the investigation of MicroStrategy in 2000.

“As a society, we needed to build Mike up,” said Manish Acharya, an early MicroStrategy employee who left the firm in early 1999. “What does it take not to be intoxicated? If everyone was given the kind of press he got, the kind of Wall Street value, how would they react? Would Mike fall into the top of the spectrum, or bottom? Or maybe he was average?”

‘Collecting Experience’

While Saylor has made new friends in the past two years, he has also lost a lot of friends — many of whom once made up his adult fraternity at MicroStrategy. Several of those he still considers friends are quick to speak critically of him, usually not for attribution. Some have gotten married and had children and have moved on to new chapters, enriched, in many cases, by the millions of dollars they made at MicroStrategy in better days. They are a close-knit group who have kept in touch, have hired one another for companies they’ve joined or started and are mostly grateful for the exhilarating times they spent at MicroStrategy. Nearly all of them say that Saylor is brilliant and they would never count him out.

But many of them left MicroStrategy feeling worn down by Saylor, tired of his abuse and angered by the restatement crisis. They also evince a sense of sadness when they speak about Saylor. “A lot of people who worked at MicroStrategy alternate between seeing Mike as this incorrigible ball of hubris and also feeling sorry for him as a human being,” said Mark Bisnow, Saylor’s personal publicist.

One longtime MicroStrategy executive compared Saylor to an addict. In a period of addiction, he said, a person’s emotional and social development gets stunted. “Over 12 years, Michael became addicted to power and control,” the former executive said. It made it impossible for him to grow into a normal adulthood.

Another former executive recalls seeing Saylor, along with dozens of present and former employees, at the wedding of longtime MicroStrategist Sid Banerjee last summer. Saylor was in a gregarious mood and kept mentioning that he had a bottle of tequila out in his limo. As if he was in tycoon high school, the former executive said, “like it was just so cool to have this bottle of tequila in his limo.”

A few friends, business associates and at least one board member have expressed concern to Saylor about his increased drinking. But in an interview last week, Saylor said he has no problem with alcohol. He drinks only on weekends, he said, and it has had no effect on his work. He said he has never drunk in front of his parents.

The restatement crisis showed him how quickly money could vanish, he said. He has become more “epicurean” in recent months. He has begun to define security in terms of “collecting experience,” not collecting money. Now, he goes out and he meets friends at clubs. He has come to see that business is no longer the life-and-death matter that he once believed it was, even just a few months ago.

Saylor said he has also become more “spiritual and philosophically complex,” more pragmatic and existential. “In the Air Force, they get promoted by taking a test, showing discipline. In my world, business, it’s like politics, and who you know and what you said and quantum weirdness and random stuff.”

Saylor said he agreed to be interviewed for these articles only because they were going to be written regardless of his participation. He is trying hard, he said, to be boring. “When you’re seeking to build a business and no one knows who you are,” he said, “the key is to be interesting, say interesting things in order to get attention.” He’s trying to only say “extremely uninteresting things.”

One afternoon in early September, Saylor was sitting in a conference room at his office and trying to achieve his goal. He kept invoking carburetors, saying that the only people he wants to talk to are “technologists who are building analytical applications” he said. “Tools for techies,” he repeated several times.

Then he began talking about the nature of public life and the elaborate web that is spun between the idealists and the cynics and how it creates a brutal system of checks and balances that can result in “human carnage.”

“Your 2:45 is here,” his assistant, Glenda Thomas, interrupted, poking her head in.

“Five minutes,” Saylor said before going on for 20 more, describing his ideas on the economic and cultural “ecosystem” he inhabits, and why he admires Oracle Corp. founder Larry Ellison for rebounding after a dreadful accounting restatement by Oracle in the early 1990s.

Thomas, who would soon be leaving for a new job at AOL, poked her head in again.

Saylor led the reporter out, spinning more opinions on “the system,” and then followed the reporter to the elevator bank, talking for 10 more minutes. The 2:45 stood in the lobby a few feet away, having now waited 35 minutes. He is, in Saylor’s words, “the CFO of one of our VARs,” meaning the chief financial officer of one of MicroStrategy’s “value-added resellers.” A carburetor guy, checking his watch.

As the elevator opened, Saylor followed the reporter halfway in and declared that he had learned many lessons about life, leadership and humanity over the past two years. “They can all be valuable,” he said by way of goodbye. “I’ll be better prepared for my next life, whether it’s in politics or whatever.”

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

—–

-Ian.