Steven Gaal
-
Posts
4,661 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Steven Gaal
-
-
You're still short of what you claimed, there were and are many Islamic radical groups besides AQ even IF the USG brought some into Kosovo or Bosnia in the mid-1990s doesn't mean AQ is or was a CIA puppet.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo)))))(((((oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
***************************************()**********************************************
Bush blocked Secret Service investigations into US-based al-Qaeda sleeper cells while he continued to negotiate secretly with Taliban officials. The last meeting, headed by Bush NSA and former Unocal official Zalmay Khalilzad, was in August 2001, just five weeks before the terror attacks. { “US Ties to Saudi Elite May be Hurtng War on Terrorism”. Jonathan Wells, Jack Meyers and Maggie Mulvihill. Boston Herald Online. 12-10-01} ###################################################################################################################################
Minneapolis FBI whistle-blower Colleen Rowley and Robert Wright – who worked for the bureau in Chicago – described the same unnamed superior who “obstructed”, “deliberately thwarted” and “intimidated” their attempts to track down US-based al Qaeda operatives.
#######################################################################################################################
911 timeline
September 1992 and After: Al-Zawahiri Frequently Visits Bosnia, Works with Bosnian Muslim Politicians
Ayman al-Zawahiri in disguise. [source: Interpol]Al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri is said to visit Bosnia many times from around this date. A prominent Muslim Bosnian politician later claims that al-Zawahiri visited mujaheddin camps in central Bosnia as early as September 1992. The Egyptian government, which considers al-Zawahiri an important enemy, claims al-Zawahiri is running several mujaheddin operations in Bosnia through charity fronts. They also claim he meets regularly with Bosnian Muslim politicians in Sarajevo. He is further said to occasionally meet with Iranian government representatives to discuss the war in Bosnia, as Iran is supplying weapons to the Bosnian Muslims. [schindler, 2007, pp. 123, 141] Anwar Shaaban, a radical imam leading the Bosnian mujaheddin effort from Milan, Italy (see Late 1993-1994), remains in regular contact with al-Zawahiri, according to Italian intelligence. [schindler, 2007, pp. 164] In 1993, bin Laden reportedly puts al-Zawahiri in charge of the organization’s operations in the Balkans. [Ottawa Citizen, 12/15/2001] By 1994, al-Zawahiri will settle in Bulgaria to manage operations in Bosnia and the rest of the Balkan region (see September 1994-1996).
###############################################
*********************oooo**********************++++++
)))))))))))))))))))))))*(((((((((((((((((((((((++++++
CIA AIDING MUSLIMS IN BOSNIA, PAPER SAYS SOURCES SAY COVERT ACTION PUTS U.S. IN WAR.(MAIN)
Publication:Albany Times Union (Albany, NY) Publish date:November 24,1994 Byline: IAN MATHER AND ASKOLD KRUSHELNYCKY The European
The United States, chastised by its European allies for its decision to stop enforcing the arms embargo against Bosnia, is apparently already deeply involved in helping the war effort of the mainly Muslim government army.
Sources confirm that small teams of non-uniformed personnel working for the CIA are now in position in Bosnia and have begun providing direct assistance to the Bosnian Muslims.
That assistance includes training in tactical operations, providing satellite intelligence and controlling air traffic.
``They are teaching the Bosnian Muslims how to fight the Bosnian Serbs,'' said a European defense source. ``We are talking about the Americans taking sides. They have, in fact, joined in the war.'' The European has learned that the deal was sealed among the rubble of the main …
Read all of this article with a FREE trial
-
************************************** Moderation Notice **************************************
...Having advised publicly and continually that “gazans” should stay well clear at all times from these pieces of anti-Semitic ____ .....
Steven, you have posted an expletive prohibited per a rule of this forum, in the post partially quoted, above.
Please , at your earliest convenience, self-edit this word so as to make it conform to the language in the rule. After the edit,
it must nor be obvious to a reader that an expletive had been originally used, or was represented.
I am sure you prefer to edit your own posts, if any editing is to be done, and that you want to avoid moderation of any
of your posts to the point of temporary invisibility.
I suspect you support avoidance of implementation of software blocking on this forum, of a list of banned words placed
on a censorship list. Please support my continuing effort to persuade the majority of the moderating team that creation of
an arbitrary list is unnecessary.
**********************************************************************************************************************************
########################################################################
Tom,Corrected May 22 2011. THANKS sg
-
You should learn to be more succinct. The issue at hand is supposed CIA to to AQ but your last post went into a plethora of subjects including Monica Lewinsky and the 7/7. No one is under any obligation to slog through all that to the relevant bits.
#########################################################################################
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
#########################################################################################
above post see REF CHAPTER 3
******************************************************************************************
==========================================================================================
"Now the Taliban will pay a price" vowed President George W. Bush, as American and British fighter planes unleashed missile attacks against major cities in Afghanistan. The US Administration claims that Osama bin Laden is behind the tragic events of the 11th of September. A major war supposedly "against international terrorism" has been launched, yet the evidence amply confirms that agencies of the US government have since the Cold War harbored the "Islamic Militant Network" as part of Washington's foreign policy agenda. In a bitter irony, the US Air Force is targeting the training camps established in the 1980s by the CIA.
The main justification for waging this war has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government into supporting a major military adventure which affects our collective future.
"OSAMAGATE"
by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal
Posted at globalresearch.ca 9 October 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confronted with mounting evidence, the US Administration can no longer deny its links to Osama. While the CIA admits that Osama bin Laden was an "intelligence asset" during the Cold War, the relationship is said to "go way back". Most news reports consider that these Osama-CIA links belong to the "bygone era" of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably viewed as "irrelevant" to an understanding of present events. Lost in the barrage of recent history, the role of the CIA in supporting and developing international terrorist organisations during the Cold war and its aftermath is casually ignored or downplayed by the Western media.
Yes, We did support Him, but "He Went Against Us"
A blatant example of media distortion is the so-called "blowback" thesis: "intelligence assets" are said to "have gone against their sponsors"; "what we've created blows back in our face."1 In a twisted logic, the US government and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims:
The sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to them by the US - and Britain - are now tormenting the West in the phenomenon known as `blowback', whereby a policy strategy rebounds on its own devisers. 2
The US media, nonetheless, concedes that "the Taliban's coming to power [in 1995] is partly the outcome of the U.S. support of the Mujahideen, the radical Islamic group, in the 1980s in the war against the Soviet Union".3 But it also readily dismisses its own factual statements and concludes in chorus, that the CIA had been tricked by a deceitful Osama. It's like "a son going against his father".
The "blowback" thesis is a fabrication. The evidence amply confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the "Islamic Militant Network". Since the end of the Cold War, these covert intelligence links have not only been maintained, they have in become increasingly sophisticated.
New undercover initiatives financed by the Golden Crescent drug trade were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus (controlled by the CIA) essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia." 4
Replicating the Iran Contragate Pattern
Remember Ollie North and the Nicaraguan Contras under the Reagan Administration when weapons financed by the drug trade were channeled to "freedom fighters" in Washington's covert war against the Sandinista government. The same pattern was used in the Balkans to arm and equip the Mujahideen fighting in the ranks of the Bosnian Muslim army against the Armed Forces of the Yugoslav Federation.
Throughout the 1990s, the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was used by the CIA as a go-between -- to channel weapons and Mujahideen mercenaries to the Bosnian Muslim Army in the civil war in Yugoslavia. According to a report of the London based International Media Corporation:
"Reliable sources report that the United States is now [1994] actively participating in the arming and training of the Muslim forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina in direct contravention of the United Nations accords. US agencies have been providing weapons made in ... China (PRC), North Korea (DPRK) and Iran. The sources indicated that ... Iran, with the knowledge and agreement of the US Government, supplied the Bosnian forces with a large number of multiple rocket launchers and a large quantity of ammunition. These included 107mm and 122mm rockets from the PRC, and VBR-230 multiple rocket launchers ... made in Iran. ... It was [also] reported that 400 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) arrived in Bosnia with a large supply of arms and ammunition. It was alleged that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had full knowledge of the operation and that the CIA believed that some of the 400 had been detached for future terrorist operations in Western Europe.
During September and October [1994], there has been a stream of "Afghan" Mujahedin ... covertly landed in Ploce, Croatia (South-West of Mostar) from where they have traveled with false papers ... before deploying with the Bosnian Muslim forces in the Kupres, Zenica and Banja Luka areas. These forces have recently [late 1994] experienced a significant degree of military success. They have, according to sources in Sarajevo, been aided by the UNPROFOR Bangladesh battalion, which took over from a French battalion early in September [1994].
The Mujahedin landing at Ploce are reported to have been accompanied by US Special Forces equipped with high-tech communications equipment, ... The sources said that the mission of the US troops was to establish a command, control, communications and intelligence network to coordinate and support Bosnian Muslim offensives -- in concert with Mujahideen and Bosnian Croat forces -- in Kupres, Zenica and Banja Luka. Some offensives have recently been conducted from within the UN-established safe-havens in the Zenica and Banja Luka regions.
(...)
The US Administration has not restricted its involvement to the clandestine contravention of the UN arms embargo on the region ... It [also] committed three high-ranking delegations over the past two years [prior to 1994] in failed attempts to bring the Yugoslav Government into line with US policy. Yugoslavia is the only state in the region to have failed to acquiesce to US pressure.5
"From the Horse's Mouth"
Ironically, the US Administration's undercover military-intelligence operations in Bosnia have been fully documented by the Republican Party. A lengthy Congressional report by the Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997, largely confirms the International Media Corporation report quoted above. The RPC Congressional report accuses the Clinton administration of having "helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base" leading to the recruitment through the so-called "Militant Islamic Network," of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world:
Perhaps most threatening to the SFOR mission - and more importantly, to the safety of the American personnel serving in Bosnia - is the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. That policy, personally approved by Bill Clinton in April 1994 at the urging of CIA Director-designate (and then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing classified intelligence community sources), "played a central role in the dramatic increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia.
(...)
Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin ("holy warriors") from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based "humanitarian organization," called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well documented. The Clinton Administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials... the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization ... has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. ... TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [Washington Post, 9/22/96] 6
Complicity of the Clinton Administration
In other words, the Republican Party Committee report confirms unequivocally the complicity of the Clinton Administration with several Islamic fundamentalist organisations including Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.
The Republicans wanted at the time to undermine the Clinton Administration. However, at a time when the entire country had its eyes riveted on the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Republicans no doubt chose not to trigger an untimely "Iran-Bosniagate" affair, which might have unduly diverted public attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. The Republicans wanted to impeach Bill Clinton "for having lied to the American People" regarding his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. On the more substantive "foreign policy lies" regarding drug running and covert operations in the Balkans, Democrats and Republicans agreed in unison, no doubt pressured by the Pentagon and the CIA not to "spill the beans".
From Bosnia to Kosovo
The "Bosnian pattern" described in the 1997 Congressional RPC report was replicated in Kosovo. With the complicity of NATO and the US State Department. Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia were recruited to fight in the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998-99, largely supporting NATO's war effort.
Confirmed by British military sources, the task of arming and training of the KLA had been entrusted in 1998 to the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Britain's Secret Intelligence Services MI6, together with "former and serving members of 22 SAS [britain's 22nd Special Air Services Regiment], as well as three British and American private security companies".7
The US DIA approached MI6 to arrange a training programme for the KLA, said a senior British military source. `MI6 then sub-contracted the operation to two British security companies, who in turn approached a number of former members of the (22 SAS) regiment. Lists were then drawn up of weapons and equipment needed by the KLA.' While these covert operations were continuing, serving members of 22 SAS Regiment, mostly from the unit's D Squadron, were first deployed in Kosovo before the beginning of the bombing campaign in March. 8
While British SAS Special Forces in bases in Northern Albania were training the KLA, military instructors from Turkey and Afghanistan financed by the "Islamic jihad" were collaborating in training the KLA in guerilla and diversion tactics.9:
Bin Laden had visited Albania himself. He was one of several fundamentalist groups that had sent units to fight in Kosovo, ... Bin Laden is believed to have established an operation in Albania in 1994 ... Albanian sources say Sali Berisha, who was then president, had links with some groups that later proved to be extreme fundamentalists. 10
Congressional Testimonies on KLA-Osama links
According to Frank Ciluffo of the Globalized Organised Crime Program, in a testimony presented to the House of Representatives Judicial Committee:
What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the KLA raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo lie at the heart of the "Balkan Route" that links the "Golden Crescent" of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 percent of heroin destined for Europe. 11
According to Ralf Mutschke of Interpol's Criminal Intelligence division also in a testimony to the House Judicial Committee:
The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden" . Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict. 12
Madeleine Albright Covets the KLA
These KLA links to international terrorism and organised crime documented by the US Congress were totally ignored by the Clinton Administration. In fact, in the months preceding the bombing of Yugoslavia, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was busy building a "political legitimacy" for the KLA. The paramilitary army had --from one day to the next-- been elevated to the status of a bona fide "democratic" force in Kosovo. In turn, Madeleine Albright has forced the pace of international diplomacy: the KLA had been spearheaded into playing a central role in the failed "peace negotiations" at Rambouiillet in early 1999.
The Senate and the House tacitly endorse State Terrorism
While the various Congressional reports confirmed that the US government had been working hand in glove with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, this did not prevent the Clinton and later the Bush Administration from arming and equipping the KLA. The Congressional documents also confirm that members of the Senate and the House knew the relationship of the Administration to international terrorism. To quote the statement of Rep. John Kasich of the House Armed Services Committee: "We connected ourselves [in 1998-99] with the KLA, which was the staging point for bin Laden..." 13
In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, Republicans and Democrats in unison have given their full support to the President to "wage war on Osama".
In 1999, Senator Jo Lieberman had stated authoritatively that "Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values." In the hours following the October 7 missile attacks on Afghanistan, the same Jo Lieberman called for punitive air strikes against Iraq: "We're in a war against terrorism... We can't stop with bin Laden and the Taliban." Yet Senator Jo Lieberman, as member of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate had access to all the Congressional documents pertaining to "KLA-Osama" links. In making this statement, he was fully aware that that agencies of the US government as well as NATO were supporting international terrorism.
The War in Macedonia
In the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the terrorist activities of the KLA were extended into Southern Serbia and Macedonia. Meanwhile, the KLA --renamed the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC)-- was elevated to United Nations status, implying the granting of "legitimate" sources of funding through United Nations as well as through bilateral channels, including direct US military aid.
And barely two months after the official inauguration of the KPC under UN auspices (September 1999), KPC-KLA commanders - using UN resources and equipment - were already preparing the assaults into Macedonia, as a logical follow-up to their terrorist activities in Kosovo. According to the Skopje daily Dnevnik, the KPC had established a "sixth operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia:
Sources, who insist on anonymity, claim that the headquarters of the Kosovo protection brigades [i.e. linked to the UN sponsored KPC] have [March 2000] already been formed in Tetovo, Gostivar and Skopje. They are being prepared in Debar and Struga [on the border with Albania] as well, and their members have defined codes. 14
According to the BBC, "Western special forces were still training the guerrillas" meaning that they were assisting the KLA in opening up "a sixth operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia. 15
"The Islamic Militant Network" and NATO join hands in Macedonia
Among the foreign mercenaries now fighting in Macedonia (October 2001) in the ranks of self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), are Mujahideen from the Middle East and the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Also within the KLA's proxy force in Macedonia are senior US military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon as well as "soldiers of fortune" from Britain, Holland and Germany. Some of these Western mercenaries had previously fought with the KLA and the Bosnian Muslim Army. 16
Extensively documented by the Macedonian press and statements of the Macedonian authorities, the US government and the "Islamic Militant Network" are working hand in glove in supporting and financing the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia. The NLA is a proxy of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn the KLA and the UN sponsored Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) are identical institutions with the same commanders and military personnel. KPC Commanders on UN salaries are fighting in the NLA together with the Mujahideen.
In a bitter twist, while supported and financed by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the KLA-NLA is also supported by NATO and the United Nations mission to Kosovo (UNMIK). In fact, the "Islamic Militant Network" --also using Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) as the CIA's go-between-- still constitutes an integral part of Washington's covert military-intelligence operations in Macedonia and Southern Serbia.
The KLA-NLA terrorists are funded from US military aid, the United Nations peace-keeping budget as well as by several Islamic organisations including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Drug money is also being used to finance the terrorists with the complicity of the US government. The recruitment of Mujahideen to fight in the ranks of the NLA in Macedonia is implemented through various Islamic groups.
US military advisers mingle with Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force, Western mercenaries from NATO countries fight alongside Mujahideen recruited in the Middle East and Central Asia. And the US media calls this a "blowback" where so-called "intelligence assets" have gone against their sponsors!
But this did not happen during the Cold war! It is happening right now in Macedonia. And it is confirmed by numerous press reports, eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence as well as official statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister, who has accused the Western military alliance of supporting the terrorists. Moreover, the official Macedonian New Agency (MIA) has pointed to the complicity between Washington's envoy Ambassador James Pardew and the NLA terrorists. 17 In other words, the so-called "intelligence assets" are still serving the interests of their US sponsors.
Pardew's background is revealing in this regard. He started his Balkans career in 1993 as a senior intelligence officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff responsible for channeling US aid to the Bosnian Muslim Army. Coronel Pardew had been put in charge of arranging the "air-drops" of supplies to Bosnian forces. At the time, these "air drops" were tagged as "civilian aid". It later transpired --confirmed by the RPC Congressional report-- that the US had violated the arms embargo. And James Pardew played an important role as part of the team of intelligence officials working closely with the Chairman of the National Security Council Anthony Lake.
Pardew was later involved in the Dayton negotiations (1995) on behalf of the US Defence Department. In 1999, prior to the bombing of Yugoslavia, he was appointed "Special Representative for Military Stabilisation and Kosovo Implementation" by President Clinton. One of his tasks was to channel support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which at the time was also being supported by Osama bin Laden. Pardew was in this regard instrumental in replicating the "Bosnian pattern" in Kosovo and subsequently in Macedonia...
Justification for Waging War
The Bush Administration has stated that it has proof that Osama bin Laden is behind the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. In the words of British Prime Minister Tony Blair: "I have seen absolutely powerful and incontrovertible evidence of his [Osama] link to the events of the 11th of September." 18 What Tony Blair fails to mention is that agencies of the US government including the CIA continue to "harbor" Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.
A major war supposedly "against international terrorism" has been launched by a government which is harboring international terrorism as part of its foreign policy agenda. In other words, the main justification for waging war has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government into supporting a major military adventure which affects our collective future.
This decision to mislead the American people was taken barely a few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. Without supporting evidence, Osama had already been tagged as the "prime suspect." Two days later on Thursday the 13th of September --while the FBI investigations had barely commenced-- President Bush pledged to "lead the world to victory". The Administration confirmed its intention to embark on "a sustained military campaign rather than a single dramatic action" directed against Osama bin Laden. 19 In addition to Afghanistan, a number of countries in the Middle East were mentioned as possible targets including Iraq, Iran, Libya and the Sudan. And several prominent US political figures and media pundits have demanded that the air strikes be extended to other countries "which harbour international terrorism." According to intelligence sources, Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda has operations in some 50 to 60 countries providing ample pretext to intervene in several "rogue states" in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Moreover, the entire US Legislature --with only one honest and courageous dissenting voice in the House of Representatives-- has tacitly endorsed the Administration's decision to go war. Members of the House and the Senate have access through the various committees to official confidential reports and intelligence documents which prove beyond doubt that agencies of the US government have ties to international terrorism. They cannot say "we did not know". In fact, most of this evidence is in the public domain.
Under the historical resolution of the US Congress adopted by both the House and the Senate on the 14th of September:
The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Whereas there is no evidence that agencies of the US government "aided the terrorist attacks" on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, there is ample and detailed evidence that agencies of the US government as well as NATO, have since the end of the Cold War continued to "harbor such organizations".
Patriotism cannot be based on a falsehood, particularly when it constitutes a pretext for waging war and killing innocent civilians.
Ironically, the text of the Congressional resolution also constitutes a "blowback" against the US sponsors of international terrorism. The resolution does not exclude the conduct of an "Osamagate" inquiry, as well as appropriate actions against agencies and/or individuals of the US government, who may have collaborated with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. And the evidence indelibly points directly to the Bush Administration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
United Press International (UPI), 15 September 2001.
The Guardian, London, 15 September 2001.
UPI, op cit,
For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Centre for Research on Globalisation, 12 September 2001, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html.
International Media Corporation Defense and Strategy Policy, US Commits Forces, Weapons to Bosnia, London, 31 October 1994.
Congressional Press Release, Republican Party Committee (RPC), US Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, 16 January 1997, available on the website of the Centre of Research on Globalisation (CRG) at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html. The original document is on the website of the US Senate Republican Party Committee (Senator Larry Craig), at http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm)
The Scotsman, Glasgow, 29 August 1999.
Ibid.
Truth in Media, Kosovo in Crisis, Phoenix, Arizona, 2 April 1999
Sunday Times, London, 29 November 1998.
US Congress, Testimony of Frank J. Cilluffo , Deputy Director, Global Organized Crime, Program director to the House Judiciary Committee, 13 December 2000.
US Congress, Testimony of Ralf Mutschke of Interpol's Criminal Intelligence Division, to the House Judicial Committee, 13 December 2000.
US Congress, Transcripts of the House Armed Services Committee, 5 October 1999,
Macedonian Information Centre Newsletter, Skopje, 21 March 2000, published by BBC Summary of World Broadcast, 24 March 2000.
BBC, 29 January 2001, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1142000/1142478.stm)
Scotland on Sunday, Glasgow, 15 June 2001 at http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/text_only.cfm?id=SS01025960, see also UPI, 9 July 2001. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Washington behind Terrorist Assaults in Macedonia, Centre for Research on Globalisation, August 2001, at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO108B.html.)
Macedonian Information Agency (MIA), 26 September 2001, available at the Centre for Research on Globalisation at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MNA110A.html
Quoted in The Daily Telegraph, London, 1 October 2001.
Statement by official following the speech by President George Bush on 14 September 2001 quoted in the International Herald Tribune, Paris, 14 September 2001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The URL of this article is:
-
Not much here, yes the US and Israel provided aide to Islamic fundamentalists in the 70s and 80s but you failed to produce any evidence al-Zawahiri was CIA other than the undocumented claims of kook sources NOGW and Wayne Madsen.
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
==================================================================================
**********************************************************************************
======(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((oooooooo))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))=======
FROM AN EGYPTIAN WINDOW "LOST" TIME IN KOSOVO
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24975
9/11 AND AMERICA'S "WAR ON TERRORISM"
PREFACE. Read the critical research on 9/11 in this important book
by Prof Michel Chossudovsky
The livelihood of millions of people throughout the World is at stake. It is my sincere hope that the truth will prevail and that the understanding provided in this detailed study will serve the cause of World peace. This objective, however, can only be reached by revealing the falsehoods behind America’s “War on Terrorism” and questioning the legitimacy of the main political and military actors responsible for extensive war crimes.
PREFACE
At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush adminstration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation.
That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.
The decision was announced to wage war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in retribution for the 9/11 attacks. The following morning on September 12th, the news headlines indelibly pointed to “state sponsorship” of the 9/11 attacks. In chorus, the US media was calling for a military intervention against Afghanistan. Barely four weeks later, on the 7th of October, Afghanistan was bombed and invaded by US troops.Americans were led to believe that the decison to go to war had been taken on the spur of the moment, on the evening of September 11, in response to the attacks and their tragic consequences.
Little did the public realize that a large scale theater war is never planned and executed in a matter of weeks. The decision to launch a war and send troops to Afghanistan had been taken well in advance of 9/11. The “terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event” as it was later described by CentCom Commander General Tommy Franks, served to galvanize public opinion in support of a war agenda which was already in its final planning stage.
The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage a war on “humanitarian grounds”, with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the “international community”.
Several prominent “progressive” intellectuals made a case for “retaliation against terrorism”, on moral and ethical grounds. The “just cause” military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11,without examining the fact that Washington had not only supported the “Islamic terror network”, it was also instrumental in the installation of the Taliban government in 1996.
In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country of 30 million people.
I started writing on the evening of September 11, late into the night, going through piles of research notes, which I had previously collected on the history of Al Qaeda. My first text entitled “Who is Osama bin Laden?”, which was completed and first published on September the 12th. (See Chapter II.)
From the very outset, I questioned the official story, which described nineteen Al Qaeda sponsored hijackers involved in a highly sophisticated and organized operation. My first objective was to reveal the true nature of this illusive “enemy of America”, who was “threatening the Homeland”.
The myth of the “outside enemy” and the threat of “Islamic terrorists” was the cornerstone of the Bush adminstration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to xii America’s “War on Terrorism” mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America.
Without an “outside enemy”, there could be no “war on terrorism”. The entire national security agenda would collapse “like a deck of cards”. The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.
It was consequently crucial for the development of a coherent antiwar and civil rights movement, to reveal the nature of Al Qaeda and its evolving relationship to successive US administrations.
Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.
After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive “outside enemy” had been fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.
The Balkans Connection
My research on the Balkans conducted since the mid-1990s enabled me to document numerous ties and connections between Al Qaeda and the US Administration. The US military, the CIA and NATO had supported Al Qaeda in the Balkans. Washington’s objective was to trigger ethnic conflict and destablize the Yugoslav federation, first in Bosnia, then in Kosovo.
In 1997, the Republican Party Committee (RPC) of the US Senate released a detailed report which accused President Clinton of collaborating with the “Islamic Militant Network” in Bosnia and working hand in glove with an organization linked to Osama bin Laden. (See Chapter III.) The report, however,was not widely publicized. Instead, the Republicans chose to discredit Clinton for his liason with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
The Clinton Adminstration had also been providing covert support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a paramilitary group supported by Al Qaeda, which was involved in numerous terrorist attacks. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, more commonly known as MI6, together with former members of Britain’s 22nd Special Air Services Regiment (SAS) were providing training to the KLA, despite its extensive links to organized crime and the drug trade. Meanwhile, known and documented, several Al Qaeda operatives had integrated the ranks of the KLA. (See Chapter III).
Click here to find out more about AMERICA'S "WAR ON TERRORISM"
In the months leading up to 9/11, I was actively involved in research on the terror attacks in Macedonia, waged by the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA) of Macedonia, a paramilitary army integrated by KLA commanders. Al Qaeda Mujahideen had integrated the NLA.Meanwhile, senior US military officers from a private mercenary company on contract to the Pentagon were advising the terrorists.
Barely a couple of months prior to 9/11, US military advisers were seen mingling with Al Qaeda operatives within the same paramilitary army. In late June 2001, seventeen US “instructors” were identified among the withdrawing rebels. To avoid the diplomatic humiliation and media embarrassment of senior US military personnel captured together with “Islamic terrorists”by the Macedonian Armed Forces, the US and NATO pressured the Macedonian government to allow the NLA terrorists and their US military advisers to be evacuated.
The evidence, including statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister and press reports out of Macedonia, pointed unequivocally to continued US covert support to the “Islamic brigades” in the former Yugoslavia. This was not happening in the bygone era of the Cold War, but in June 2001, barely a couple of months prior to 9/11. These developments, which I was following on a daily basis, immediately cast doubt in my mind on the official 9/11 narrative which presented Al Qaeda as the mastermind behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. (Chapter IV.) xiv America’s “War on Terrorism”
The Mysterious Pakistani General
On the 12th of September, a mysterious Lieutenant General, head of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI), who according to the US press reports “happened to be in Washington at the time of the attacks”, was called into the office of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitrage.
The “War on Terrorism” had been officially launched late in the night of September 11, and Dick Armitage was asking General Mahmoud Ahmad to help America “in going after the terrorists”. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was on the phone with Secretary of State Colin Powell and the following morning, on the 13th of September, a comprehensive agreement, was reached between the two governments.
While the press reports confirmed that Pakistan would support the Bush adminstration in the “war on terror”, what they failed to mention was the fact that Pakistan`s military intelligence (ISI) headed by General Ahmad had a longstanding relationship to the Islamic terror network. Documented by numerous sources, the ISI was known to have supported a number of Islamic organizations including Al Qaeda and the Taliban. (See Chapter IV.)
My first reaction in reading news headlines on the 13th of September was to ask: if the Bush adminstration were really committed to weeding out the terrorists, why would it call upon Pakistan`s ISI, which is known to have supported and financed these terrorist organizations?
Two weeks later, an FBI report, which was briefly mentioned on ABC News, pointed to a “Pakistani connection” in the financing of the alleged 9/11 terrorists. The ABC report referred to a Pakistani “moneyman” and “mastermind” behind the 9/11 hikackers.
Subsequent reports indeed suggested that the head of Pakistan’s military intelligence, General Mahmoud Ahmad, who had met Colin Powell on the 13th of September 2001, had allegedly ordered the transfer of 100,000 dollars to the 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta. What these reports suggested was that the head of Pakistan’s military intelligence was not only in close contact with senior officials of the US Government, he was also in liason with the alleged hijackers.
My writings on the Balkans and Pakistani connections, published in early October 2001 were later incorporated into the first edition of this book. In subsequent research, I turned my attention to the broader US strategic and economic agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East.
There is an intricate relationship between War and Globalization. The “War on Terror” has been used as a pretext to conquer new economic frontiers and ultimately establish corporate control over Iraq’s extensive oil reserves.
The Disinformation Campaign
In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the disinformation campaign went into full gear.
Known and documented prior to the invasion, Britain and the US made extensive use of fake intelligence to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Al Qaeda was presented as an ally of the Baghad regime. “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” statements circulated profusely in the news chain. (Chapter XI.)
Meanwhile, a new terrorist mastermind had emerged: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. In Colin Powell’s historic address to the United Nations Security Council, detailed “documentation” on a sinister relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was presented, focussing on his ability to produce deadly chemical, biological and radiological weapons, with the full support and endorsement of the secular Baathist regime.
A Code Orange terror alert followed within two days of Powell’s speech at the United Nations Security Council, where he had been politely rebuffed by UN Weapons Inspector Dr. Hans Blix.
Realty was thus turned upside down. The US was no longer viewed as preparing to wage war on Iraq. Iraq was preparing to attack America with the support of “Islamic terrorists”. Terrorist mastermind Al-Zarqawi was identified as the number one suspect. Official statements pointed to the dangers of a dirty radioactive bomb attack in the US.
The main thrust of the disinformation campaign continued in the wake of the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It consisted in presenting the Iraqi resistance movement as “terrorists”. The image of “terrorists opposed to democracy” fighting US “peacekeepers” appeared on television screens and news tabloids across the globe.
Meanwhile, the Code Orange terror alerts were being used by the Bush administration to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation across America. (See Chapter XX.) The terror alerts also served to distract public opinion from the countless atrocities committed by US forces in the Afghan and Iraqi war theaters, not to mention the routine torture of so-called “enemy combatants”.
Following the invasion of Afghanistan, the torture of prisoners of war and the setting up of concentration camps became an integral part of the Bush adminstration’s post 9/11 agenda.
The entire legal framework had been turned upside down. According to the US Department of Justice, torture was now permitted under certain circumstances. Torture directed against “terrorists” was upheld as a justifiable means to preserving human rights and democracy. (See chapters XIV and XV.) In an utterly twisted logic, the Commander in Chief can now quite legitimately authorize the use of torture, because the victims of torture in this case are so-called “terrorists”, who are said to routinely apply the same methods against Americans.
The orders to torture prisoners of war at the Guantanamo concentration camp and in Iraq in the wake of the 2003 invasion emanated from the highest levels of the US Government. Prison guards, interrogators in the US military and the CIA were responding to precise guidelines.
An inquisitorial system had been installed. In the US and Britain the “war on the terrorism” is upheld as being in the public interest. Anybody who questions its practices—which now include arbitrary arrest and detention, torture of men, women and children, political assassinations and concentration camps—is liable to be arrested under the antiterrorist legislation.
The London 7/7 Bomb Attack
A new threshold in the “war on terrorism”was reached in July 2005, with the bomb attacks on London’s underground, which resulted tragically in 56 deaths and several hundred wounded.
On both sides of the Atlantic, the London 7//7 attacks were used to usher in far-reaching police state measures. The US House of Representatives renewed the USA PATRIOT Act “to make permanent the government’s unprecedented powers to investigate suspected terrorists”. Republicans claimed that the London attacks showed “how urgent and important it was to renew the law.”
Barely a week prior to the London attacks, Washington had announced the formation of a “domestic spy service” under the auspices of the FBI. The new department—meaning essentially a Big Brother “Secret State Police”—was given a mandate to “spy on people in America suspected of terrorism or having critical intelligence information, even if they are not suspected of committing a crime.” Significantly, this new FBI service is not accountable to the Department of Justice. It is controlled by the Directorate of National Intelligence headed by John Negroponte, who has the authority of ordering the arrest of “terror suspects”.
Meanwhile, in the wake of the 7/7 London attacks, Britain’s Home Office, was calling for a system of ID cards, as an “answer to terrorism”. Each and every British citizen and resident will be obliged to register personal information, which will go into a giant national database, along with their personal biometrics: “iris pattern of the eye”, fingerprints and “digitally recognizable facial features”. Similar procedures were being carried out in the European Union.
War Criminals in High Office
The anti-terrorist legislation and the establishment of a Police State largely serve the interests of those who have committed extensive war crimes and who would otherwise have been indicted under national and international law.
In the wake of the London 7/7 attacks, war criminals continue to legitimately occupy positions of authority,which enable them to xviii America’s “War on Terrorism” redefine the contours of the judicial system and the process of law enforcement. This process has provided them with a mandate to decide “who are the criminals”, when in fact they are the criminals. (Chapter XVI).
From New York and Washington on September 11 to Madrid in March 2004 and to London in July 2005, the terror attacks have been used as a pretext to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. People can be arbitrarily arrested under the antiterrorist legislation and detained for an indefinite period.More generally, throughout the Western World, citizens are being tagged and labeled, their emails, telephone conversations and faxes are monitored and archived. Thousands of closed circuit TV cameras, deployed in urban areas, are overseeing their movements. Detailed personal data is entered into giant Big Brother data banks. Once this cataloging has been completed, people will be locked into watertight compartments.
The witch-hunt is not only directed against presumed “terrorists” through ethnic profiling, the various human rights, affirmative action and antiwar cohorts are also the object of the antiterrorist legislation.
The National Security Doctrine
In 2005, the Pentagon released a major document entitled The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America (NDS), which broadly sketches Washington’s agenda for global military domination. While the NDS follows in the footsteps of the Administration’s “preemptive” war doctrine as outlined in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), it goes much further in setting the contours of Washington’s global military agenda. (See Chapter XIX.)
Whereas the preemptive war doctrine envisages military action as a means of “self defense” against countries categorized as “hostile” to the US, the 2005 NDS goes one step further. It envisages the possibility of military intervention against “unstable countries” or “failed nations”, which do not visibly constitute a threat to the security of the US.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon had unleashed a major propaganda and public relations campaign with a view to upholding the use of nuclear weapons for the “Defense of the American Homeland” against terrorists and rogue enemies. The fact that the nuclear bomb is categorized by the Pentagon as “safe for civilians” to be used in major counter-terrorist activities borders on the absurd.
In 2005, US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) drew up “a contingency plan to be used in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack”. The plan includes air raids on Iran using both conventional as well as tactical nuclear weapons.
America’s “War on Terrorism”
The first ten chapters,with some changes and updates, correspond to the first edition of the book published in 2002 under the title War and Globalization: The Truth behind September 11. The present expanded edition contains twelve new chapters, which are the result of research undertaken both prior as well as in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. (Parts III and IV.) The sequencing of the material in Parts III and IV corresponds to the historical evolution of the post 9/11 US military and national security agendas. My main objective has been to refute the official narrative and reveal—using detailed evidence and documentation—the true nature of America’s “war on terrorism”.
Part I includes four chapters on September 11, focusing on the history of Al Qaeda and its ties to the US intelligence apparatus. These chapters document how successive administrations have supported and sustained terrorist organizations with a view to destabilizing national societies and creating political instability.
Part II entitled War and Globalization centers on the strategic and economic interests underlying the “war on terrorism”.
Part III contains a detailed analysis of War Propaganda and the Disinformation Campaign, both prior and in the wake of the invasion of Iraq.
Part IV entitled The New World Order includes a review of the Bush administration’s preemptive war doctrine (Chapter XIX), a detailed analysis of the post-Taliban narcotics trade protected by US intelligence, and a review of the 9/11 Commission Report focusing specifically on “What Happened on the Planes on the Morning of 9/11”.
Chapter XX focuses on the system of terror alerts and their implications. Chapter XXI follows with an examination of the emergency procedures that could be used to usher in Martial Law leading to the suspension of Constitutional government. In this regard, the US Congress has already adopted procedures, which allow the Military to intervene directly in civilian police and judicial functions. In the case of a national emergency—e.g., in response to an alleged terror attack—there are clearly defined provisions, which could lead to the formation of a military government in America.
Finally, Chapter XXII focuses on the broad implications of the 7/7 London Bombs Attacks, which were followed by the adoption of sweeping Police State measures in Britain, the European Union and North America.
Writing this book has not been an easy undertaking. The material is highly sensitive. The results of this analysis, which digs beneath the gilded surface of US foreign policy, are both troublesome and disturbing. The conclusions are difficult to accept because they point to the criminalization of the upper echelons of the State. They also confirm the complicity of the corporate media in upholding the legitimacy of the Administration’s war agenda and camouflaging US sponsored war crimes.
The World is at an important historical crossroads. The US has embarked on a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. As we go to press, the Bush Administration has hinted in no uncertain terms that Iran is the next target of the “war on terrorism”.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel’s participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories.
I have attempted to the best of my abilities to provide evidence and detailed documentation of an extremely complex political process.
The livelihood of millions of people throughout the World is at stake. It is my sincere hope that the truth will prevail and that the understanding provided in this detailed study will serve the cause of World peace. This objective, however, can only be reached by revealing the falsehoods behind America’s “War on Terrorism” and questioning the legitimacy of the main political and military actors responsible for extensive war crimes.
I am indebted to many people, who in the course of my work have supported my endeavors and have provided useful research insights. The readers of the Global Research website at www.globalresearch.ca have been a source of continuous inspiration and encouragement.
Michel Chossudovsky, August 2005
-
START COLBY QUOTE
In my experience obese people tend to be malodorous, is this another example of projection? END COLBY QUOTE
GOLLY... Colby is a fountain of knowledge.
LOL you label me a sociopath with “fetid lips” but object when I reply.
"PNAC
It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to 100 billion dollars,"
Yes they called for the US to “INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.” Since defense spending at the time was 3.1% of GDP that works out to a 13 – 23% increase not very radical especially since it would simply be a return to 1996 levels and not beyond what we would expect with Republicans controlling the White House and the House and at times the Senate. This is something they would have gotten with or without 9/11
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
"to deny other nations the use of outer space,"
Where exactly did they do that? What steps towards this supposed objective were taken after 9/11? Even if true what would it have to do with invading countries in central Asia?
and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision.+++++ GOLLY offensively and preemptively sounds like invasion to me.....++++++++++++++++++++Show where they called for any of these things in the “new Pearl Harbor” paper (link above)
http://www.newsofinterest.tv/video_pages_flash/politics/misc_neocon_globalist/wolfowitz_pnac_nph.phpUTUBE VIDEO
This video clip describes Paul Wolfowitz's involvement in shaping the U.S. Neoconservative foreign policy
Based on the transcript the only evidence cited is a single out of context quote from the PNAC report.
Greg Burnham on possible 911 foreknowledgeNot Another Blue
Ribbon Fiasco, Please
By Greg Burnham
9-9-2
Two of the September 11th hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, were known to the intelligence community. The FBI was most certainly aware of them as a Bureau informant was one of their room mates.
Unfortunately Mr. Burnham has proven himself not to be a reliable source and failed to provide any citations for his claims. Though he was indeed an FBI informant there is no evidence Almihdhar and Alhazmi roommate knew they were terrorists or informed the FBI they were in town.
This is most important 911 link to show inside job. NSA doesnt help CIA on Al-Qaeda terrorism. WHY ?You think that “is most important 911 link to show inside job”? LOL that was “February 1996-May 1998” 3 – 5 years before the attacks. Show us evidence the failure to provide the transcripts allowed 9/11 to happen, and show us where the sources for this story (Bamford, Scheuer, and Rossini) indicate 9/11 was an “inside job”. The answer to your question can be found in one of the 3 sources from your linked page, “[the NSA’s] policy since its founding has been to never share raw data, even with other intelligence agencies.”
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX=
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
)))))))))))))))))oooooooooooo))))))))))))ooooooooooo))))))))))))))=
++ ## PART ONE ## +++
NY Times ADMITS Scrubbing 9-09 Warning
Bob Fertik
Updated 2-21-02
On Feb 14, Democrats.com revealed that the NY Times "scrubbed" from its Web site a crucial warning about Osama Bin Laden that it published on 9-9-01 - just 2 days before Bin Laden's attack on the U.S.
In response to our expose, the NY Times has admitted that it scrubbed the article (which was actually posted on 9-8-01) because the article was never published in the PRINT newspaper.
This led us to ask: why was John Burns' prescient warning deemed NOT "fit to print"?
Read our exchange and draw your own conclusion. We stick to ours:
We believe it demonstrates the gross negligence of the CIA, NSA, Justice Department, and the White House in the events leading to 9-11. These agencies had MANY warnings, but the people at the top IGNORED them, at a cost of over 3,000 lives and billions of dollars. All of these screwups remain in their jobs! We demand a Blue Ribbon Commission on 9-11 and a thorough housecleaning - not a Congressional Coverup!
From: Christine Mohan
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002
Bob, here are the details about that article -- your publish dates are a bit off.
The John Burns article was posted on the Web site on Saturday, Sept. 8 inadvertently, before it was approved for publishing in the newspaper. It was removed from the site a few hours later when its run in the paper was cancelled, in keeping with our policy that NYTimes.com runs only those news articles that have also run in print.
John Burns updated the article to incorporate the events of September 11, and this article was published on the Web site and in print on September 12.
Any other questions, please let me know.
Regards,
Christine Mohan
spokesperson, New York Times Digital
From: Bob Fertik
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002
Hi Christine,
Thanks for the clarification
If this article did not appear in print on 9/8 or 9/9, would the Times care to comment on why it was not published then? Was an editorial judgment made? The information in it was so prescient, it seems hard to understand why it was not printed.
Regards,
Bob Fertik
Democrats.com
From: Christine Mohan
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002
Articles for The New York Times are held every day for a number of reasons, including space constraints, breaking news, etc.
Regards,
Christine
From: Bob Fertik
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002
Hi Christine,
Thanks again for your prompt reply.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid the substance of your reply is quite insufficient.
The article in question could have been published on 9-9, 9-10, or 9-11 (which was printed long before the actual attack), so space limitations surely cannot explain the failure to print this important article.
As for "breaking news," I cannot recall any major stories those 3 days. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out how to retrieve archives of front page images - perhaps you could add that feature to your site.
Surely there must be an editor who is willing to provide a more specific and responsive explanation as to why John Burns' article was not published before (or on) 9-11?
Regards,
Bob
[no reply has been received]
###################### ++ PART TWO ++###################################
FROM SPY FACTORY ...... TRADITION NOT LAW !! TRADITION NOT LAW !! TRADITION NOT LAW !! TRADITION NOT LAW !!
********** Golly some of these info requests after USS COLE ---Attack--- a act of WAR
Traditionally, the NSA didn't share its raw data with those other agencies, an institutionalized reluctance that played a critical role in the failure to stop the 9/11 plotters. (Hear from Eleanor Hill, a former Staff Director of the House Intelligence Committee, on the myriad dangers inherent in such a tradition.)(PBS SPY FACTORY video)
Fiddler on Roof (cast lyrics)
= TRADITION ++
[TEVYE]
Tradition, tradition! Tradition!
Tradition, tradition! Tradition!
[TEVYE & PAPAS]
Who, day and night, must scramble for a living,
Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers?
And who has the right, as master of the house,
To have the final word at home?
The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.
The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.
[GOLDE & MAMAS]
Who must know the way to make a proper home,
A quiet home, a kosher home?
Who must raise the family and run the home,
So Papa's free to read the holy books?
The Mama, the Mama! Tradition!
The Mama, the Mama! Tradition!
[sONS]
At three, I started Hebrew school. At ten, I learned a trade.
I hear they've picked a bride for me. I hope she's pretty.
The son, the son! Tradition!
The son, the son! Tradition!
[DAUGHTERS]
And who does Mama teach to mend and tend and fix,
Preparing me to marry whoever Papa picks?
The daughter, the daughter! Tradition!
The daughter, the daughter! Tradition!
-
So him being a repeat offender somehow absolves him?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++)))))))))oooo((((((((((+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ab·so·lu·tion ,golly thats needed by many is it not ?
Its called selective prosecution as a political tool. BTW I dont talk about how in the last GG Allin interview they (GG ALLIN members - Colby's former business partners) hinted you were a possible pedophile. (see below break) Gee Len ,why,why are you an ex-Pat ??? Your language teaching probably brings you in contact with many young people,yes ? However sex at 14 is legal in Brazil.In Brazil, the age of consent is 14, regardless of gender and/or sexual orientation.
------------------------ ab·so·lu·tion ??
Selective Prosecution is a political tool
Tom Drake is a former National Security Agency (NSA) employee who discovered massive waste, corruption, and illegality at the agency. He used all the available legal and proper channels to fight the wrongdoing. Now the federal government is prosecuting him under the Espionage Act, and he's facing 35 years in prison.
A military veteran with intelligence experience, Drake discovered the NSA's use of a data collection program that was costly, threatening to Americans’ privacy rights, and wholly undeveloped, despite the availability of a cost-effective, functional alternative that respected Americans’ privacy. He did everything by the book, raising concerns through official channels first -- including senior NSA management, the Defense Department's inspector general, and Congress. His concerns were ignored.
Drake started, legally, communicating with a reporter -- never sharing any classified information whatsoever. A series of articles exposed this billion-dollar affront to privacy rights. Now, Drake is being prosecuted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Espionage Act for retaining -- not leaking -- classified information.
The criminal prosecution of Tom Drake is selective and retaliatory. With this action, the DOJ is sending a clear message to federal whistleblowers: Expose corruption and risk your liberty.
The United States Supreme Court has defined the term as follows: "A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution."[1] The defense is rarely successful; some authorities claim, for example, that there are no reported cases in at least the past century in which a court dismissed a criminal prosecution because the defendant had been targeted based on race.[2]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(Below from GG ALLIN last interview on net and that is already posted on ED FORUM)
GG: I'm Daddy Allin!
Evan: Over here we have William Webber.
GG: Daddy! Mommy! Daddy! It's Lenny!
Merle: The man who wouldn't take his shirt off.
GG: He had a girl and... I wanna say one thing about Bill Webber that I forgot to say in Detroit. Bill Webber got the Len Colby award.
Evan: The Golden Len Colby award.
GG: The Golden Lenny award for the most xxxx-ups on one tour.
Evan: Lenny is now in Brazil having sex with 14 year old boys or something, we hear.
GG: I'm jelous.
Evan: Never got a post card from him, though. He's doing good I guess.
-
Mr. COLBY THINKS/DEMANDS TRUTHERS PRODUCE GOVERMENT DOCUMENTS THAT IMPLICATE THE SAID GOVERMENT IN 911=== he is right they exist,however, "Mohamed was debriefed about Bin Laden and al Qaeda by FBI and NSA counter-terrorism officers, but all records of this interview — which would prove that the government was aware of Bin Laden's anti-U.S. intentions years earlier than it has claimed — have been "lost"...",OOPss "LOST !!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PART ONE
+o+o+o+ ( info about this incident posted long ago at the DellaRosa site)
=================================================================================================================
On 9-12 the press assalted the first floor door of the Al-Zawahri family residence in Egypt.The window on the second floor opened up and a woman spoke and made a very,very brief comment,"Ayman Al-Zawahri spent lost time in KOSOVO". She then closed the window.
Now what was her meaning ? Well, Al-Zawahri brother worked in operations with the CIA in KOSOVO. The best explanation of this is that she knew that Al-Zawahri was now a CIA asset ( in the intell sense he had been turned) and she was trying to protect the Al-Zawahri family. She spoke so briefly as to give the message that she could kept her mouth shut.(PLEASE !! ,PLEASE !! DONT (CIA) KILL ME/FAMILY !!!)
___________________________________________________
= + +SEE MY POSTS #49 and #51 for deeper background on KOSOVO/al-Qaeda---- link
=========================================================================================================================
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PART TWO +o+o+o+
============================================================================================================
PS Link between Parts TWO/THREE will give deep background on some of the points of part two.
-----------------------------+++---------------------------
Al-Zawahri - al Qaeda's chief brains and strategist
( below from operation MOCKING BIRD site)
We know a lot about al-Zawahiri.
But, have any mainstream journalists put all the pieces of the jigsaw together? Have mainstream journalists selected and twisted the evidence to present a picture that is false?
1. Al-Qaida's chief brains and strategist is said to be Ayman al-Zawahri.
Around March 2008, Al-Zawahiri published a book on militant Islamic Web sites 'slamming his former radical colleagues in Egyptian prisons for disavowing armed struggle and turning their backs against violence.' (New book by top al-Qaida strategist rebuts jailed militants ...)
2. Some Islamists are thought to be manipulated by the CIA and its friends. Some are thought to be agents of the CIA and its friends.
According to an article entitled 'Islamic fundamentalist link to British Fascists' by Wayne Madsen and Umberto Pascali ( Cached ):
"According to January 2000 U.S. Congressional testimony, al-Zawahiri was granted U.S. residence by the Immigration and Naturalization Service - something almost impossible for many legitimate immigrants to obtain...
"One of the centers of operation for al-Zawahiri was London, where one of his closest relatives resided? President Mubarak is believed to have referred to him when, after the Luxor massacre, he stated: 'There are people who carried out crimes and who were sentenced [in Egypt] and live on British soil.'"
According to nogw.com (Cached ), Ayman al Zawahiri fought for the CIA in Bosnia and his brother Zaiman al-Zawahiri fought for the CIA in Kosovo.
(Members of the Moroccan terror group Salafi Jihadi fought for the CIA in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Dagestan, Bosnia and Kosovo. USS Cole Bomber Jamal al-Badawi fought for the CIA in Bosnia. Zacarias Moussaoui fought for the CIA in Chechnya. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed fought for the CIA in Afghanistan. Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman fought for the CIA in Afghanistan. Abdullah Azzam, "one of the ideological founders of Hamas" fought for the CIA in Afghanistan.)
Al-Zawahiri is suspected of being an agent of the CIA.
3. Ayman al-Zawahiri was born into an aristocratic Egyptian family in 1951.
His father, Mohammed al-Zawahiri, was a pharmacologist and a professor.
The family was "not overly pious," (Wright, The Looming Tower, p. 34.)
4. While Ayman al-Zawahiri was still at school, the president of Egypt was Gamal Nasser.
According to an article at Cooperativeresearch ( Context of 'October 1970-1981: After Nasser’s death, Sadat brings ... ), the USA and UK (and the US and UK oil and bank industries) did not like Nasser’s nationalist policies. MI6 and the CIA began plans to assassinate Nasser.
Egypt's Islamist Muslim Brotherhood also wanted to topple Nasser. Nasser outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, which he denounced as a tool of Britain.
The CIA provided support for the Muslim Brotherhood because of “the Brotherhood’s commendable capability to overthrow Nasser.” [baer, 2003, pp. 99; Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 101-108] Saudi Arabia, an ally of the United States, gave money and and sanctuary to Muslim Brotherhood militants. [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 90-91, 126-131, 150]
Israel also preferred Islamists to nationalists.
David Shipler, a former New York Times reporter, said that 'he was told by the military governor of the Gaza Strip, Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, that the Israeli government had financed the Islamic movement to couteract the PLO and the communists.' (Context of 'October 1970-1981: After Nasser’s death, Sadat brings ...)
According to Martha Kessler, a senior analyst for the CIA, 'we saw Israel cultivate Islam as a counterweight to Palestinian nationalism.' (Context of 'October 1970-1981: After Nasser’s death, Sadat brings ...)
5. Reportedly, at the age of 14, al-Zawahiri joined the Muslim Brotherhood (Ayman al-Zawahiri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), suspected by some of being a tool of the CIA and MI6. (aangirfan: The use of the Muslim Brotherhood by MI6 and the CIA in ...)
6. Nasser died 'of a heart attack' in 1970.
Nasser was succeeded by Anwar Sadat, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Sadat had 'a close working relationship' with the CIA and Henry Kissinger. Sadat used the Muslim Brotherhood against the nationalist Nasserites. (Context of 'October 1970-1981: After Nasser’s death, Sadat brings ...)
7. Reportedly, al-Zawahiri became a fan of the Sayyid Qutb, who was a secular (non-religious) reformer in the 1930s, but who apparently became an Islamist in the 1950s and 1960s.
At Cairo University, Al-Zawahiri studied behavior, psychology and pharmacology graduating in 1974. Following that he served three years as a surgeon in the Egyptian Army.
8. In 1981, President Anwar Sadat was assassinated. Possibly the CIA had fallen out with him.
According to an article at 911truth.org ( Cached ):
"Joseph Trento, in his 2005 book, Prelude to Terror, interviewed former high-ranking CIA agents about this period in Egypt...
"Trento ... reports that Sadat's vice president Hosni Mubarak had been on the CIA payroll in the late 70s, and that he had been having his palms greased by a weapons delivery company called EATSCO — a CIA front/side company run by the notorious Edwin P. Wilson.
"According to Trento, Anwar Sadat had, by 1980, started an investigation into Mubarak's corrupt involvement with EATSCO.
"Both the CIA and Mubarak had motives to have Sadat dead.
"The CIA of course, having the contract to protect Sadat, possessed the means, at least to leave a critical security door open."
Al-Zawahiri was part of the Al-Jihad group which allegedly carried out the assassination.
Al-Zawahiri served a three year sentence in Egypt after he was found guilty in 1982 for conspiracy to murder in planning the assassination of Sadat.
9. Adel Darwish has written that, in 1986, according to an agent of one Gulf State Intelligence Service, al-Zawahiri moved to Peshawar in Pakistan 'where he was helped by the CIA to get arms, training and money for his followers to join the Mujahedine. ' According to the agent, the CIA were aware of who he was and his involvement in the assassination of President Sadat, but they gave him and his men new identities and new passports.' Reportedly, the story was confirmed by Egyptian intelligence sources. (Terrorism)
10. Al Zawahiri's terrorist career reportedly includes the massacre of 70 people on a tourist bus in 1997 Luxor, Egypt, and the assassination attempt against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 1995. (Islamic fundamentalist link to British Fascists)
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
this link will give deep background for some of the above points in PART TWO = http://www.freeman.org/m_online/feb98/bodansky.htm
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
STEVE GAAL ADDS ++Please let me add that it seems the CIA connected Egyptian Military running Egypt now dont want the brother talking to the press. SEE new news just below of March this year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His younger brother, Muhammad al-Zawahiri, was extradited to Egypt in 2000 from the United Arab Emirates, where he had been in hiding, and was held in Tora Prison in Cairo as a political detainee since then. Security officials said he was the head of the Special Action Committee of Islamic Jihad, which organized terrorist operations. On 17 March 2011 he was released from prison by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the interim government of Egypt. His lawyer said he had been held to extract information about his brother.[20] However, on Sunday 20 March 2011, he was re-arrested.[21]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PART THREE +o+o+o+
=================================================================================================================
by Michael Richardson
Most of the journalistic foundation for the 9/11 truth movement is a vast mosaic of articles, each containing one or more significant fragments, and most have been written by journalists who had no particular dedication or greater awareness of 9/11. Those who have written in depth about 9/11 have used this mosaic (and of course have been aided considerably by resources like Paul Thompson's Complete 9/11 Timeline), but few actually do on-the-ground journalism. Peter Lance is one of the few investigative journalists who has dedicated himself to the historical thicket of 9/11. In addition to using the mosaic, he travels to interview people, develops contacts inside the key agencies, gets his hands on damning FBI 302 documents, and bothers people who deserve to be bothered. For the last four years, he has obsessed on 9/11 and many of its deep-political tendrils, producing the equivalent of dozens of rich, original articles.
Lance's implied theory of 9/11 — that the 9/11 hijacking plot basically slipped past the greasy fingers of a corrupt and egotistical DOJ/FBI — no doubt irritates many in the movement for truth about 9/11 for whom the "inside job" theory is creed, yet he has unearthed some of the most important gems in the struggle to bring real truth and justice to 9/11. Most importantly, he has shown how the efforts of the Southern New York division of the Justice Department, since the early 90s, have been half-baked, ridiculously negligent, and at times blantently criminal. His work has been instrumental in fleshing out the continuum between the New York cell of the Blind Sheikh (proto-al Qaeda) in the early 1990s and the crimes of September 11, 2001, tracking the FBI all along in its failures and refusals to expose, arrest, and convict. In Triple Cross, a whole chapter is given to a New Jersey check cashing store which, had the FBI used common sense and monitored the place once they knew, early on, that it was a hub of al Qaeda activity, they probably would have snuffed out the 9/11 plot before Clinton had left office. Lance has also definatively fingered Dietrich Snell as the 9/11 Commission staff member who forged the Commission's official timeline into a deception by claiming that the 9/11 plot was conceived in 1998 — two years after Snell's DOJ office had known of a planes-as-missiles plot from interrogations of Abdul Hakim Murad.
Ali Mohamed is a neglected rosetta stone for understanding al Qaeda, and with Triple Cross Lance has created the most expansive and detailed account of this "master spy" to date. He also shows how Mohamed's U.S. exploits were interwoven with key people and events covered in Lance's two previous books (1000 Years for Revenge and Cover Up), as Mohamed had trained the Blind Sheikh's followers in New York in the early 1990s during the time Mohamed was stationed at Fort Bragg. The re-telling of earlier narratives makes this book Lance's definative oeuvre on 9/11, but Triple Cross still reads like a new book, first because most of us would need a refresher on the sprawling material, but also because Lance has unearthed quite a few more fascinating nuggets. For example, he further solidifies the case that Ramzi Yousef, from his New York jail cell in 1996, orchestrated the timed bombing of TWA Flight 800. After the publication of his last book, Sibel Edmonds put him in touch with a "recently retired NSA staffer" who saw a translation of an NSA intercept originally spoken in Baluchi (Yousef's native tongue) which read, "Flight 800 . . . what had to be done has been done." This intercept had also been mysteriously, temporarily removed from the normal translation stream long enough to exclude it from the FBI's Flight 800 investigation.
Ali Mohamed was involved with most of the major al Qaeda attacks against U.S. interests: the assassination of Rabbi Meier Kahane in 1990, the 1993 WTC bombing, the African Embassy bombings in 1998 and, even though he was arrested in late 1998, Lance proposes that he also helped train some of the 9/11 hijackers in hijacking techniques. Astoundingly, Mohamed participated in these operations while also being a U.S. citizen, being enlisted in the U.S. military (serving at Fort Bragg on two occasions), and being an FBI informant in California. Importantly (and much more on this below), he also had ties to the CIA. Lance shows Mohamed moving snake-like between U.S. agencies and military postings, often flaunting his activities with al Qaeda at a time when the FBI certainly knew what this meant. Importantly, in the early 90s, Mohamed was debriefed about Bin Laden and al Qaeda by FBI and NSA counter-terrorism officers, but all records of this interview — which would prove that the government was aware of Bin Laden's anti-U.S. intentions years earlier than it has claimed — have been "lost"...
Continued...
-
START COLBY QUOTE
In my experience obese people tend to be malodorous, is this another example of projection? END COLBY QUOTE
GOLLY... Colby is a fountain of knowledge.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PNAC
It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to 100 billion dollars, to deny other nations the use of outer space, and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision.
+++++ GOLLY offensively and preemptively sounds like invasion to me.....++++++++++++++++++++
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.newsofinterest.tv/video_pages_flash/politics/misc_neocon_globalist/wolfowitz_pnac_nph.php
UTUBE VIDEO
This video clip describes Paul Wolfowitz's involvement in shaping the U.S. Neoconservative foreign policy implemented after the attacks of September 11, 2001, including his role in the creation of the PNAC document “Rebuilding America's Defenses” during the year 2000 which suggested a need for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event— like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Following is a transcript of a video describing Paul Wolfowitz's involvement in shaping neoconservative foreign policy which was implemented after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
While the video supplies important information about Wolfowitz's involvement with such organizations as “The Project for the New American Century,” the clip also contains techniques of 'disinformation' which attempt to reinforce the 'false left / right paradigm' by shifting blame away from most of the Republican Party, Democrats, and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. Elements of disinformation are explained in bold type within the following transcript...
When George W. Bush took office in 2000, he brought with him Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary for Defense Paul Wolfowitz, all of whom have served together previously in the Administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Paul Wolfowitz in particular, had long been recognized as the intellectual force behind a radical neoconservative fringe of the Republican party. For years, Wolfowitz had been advancing the idea that the United States should reconsider its commitments to international treaties, international law, and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. [ Note: While the clip makes an effort to suggest that Wolfowitz is acting against elements of globalism, such as being opposed to international treaties and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, it is shown that the reality is the opposite, as Wolfowitz was the President of the World Bank between 2005 and 2007, and worked on implementing globalist economic configurations such as “public-private partnerships” which are common elements of global warming legislation. ]
A radical plan for American Military Domination first surfaced during the administration of George H.W. Bush, In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, working in the Department of Defense, was asked to write the first draft of a new national security strategy, a document entitled “The Defense Planning Guidance.”
The most controversial elements of what would later come to be known as the “Wolfowitz Doctrine” were that the United States should dramatically increase defense spending, that it should be willing to take preemptive military action, and that it should be willing to use military force unilaterally, with or without allies.
This new reliance on Military force was necessary, according to Wolfowitz, to prevent the emergence of any future or potential rivals to American power, and to secure access to vital resources, especially Persian Gulf oil.
Out of power during the Clinton Presidency, [ Note: While Wolfowitz was not technically a part of the Clinton Administration, PNAC was formed in 1997, and evidence does exist that Clinton had prior knowledge of the 9/11 Attacks during his Administration. Also, Al Gore was the first to implement the corporate structure of “public-private partnerships,” which shift decision making away from the electorate and transfer the power to unelected international corporations, and conversions to such structures are frequently implemented with the help of environmental fears which are often intentionally exaggerated. ] Wolfowitz and his colleagues affiliated themselves with a number of number of influential conservative think tanks. In 2000, they would craft yet another proposed national security strategy, this one published by a Right Wing think tank calling itself “The Project for the New American Century.”
At its core, the document revived the Wolfowitz Doctrine. It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to 100 billion dollars, to deny other nations the use of outer space, and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision.
But even these hard line conservatives knew that the Wolfowitz Doctrine was likely too likely to win the support of the foreign policy establishment, their own Republican party, and the American people. [ Note: It is true that certain members of the Republican party are opposed to neoconservative philosophies, and most who do support those policies are often accused of falsely attempting to give the impression of actually being conservative. Also it is shown that many Democrats are actually supportive of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, however they attempt to give the impression that they are not. ]
In their defining document “Rebuilding America's Defenses,” written in September of 2000, a full year before the 9/11 attacks, they acknowledged:
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. ...”
One year later, that event would arrive...
[ Wolfowitz was also the President of the World Bank between 2005 and 2007, and during that time he worked on implementing Globalist economic configurations such as “public-private partnerships.” He is an excellent example of a “Neocon Globalist,” due to his being heavily involved with both “Neoconservatism” and “Neoliberalism.” ]
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Greg Burnham on possible 911 foreknowledge
Not Another Blue
Ribbon Fiasco, Please
By Greg Burnham
9-9-2
Two of the September 11th hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, were known to the intelligence community. The FBI was most certainly aware of them as a Bureau informant was one of their room mates. The CIA became aware of them by, at least, January 2000, if not sooner, because of an al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which both of these "Saudi National, hi-jackers-to-be" attended. FBI officials have, of course, insisted that if the CIA had passed along current intelligence about the two men, the bureau would have been better able to monitor and/or capture them.
After they left Malaysia, Almihdhar and Alhazmi took flight-school lessons in San Diego. Both men moved in with a "tested" undercover "asset" in September 2000, who had been working closely with the FBI office in San Diego on terrorism cases related to Hamas, after he befriended them at a Mosque in San Diego. This "land-lord" even helped one of the terrorists open a bank account. A senior law-enforcement official told NEWSWEEK the informant never provided the bureau with the names of his two houseguests from Saudi Arabia. Nor does the FBI have any reason to believe the informant was concealing their identities. (He could not be reached for comment.) But the FBI concedes that a San Diego case agent appears to have been at least aware that Saudi visitors were renting rooms in the informant's house. (On one occasion, a source says, the case agent called up the informant and was told he couldn't talk because "Khalid"--a reference to Almihdhar--was in the room.) I. C. Smith, a former top FBI counterintelligence official, says the case agent should have been keeping closer tabs on who his informant was fraternizing with--if only to seek out the houseguests as possible informants." They should have been asking, "Who are these guys? What are they doing here?' This strikes me as a lack of investigative curiosity." About six weeks after moving into the house, Almihdhar left town, explaining to the landlord he was heading back to Saudi Arabia to see his daughter. Alhazmi moved out at the end of 2000.
While that was developing in San Diego, what was the Agency doing? The CIA claims it was gathering more information about both men, such as: potential for violence, and similar "risk assessment" profiling. It turns out that the CIA discoverd, a few months after the bombing of the USS Cole, that one of the chief suspects in the Cole attack-- Tawfiq bin Attash -- was present at the "summit" and had been photographed with Almihdhar and Alhazmi. Why then did the Agency wait until Aug. 23, 2001, to send an urgent cable to U.S. Border and law-enforcement agencies identifying the two men as "possible" terrorists? Obviously, the CIA was too late. But how? Was it accidentally, incompetently, or deliberately? Allegedly, the bureau did not connect the dots between 9-11 and the San Diego connection until the informant heard the names of the Pentagon hijackers and called his case agent. "I know those guys," the informant purportedly said, referring to Almihdhar and Alhazmi. "They were my roommates."
The joint House and Senate intelligence committees investigating the 9-11 attacks is tentatively due to begin public hearings Sept. 18, 2002. Difficulty in "getting to the bottom" of exactly what happened that allowed the attacks to be successful, has drawn support for legislation that would create a special blue-ribbon commission, much like that formed after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and after the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
If we've learned anything from the history of so-called, "Blue Ribbon Panels" it is this: They should NOT be employed to evaluate evidence that differs from the OFFICIAL PARTY LINE, as they won't even look for such evidence. Moreover, they will deny its existence even when it's staring them in the face.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is most important 911 link to show inside job. NSA doesnt help CIA on Al-Qaeda terrorism. WHY ?
++++++++++++++oooooooooooooooooooooo+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In June 2000, she received the US Intelligence Community’s highest award, the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal
Barbara McNamara promoted out and up into the very important CACI board.
--------------------------=====----------------------------
Barbara A. McNamara was the NSA's Deputy Director from October 1997 until her retirement in June 2000. She joined the agency in 1963 as a Chinese linguist. She served in several analytic, operational, and managerial positions in the Operational Directorate until 1983. McNamara became the first woman to be named Deputy Director of Operations in 1994. She was succedeed by William B. Black, Jr..
In June 2000, she received the US Intelligence Community’s highest award, the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal. . ...
Currently, she is a board member of CACI. California Analysis Center, Incorporated also known as CACI is a United States-based private military contractor. ...
Barbara McNamara (165 words)
Barbara McNamara joined NSA in 1963 as a Chinese linguist.
McNamara reached the highest civilian position at NSA in 1997 when she was named the Agency’s Deputy Director.
McNamara received several prestigious awards, and in June 2000, she received the Intelligence Community’s highest award, the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal.
Barbara A. McNamara Nominated to CACI Board of Directors (527 words)
McNamara brings to the company extensive knowledge and insight into the intelligence community, with significant experience with the National Security Agency (NSA) and a broad understanding of U.S. intelligence agencies.
McNamara was Deputy Director of NSA, the most senior civilian position in NSA, regularly interacting with a diverse set of U.S. and foreign organizations and individuals to build support for strategic initiatives.
McNamara is a graduate of both the Armed Forces Staff College and the National War College.
-
COLBY QUOTE
More drivel, how does any of this indicate 9/11 was an "inside job"?
END COLBY QUOTE
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=====================+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For what reason would the USA population support these invasions.....?....only if there was a "NEW" Pearl Harbor.
General Wesley Clark Reveals US Plan To Invade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran
Posted by Alexander Higgins - May 22, 2011 at 4:08 pm - Permalink - Source via Alexander Higgins Blog
UTUBE LINK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7cSjwkzka0
General Wesley Clark reveals the US plan to invade and take over 7 countries, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran, before we even invaded Afghanistan. The first part of the plan was revealed 10 days after 9/11 and was expanded to included the other nations. Clark is quoted as saying the invasion wasnt based on links to Al-Queda or any other intelligence reports but just because the US has an army that is great at taking over other nations.
In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran
Transcripts:
[Wesley Clark] About ten days after 9/11 I went to the penatagon and I say secretary Rumsfield and Deputy Secretary Wolfweitz.
I went down stairs to see some of the staff who used to work for me and one of the Generals called me in and said Sir, you have got to come in. Come in, you have got to come in and talk to me a second.
I said Well, your to busy.
He said, No, No, we have made the decision to go to war with Iraq. This was on or about the 20th of September [2001].
I said We are going to war with Iraq? Why [emphasis added].
He said, I dont know [crowd laughs]
He said, I guess they dont know what else to do. [crowd boos].
So I said Well did they find come information connecting Saddam to Al-Queda?
He said, No, No. There is nothing new that way, they just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.
He said, I quess its like, we dont know what to do about terrorists but we have a good military and we can take down governments
So I came back to see him a few weeks laters and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan.
I said Are we still going to war with Iraq?
And he said Oh, its worse than that.
He reached over on his desk and picked up a piece of paper.
He said, I just got this down from up stairs from the Secratary of Defenses office today. This is a memo that describes how we are going to take out 7 countries in 5 years.
Starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebenon. Then Lybia, Somalia and Sudan. Then finishing off Iran.
[Amy Goodman] Go Through the countries again. [crowd laughs]
[Wesley Clark] Well starting off with Iraq, then Syria and Lebenon, and Lybia, Somalia and Sudan. and back to Iran.
Fast forward to today and we have indeed invaded and occupied Afghanistan.
Intellegence reports were fabrictated to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to justify the ousting of Saddam Hussien.The released secret documents that revealed the intel reports were fabricated also revealed the invasion of Iraq was for the prize of oil.
We are currently bombing Lybia as the war hawks push for authorization to send in ground troops.
The US propaganda machine is also beating the war drum for an invasion of Syria.
To make matters worse if the World War 3 Legislation that is being voted on in Congress is passed there will be no need to push out propaganda to justify the invasion of the rest of the countries on the list. The president will have full authority just to invade any country he wants
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sociopaths Delight
-------------------------
The COLBY does what COLBY can,
Deeds quite impossible for one Man,
But one prize is beyond his reach,
The COLBY cannot master any true emotion:
About a subjugated plain,
Among its desperate and slain,
The COLBY stalks with hands on hips,
debating points till insane
drivel gushes from fetid lips
emotion ? what is that? glance in a mirror
.......all flat
-
Unbriddled speculation without an iota of evidence.
It is SOP for victims of sexual crime not the be identified, the guy fro JPMorgan is the interim head of the IMF.
++++++++++++++++++++)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO(((((((((((((((((((((((((((OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
THE AUTHOR IS ANONYMOUS !!!! YOU DIDNT SEEM TO READ THE LINK !! AUTHOR ANONYMOUS is that SOP ??
A 2010 book entitled Dsk : Les secrets d'un présidentiable (DSK:Secrets of a presidential contender) by an anonymous French author who goes by the pseudonym "Cassandre", alleges that IMF head and accused rapist Dominique Strauss-Kahn raped a maid in a hotel in Mexico while on a business trip.
##############################OOOOOOOOOOOOOO#################
LINK again
http://notas.guanabee.com/2011/05/2010-book-says-dominique-strauss-kahn-raped-maid-mexico/
##############################))))))))))))))))))))))##################
THIS IS CURIOUS ??
a political activist for French President Sarkozy, Jonathan Pinet, tweeted the news of Strauss-Kahn’s arrest to Arnaud Dassier, a spin doctor for Sarkozy, before the news was announced by the New York police.
SEE BELOW
The police and the prostitute media have made it impossible for Dominique Strauss-Kahn to get a fair trial. From the moment of the announcement that he had been arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting a hotel maid, and before he was ever indicted, the accounts given by the police were designed to create the impression that the director of the International Monetary Fund was guilty. For example, the police told the media, which duly regurgitated to the public, that Strauss-Kahn was in such a hurry to flee the scene of the crime that he left behind his cell phone. The police also put out the story that by calling airlines and demanding passenger lists, they managed to catch the fleeing rapist just as his plane was departing for France.
A New York judge denied Strauss-Kahn bail on the basis of police misrepresentation that he was apprehended fleeing the country.
Once he was imprisoned, the police announced that Strauss-Kahn was on suicide watch, which is a way of suggesting to the public that the accused rapist might take his own life in order to avoid the public humiliation of a guilty verdict from a jury.
But what really happened, assuming one can learn anything from press reports, is that Strauss-Kahn, upon arriving at JFK airport for his scheduled flight, discovered that he did not have his cell phone and telephoned the hotel, the scene of the alleged crime. It boggles the mind that anyone could possibly think that a person fleeing from his crime would call the scene of the crime, ask about his left behind cell phone, and tell them where he was.
Then in rapid succession, reeking of orchestration, a French woman steps forward and declares that a decade ago she was nearly raped by Strauss-Kahn. This was followed by Kristin Davis, the Manhattan Madam of the prostitute who did in Eliot Spitzer before he could get the banksters on Wall Street, stepping forward to announce that one of her call girls refused to service Strauss-Kahn a second time because he was too rough in the act.
With hunting season opened, any woman whose career would benefit from publicity, or whose bank account would bless a damage award, can now step forward and claim to have been a victim or near victim of Strauss-Kahn.
This is not to deny that Strauss-Kahn might have an inordinate appetite for sex that did him in. It is to say that long before a jury hears from the maid, or from a prosecutor speaking for the maid “who is too traumatized to appear in court,” the jury has been programmed with the verdict that he is guilty.
Why would he run away if he didn’t do it?
Look at all the women he has accosted!
You get the picture.
I have written about the anomalies of the case. One of the most striking is the confirmed reports in the French and British press that a political activist for French President Sarkozy, Jonathan Pinet, tweeted the news of Strauss-Kahn’s arrest to Arnaud Dassier, a spin doctor for Sarkozy, before the news was announced by the New York police.
Pinet’s explanation for how he was the first to know is that a “friend” in the Sofitel Hotel, where the alleged crime took place, told him. Is it merely a coincidence that the men assigned the task of removing the Strauss-Kahn threat to French President Sarkozy’s re-election had a clued-in friend in the Sofitel Hotel? Did the police clue-in the “friend” before they made the public announcement? If so, why?
What bothers me about the Strauss-Kahn affair is that if the police have evidence that supports their insistence on his guilt, it is pointless for the police to set Strauss-Kahn up in the media. Generally, set-ups like this occur only when there is no evidence or when the evidence has to be fabricated and cannot withstand examination.
As a person who had a Washington career, I find other aspects of the case disturbing. Strauss-Kahn had emerged as a threat to the establishment. Polls showed that as the socialist candidate, he was the odds-on favorite to defeat the American candidate, Sarkozy, in the upcoming French presidential election. Perhaps it was only electoral posturing to help defeat Sarkozy, but Strauss-Kahn indicated that he intended to move the International Monetary Fund away from its past policy of making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich. He spoke of strengthening collective bargaining, and of restructuring mortgages, tax and spending policies in order that the economy would serve ordinary people in addition to the banksters. Strauss-Kahn said that regulation needed to be restored to financial markets and implied that a more even distribution of income was required.
These remarks, together with a likely win over Sarkozy in the French election, made Strauss-Kahn a double-barreled challenge to the establishment. The third strike against him was the recent IMF report that said China would surpass the US as the world’s first economy within five years. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/imf-bombshell-age-of-america-about-to-end-2011-04-25
People who haven’t spent their professional life in Washington may not understand the threat to Washington that is in the IMF report. Whether deserved or not, the IMF has a lot of credibility. By placing China as the number one economic power by the end of the next US presidential term, the IMF thrust a dagger through the heart of American hegemony. Washington’s power is based on America’s economic supremacy. The IMF report said that this supremacy was at its end.
This kind of announcement tells the political world that, as the headline read, “the age of America is over.” For the first time in decades, other countries can see the prospect of escaping from US domination. They don’t have to be puppet states, part of the hegemonic empire. They see the prospect of serving their own people and their own interests instead of those of Washington. European countries, for example, forced to fight for Washington in Afghanistan and Libya, see light at the end of the tunnel. They can now think about refusing.
Although rich and a member of the establishment, and independently of his behavior toward women, Strauss-Kahn made the mistake of revealing that he might have a social conscience. Either this social conscience or the hubris of power led him to challenge American supremacy. This is an unforgivable crime for which he is being punished.
My friend, Alexander Cockburn, an intelligent and civilized person who is derided by right-wingers as a communist, lacks my experience of Washington. Consequently, he thinks that the facts will come out, although he seems to prefer that they come out on the side of the maid and not Strauss-Kahn.
If Alex were the Bolshevik he is said to be, he would know that no high-ranking figure who was serving the establishment would be destroyed on the basis of the word of an immigrant maid living in a sub-let apartment in a building for aids victims. The very notion that the US establishment craves justice to this extent is a total absurdity. Americans are so indifferent to injustice that the American public shrugs off the hundreds of thousands and millions of women, children, and village elders who are murdered, maimed, dispossessed, and displaced by the US military in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and wherever Washington and the military/security complex, while feeding on power and profit, can claim to be protecting Americans from “terrorists” or bringing democracy to the heathen.
The American criminal justice system is riddled with wrongful convictions and stinks of injustice. The US has a much higher rate of incarceration than alleged authoritarian regimes, such as China, and routinely destroys the lives of young people, and even mothers of small children, for using drugs.
Strauss-Kahn’s indictment serves emotional needs of conservatives, left-wingers, and feminists as well as establishment agendas. Conservatives don’t like the French, because they did not support the US invasion of Iraq. The left-wing doesn’t like rich white guys and IMF officials, and feminists don’t like womanizers. But even if the government’s case falls apart in the courtroom, Strauss-Kahn has been removed from the French presidential race and from the IMF. This, not justice for an immigrant, is what the case is about.
Many Americans are unable to comprehend that authorities would remove a threat with a frame-up. But far worst has occurred. Francesco Cossiga, a former President of Italy, revealed that many of the bombings in Europe during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, which were blamed on communists, were in fact “false flag” operations carried out by the CIA and Italian intelligence in order to scare voters away from the communist party. Cossiga’s revelations resulted in a parliamentary investigation in which intelligence operative Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated: “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”
If democratic governments will murder innocents for political reasons, why wouldn’t they frame someone? Whether innocent or guilty, Strauss-Kahn has been framed in advance of his trial.
—
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously an editor for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.
-
Len,
Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Costello but never Laurel and Costello.....
#########################??????????????????????######################################
COLBY FLAMES and BURTON corrects it ......well IMHO
Tweedledum and Tweedledee AKA BURTON=COLBY
I like the Walrus best," said Alice, "because you see he was a little sorry for the poor oysters."
"He ate more than the Carpenter, though," said Tweedledee. "You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn't count how many he took: contrariwise."
"That was mean!" Alice said indignantly. "Then I like the Carpenter best-if he didn't eat so many as the Walrus."
"But he ate as many as he could get," said Tweedledum.
This was a puzzler. After a pause, Alice began, "Well! They were both very unpleasant characters" I ask are Tweedledum and Tweedledee much different ???
-
I don’t find it all surprising that while Laurel is avoiding the tread ‘like the plague’ Costello showed up with his drivel and worst of all off-topic drivel he has already spammed elsewhere.
Outside this country, there is a widespread belief that U.S. military deployments in Central Asia mostly are about oil.An article in the Guardian of London headlined, “A pro-western regime in Kabul should give the U.S. an Afghan route for Caspian oil,” foreshadowed the kind of skeptical coverage the U.S. war now receives in many countries.
Except that Unocal pulled out of the proposed pipeline project in 1998 and it was never built. Rather alternative pipelines were built through the south Caucus construction of which began in 2003 with preparations of course beginning before that and in some cases before 9/11. Even ignoring that the theory proposed here is incoherent; the US plotted to put the Taliban in power to build the pipeline then plotted to overthrow them for the same reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku%E2%80%93Tbilisi%E2%80%93Ceyhan_pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Caucasus_Pipeline
http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/publications/concerns_timeline.pdf
FROM WASHINGTON POSTfAhmed Wali Karzai, the half-brother of Afghanistan’s president and boss of the strategically important Kandahar province, has been on the CIA payroll for over a decade.
By the fall of 2008, Woodward says, “Ahmed Wali Karzai had been on the CIA payroll for years, beginning before 9/11. He had belonged to the CIA's small network of paid agents and informants inside Afghanistan. In addition, the CIA paid him money through his half-brother, the president.” (for how long?)
LOL, even Hamid Karzai being on the CIA would not be evidence that elements in the USG orchestrated 9/11 or “let it happen on purpose” - let alone his half-brother supposedly getting money from them. Karzai has long been pro-US if true this is not especially surprising. Get back to us with evidence OBL or anyone else in AQ got money from the US.
+++++++++++++++++ LAST BUT NOT LEAST +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LAST +++++++++++++++++++++++++
BUT NOT LEAST, >>>>>>> FROM A MAY 1.2011 NEWSNET article
http://tribune.com.p...s-tapi-project/
WHAT IS YOURS IS NOW MINE,WHAT IS YOURS IS NOW MINE !!!!!! memory ahh .......sg
You posted a broken (parsed) link genius.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))oooooooooooooooo))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII not broken now.....Link not broken now.... see below....
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
COLBY QUOTE
Even ignoring that the theory proposed here is incoherent; the US plotted to put the Taliban in power to build the pipeline then plotted to overthrow them for the same reason. END COLBY QUOTE
Incoherent,?, WHAT ?? ,Colby reads things not stated ??? Please put your reading glasses on Mr. Colby. Taliban created for creation of problems for CCCP. Once created Taliban would not let pipeline through at low price --- now fight Taliban. As for KARZAI,yes he is part of a meta-argument in that PNAC/911/Afghan pipline /Iraq Oil /Block Iran oil/control Middle Asia gas,oil are part of a Imperial Chess board. Smells like teen ,oh no ...Smells like Imperialism. As for UNOCAL...companies come and go ,however the Imperial Anglo-American plots/wars continue.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
COLBY QUOTE Get back to us with evidence OBL or anyone else in AQ got money from the US. END COLBY QUOTE
COOOOOLLLOOOBY , OBL true believer ...its ZAWAHIRI, you see ZAWHHIRI was turned ....hes a ANGLO/AMERICAN asset....turned... do you understand the phrase "turned" ????? I figured this out on 9-12 ......because of an obscure story out of EGYPT day after 911. No need for CIA money,OBL money can be used. I posted about this small obscure story out of EGYPT on the Dellarosa site long,long ago sg
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++OOOOOOOOOOOO++++++++++
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))++++++++++++))))))))))
)))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOO)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
from HERMES-Press
Thursday, November 15 01:21 PM EST
U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil - Say Authors
By Julio Godoy, Inter Press Service
PARIS, Nov 15 (IPS) - Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.
In the book ''Bin Laden, la verite interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.
Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''.
The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.
They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.
Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that''.
But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'', the authors claim.
''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris.
According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.
To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency .
The last meeting between U.S. and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain.
On that occasion, Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for the U.S. government, met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad.
Brisard and Dasquie have long experience in intelligence analysis. Brisard was until the late 1990s director of economic analysis and strategy for Vivendi, a French company. He also worked for French secret services, and wrote for them in 1997 a report on the now famous Al Qaeda network, headed by bin Laden.
Dasquie is an investigative journalist and publisher of Intelligence Online, a respected newsletter on diplomacy, economic analysis and strategy, available through the Internet.
Brisard and Dasquie draw a portrait of closest aides to President Bush, linking them to oil business.
Bush's family has a strong oil background. So are some of his top aides. From the U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, through the director of the National Security Council Condoleeza Rice, to the Ministers of Commerce and Energy, Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham, all have for long worked for U.S. oil companies.
Cheney was until the end of last year president of Halliburton, a company that provides services for oil industry; Rice was between 1991 and 2000 manager for Chevron; Evans and Abraham worked for Tom Brown, another oil giant.
Besides the secret negotiations held between Washington and Kabul and the importance of the oil industry, the book takes issue with the role played by Saudi Arabia in fostering Islamic fundamentalism, in the personality of bin Laden, and with the networks that the Saudi dissident built to finance his activities.
Brisard and Dasquie contend the U.S. government's claim that it had been prosecuting bin Laden since 1998. ''Actually,'' Dasquie says, ''the first state to officially prosecute bin Laden was Libya, on the charges of terrorism.''
''Bin Laden wanted settle in Libya in the early 1990s, but was hindered by the government of Muammar Qaddafi,'' Dasquie claims. ''Enraged by Libya's refusal, bin Laden organised attacks inside Libya, including assassination attempts against Qaddafi.''
Dasquie singles out one group, the Islamic Fighting Group (IFG), reputedly the most powerful Libyan dissident organisation, based in London, and directly linked with bin Laden.
''Qaddafi even demanded Western police institutions, such as Interpol, to pursue the IFG and bin Laden, but never obtained co- operation,'' Dasquie says. ''Until today, members of IFG openly live in London.''
The book confirms earlier reports that the U.S. government worked closely with the United Nations during the negotiations with the Taliban.
''Several meetings took place this year, under the arbitration of Francesc Vendrell, personal representative of UN secretary general Kofi Annan, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan,'' says the book.
''Representatives of the U.S. government and Russia, and the six countries that border with Afghanistan were present at these meetings,'' it says. ''Sometimes, representatives of the Taliban also sat around the table.''
These meetings, also called ''6+2'' because of the number of states (six neighbours plus U.S. and Russia) involved, have been confirmed by Naif Naik, former Pakistani Minister for Foreign Affairs.
In a French television news programme two weeks ago, Naik said during a ''6+2'' meeting in Berlin in July, the discussions turned around ''the formation of a government of national unity. If the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they would have immediately received international economic aid.''
''And the pipe lines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would have come,'' he added.
Naik also claimed that Tom Simons, the U.S. representative at these meetings, openly threatened the Taliban and Pakistan.
''Simons said, 'either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use another option'. The words Simons used were 'a military operation','' Naik claimed.
-
Part II
DiEugenio wrote: “Colby apparently wants everyone to ignore my post 373 where i specifically mentioned the warnings and footnoted them. The interested parties can look it up, I am not going to recycle it.”
I looked into the “warnings” from Ahmed’s War on Freedom he cited. He wrote:
“And they were specific about NYC and Washington and tall and important buildings. (The War on Freedom by Nafeez Ahmed p. 113) Even more amazing, one warning came in in May and specifically targeted the finance district in Manhattan. (ibid) Further, the Russian one said that pilots were being trained in the USA to run missions against tall buildings! (ibid, p. 114) There was a warning specifically about the WTC, being hit about September 9th. (ibid p. 115) There was another that had the right day that the Pentagon would be hit. (ibid p. 116) Further, the WH had been warned by Manila that these would not be independent attacks but part of a large plan called Project Bojinka. (ibid p. 117)”
Let’s look at those one by one:
- “they were specific about NYC and Washington and tall and important buildings. (The War on Freedom by Nafeez Ahmed p. 113)”
Ahmed didn’t offer a citation for this on page 113 but introduced it with “We should recall that…” as if he had documented it earlier.
Jim -I’ve done enough of your leg work find where he provided a cite. Also he said nothing about ‘tall’ buildings, get your facts straight.
- “one warning came in in May and specifically targeted the finance district in Manhattan.”
This was based on a claim by David Schippers, in an October 2001 interview with Alex Jones. He claimed to have gotten the information from FBI agents in Minneapolis and Chicago and passed word on to unnamed congressmen, friends of Ashcroft and DoJ officials. Schippers offered no corroboration for his claims and one must wonder why if he such information he didn’t go a more high profile source or why the agents themselves still haven’t come forward. MSM outlets like USAToday had published articles along these lines; Schippers had been Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment so obviously he could have gotten attention from important media outlets. AFAIK the only time he repeated this claim was when he was interviewed by Chicago Magazine in fall 2002, apparently he thinks OBL was responsible for OKC and TWA 800 as well.
http://www.infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/October-2002/True-Believer/
- “Further, the Russian one said that pilots were being trained in the USA to run missions against tall buildings! (ibid, p. 114)”
As with the above there is little corroboration for this. Supposedly Putin made such a claim when being interviewed by MS-NBC. Ahmed claimed further backing from a translation of a supposed Izvestia article published by Ruppert. Since Ahmed and Ruppert are not reliable I’d like to see the original and the supposed translation.
Jim - Once again there was no mention of tall building, please try and keep your facts straight.
- “There was a warning specifically about the WTC, being hit about September 9th.”
LOL - As I said Ahmed is not reliable. There was no indication in the cited article as to when the “terrorist attacks” were supposed to occur or when the calls were made. Ahmed simply made up the September 9 reference. He omitted that: 1) the man was in jail pending deportation, 2) he “had not been believed” 3) he “was dismissed as mentally unstable”. The “law enforcement agency” was only identified as “US police” (I’m presuming NYPD or PAPD). So, a possibly crazy Iranian calls the NYPD (or some other US police department) from a German jail saying terrorists were going to attack the WTC but (apparently) nothing was done. OMG that just about proves the Bush administration was “in on it”.
- “There was another that had the right day that the Pentagon would be hit. (ibid p. 116)”
I could not find his cited source and all traces of the supposed statement on the Net cite Ahmed, so I want to see the original. But once again there does not seem to be any confirmation for the supposed warning. Garth L. Nicolson PhD, supposedly an eminent biologist, made the unlikely claim he and his wife received “three warnings of the attack on the Pentagon” and passed them on to his supposed contacts in the DoD. He didn’t identify the sources but implied two were among his “contacts in the retired intelligence community, including Special Forces, and domestic and foreign intelligence service” and one came from an unidentified “Head of State of a North African country…during a visit to Tunisia in July 2001. This head of state was travelling under cover and met with us at our hotel”. Some obvious questions are 1) how would retired intel agents and a North African head of state get such specific info? 2) if they did why would they tell the Nicholsons rather than appropriate USG officials? 3) why haven’t any of the sources come forward? 4) Why would a head of state travel incognito to visit them in their hotel?
911 Myths obtained the FBI’s summary of their interview with the couple. Some of the details vary according, for example to it Mr. Nicholson said he wasn’t present when his wife spoke to the African leader. But worse they seem to be nutjobs they claimed: a) “the actual "masterminds' of the attacks were unknown members of a conspiracy involving those who control the Vatican Bank and members of the Mafia”
one of their sources ‘provided her information in the form of riddles, like the comic book character, "the Riddler"’ c) they “had been recently sprayed by an aerosol can of Yesinia pestis (black plague)” etc etc . According to the FBI “Dr N. Nicolson stated that she and her husband Garth took a trip to the island of Malta during the summer of 2001. While in Malta, they took a side trip to Tunisia.” This makes it sound like the trip to was spur of the moment making the notion they were secretly visited by the president or king of another country even more improbable. The FBI further reported “The USSS examined her passport and determined that she had an entry stamp for Malta but not for Tunisia. Dr. N. Nicolson's explanation was that Tunisia did not use entry stamps. Neither the FBI agents nor the USSS agents considered Dr. N. Nicolson to be credible.”
http://911myths.com/images/2/2a/Team1A_BoxNA_NicolsonWarning.pdf
- Further, the WH had been warned by Manila that these would not be independent attacks but part of a large plan called Project Bojinka. (ibid p. 117)”
Jim is demonstrating his trademark confusion, Bojinka was a plot that was to have taken place in early 1995 but was foiled when Filipino police stumbled upon the plotters in Dec. 1994. “Manila” was not aware of any such new plot. Ahmed got that right [PGS 84 – 5] but for some reason wrote on PG. 117 that “the US was alerted to only a few months earlier”
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=operation_bojinka
************************))))))))))))))00000000000000))))))))))))))))*****************
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE PNAC SONG
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Middle East and Asia here I come !!!
Come as you are, as you were, as I want you to be.
As a enemy, as a enemy, as an old Enemy.
Take your time, hurry up, choice is yours, don't be late.
Take a rest, as a enemy , as an old memory.
Memory ah, Memory ah, Memory ah.
What is yours now is mine,what is yours now is mine
Come doused in Mud, soaked in Bleach, as I want you to be.
As a trend, as a enemy, as an old Memory ahhh.
Memory ahh, Memory ahh, Memory ahh.
What is yours is now mine,what is yours is now nine
Chorus:
And I swear that I have a gun
No, I have a gun
No, I have a gun
--Instrumental--
Memory ahh, Memory ahh, Memory ahh, Memory ahh. (have a Gun.)
Chorus:
And I swear that I have a gun,what is yours is now mine
No, I have a gun
No, I have a gun
No, I have a gun
No, I have a gun
What is yours is now mind,what is yours is now mind.....Memory ahh..MIDDLE EAST/ASIA here I come !!!!!!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
see http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080622113024.5rfe5v9s&show_article (what is yours is now mine...Memory ahh) Pipeline politics
and again +++++++++++++++++++++++++ see below
Pipeline politics taint U.S. war
Chicago Tribune
Mar 18, 2002
Abstract:
Ahmed Rashid, who has reported on Afghan wars for more than 20 years as a correspondent for the Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph, carefully documents in his book how the U.S. and Pakistan helped install the Taliban in hopes of bringing stability to the war-ravaged region and making it safer for the pipeline project. Unocal pulled out of the deal after the 1998 terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were linked to terrorists based in Afghanistan.
Full Text:
An ongoing source of frustration and anger for many Americans is the lack of support the war on terrorism has received abroad. Other nations are considerably less enthusiastic about our use of “daisy cutter” and “thermobaric” bombs than we think they should be. Why is that?
One reason is their media. Stories alleging imperial and commercial motives for the war on terrorism are rife.
Outside this country, there is a widespread belief that U.S. military deployments in Central Asia mostly are about oil.
An article in the Guardian of London headlined, “A pro-western regime in Kabul should give the U.S. an Afghan route for Caspian oil,” foreshadowed the kind of skeptical coverage the U.S. war now receives in many countries.
“The invasion of Afghanistan is certainly a campaign against terrorism,” wrote author George Monbiot in the Oct. 22, 2001, piece, “but it may also be a late colonial adventure.”
He wrote that the U.S. oil company Unocal Corp. had been negotiating with the Taliban since 1995 to build “oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea.” He cited Ahmed Rashid’s authoritative book “Taliban, Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia” as a source for this information.
Rashid, who has reported on Afghan wars for more than 20 years as a correspondent for the Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph, carefully documents in his book how the U.S. and Pakistan helped install the Taliban in hopes of bringing stability to the war- ravaged region and making it safer for the pipeline project. Unocal pulled out of the deal after the 1998 terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were linked to terrorists based in Afghanistan.
“The war against terrorism is a fraud,” exclaimed John Pilger in an Oct. 29 commentary in the British-based Mirror. Pilger, the publication’s former chief foreign correspondent, wrote, “Bush’s concealed agenda is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the Caspian basin, the greatest source of untapped fossil fuel on earth.”
These harsh assessments are not just those of embittered ideologues. They are common fare. “Just as the Gulf War in 1991 was about oil, the new conflict in South and Central Asia is no less about access to the region’s abundant petroleum resources,” writes Ranjit Devraj in the Hong Kong-based Asia Times, a business- oriented publication.
A popular French book titled “Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth,” which alleges that the Bush administration blocked investigations of Osama bin Laden while it bargained for him with the Taliban in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, is guiding much of the recent European coverage.
Written by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, the book adds another plank to the argument that America’s major objective was to gain access to the region’s oil and gas reserves.
According to the book, the Bush administration began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power. The parties talked for many months before reaching an impasse in August 2001.
The terrorist acts of Sept. 11, though tragic, provided the Bush administration a legitimate reason to invade Afghanistan, oust the recalcitrant Taliban and, coincidentally, smooth the way for the pipeline.
To make things even smoother, the U.S. engineered the rise to power of two former Unocal employees: Hamid Karzai, the new interim president of Afghanistan, and Zalmay Khalizad, the Bush administration’s Afghanistan envoy.
“Osama bin Laden did not comprehend that his actions serve American interests,” writes Uri Averny, in a Feb. 14 column in the daily Ma’ariv in Israel. Averny, a former member of the Israeli Knesset and a noted peace activist, added, “If I were a believer in conspiracy theory, I would think that bin Laden is an American agent. Not being one I can only wonder at the coincidence.”
Averny argues that the war on terrorism provides a perfect pretext for America’s imperial interests. “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created for the war, one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.”
The Asia Times reported in January that the U.S. is developing “a network of multiple Caspian pipelines,” and that people close to the Bush administration stand to benefit.
For example, the proposed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, linking Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, is represented by the law firm Baker & Botts. The principal attorney is James Baker, former secretary of state and chief spokesman for the Bush campaign in the Florida vote controversy.
In 1997, the now disgraced Enron Corp. conducted the feasibility study for the $2.5 billion Trans-Caspian pipeline being built under a joint venture between Turkmenistan, Bechtel Corp. and General Electric, the article noted.
There are many other connections, too numerous to recount here. No wonder the rest of the world is a bit skeptical about our war on evildoers.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
FROM WASHINGTON POST
fAhmed Wali Karzai, the half-brother of Afghanistan’s president and boss of the strategically important Kandahar province, has been on the CIA payroll for over a decade.
By the fall of 2008, Woodward says, “Ahmed Wali Karzai had been on the CIA payroll for years, beginning before 9/11. He had belonged to the CIA's small network of paid agents and informants inside Afghanistan. In addition, the CIA paid him money through his half-brother, the president.” (for how long?)
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
+++++++++++++++++ LAST BUT NOT LEAST +++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++ LAST +++++++++++++++++++++++++
BUT NOT LEAST, >>>>>>> FROM A MAY 1.2011 NEWSNET article
WHAT IS YOURS IS NOW MINE,WHAT IS YOURS IS NOW MINE !!!!!! memory ahh .......sg
-
PART three
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=============++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Phoney staged events thought about by G W Bush..... Now the mind set of the 911 POTUS seems to be an evill one ,thus that 911
was staged by DOD/intell services is not farfetched in the slightest. WAR,WAR,WAR,WAR....money$,money$,money$,money$....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
PER TREASURY SECRETARY O'Neill +
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: "[W]hat we really want to think about is going after Saddam…Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that’s aligned with U.S. interests.".............
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
From The Times
February 3, 2006
Bush 'tried to lure Saddam into war using UN aircraft'
By Rosemary Bennett and Michael Evans
PRESIDENT BUSH had plans to lure Saddam Hussein into war by flying an aircraft over Iraq painted in UN colours in the hope he would shoot it down, a book reveals.
Mr Bush told Tony Blair of the extraordinary plan during a meeting in the White House on January 31, 2003, six weeks before the war started, according to an updated version of Lawless World by Philippe Sands, a human rights lawyer. He says the President made it clear that he had already decided to go to war, despite still pressing for a UN resolution.
“The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach,” the book reports Mr Bush telling Mr Blair at the meeting.
If the U2 idea was a serious proposal, it would have made sense only if the spy plane was ordered to fly at an altitude within range of Iraqi missiles. Mr Bush’s reference in the recorded conversation to the U2 being escorted by fighter aircraft indicates that that is what he had in mind.
The U2, America’s most sophisticated aerial reconnaissance aircraft, can operate at 90,000ft, taking high-resolution photographs of targets. At this altitude, the U2 would have been beyond the range of Iraqi surface-to-air missiles.
U2s were made available to the UN weapons inspectors to help them in their search for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But there has never been any suggestion until now that Mr Bush had thought about painting one of them in UN colours to deceive Saddam.
Later in the same meeting the President said it was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam’s WMD, and there was a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated.
The book also claims that the President “thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups”.
President Bush also made clear, according to the book which was featured on Channel 4 News, that he would go to war irrespective of whether there was a second UN resolution.
“The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would ‘twist arms’ and ‘even threaten’. But he had to say that if, ultimately, we failed, military action would follow anyway,” the book said.
The section of the book is based on a memo of the meeting. Mr Blair responded that he was “solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam”. But the Prime Minister said that a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs.
Mr Sands’ book says that the meeting focused on the need to identify evidence that Saddam had committed a material breach of his obligations under the existing UN Resolution 1441. There was concern that insufficient evidence had been unearthed by the UN inspection team, led by Dr Hans Blix.
That was why other options, such as the aircraft in UN colours, were considered.
Last night Sir Menzies Campbell, acting Liberal Democrat leader, said: “If these allegations are accurate, the Prime Minister and President Bush were determined to go to war with or without a second UN resolution, and Britain was signed up to do so by the end of January 2003.”
He added: “By then it was clear that there was no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the stated justification for the moves against Saddam Hussein. The fact that consideration was apparently given to using American military aircraft in UN colours to provoke Saddam graphically illustrates the rush to war.”
Lawless World by Philippe Sands
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0000000000000000000000000000000000000)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please let me add (RUTH'S BLOG), BUSH'S FIRST NATIONAL SECURITY MEETING.....lets go to WAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then there’s Paul O’Neill’s account of National Security Council (NSC) meetings when he was Treasury Secretary. According to O’Neill, Bush’s first National Security Council meeting on January 30, 2001 focused on Iraq – and, at this meeting, CIA Director George Tenet said the Agency’s intelligence was so poor "we’d be going in there blind." At a February 1, 2001 meeting, participants were given a document entitled "Political-Military Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: "[W]hat we really want to think about is going after Saddam…Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that’s aligned with U.S. interests.".............
.........
Did the Administration Plan to Create a False Pretext for War?
According to Hubris by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Bush authorized a covert CIA program for Iraq in February 2002. Among other things, it included a scheme to "stage a phony incident that could be used to start a war. A small group of Iraqi exiles would be flown into Iraq by helicopter to seize an isolated military base near the Saudi border. They then would take to the airwaves and announce a coup was under way. If Saddam responded by flying troops south, his aircraft would be shot down by U.S. fighter planes patrolling the no-fly zones established by UN edict after the first Persian Gulf War. A clash of this sort could be used to initiate a full-scale war." Needless to say, Congress has never investigated this.
Moreover, all this jibes with what senior policymakers were saying at the time. On February 24, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated publicly: "Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." And on July 29, 2001 Condoleezza Rice told CNN: "…Let’s remember that [saddam's] country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." What intelligence were these statements based on?
Was the Intelligence Community Pressured?
According to the SSCI Phase I report and the WMD Commission, the CIA and other agencies came to their conclusions of their own remarkably free will. To create this narrative, however, the reports had to overlook some glaring contradictions.
For instance, two books – James Bamford’s A Pretext for War and Lindsay Moran’s Blowing My Cover – describe what seems to be the same incident in which an anonymous CIA source claims administration pressure on the Agency "was blatant." The source reported that his or her boss told a group of fifty analysts that "if Bush wants to go to war, it’s your job to give him a reason to do so." Neither Bamford, nor Moran was contacted for the previous investigations.
and ...................................below more phoney staging.......
Likewise, we know from a leaked British memo that Bush was talking about other possible pretexts in early 2003. In the memo’s language, Bush told Blair, "The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours… If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach" of U.N. resolutions requiring Iraq’s cooperation with the ongoing weapons inspections.
-
PART TWO
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++======================
Foreknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse
Numerous emergency responders recall either having advanced knowledge or receiving warnings that WTC 7 would collapse. At least 26 such accounts can be found in the 'oral histories' -- transcripts of interviews with F.D.N.Y. and E.M.S. responders recorded within 5 months of the attack.
WTC 7 Collapse Foreknowledge
9-11 Research
More than one television network prematurely reported the collapse of WTC 7. The BBC unequivocally reported the collapse starting about 23 minutes before it occurred.
Premature Announcements on Television Broadcasts
WTC7.net
A review of archived footage of television stations in the Washington D.C. area shows that, of five stations including affiliates of ABC, NBC, and CBS, only the BBC and CNN made premature announcements of the collapse, and those were separated by 35 minutes. This weighs against suggestions that the premature announcements reflect pre-written reports of the collapse posted on wire services.
Avoidance of Attack Targets
Several high-level government and industry officials appeared to make special plans to avoid the targets of the 9/11/01 attacks. These actions are suggestive, if not indicative, of foreknowledge of the attack.
A group of "top Pentagon officials" cancelled travel plans on September 10:
Bush: 'We're At War'
Newsweek
Billionare Warren Buffet held a September 11 breakfast meeting at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska (one of the stops of Air Force One that day). Attendees included Anne Tatlock, CEO of Fiduciary Trust Inc., a company which occupied floors above the crash zone in the South Tower:
September 11th: The President's Story
60 Minutes/CBS News
Franklin unit rebuilds after 9/11 tragedy
San Francisco Business Times
San Franscisco Mayor Willie Brown recieved a warning not to travel on the eve of the attack:
Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel
San Francisco Chronicle
Author Salman Rushdie was grounded by Scotland Yard:
Rushdie's air ban
London Times
President Bush's cousin, Jim Pierce, moved a business confernce on the morning of 9/11/01 from the scheduled location of the 105th floor of the South Tower to the Millennium Hotel:
President's cousin escaped death thanks to schedule change
Ananova
Organizational Changes Suggesting Foreknowledge
The World Trade Center, whose construction began in the 1960s, was managed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey through mid-2001. Then, just six weeks before the attack, control was transferred to a consortium of private companies led by Silverstein Properties, which secured insurance polices specifically covering terrorst attacks.
Controlling Interests: Ownership, Control, and Insurance of The World Trade Center
9-11 Research
-
PART ONE
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===============================================
No George Monbiot, These Are The Facts of September 11th 2001
Response to The UK Guardian Hit Piece
Crimes of the State
Mr. Monbiot has taken the standard media attack approach: conflate the internet film "Loose Change" with the subject of September 11th US government complicity. How brave to redo the same smear that has gone around for several years now focusing on the easily challenged claims, and ignoring the full breadth (and breathtaking amount) of evidence.
DISTURBING FACTS ABOUT THE 9/11 ATTACKS
1. The president of the United States, when informed that a second plane had struck the World Trade Center, continued to read about a pet goat.
2. This same president was moved from his high rise hotel in Genoa Italy two months previously for security reasons, because of a known al Qaeda plot for hijacking and "crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations." The assumption in July 2001 was that there existed a plot that "terrorists would try to crash a plane to kill Bush and other leaders" (LA Times, 9-27-01).
3. The Secret Service did not secure the president, even though his location was publicly disclosed in the press for days before the school photo op on 9/11. This was a break in standard operating procedures that left the president vulnerable in the middle of a purported "attack" on America.
4. NORAD has told three different and conflicting stories explaining why no jet fighters intercepted any of the four hijacked airliners.
5. Vice President Richard Cheney was placed in charge of anti-terrorism training and military preparedness exercises by Bush on May 8, 2001. This gave him command authority during the 9/11 attacks because as many as nine war game exercises involving military and intelligence agencies were occurring simultaneously.
6. The military's "Air Piracy" regulations were rewritten on June 1st 2001 to require the "Secretary of Defense" to give "approval" for military escort aircraft in the event of a hijacking. Donald Rumsfeld gave no "approval" that day.
7. More than an hour and fifteen minutes after the first hijacking was reported by FAA, the US military headquarters at the Pentagon was struck without any defensive action taken to stop the attack. The impact was on the west side, for some reason the only side that had been "hardened" with blast-proof windows and specially reinforced walls. None of the highest ranking military leadership were located on that side.
8. (TRANSCRIPT) Air Force General Richard Myers: "When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked..."
Senator Carl Levin: "Was that order that you just described given before or after the Pentagon was struck? Do you know?"
Air Force General Richard Myers: "That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck."
Reality intrudes. It became "clear what the threat was," the moment the first hijacked airliner struck the North Tower at 8:46am. This congressional testimony is inexcusable and grounds for investigation into criminal negligence, dereliction of duty, and treason.
9. "President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11..." ..."Tuesday's discussion followed a rare call to Daschle from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request."
10. The Project For a New American Century, which wrote of the need for a "catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," had members throughout the top of the government on 9/11 including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Armitage, Abrams, Wurmser, as well as Bush's brother, the governor of Florida, Jeb.
11. Four days before 9/11, Jeb Bush activated the Florida National Guard, "Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port." (Executive Order 01-261).
12. On 9/11 Jeb Bush declared a "State of Emergency" in Florida (E.O. 01-262). "I hereby delegate to the Department of Law Enforcement the operational authority to coordinate and direct the law enforcement resources and other resources of any and all state, regional and local governmental agencies..." And by 2am on 9/12/01, Jeb Bush was reported to have confiscated the police records in Venice, FL related to the Huffman Aviation flight school. Two rental trucks full of these records drove onto a C-130 military aircraft at Sarasota Airport and flew out with Jeb Bush aboard.
13. Huffman Aviation flight school, where Mohamed Atta and other alleged hijackers trained, had a Lear jet seized by the DEA with "43 pounds of heroin" onboard. No one was ever prosecuted in connection with the "biggest drug seizure in central Florida history."
14. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States ("9/11 Commission") was a blatant and obvious cover-up under the control of Bush administration member and "Executive Director" Phillip Zelikow. This cover-up can be proven easily with one example: the time of Dick Cheney's arrival at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center ("PEOC bunker"). Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified under oath that Cheney was present at 9:20am and issuing "orders" related to the plane that struck the Pentagon. Mineta's testimony was completely omitted from their final report, and a fraudulent time of 9:58am for Cheney's arrival was given instead (book pg 40 / .pdf file pg 57).
15. The 9/11 Commission was originally only given $3 million to investigate the greatest terrorist attacks on US soil in our history. The Bush administration then witheld requested documents forcing the Commissioners to issue subpoenas to FAA and the Department of Defense.
16. So many lies were told by Bush administration officials regarding warnings before the attacks, that it is difficult to count them. Ari Fleischer's two word response, "No warnings," aboard Air Force One on 9/11, sums up the administration's claim.
17. Contrary to the Bush administration's claim: "Newspapers in Germany, France, Russia and London reported in the months before September 11th of a blizzard of warnings delivered to the Bush administration from all points on the compass. The German intelligence service BND warned American and Israeli agencies that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack important American targets. Egypt warned of a similar plane-based plot against Bush during the G-8 summit in Genoa last June [2001], a warning taken so seriously that anti-aircraft batteries were placed around Columbus Airport in Italy. Last August [2001], Russian intelligence services notified the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been trained for suicide missions, and Putin himself confirmed that this warning was delivered 'in the strongest possible terms' specifically regarding threats to airports and government buildings." -Newsweek, May 20, 2002
18. In July of 2001, CIA Director George Tenet and CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black claim to have made a detailed presentation and warned National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft of imminent attacks on US soil by Al Qaeda operatives. This was also omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.
19. Many more warnings stretching back to the early 1990s were known to intelligence agencies and to FBI. These warnings expose as a lie National Security Advisor Rice's response: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."
20. March 7, 2001: "The Russian Permanent Mission at the United Nations secretly submits “an unprecedentedly detailed report” to the UN Security Council about bin Laden, his whereabouts, details of his al-Qaeda network, Afghan drug running, and Taliban connections to Pakistan and the ISI. The report provides “a listing of all bin Laden’s bases, his government contacts and foreign advisers,” and enough information to potentially locate and kill him. It is said to contain an “astonishing degree of information.” The US fails to use the information in any noticable manner. Alex Standish, the editor of the highly respected Jane’s Intelligence Review, concludes that the attacks of 9/11 were less of an American intelligence failure than the result of “a political decision not to act against bin Laden.” [Jane's Intelligence Review, 10/5/2001; Times of India, 10/8/2001]
21. On August 6, 2001 a CIA briefer went to Bush's Crawford ranch to read the president a briefing called, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" (2 redacted pages out of 11 reported). After the briefing, Bush told the CIA man, "All right. You've covered your ass, now." Bush then went fishing.
22. Minneapolis FBI Agent and Legal Advisor Colleen Rowley (21 year veteran) said that the FBI Headquarters Special Supervisory Agent, "seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts ...continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. ...Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence. ...HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!"
23. FBI Special Agent Robert Wright (12 year veteran) said: "“[T]here existed a concerted effort on the part of agents conducting counterterrorism intelligence investigations to insulate the subjects of their investigations from criminal investigation and prosecution.” ...“The supervisor ...started yelling at me: ‘You will not open criminal investigations. I forbid any of you. You will not open criminal investigations against any of these intelligence subjects.’” ..."(T)here is virtually no effort on the part of the FBI’s International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected terrorists residing within the United States."
"A lawyer speaking for (FBI Special Agent) Wright after 9/11 will blame Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Michael Chertoff for refusing to take Wright’s concerns seriously before 9/11." Chertoff will later be appointed to become head of the Orwellian-named Department of Homeland Security.
"Larry Klayman, one of two lawyers now representing [FBI Agent] Wright, later says he calls the Justice Department a few days after 9/11 and asks that Wright be allowed to present his issues to Attorney General John Ashcroft. Klayman claims he receives a reply from Michael Chertoff, then head of the Criminal division, who refuses to meet with Wright and says, “We are tired of conspiracy theories.”
FBI Agent Wright says at his press conference: “Corruption is knowing when something is not being done, knowing when the American people are being left unprotected and when you make a decision not to do something to protect the American people... And you effectively allow 9/11 to occur. That is the ultimate form of government corruption—dereliction of duty. That’s subject in the military to prosecution, to court martial.... Frankly, if not treason.”
24. FBI Agent Harry Samit, who before 9/11 sent 70 communications to supervisors warning them of Moussauoi's plan to hijack a commercial jet and crash it -- to no avail -- has said, “...(I)f you’re not going to advance this the FISA route, or if you don’t believe we have enough for a FISA, I shudder to think—and that’s all I got out. And [supervisory Special Agent Mike Maltbie] cut me off and said, ‘You will not question the unit chief [David Frasca] and you will not question me. We’ve been through a lot. We know what’s going on. You will not question us.’”
25. On July 10, 2001 FBI Agents in Phoenix AZ issued a memo to FBIHQ requesting that headquarters investigate flight schools across the U.S. to look for middle eastern flight students connected to international terrorist organizations. Nothing was done, and the information was not shared.
26. "The [FBI Inspector General] report attributes the inaction and inattention to the lack of resources committed to anti-terrorist activities in the summer of 2001. For instance, there was only a single research analyst assigned to the FBI’s Bin Laden Unit in 2001, and she was transferred to another unit in July 2001."
27. "Although the FBI's counterterrorism budget tripled during the mid-1990s, its counterterrorism spending stayed fairly constant between fiscal years 1998 and 2001" ..."Then-acting FBI Director Thomas Pickard said he appealed to Ashcroft for more money for counterterrorism but on Sept 10, 2001, one day before the attacks on New York and Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people, Ashcroft rejected the appeal."
28. "At issue is a July 5, 2001, meeting between Ashcroft and acting FBI Director Tom Pickard."
"'Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore,' Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste asked on April 13. 'Is that correct?'"
"'That is correct,' Pickard replied."
..."(A)nother senior FBI official tells NBC News he vividly recalls Pickard returning from the meeting that day furious that Ashcroft had cut short the terrorism briefing. Several sources familiar with the investigation say Garcia confirmed to the commission that Ashcroft did indeed dismiss Pickard's warnings about al-Qaida."
29. FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds has become the most gagged whistleblower in the country's history. In a letter to 9/11 Commissioner Thomas Kean, she said, "“If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited ‘direct pressure by the State Department,’ and in other cases ‘sensitive diplomatic relations’ is cited. ...Your hearings did not include questions regarding these unspoken and unwritten policies and practices. Despite your full awareness and understanding of certain criminal conduct that connects to certain terrorist related activities, committed by certain US officials and high-level government employees, you have not proposed criminal investigations into this conduct, although under the laws of this country you are required to do so."
Another FBI translator, who had been "shielding" the targets of FBI investigations, told Sibel Edmonds: "“Why are you doing this, Sibel? Why don’t you just drop it? You know there could be serious consequences. Why put your family in Turkey in danger over this?” Sibel Edmonds' sister was reportedly sought by Turkish police shortly after this incident.
30. The FBI's top Al Qaeda investigator, John O'Neill, "resigned in July of 2001 in protest over the obstruction of terrorist investigations."
31. Two of the alleged hijackers lived openly in San Diego with an FBI informant for over a year: "The FBI inspector general’s report reveals for the first time that the CIA not only failed to inform the FBI about [Al] Mihdhar, but that CIA officials intervened to suppress a memorandum drafted by an FBI agent detailed to the CIA-run Counter-Terrorism Center (CTC), who wanted to notify the FBI about the suspected terrorist with a US visa."
"One FBI official familiar with the case will later complain, “[The CIA] purposely hid [Almihdhar] from the FBI, purposely refused to tell the bureau. ...And that’s why September 11 happened. ...They have blood on their hands.” [bamford, 2004, pp. 224, A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies]
32. The 9/11 Commission, at the orchestration of Bush administration member and "Executive Director" Phillip Zelikow, wrote: “To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. ...Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance.”
33. The Times of India reported that Indian Intelligence had traced the wire transfers of over $100,000 from British born terrorist and reported MI6 and ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh in the UAE to Mohamed Atta in Florida, on the orders of the head of Pakistani intelligence Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad. This was reportedly confirmed by the FBI. The Pakistani ISI chief Ahmad resigned immediately, but he has never been sought by US authorities for funding and participating in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
34. ISI chief Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was in Washington DC the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA Director George Tenet and other high ranking US officials including Tenet's replacement at CIA Porter Goss.
35. During the ISI chief's stay in Washington, Osama bin Laden was reportedly admitted to the Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001 by CBS News.
36. Osama bin Laden was also reportedly admitted to a US MILITARY HOSPITAL in Dubai, UAE, in July of 2001 for kidney dialysis treatment. There bin Laden is said to have met with the CIA station chief, Larry Mitchell.
37. Senator Bob Graham, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: "I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments [Plural!] involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States." ..."I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true."
38. Senator Bob Graham also said: "High officials in [the Saudi Arabian] government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions to the support and wellbeing of two of these terrorists and facilitated their ability to plan, practise and then execute the tragedy of September 11." These investigations remain blocked, classified, covered-up and unresolved to this day by the Bush administration's clear Obstruction of Justice.
39. Senator and 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned, saying: "This is the most serious independent investigation since the Warren Commission. And after watching History Channel shows on the Warren Commission last night, the Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I'm not going to be part of that. This is serious."
40. At least 7 of the alleged "hijackers" were reported to be still alive. Neither the FBI nor the 9/11 Commission corrected the identities, and the government has treated the issue of who exactly attacked America on September 11th as relatively unimportant. The flight manifests released by the airlines did not contain any of the names of the hijackers (who supposedly bought tickets just like everybody else), and there are discrepancies in the number of persons reported to be onboard the airliners. This also has not been explained by officials, at all.
41. The Dulles Airport security camera video released as evidence of hijackers has no time or date stamp, nor any other coded information, which suggests that it may not be authentic.
42. The aircraft "black boxes" from the World Trade Center site were admittedly recovered by NYC Fireman Nicholas DeMassi. The FBI, NTSB and the 9/11 Commission all deny they were ever recovered at all.
43. Congress shoveled $15 Billion of taxpayer money to the airlines immediately after 9/11 as one of the first responses to the attacks.
44. The autopsy report from the Pentagon crash site contains no mention of any of the hijackers.
45. Up to 200 Israeli agents were arrested and detained in relation to September 11th. This includes five Mossad agents who were celebrating the World Trade Center job with "cries of joy and mockery." The Justice Department (sic) released all of the Israelis, and the entire matter was made "classified."
46. "According to several Weehawken neighbors of the [israeli MOSSAD front operation] Urban Moving Systems warehouse, the FBI, upon searching the warehouse, discovered fertilizer, other chemicals for making explosives, pipes, caps, and traces of anthrax. After anthrax was discovered, investigators wearing hazardous material suits went through the warehouse."
47. "On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed [the anthrax drug] Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David..." The public was not warned about anthrax or alerted about Cipro for another six weeks, when anthrax-laden letters were sent through the mail to top Democratic congressmen and to others.
48. "Palestinians" were accused of committing the 9/11 attacks by Israeli MOSSAD operatives. One of the arrested MOSSAD agents told the police, “We are Israelis, we are not your problem. Your problems are our problem. Palestinians are the problem.” A phone call to the "Jersey City Police Department ...claimed 'Palestinians' in Arab clothes were seen celebrating the attacks." Was this MOSSAD referring to their own covert agents? At 9:43am on 9/11, "Abu Dhabi television reports it received a call from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, claiming responsibility for crashing two planes into the WTC. However leading officials later deny the claim."
49. Israeli instant messaging firm Odigo received warnings of the World Trade Center attacks 2 hours before they occurred.
50. Zim American / Israeli Shipping broke its lease in the World Trade Center and evacuated one week before the attacks. The company is 49% owned by the Israeli government.
51. Although the Israeli government sent MOSSAD officers to "warn" the U.S. about imminent terror attacks in August 2001: "'They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement,' said a senior Israeli security official." Mixing Osama bin Laden together with his enemy Saddam Hussein has been a ridiculous propaganda exercise, and exposed as such.
52. Fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused a steel-framed building to completely collapse. Three gigantic steel-framed skyscrapers were alleged to have collapsed from the effects of fire, including the 47 story building 7 which was not hit by a plane. The Twin Towers and building 7 displayed numerous characteristics of controlled demolition including free fall speed, collapsing into footprints, pulverization of all the concrete, and the sounds and appearances of explosive charges, as reported by many eyewitnesses. Needless to say, this has not been investigated officially, because officials refuse to admit the possibility existed at all.
53. "Fire Engineering [Magazine] has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything."
54. "'The decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses from the WTC in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known.'[NY Times] The next week, Fire Engineering magazine said: 'We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence ...The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.'" (Griffin)
55. Ben Fountain, who worked in the South Tower, told People Magazine, "Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on."
56. On Thursday, September 6, 2001 bomb-sniffing dogs were removed and the security threat level at the World Trade Center was downgraded.
57. Scott Forbes who worked in the South Tower described a "power down" on the weekend before 9/11, which was corroborated by WTC janitor William Rodriquez in his RICO lawsuit. The power down knocked out communications, computer systems, and security cameras. Numerous workmen were reported, and the sounds of heavy construction, and a pervasive grey dust was found on the 97th floor by Forbes.
58. William Rodriguez also reported bombs in the basement levels and on various floors. After describing a series of explosions, Rodriguez heard that floor 65 had completely collapsed (nowhere near the plane impact zone). Rodriguez also claims to have heard construction on floor 34 affter the plane impacts, a floor that wasn't in use.
59. President Bush's brother Marvin Bush had been a director for Securacom (now Stratasec) that was in charge of security for the WTC, United Airlines and Dulles Airport (where Flight 77 originated). An Israeli security firm, ICTS International had security responsibilities at Boston Logan airport and other airports involved in the September 11th attacks.
60. On September 10, 2001 Willie Brown, the mayor of San Francisco, received a warning not to fly. He credited who he called "my security people at the airport." No FAA warnings had been issued however "in recent days."
61. "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
62. "The author Salman Rushdie believes that US authorities knew of an imminent terrorist strike when they banned him from taking internal flights in Canada and the US only a week before the attacks. On September 3 the Federal Aviation Authority made an emergency ruling to prevent Mr Rushdie from flying unless airlines complied with strict and costly security measures."
63. "The Federal Aviation Administration said Friday it provided 15 warnings to airlines regarding possible terrorist attacks -- including al Qaeda hijackings -- in the months leading up to September 11. ...The FAA mentioned Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda in alerts the agency sent to domestic airlines." At this same time, July 2001, the FAA inexplicably terminated a firearms certification program for commercial airline pilots, which had made it legal for pilots to be armed since 1961.
64. A military data mining operation called Able Danger created a presentation chart in 2000 that allegedly included four future 9/11 hijackers. Their recommendation to send the data to the FBI was thwarted by military lawyers and by higher ranking officers. Yellow stickers were placed over the photographs of Mohamed Atta and the others. Although this information was brought directly to several of the 9-11 Commissioners, including Phillip Zelikow, it was never mentioned in their final report.
65. Purported "lead hijacker" Mohamed Atta was already known to US intelligence when he was living in Germany. "He is 'reportedly observed buying large quantities of chemicals in Frankfurt, apparently for the production of explosives [and/or] for biological warfare.' ...'The US agents reported to have trailed Atta are said to have failed to inform the German authorities about their investigation,' even as the Germans are investigating many of his associates."
66. "Military records show that hijackers Saeed and Ahmed Alghamdi listed their address on driver licenses and car registrations as 10 Radford Blvd., a base roadway where residences for foreign-military flight trainees are located, according to Newsweek (9-15-2001) ...(A) now-mysteriously deceased, Pensacola naval flight instructor from the Royal Saudi Air Force had the same name [Alghamdi] and also lived and worked at the U.S. naval air base."
67. "U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in [the 9/11] terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s."
68. "Ali Mohamed was involved with most of the major al Qaeda attacks against U.S. interests: ...the 1993 WTC bombing, the African Embassy bombings in 1998 and, even though he was arrested in late 1998, [Peter] Lance proposes that he also helped train some of the 9/11 hijackers in hijacking techniques. Astoundingly, Mohamed participated in these operations while also being a U.S. citizen, being enlisted in the U.S. military, ...and being an FBI informant in California. Importantly, ...he also had ties to the CIA."
69. While "Loose Change" is attacked for getting some things incorrect, the film does correctly describe Operation Northwoods, which was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962. The military planners expressly said: "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington [DC]. ...Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping, and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. ...We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). ...At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases."
70. And, while Operation Northwoods was not implemented, another U.S. state-sponsored terror campaign called Operation Gladio did murder innocent civilians across Europe at the orchestration of the CIA (BBC Documentary on Operation Gladio / torrent).
-
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24784
new IMF head from JP Morgan
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-lipsky-2011-5
00000000000000000)))))))))))))))000000000000000000000
Golly anonymous ??? MAYBE anonymous = French Secret Service ?? see link
http://notas.guanabee.com/2011/05/2010-book-says-dominique-strauss-kahn-raped-maid-mexico/
-
This is most important 911 link to show inside job. NSA doesnt help CIA on Al-Qaeda terrorism. WHY ?
Where in this link that you refer to is there any mention of John O'Neill?
Also, in the above first posting on this thread, you mention O'Neill's briefcase being stolen by fellow agents - but then don't bother to mention that again.
What's up?
What's your point?
I happen to know something about this as it is one of the two incidents that I focused on when I covered the 9/11 Commission hearings.
Without a doubt, the person who stole John O'Neil's briefcase in Florida was a connected FBI agent or asset, and they could have been easily identified by reviewing
the hotel's security cameras, but the FBI never bothered to even try to identify the culpret(s) because they knew who they were.
This is behavior typical of what we have come to expect from the FBI from what we know of their investigations of the civil rights murders and assassinations of the Sixties.
O'Neil thought he could change the culture, and he was wrong and was shown out the door.
So What's your point again?
BK
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bill, why do you post ? Golly this is a Political Conspiracy site,yes ?? The NSA was covering up Yemen Al-Qaeda info,this is the O'Neill link. Bigger picture can be seen. The briefcase caper has to be seen (NSA link giving context) in the context of a Secret Team promoting terrorism. No cold war,no enemy,no money and thus you have a very simple/true formula that tears apart the world today. Just showing, point 1= conspiracies exist,point 2=conspiracies are promoted within the intell services themselves (CIA inside CIA,NSA inside NSA,FBI inside FBI,ONI inside ONI,ect...) AKA SECRET TEAMS,point 3=major media outlets coverup and promote said conspiracies,point 4=911 was one of these elite conspiracies.
Now to further these points see below. Chicago Tribune covers in a 1100 word article showing Atta's elite sponsors are apparently powerful enough to keep the organization’s name out of the newspapers, or at any rate, out of the Chicago Tribune. Please note ,Tribune correspondent Stevenson Swanson cites the German couple for ‘having played such an important role in Atta’s move to Germany,’ he never gives their names, nor that of the organization that they worked for. ))))))))))))))))))))++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++))))))))))))))
FROM PRO ISRAEL SPITFIRE LIST SITE below ++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“For at least four years while living in Hamburg during the 1990’s terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta was part of a ‘joint venture’ between the U.S. and German Governments, the MadCowMorning News has learned, an elite international ‘exchange’ program run by a little-known private organization with close ties to powerful American political figures like David Rockefeller and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The jointly-funded government effort picked up the tab for Atta on sojourns in Cairo, Istanbul, and Aleppo in Syria during the years 1994 and 1995 and employed him as a ‘tutor’ and ‘seminar participant’ during 1996 and 1997.”
(“Atta Worked for Elite US-German Exchange Program” by Daniel Hopsicker; MadCowMorningNews; 4/24/2003; p. 1.)
11. Note that Atta’s German sponsorship may have dated to 1992 (when the elder George Bush was in office. (As discussed in FTR#403, the germ for the Project for a New American Century’s blueprint for US control of the Middle East was formulated by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992, when he was working for the elder Bush. The possibility that the 1992 sponsorship of Atta by his mysterious German benefactors and Wolfowitz’s 1992 projections are connected is not one to be too readily dismissed.
“Moreover Atta’s financial relationship with the U.S.-German government effort may even have extended back to his initial move from Egypt to Germany in 1992, after being ‘recruited’ in Cairo by a mysterious German couple dubbed the ‘hijacker’s sponsors’ in a recent news account in the Chicago Tribune. In the years before he became a ‘terrorist ringleader,’ Atta was enjoying the patronage of a government initiative overseen by the U.S. State Department and the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, the German equivalent of the U.S. Agency currently supervising the secretive bidding race for tens of billions of dollars of post-war reconstruction contracts in Iraq, the Agency for International Development.”
(Idem.)
12. The organization that apparently sponsored Atta’s travels was the Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft (its American component is the Carl Duisberg Society)—named for one of the principal figures in the founding of I.G. Farben.
“News that Mohamed Atta had been on the payroll of an elite international program known as the ‘Congress-Bundestag Program first surfaced a month after the 9/11 attack in a brief seven-line report by German newspaper Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung on 10/18/2001 under the headline ‘Atta was Tutor for Scholarship Holders.’ The story quoted a spokesman for ‘Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft,’ described as a ‘German international further education organization,’ as having admitted paying Hamburg cadre principal Atta as a ‘scholarship holder’ and ‘tutor,’ as the spokesman put it, between 1995 and 1997.”
(Ibid.; pp. 1–2.)
13.
“But the shocking revelation that Atta had therefore been on the payroll of a joint U.S.-German government program was concealed by the newspaper through the simple expedient of neglecting to mention that the ‘Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft’ was merely a private entity set up to administer an official U.S. and German government initiative. The U.S. end of the program is run out of an address at United Nations Plaza in New York by CDS International. The letters stand for Carl Duisberg Society, which is also the name of its German counterpart in Cologne, the Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft. Both are named for Carl Duisberg, a German chemist and industrialist who headed the Bayer Corporation during the 1920’s.”
(Ibid.; p. 2.)
14.
“CDS International, states the organization’s literature, provides opportunities for young German professionals. ‘These young German engineers earn real world experience and are given assignments to contribute from the start,’ a program spokesman enthused in a newspaper interview . . .”
(Idem.)
15.
“Having powerful friends in such high places may also explain the curious omissions in a second story about Mohamed Atta’s time in Germany which appeared recently in The Chicago Tribune, headlined ‘9/11 Haunts Hijacker’s Sponsors; German Couple Talks , of Living with Pilot Atta.’ The March 7, 2003 describes the 1992 meeting in Cairo which led Mohamed Atta to move to Hamburg, between Atta and a German couple, which the paper does not name, who ran an international student exchange program, which the paper also leaves anonymous. ”
(Idem.)
16.
“During a visit to the Egyptian capital in fall 1991, said the Tribune, the German couple had stayed with friends who knew Atta’s father, a Cairo lawyer, and his father’s friends had then introduced the German couple to Atta. ‘Atta who had recently graduated with a degree in architectural engineering from the University of Cairo, told the couple he wanted to study architecture in Germany, but he had no particular idea where he should go,’ the paper reported . . .”
(Ibid.; p. 3.)
17.
“ ‘In this first conversation, we suggested he continue his studies in Hamburg and offered him a place to live at our house,’ the paper quotes the German wife telling investigators from the BKA, the German equivalent of the FBI. Atta, she states, accepted their offer right away. Why did an (unnamed) German couple, running an (unnamed) international exchange program leap at the chance to engage a young man who was not even considered promising enough to gain entrance to a local Cairo graduate school? The Tribune doesn’t say.”
(Idem.)
18.
“After studying German in Cairo, Atta arrived in the country on July 24, 1992, according to investigators’ records, and then lived rent-free for at least the next six months in the couple’s home in a quiet, middle-class neighborhood. It is more than curious that although Tribune correspondent Stevenson Swanson cites the German couple for ‘having played such an important role in Atta’s move to Germany,’ he never gives their names, nor that of the organization they worked for. But since just two years later, Atta was on the payroll of the ‘Congress-Bundestag Program,’ it is reasonable to conclude that this same government-funded program was responsible for bringing him to Germany in the first place, under the aegis of an unnamed German couple. His elite sponsors are apparently powerful enough to keep the organization’s name out of the newspapers, or at any rate, out of the Chicago Tribune.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
below cache only link for further ATTA background == (when you get to this site click on text only version on upper right for better read)
-
This is most important 911 link to show inside job. NSA doesnt help CIA on Al-Qaeda terrorism. WHY ?
-
The key here is below, NY TIMES LEFT "OUT" + other agents in room + !!!!!!!!
))))))))))))))))))))++++++++++++++++++++++))))))))))))))))
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Cheryl's Daily Diatribe: Friday, May 24, 2002
LINK HERE FOR THIS ARTICLE (get to see her other links she mentions) http://www.unknownnews.net/cdd052402.html
SMOKING GUN: The evidence that may hang G.W. Bush
Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part V
Osama bin Laden hunter O'Neill was killed at WTC:
Was he also a casualty of the Bush administration?
by Cheryl Seal, Unknown News
March 2003: Background information on Barbara Bodine
Until he resigned in August of 2001, John O'Neill was the director of counterterrorism for the FBI's New York office, not far from the WTC. O'Neill investigated the bombings of the World Trade Centre in 1993, a US base in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam in 1998, and the USS Cole last year.
In the course of these investigations, he became one of the world's top experts on Osama Bin Laden and Al Quada, determined to hunt Bin Laden and his followers down and bring them to justice. Those who worked with him said he "lived, breathed and ate terrorism." A scrappy, stubborn Irishman with a quick temper, a fondness for the ladies, and a reputation for being brutally blunt on some occasions, and pushy on others, O'Neill was often frustrated by the button-down boundaries of the modern FBI. But he was one of the best sleuths the agency had -- as anyone who worked with him would be quick to acknowledge. U.S. attorney Mary Jo White says this of O'Neill:: "John went at it comprehensively, yielding things from people in London or people in Yemen we never otherwise would have gotten." Another admirer, former FBI director Louis Freeh remembers O'Neill as " the paramount, most knowledgeable agent we had in the FBI, probably in the government, with respect to counterintelligence matters."
After years of investigating OBL and Al Quada, O'Neill came to the conclusion that "All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization can be found in Saudi Arabia." That conviction went with him to his grave. Unfortunately for O'Neill and 3,000 other men and women, at every turn after January 2001, the Bush administration blocked the efforts of the "most knowledgeable agent it had" to investigate Saudi ties to Bin Laden.
O'Neill saw through Bush from the start and by the summer of 2001 declared that the main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role Saudi Arabia played in furthering those interests. Bush not only thwarted an FBI investigation of the bin Laden family, he kept the specific nature of his family's business ties to the Bin Ladens as secret as Cheney's energy task force list. A few disturbing facts are known, however. For example, Bin Ladens were investors in the Carlyle Group, the secretive energy-and-arms corporation cofounded by George Bush, Sr.. Carlyle was earlier reputed to have been a major stakeholder in Central Asian oil interests, though they have, not surprisingly, dropped from the foreground in the past year. Bin Laden money was also sunk into George W. Bush's first oil companies. A Bin Laden was involved in BioPort, the company that G.W. Bush granted a federal contract for producing anthrax vaccine, even though the company had failed three FDA inspections. It is hard to imagine, given this cozy history, that O'Neill had much use for the Bush clan. It must have truly enraged him when he learned (as he inevitably must have, given his position inside the intelligence grapevine) that Osama bin Laden had flown to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by local CIA agent Larry Mitchell on July 12. But let's backtrack to the year before 9/11, back to the fall of 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's note, 3/10/2003: CNN has reported that Barbara Bodine, mentioned in the next section of this article, will be "administering" central Iraq once the forthcoming "war" is over.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October of 2000, after entering the Port of Aden off the coast of Yemen, the USS Cole was hit by suicide bomber. The blast killed 17 and injured 35 Americans. O'Neill was sent over to investigate, as head of the FBI team. Accompanying O'Neill to Yemen were over 100 FBI agents, laboratory experts and forensics specialists, as well as FBI Director Louis J. Freeh. From the earliest moments of the investigation, O'Neill was sure Bin Laden was responsible. However, from the start, his efforts to work the case were sabotaged by US ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine. Bodine refused to cooperate in the investigation or to encourage Yemenis to cooperate. Despite repeated death threats against agents, she refused to allow them to carry the type of weapons O'Neill considered adequate. O'Neill reportedly called Louis Freeh in the middle of the night once expressing anxiety about the safety of his men. The clash between O'Neill and Bodine went steadily from bad to worse, peaking when Bodine publicly called O'Neill a xxxx. Incredibly, Bodine claimed that through her actions, she was merely trying to keep diplomatic relations running smoothly.
But a look at Ms. Bodine's history suggests a very different motivation. Throughout her career, Barbara Bodine has served primarily under rightwing old boys and in areas where the oil interests of said old boys are being furthered. Under Reagan, she served as Deputy Principle Officer in Baghdad, Iraq. Under Bush, Sr., she served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Kuwait and was there during the Gulf War. She has also worked for Bob Dole, and far more ominously, for Henry Kissinger. So, in 2000 we find her in Yemen, and though a Clinton appointee, impeding the Clinton administration's efforts to conduct an investigation of a crime of terrorism in which the chief suspect is the son of a Bush family business associate.
What makes Bodine's actions toward O'Neill particularly indefensible is that there is credible evidence that she herself was to blame, at least in part, for the Cole disaster. Kie Fallis, a Defense Intelligence Agency counterterrorism analyst, had issued a report before the disaster, warning of the danger of just such an attack in Yemen. As it turned out, the report was suppressed by senior DIA officials, and by Bodine and Gen. Anthony Zinn, who decided to allow the Cole to enter the Port under the lowest grade of security permitted in the Middle East -- though they were both aware of the warning. Fallis quit in protest the day after the bombing.
The report Fallis refers to was "officially" issued six hours after the attack by the NSA. The report said terrorists were known to be actively engaged in "operational planning" for an attack and had traveled to Dubai and Beirut in preparation for this attack. Yet, on Oct 29, senior intelligence officials issued a statement claiming that the warnings they had received were too vague to have justified issuing a stronger alert. Sound familiar?
The Clinton administration intervened in the investigation, and an arrangement was made that at least made it possible for agents to question suspects (thanks to Bodine, even this had been impossible before). O'Neill returned to the States for the holidays. By that time, Bush had succeeded in pulling off the theft of the presidency. O'Neill was barred from returning to Yemen to continue his investigation. Shortly after he returned, while attending a seminar in Tampa, O'Neill's briefcase, which contained some sensitive papers, was stolen. Although the briefcase was found intact shortly afterward, with only a cigar lighter missing, the incident later proved to be something much more than a petty theft, as you shall see.
Return to main page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From this point on out, incidents, actions, and decisions become so complex and interwoven that a chronology seems the best way to present the information.
. CHRONOLOGY LATE JANUARY 2001 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 11 2001
Late January: Within 10 days of being sworn in until a few weeks before 9/11, Bush becomes preoccupied -- obsessed, some have whispered -- with trying to cut a deal with the Taliban that would make Afghanistan a new playground for American oil interests. The game plan involved swiping the oil-rich Caspian region from Russian control -- proving just how loyal Bush is to his "soul mates" (Putin). From January through August, a time during which he felt sure he could cajole or pressure the Taliban into playing ball, Bush did not consider the Afghan religious despots "evil." In fact, he is reported to have described their repressive regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia" that would provide the ideal environment for the construction of an oil pipeline
February 2001: In a masterpiece of conflicting signals, Bush, after expressing interest in negotiations, orders the Taliban government offices in U.S. closed. The Taliban responds by saying it might be willing to turn over Osama Bin Laden
March 2001: Laila Helms, daughter of former CIA director Richard Helms, brings one of Mullah Omar's advisors, Sayed Hashimi to Washington. During that visit, Hashimi meets with the directorate of Central Intelligence at the CIA and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department. At one meeting, says Helms, Hashami proposes that the Taliban would be willing to hold bin Laden in one location long enough for the U.S. to locate and destroy him. However, this offer is refused by the Bush administration.
April through August: one warning after another of terrorists attack directed against the U.S. come into the Bush administration, from the UK, Russia, Egypt, Israel, France, Germany, and Russia.
Early May: FBI director Louis Freeh, after being the subject of an intensive rightwing smear campaign (see various NewsMax stories as prime samples) quits -- or, more accurately, is forced out.
May: Bush gives Taliban $43 million in what is reported to be a "pot sweetening deal"
June: Freeh now gone, the last of the FBI agents investigating the Cole are suddenly pulled out of Yemen, ostensibly because of the lack of progress and danger.
June: O'Neill meets with French intelligence expert Jean-Charles Brisard in Paris and expresses his frustration at the Bush administration. He tells Brisard he believes the key to making headway against terrorism lies in Saudi Arabia, but that oil interests lie in the way of any serious investigation.
Brisard and his associate Guillaume Dasquié, an intelligence analyst and the editor of Intelligence Online, dedicated their book "Bin Laden: the Forbidden Truth" (released in France in November 2001) to O'Neill. The book has been vigorously avoided by U.S. publishers and everyone in the mainstream U.S. press except Paula Zahn, who has presented excerpts of it.
July: Francesc Vendrell and Tom Simmons (former ambassador to Pakistan)meet with Taliban in Berlin on Bush administration's behalf. A deal that offers a coalition government and a pipeline is proposed to the Taliban. When Tom Simmons threatens the Taliban with military action as alternative to not accepting the deal, the Taliban reps storm out of meetings.
July: Possibly as a way to mollify the Taliban, Bush directs FBI to back off Osama Bin Laden
July 6: In response to public pressure, the FBI is sent back to Yemen, but O'Neill is told he is barred from entering the country.
July 10: 'An FBI agent named Kenneth Williams who is based in Phoenix AZ sends a memo to John O'Neill that he suspected an OBL hijacker in training was taking flight lessons at a local flight school. The memo never gets further than whoever O'Neill transmitted it to. And, knowing O'Neill's history, there is no doubt the info was transmitted.
July 12: Osama bin Laden receives treatment at an American hospital in Dubai and is visited by CIA agent Larry Mitchell
July: O'Neill meets again with French intelligence analyst Brisard, this time in NYC. He again expresses frustration at Bush's refusal to pursue OBL or Saudi terrorist ties seriously. It is absolutely certain that O'Neill by now realized that even the memo from Williams would not be followed up on.
First week of August: Christina Rocca, director of Asian affairs at the State Department, meets the Taliban ambassador in Islamabad to reopen negotiations. Her message from Bush according to intelligence reports repeated in Brisard and Dasquie's book. "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." This offer is refused.
August 6: The most serious terrorist attack warning is delivered to Bush. At this point, it should have been clear to the Bush that, having just four days before threatened the Taliban with military action, there would be a very good chance that something serious might happen, perhaps in the nature of a preemptive strike. Yet it is at this point that Bush decides against taking serious action on the threats.
WHY?
This is a president who has just delivered an ultimatum to the Taliban, yet has no plausible pretext for "carpeting" Afghanistan with bombs. This is also a president whose approval ratings have sunk to below 50% who needs something BIG to pull them back up. And there on his desk is an opportunity for his problems to be solved
. Early August: Dick Clarke, the president's terrorism czar at the National Security Council, tells O'Neill he would like to put his name is as his successor. "It would be a powerful position," fellow agent Barry Mawn says. "That person would have direct contact with the FBI and turn around and influence top Cabinet people, and possibly even the president."
Mid-August: A flight school in Minnesota flight reports Zacharias Missouri to the local FBI office after Missouri requested training in how to fly a jet, but not in how to land or take off. Although Moussaoui is arrested, agents did not search his computer and thus missed vital clues.
August 19: New York Times reports that O'Neill is suddenly under investigation for the "brief case incident." Tom Pickard, second in command at FBI tells O'Neill he can pretty much kiss the promotion chance goodbye. It is clear O'Neill, like Freeh, is being squeezed out. "Friends of O'Neill have said that Pickard, who was very cozy with Ashcroft and the Bush team, acted as the number one road block to O'Neill's efforts to progress in the agency at this time. After Sept. 11, Pickard, who, unlike O'Neill and Freeh, had NO experience invetsigating terrorism (his speciality was white collar crime) was placed in charge of the Sept. 11 investigation and also the anthrax investigation. In November, Pickard retired."
Late August: O'Neill quits the FBI
Early Sept.: O'Neill takes a job as head of security for the WTC. He mentions to friends in New York that he fully expects the building to be targeted by terrorists in the future.
September 7: The CIA's Promis program begins picking up unusual trading activity for United and American Airlines.
September 11: On O'Neill's second day of work on the 34th floor, the WTC is hit by the first plane. O'Neill makes it out of the building safely, calls his son to say he is OK,. then goes into the other tower to help guide those still inside to safety. Minutes later, O'Neill, along with hundreds of others, is dead, killed by the terrorist the Bush administration refused to allow him to pursue to the best of his ability.
History will be kind to John O'Neill. It will not be kind to George W. Bush.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
July 2000
A Costly Slip Up (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/john/timeline.html)
During a FBI retirement conference in Orlando, Florida, O'Neill leaves a briefcase with documents from work in a room with other agents while he goes outside to take a cell phone call. The bag is missing when he returns, and he immediately alerts local police. O'Neill is relieved when he learns the bag had been recovered and only a Mont Blanc pen and a lighter had been taken; however, he is concerned when he learns he is carrying more sensitive documents than he had realized. O'Neill's friend Jerry Hauer tells FRONTLINE, "I think he felt that some people were going to use it -- as they did -- as a wedge, as a way of painting him in a bad light."
O'Neill decides to return directly to New York and reports the incident. A fingerprint dusting reveals no documents were touched, but the Justice Department opens an investigation. While he would be cleared of any criminal wrongdoing, the incident shadows the rest of his FBI career.
___________________________________________________+++++++++++++++++++++++++++___________________________________________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------------------------------+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Free Republic Blog
NEW YORK TIMES COVERUP>>>>>>>>
Here is a snippet of the New York Times' version- which notably leaves OUT the mention that he left his briefcase with other agents. And as someone pointed out, there is no way to tell what was put INTO the briefcase while it was missing.
Mr. O'Neill left his briefcase in a hotel conference room while he attended an F.B.I. meeting in Tampa, Fla., last summer. The briefcase was stolen, but the local authorities recovered it and returned it to him within hours with the contents. Jill Stillman, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said that department officials would not comment on the matter. Requests to discuss the matter with Mr. O'Neill were made to bureau officials in New York and Washington. In both cases, they said that he declined to comment on the case. After the criminal inquiry, the bureau's internal affairs unit began its own investigation to determine whether Mr. O'Neill had violated F.B.I. rules against mishandling classified information. Officials identified one document in the briefcase as a draft of what is known in the bureau as the Annual Field Office Report for national security operations in New York. The closely guarded report contained a description of every counterespionage and counterterrorism program in New York and detailed the budget and manpower for each operation. The document, submitted to bureau headquarters, is used as a central planning tool each year. F.B.I. agents are prohibited from removing classified documents from their offices without authorization. Violations are punishable by censure, suspension or even dismissal, depending on the seriousness. ... - "F.B.I. Is Investigating a Senior Counterterrorism Agent," by DAVID JOHNSTON and JAMES RISEN, New York Times, Published: 8/19/01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------------------+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: What hasn't been clear has been the disarray in the counter-terrorism ranks due to 1. personnel changeover in the spring/summer of 2001. 2. the burnout of Clarke, O'Neill, Pickard, etc.
Clarke was switching to cyber-terrorism in March. O'Neill, in debt and marriage trouble, was sniffing at Clarke's job at Clarke's urging. And Pickard told Ashcroft straight up when taking over for Freeh in the summer that he was there for only a few months. So much for those three's now-professed bulldog attitude toward Al Qaeda and their convictions that America was going to be attacked at home. Yes, maybe before, but not in August and September.
On more small tidbit. When O'Neill was looking into the NSC terrorism job, the C-T community began hearing about it. O'Neill, still worried about being spanked bureaucratically for it, asked Clarke to lie and deny it. Clarke readily did so:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020114fa_FACT1
- excerpt - O'Neill had always harbored two aspirations—to become a deputy director of the bureau in Washington or to take over the New York office. Freeh was retiring in June, so there were likely to be some vacancies at the top, but the investigation into the briefcase incident would likely block any promotion in the bureau. O'Neill viewed Clarke's job as, in many ways, a perfect fit for him. But he was financially pressed, and Clarke's job paid no more than he was making at the F.B.I. Throughout the summer, O'Neill refused to commit himself to Clarke's offer. He talked about it with a number of friends but became alarmed when he thought that headquarters might hear of it. "He called me in a worked-up state," Clarke recalled. "He said that people in the C.I.A. and elsewhere know you are considering recommending me for your job. You have to tell them it's not true." Clarke dutifully called a friend in the agency, even though O'Neill still wanted to be a candidate for the position.
In July, O'Neill heard of a job opening in the private sector which would pay more than twice his government salary—that of chief of security for the World Trade Center. Although the Justice Department dropped its inquiry into the briefcase incident, the bureau was conducting an internal investigation of its own. O'Neill was aware that the Times was preparing a story about the affair, and he learned that the reporters also knew about the incident in New Jersey involving James and had classified information that probably came from the bureau's investigative files.The leak seemed to be timed to destroy O'Neill's chance of being confirmed for the N.S.C. job. He decided to retire.
-
One of OBL’s wives and some of his sons have condemned his killing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110510/pl_afp/usattacksbinladenburialfamily
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Yes,its pure TORTURE waiting for the Wives/sons to speak. PURE,PURE TORTURE......pure.....torture waiting...waiting.....pure torture...torture,torture. sgaal (and if the torture is to extreme as exampled by KSM 6&8 year old children in DOD custody,well we will see a Hollywoodlike production of said Wives/sons. The DOD/military Industrial Complex cant be embarrassed, Its just Torture waiting. BTW where are the KSM children ? Last reported to be placed in small wooden box with bugs... then just no more reports,none,just gone from the face of the earth,gone.....where ? As they say in the Middle East..the sand tells no tales.... )
)))))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO))))))))))
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX++++++++++++++++++XXXXXXXXXXXXX+++++++++++
Please note BLOG below on possible OSAMA children torture and that one wife has now becomes two....cause Hollywood/fake DOD wife (or is it a wife that was in Saudi Arabia last 9 years) will speak..???????? One wife now two.. OH YEAH !!! OH YEAH !!!....Colby ready to believe,COLBY "ALWAYS" ready to believe (and promote) establishment line. (HOOK AND SINKER as they say) Look Len, between you and me,some videos obvious fakes (2004 most obvious)...why be silent if you were Osama ??
-----------------------------------------------------+----
JIM WHITE May 9 2011 Blog
In the midst of the ongoing orgy of adulation for Seal Team Six killing Osama Bin Laden and the former Vice President appearing on television to advocate a return to waterboarding as official US torture policy, there has been little attention to the fact that Pakistan took several wives and children of Bin Laden into custody after the US raid of the compound. The US now seeks access to these family members. Did the US intend to torture these children with insects as they did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s children, if the helicopter on which they would have flown had not been destroyed?
Here is Reuters reporting on the children in the immediate aftermath of the raid:
A senior Pakistani intelligence official said one of Osama bin Laden’s daughters had seen her father being shot dead by U.S. forces, and was one of about 10 relatives of the al Qaeda leader in custody pending interrogation.
The official, who declined to be identified, said the daughter, aged 12 or 13, was one of the people who had confirmed that the mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks had been killed by U.S. commandos in a raid early on Monday.
The relatives — one of bin Laden’s wives and up to eight children — will be interrogated and then probably turned over to their countries of origin, and not the United States, in accordance with Pakistani law, he said.
The article notes that these family members were left behind because the US had to destroy one of the helicopters used in the raid. The US now wants these family members (note that now more than one wife is mentioned, although there is only one in the initial Reuters report):
National security adviser Thomas E. Donilon said Pakistan remains a critical partner in battling al-Qaeda, despite new strains in the relationship a week after the raid in Abbottabad. But he acknowledged that Pakistani officials have not granted Americans access to important information gathered since the raid or allowed interviews with bin Laden family members now in Pakistan’s custody.
“We’ve asked for access, obviously, to those folks,” Donilon said on ABC’s “This Week,” one of four television news shows he visited Sunday.
A Pakistani intelligence official said Sunday that his government needed permission from the wives’ home countries before Pakistan could allow U.S. officials to question them. One of the wives is from Yemen; the official said he did not know the other wives’ nationalities.
Note how the US handled KSM’s sons:
Two young sons of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks, are being used by the CIA to force their father to talk.
Yousef al-Khalid, nine, and his brother, Abed al-Khalid, seven, were taken into custody in Pakistan last September when intelligence officers raided a flat in Karachi where their father had been hiding.
/snip/
“His sons are important to him. The promise of their release and their return to Pakistan may be the psychological lever we need to break him.”
Yup, trying to “break” KSM consisted of, in addition to waterboarding him 183 times and telling him that if the US were attacked, “We’re going to kill your children“.
In addition, the US may have used insects to torture KSM’s children and other children:
At a military tribunal in 2007, the father of a Guantanamo detainee alleged that Pakistani guards had confessed that American interrogators used ants to coerce the children of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed into revealing their father’s whereabouts.
The statement was made by Ali Khan, the father of detainee Majid Khan, who gave a detailed account of his son’s interrogation at the hands of American guards in Pakistan. In his statement, Khan asserted that one of his sons was held at the same place as the young children of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
“The Pakistani guards told my son that the boys were kept in a separate area upstairs and were denied food and water by other guards,” the statement read. “They were also mentally tortured by having ants or other creatures put on their legs to scare them and get them to say where their father was hiding.
Also lost somewhere in the maze of being held by Pakistan or the US are one or more of Aafia Siddiqui’s children.
No matter the crimes of the parents, detaining and torturing children is a crime that can only hasten the decline of our country into complete lawlessness. Where is the outcry against such base behavior? What does the US plan to do with Bin Laden’s children if access is granted? What would the US have done with these children if the helicopter on which they would have flown had not been destroyed?
-
Punctuation and paragraphing is not your strong point, is it?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sorry, I had some Cut & Paste problems because I used mail instead of a file. When part TWO of post #43 was pasted on mail the font shrunk by one third and when pasted to this site the paragraphs disappeared. (?) Anywho I cleaned up a little posts #43/#44. THANKS SGaal
-
Gaal - Is there a point hidden somewhere in your post?
Not that he is aware of.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO)))))))))))))))))))))
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO(((((((((((((((((((((
Mr. Walker is aware of this http://walkersrambles.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/in-defence-of-the-bbc/
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO === Part one +++++++
I aware below
At a time of growing public disenchantment with the major media, millions now rely on alternate sources. Many online and print ones are credible. One of the world's most relied on is not - the BBC. It's an imperial tool, as corrupted as its dominant counterparts, been around longer than all of them, now in it for profit, and it's vital that people know who BBC represents and what it delivers.
It was close but not quite the world's first broadcaster. Other European nations claim the distinction along with KDKA Pittsburgh as the oldest US one. BBC's web site states: "The British Broadcasting Company Ltd (its original name) was formed in October 1922....and began broadcasting on November 14....By 1925 the BBC could be heard throughout most of the UK. (Its) biggest influence....was its general manager, John Reith (who) envisioned an independent British broadcaster able to educate, inform and entertain the whole nation, free from political interference and commercial pressure."
That's what BBC says. Here's a different view from Media Lens. It's an independent "UK-based media-watch project....offer(ing) authoritative criticism" reflecting "reality" that's free from the corrupting influence of media corporations and the governments they support.
Its creators and editors (Davids Cromwell and Edwards) ask: "Can the BBC tell the truth....when its senior managers are appointed by the government" and will be fired if they step out of line and become too critical. It notes that nothing "fundamentally changed since BBC founder Lord Reith wrote the establishment: 'They know they can trust us not to be really impartial.' " He didn't disappoint, nor have his successors like current Director-General and Chairman of the Executive Board Mark Thompson along with Michael Lyons, Chairman, BBC Trust that replaced the Board of Governors on January 1, 2007 and oversees BBC operations.
On January 1, 1927, BBC was granted a Royal Charter, made a state-owned and funded corporation, still pretends to be quasi-autonomous, and changed its name to its present one - The British Broadcasting Corporation. Its first Charter ran for 10 years, succeeding ones were renewed for equal fixed length periods, BBC is in its ninth Charter period, and is perhaps more dominant, pervasive and corrupted than ever in an age of marketplace everything and space-age technology with which to operate.
It's now the world's largest broadcaster, has about 28,000 UK employees and a vast number of worldwide correspondents and support staff nearly everywhere or close enough to get there for breaking news. It's government-funded from revenues UK residents pay monthly to operate their television receivers - currently around 22 US dollars, and it also has other growing income sources from its worldwide commercial operations supplementing its noncommercial ones at home.
Most important is how BBC functions, who it serves, and Media Lens' editors explain it best and keep at it with regular updates. They argue that the entire mass media, including BBC, function as a "propaganda system for elite interests." It's especially true for topics mattering most - war and peace, "vast corporate criminality," US-UK duplicity, and "threats to the very existence of human life." They're systematically "distorted, suppressed, marginalized or ignored" in a decades-long public trust betrayal by an organization claiming "honesty, integrity (is) what the BBC stands for (and it's) free from political influence and commercial pressure."
In fact, BBC abandoned those notions straight away, and a glaring example came during the 1926 General Strike. Its web site says it stood up against Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill who "urged the government to take over the BBC, but (general manager) Reith persuaded Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin that this would be against the national interest" it was sworn to serve.
Media Lens forthrightly corrects the record. Reith never embraced the public trust. He used BBC for propaganda, operated it as a strikebreaker, secretly wrote anti-union speeches for the Tories, and refused to give air time to worker representatives. It got BBC labeled the "British Falsehood Corporation," and proved from inception it was a reliable business and government partner. It still is, of course, more than ever.
Consider BBC's role during WW II when it became a de facto government agency, and throughout its existence job applicants have been vetted to be sure what side they're on. Noted UK journalist John Pilger explains that independent-minded ones "were refused BBC posts (and still are) because they were not considered safe."
Only "reliable" ones reported on the 1982 Falklands war, for example, that Margaret Thatcher staged to boost her low approval rating and improve her reelection chances. Leaked information later showed BBC executives ordered news coverage focused "primarily (on) government statements of policy" and to avoid impartiality considered "an unnecessary irritation."
This has been BBC practice since inception - steadfastly pro-government and pro-business with UK residents getting no public service back for their automatic monthly billings to turn on their TVs - sort of like force-fed cable TV, whether or not they want it.
Back on BBC's web site, it recounts its history by decades from the 1920s to the new millennium when post-9/11 controversies surfaced. BBC only cites one of them rather pathetically. This critique gives examples of its duplicity across the world.
Misreporting on Iraq - Deception over Truth
The controversy BBC mentioned was the so-called Hutton Inquiry into the death of Ministry of Defense weapons expert Dr. David Kelly. On July 18, 2003, reports were he committed suicide, but they were dubious at best. Here how BBC explained it: "a bitter row with Government" emerged after a "Today programme suggested that the Government 'sexed up' the case for war with Iraq in a dossier of evidence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. (BBC governors) backed the report, rejecting (PM) Tony Blair's (demands) for a retraction."
"The row escalated over the following weeks when editorial flaws became evident." Then came Kelly's "suicide." It made daily headlines because he was the source of the BBC report. "The Hutton Inquiry followed, and on January 28, 2004 chairman Gavyn Davies resigned when Lord Hutton's findings were published. The following day the remaining governors accepted the resignation of Director-General Greg Dyke."
True to form, BBC suppressed the truth, so here's what we know. David Kelly, as an insider, accused authorities of faking a claim of Iraq WMDs that could be unleashed in 45 minutes with devastating effects. He then mysteriously turned up dead (three days after appearing before a televised government committee) to assure he'd tell no more tales with potentially smoking-gun evidence for proof. He apparently had plenty.
What BBC and the Blair government suppressed, a Kelly Investigation Group (KIG) examined and revealed. Consider these facts:
-- Kelly's death was pronounced suicide without an autopsy;
-- Lord Hutton was aging and never before chaired a public inquiry, let alone one this sensitive making daily headlines;
-- no formal inquest was ordered and was subsumed into the Hutton Inquiry;
-- evidence showed Kelly's body was moved twice;
-- a supposed knife, bottle of water, glasses, and cap reported by later witnesses weren't seen by the first ones who found Kelly;
-- hemorrhaging from a left wrist arterial wound was ruled the cause of death, but there was little blood to substantiate it; other suspicious findings also suggested a thorough independent investigation was warranted.
In fact, evidence became clear that the real agenda was cover-up. Key witnesses weren't called to testify. An anesthesiologist specialist read two KIG accounts (of known facts) about Kelly's death and concluded that "the whole 'suicide' story (was) phony in the extreme....He was clearly murdered." Another surgeon confirmed that Kelly couldn't have died of hemorrhage as reported. It's impossible to bleed to death from that kind of arterial severing.
Three other doctors also examined evidence, commented, and concluded that Kelly didn't commit suicide. The doctors and KIG then wrote an 11 page letter to the Coroner, cited their concerns in detail, and got no response. In a follow-up phone call, the Coroner said that he saw the police report and felt everything was in order.
In the meantime, the Hutton report came out and was leaked a day early to defuse a possible murder angle. Concurrently, the Coroner refused to reopen the investigation, the Hutton Inquiry was bogus, it never proved suicide and, in fact, was commissioned to suppress Blair government lies, whitewash the whole affair, and end it with considerable BBC help.
In this instance, things didn't play out as BBC planned, thanks to correspondent Andrew Gilligan. On May 29, 2003, he delivered what became known as his "6:07 AM dispatch" and said his source (David Kelly) alleged that the government "sexed up" the September dossier with the 45 minute WMD claim knowing it was false. He was immediately reigned in on subsequent accounts, but the damage was done, and Gilligan upped the stakes in a June 1 Mail on Sunday article.
In it, he quoted Kelly blaming Alastair Campbell (Blair government's 1997 - 2003 Director of Communications and Strategy) for embellishing the dossier to provide cause for war against Iraq. The fat was now in the fire with Kelly through Gilligan accusing the Blair government of lying and BBC having to find an out and get back to business as usual.
It wouldn't be simple with an exposed Campbell diary entry revealing he intended to go after Gilligan and apparently Kelly and do whatever it took to nail them. It all played out for days with Campbell demanding an apology and retraction, BBC wanting it to go away, Kelly's July death, and other Blair allies defending the government with threats about reviewing BBC's Charter until it ended predictably and disgracefully.
BBC cut a deal. Saying they resigned in late January 2004, it fired Gilligan along with Chairman Gavyn Davies and Director-General Greg Dyke. Even they weren't immune to dismissal at a time of an "aberrant" report that later proved true. For BBC, it was back to business as usual under new management supporting two illegal wars showing no signs of ending or BBC reporting truthfully about them.
From the start, it championed Tony Blair's "moral case for war," was a complicit cheerleader for it with the rest of the media, and found no fault with Washington and London's blaming Iraq's regime for what it didn't cause or could do nothing to prevent. Instead, round the clock propaganda ignored the facts and barely hinted at western responsibility for the most appalling crimes of war and against humanity that continue every day.
It's the way BBC reports on everything. Fiction substitutes for fact, news is carefully filtered, wars of aggression are called liberating ones, yet consider what former BBC political editor Andrew Marr wrote in his 2004 book on British journalism: Those in the trade "are employed to be studiously neutral, expressing little emotion and certainly no opinion; millions of people would say that news is the conveying of fact, and nothing more."
Even worse (and most humiliating) was his on-air 2003 post-Iraq invasion comment that he'd like to erase: "I don't think anybody (can dispute) Tony Blair. He said that they would be able to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in the end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both these points he has been proved conclusively right. (Even) his critics (must) acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result."
So much for truth and accuracy and a free and impartial BBC. It continues to call a puppet prime minister legitimate; an occupied country liberated; a pillaged free market paradise "democracy;" with millions dead, displaced and immiserated unreported like it never happened.
Supporting Aggression in Afghanistan
BBC was no better on Afghanistan and considered the war largely over when Kabul fell on November 13, 2001. The bombing continues, but it was yesterday's news, and only Taliban "crimes" matter. Unmentioned was how John Pilger portrayed the country in his newest book "Freedom Next Time." He called it more like a "moonscape" than a functioning nation and likely more abused and long-suffering than any other.
Contrast that description with BBC's reporting that Afghanistan is now free from "fear, uncertainty and chaos" because the US and UK "act(ed) benignly; (their) humanitarian military assault is beneficial (but those) meddlesome (Taliban) are trying (to) undermin(e) our good work." Unreported is what really lay behind the 9/11 attack and the price Afghans and Iraqis keep paying for it.
BBC's Disturbing Balkan Wars Reporting
BBC's shame is endless, and consider how it reported on the 1990s Balkan wars that evoked popular support on the right and left. Slobadon Milosevic was unfairly vilified for the West's destruction of Yugoslavia. Things culminated disgracefully with a 1999 seventy-eight day NATO assault on Serbia. Its pretext was protecting Kosovo's Albanian population, but its real aim was quite different - removing a head of state obstacle to controlling Central Europe, then advancing east to confront a few others.
Milosevic was arrested in April 2001, abducted from his home, shipped off to The Hague, hung out to dry when he got there, then silenced to prevent what he knew from coming out that would explain the conflict's real aim and who the real criminals were.
The war's pretext was a ruse, Kosovo is a Serbian province but in 1999 was stripped away. Ever since, it's been a US-NATO occupied colony, denied its sovereignty, and run by three successive puppet prime ministers with known ties to organized crime and drugs trafficking. It's also home to one of America's largest military bases, Camp Bondsteel, and it's no exaggeration saying the territory is more military base than a functioning political entity.
Then on February 17, 2008, during a special parliamentary session, Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence. It violated international law but got something more important - complicit western backing (outweighing a one-third EU nation block opposition). It also got one-sided BBC support. Its reporting took great care to ignore an illegal act, leave unmentioned that Kosovo is part of Serbia, or explain the UN's (1999) Security Council Resolution 1244. It recognizes the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" and only permits Kosovo's self-government as a Serbian province. No longer with plenty of BBC help making it possible.
Targeting Hugo Chavez and Assailing His Democratic Credentials
BBC misreports everywhere at one time or other, depending on breaking world events and the way power elitists view them. Consider Venezuela and how BBC reported on Chavez's most dramatic two days in office and events preceding them. Its April 12, 2002 account disdained the truth and headlined "Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (was) forced to resign by the country's military. (His) three years in power (ended) after a three-day general strike....in which 11 people died....more than 80 others (were) injured," and BBC suggested Chavez loyalists killed them. It reported "snipers opened fire on a crowd of more than 150,000 (and it) triggered a rebellion by the country's military."
During anti-Chavez demonstrations, "Mr. Chavez appeared on the state-run television denouncing the protest, (then BBC falsely reported corporate TV channels it called independent ones) were taken off the air by order of the government. (High-ranking) military officers rebell(ed) against Mr. Chavez. (He) finally quit after overnight talks with a delegation of generals at the Miraflores presidential palace."
"BBC's Adam Easton, in Caracas at the time, says there are noisy celebrations on the streets, (and former army general) Guaicaipuro Lameda said Mr. Chavez's administration had been condemned because it began arming citizens' committees (and) these armed groups....fired at opposition protesters."
In another report, BBC was jubilant in quoting Venezuela's corporate press. They welcomed Chavez's ouster and called him an "autocrat," "incompetent" and a "coward." They accused him of "order(ing) his sharpshooters to open fire on innocent people (and) betray(ing his) country."
BBC went along without a hint of dissent or a word of the truth, but where was BBC when a popular uprising and military support restored Chavez to office two days later? It quietly announced a "chastened....Chavez return(ed) to office after the collapse of the interim government....and pledged to make necessary changes." In spite of vilifying him in the coup's run-up, cheerleading it when it happened and calling it a resignation, BBC put on a brave face. It had to be painful saying: "The UK welcomed Mr. Chavez's return to power, saying that any change of government should be achieved by democratic means."
It's hard imagining Caracas correspondents Greg Morsbach and James Ingham see it that way. Morsbach called the country a "left-wing haven" on the occasion of 100,000 people taking part in the 2006 World Social Forum in the capital. He said the city is "used to staging big events (opposing) 'neo-liberal' economic policies," then couldn't resist taking aim at Chavez. "Five hundred metres away from the (downtown) Hilton," Morsbach noted, "homeless people scavenge in dustbins for what little food they can find." He then quoted a man named Carlos "who spent the last three years sleeping rough on the streets" and felt Bolivarianism did nothing for him.
It's done plenty for Venezuelans but Morsbach won't report it. Under Chavez, social advances have been remarkable and consider two among many. According to Venezuela's National Statistics Institute (INE), the country's poverty rate (before Chavez) in 1997 was 60.94%. It dropped sharply under Bolarvarianism to a low of 45.38% in 2001, rose to 62.09% after the crippling 2002-03 oil management lockout, and then plummeted to a low of around 27% at year end 2007. In addition, unemployment dropped from 15% in 1997 to INE's reported 6.2% in December 2007.
Morsbach also omitted how Chavez is tackling homelessness. He's reducing it with programs like communal housing, drug treatment and providing modest stipends for the needy. His goal - "for there (not) to be a single child in the streets....not a single beggar in the street." It's working through Mission Negra Hipolita that guides the homeless to shelters and rehab centers. They provide medical and psychological care and pay homeless in them a modest amount in return for community service. No mention either compares Venezuela under Chavez to America under George Bush (and likely Britain under anyone) where no homeless programs exist, the problem is increasing, nothing is being done about it, and the topic is taboo in the media.
Instead in a BBC profile, Chavez is called "increasingly autocratic, revolutionary (and) combative." He's a man who's "alienated and alarmed the country's traditional political elite, as well as several foreign governments," (and he) court(s) controversy (by) making high-profile visits to Cuba and Iraq" and more. He "allegedly flirt(s) with leftist rebels in Colombia and mak(es) a huge territorial claim on Guyana."
The account then implies Chavez is to blame for "relations with Washington reach(ing) a new low (because he) accused (the Bush administration) of fighting terror with terror" post-9/11, and in a September 2006 UN General Assembly speech called the president "the devil."
Chavez's December 2007 constitutional reform referendum was also covered. It was defeated, the profile suggested controversial elements in it, but omitted explaining its objective - to deepen and broaden Venezuelan democracy, more greatly empower the people, provide them more social services, and make government more accountable to its citizens. Instead, BBC highlighted White House spokeswoman Dana Perino saying: Venezuelans "spoke their minds, and they voted against the reforms that Hugo Chavez had recommended and I think that bodes well for the country's future and freedom and liberty."
In another piece, Inghram took aim at the country's "whirlwind of nationalisations, and threats to private companies (are) changing Venezuela's economic climate and threaten to widen a tense social divide." It's part of Chavez's "campaign to turn Venezuela into a socialist state" with suggestive innuendoes about what that implies, omitting its achievements, and reporting nothing about how business in the country is booming or that Chavez's approach is pragmatic.
Instead, Inghram cites his critics saying "his plan is all about power" (and) bring(ing) no benefit to the nation" in lieu of letting business run it as their private fiefdom. It's how they've always done it, Venezuelans were deeply impoverished as a result, and BBC loves taking aim at a leader who wants to change things for the better and is succeeding.
It refers to his "stepp(ing) up his radical revolution since being re-elected in December 2006." Venezuela is "very divided" and its president "far too powerful (and) can rule by decree" - with no explanation of Venezuela's Enabling Law, his limited authority under it, its expiration after 18 months, and that Venezuela's (pre-Bolivarian) 1961 constitution gave comparable powers to four of the country's past presidents.
BBC further assailed Chavez's refusal to review one of RCTV's operating licenses and accused him of limiting free expression. Unreported was the broadcaster's tainted record, its lack of ethics or professional standards, and its lawless behavior. Specifically omitted was its leading role in instigating and supporting the aborted April 2002 coup and its subsequent complicity in the 2002-03 oil-management lockout and multi-billion dollar sabotage against state oil company PDVSA.
Despite it, RCTV got a minor slap on the wrist, lost only its VHF license, and it still operates freely on Venezuelan cable and satellite. Yet, if an American broadcaster was as lawless, it would be banned from operating, and its management (under US law) could be prosecuted for sedition or treason for instigating and aiding a coup d'etat against a sitting president. BBC ignored RCTV's offense, assailed Hugo Chavez unjustifiably, and reported in its usual deferential to power way.
It falsely stated RCTV's license wasn't renewed because "it supported opposition candidates (and said) hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in Caracas....some to celebrate, others to protest." Unexplained was that pro-government supporters way outnumbered opponents, it's the same every time, and they gather spontaneously for every public Chavez address. Also ignored is that opposition demonstrations are usually small and staged-for-media events so BBC and anti-Chavistas in the press can call them huge and a sign Chavez's support is waning. As BBC put it this time: The situation "highlight(s), once again, how deeply divided Venezuela is" under its "controversial" president - who's popular support is so considerable BBC won't report it.
BBC's War Against Mugabe
On April 4, The New York Times correspondent Michael Wines wrote what BBC often reports: "New Signs of Mugabe Crackdown in Zimbabwe." It highlighted "police raids....against the main opposition party, foreign journalists (and) rais(ed) the specter of a broad crackdown (to keep) the country's imperiled leaders in power."
Below is what BBC reported the same day in one of its continuing inflammatory accounts in the wake of Zimbabwe's March 29 presidential and parliamentary elections. It pitted the country's African National Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) President Robert Mugage against two opponents - the misnamed Movement for Democratic Change's (MDC) Morgan Tsvangirai (a western recruited stooge) and independent candidate Simba Makoni.
In its role as an unabashed Tsvangirai cheerleader, BBC headlined: "Mugabe's ZANU-PF prepares for battle" after its parliamentary defeat - MDC winning 99 seats; ZANU-PF 97 (including an uncontested one); a breakaway MDC faction 10 seats and an independent, one, in Zimbabwe's 210 constituencies with only 206 seats being contested; ZANU didn't contest one seat, and three MDC candidates died in the run-up to the poll.
Results for the 60 (largely ceremonial) Senate seats were announced April 5 with ZANU-PF winning 30 and the combined opposition gaining the same number. In addition, ZANU-PF announced 16 parliamentary seats are being contested and ordered recounts for them that could change the electoral balance. Mugabe is also challenging the presidential tally, asked the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to delay releasing it and wants it retabulated because of what he calls "errors and miscalculations."
MDC officials called the move illegal, BBC seems eager to agree, and then went on the attack the way it always does against independent black republics. It can't tolerate them, but it's especially hostile to Zimbabwe. It's the former Rhodesia that British-born South African businessman, politician and De Beers chief Cecil Rhodes founded shortly after Britain invaded in 1893 and conquered Matabeleland. UK soldiers and volunteers were given 6000 (stolen) acres of land and within a year controlled the area's 10,000 most fertile square miles through a white supremacist land grab. They went further as well, confiscated cattle, and coerced the native Ndebele people into forced labor. Brits also exploited the Shonas, they rebelled, and a year later were crushed at the cost of 8000 African lives.
Decades of exploitation followed, a 1961 constitution was drafted to keep whites in power, Rhodesia declared its independence in 1965, but Britain intervened to protect white privilege. UN sanctions and guerrilla war followed, Southern Rhodesia declared itself a republic in 1970, then became the independent nation of Zimbabwe (the former Southern Rhodesia, then just Rhodesia in 1964) in April 1980 after 1979 elections created independent Zimbabwe Rhodesia.
Robert Mugabe was elected president, won overwhelmingly, remained the country's leader for 28 years, and at age 84 ran again for another term on March 29. He's called outspoken, controversial, and polarizing but for millions in Zimbabwe (and in Africa) he's a hero of his nation's liberation struggle against white supremacist rule.
America, Britain and other colonial powers, however, don't view him that way, and therein lies today's conflict. A racist UK can't tolerate an independent black republic and uses its state-owned BBC to vilify Mugabe and target him for regime change in a pattern all too familiar.
In a close March 29 election, vote-rigging is suspected, results days later weren't announced, and BBC accused ZANU-PF of knowing and concealing them as well as governing dictatorially. With no official totals, it stated "Mugabe....failed to pass the 50% barrier needed to avoid a second-round run-off." It's now been announced, by law must be held within 21 days of March 29 (by or before April 19), but AP reports "diplomats in Harare (the capital) and at the UN said Mugabe (wants) a 90 day delay to give security forces time to clamp down."
BBC expects trouble, appears trying to incite it, and denounces Mugabe loyalists as hard-line, militant and known for their violence. In battle mode, correspondent Grant Ferret from Johannesburg (BBC's banned from Zimbabwe because of its anti-Mugabe reporting) states: "Intimidation is....likely to be part of the second round. Offices used by the opposition were ransacked on Thursday night (April 3) (and) two foreign nationals (were) detained (for) violating the country's media laws." An NGO worker "promoting democracy" was also detained.
Correspondent Ian Pannell joins the assault. He stresses a crumbling economy, out-of-control inflation, people unable to cope and talking everywhere about "a struggle to make ends meet." They "spend hours queuing at the bank or waiting in line at a bakery where lines stretch around the corners. Many shops have as many empty shelves as full ones," Zimbabweans are suffering, and "80% of the workforce" has no regular job. People survive anyway they can, there's "a thriving black market," overseas remittances help, but "fields (are) without crops, shops without goods, petrol stations....low or empty, women at the side of the road begging for food, traders desperate for customers and hard currency."
There's no denying Zimbabwe is under duress, but BBC won't explain why. It never reported that ever since Mugabe's ZANU-PF ended white supremacist rule, he's been vilified for being independent, redistributing white-owned farms, mostly (but not entirely) staying out of the IMF's clutches, and waging a valiant struggle to prevent a return to an exploited past.
Doing it hasn't been easy, however. It's meant getting little or no outside aid, bending the rules, restraining civil liberties, banning hostile journalism like BBC's, but up to now (most often) holding reasonably free and fair elections and winning every time. Despite Zimbabwe's problems, Mugabe's popular support has been strong, especially from the country's war veterans who didn't fight for freedom to hand it back to new colonial masters.
But it looks like that's where Zimbabwe is heading. The March 29 election showed weakness. The opposition made it close and forced a runoff (unless a retabulated count shows otherwise). It controls the parliament (barring a retallied change) and has strong western support that smells blood. Behind the scenes, regime change is planned and this time may succeed. An 84 year old Mugabe's time may be passing - if not now, soon.
Zimbabwe's economy has collapsed, drought problems have been severe, food and fuel shortages are acute, 83% of the population lives on less than $2 a day, half the people are malnourished, more than 10% of children die before age five, and the country's HIV/AIDS rate is the fourth highest in the world. In addition, average life expectancy plunged to 37.3 years, inflation is out of control, conditions are disastrous, and it was mostly engineered by 2002 western-imposed sanctions.
Fifteen EU member states and Australia support them plus America after passage of the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (ZIDERA). Its effect has been devastating on an already weakened economy. It cut off the country's access to foreign capital and credit, denied its efforts to reschedule debt, froze financial and other assets of ZANU-PF officials and companies linked to them, and effectively brought the economy to its knees.
ZIDERA states that economic and other sanctions will be enforced until the US president certifies that the "rule of law has been restored in Zimbabwe, including respect for ownership and title to property....and an end to lawlessness." Unmentioned is the Act's real purpose - restoring white supremacist rule, exploiting the black majority and doing to Zimbabwe what's happening throughout Africa and in nearly all other developing states.
If Mugabe goes, the IMF can swoop in with a promised $2 billion (renewable) aid package for a new MDC government with the usual strings attached - sweeping structural adjustments, privatizing everything, ending social services, mandating mass layoffs, crushing small local businesses, escalating poverty, and returning the country to its colonial past under new millennium management under a black stooge of a president to make it all look legitimate.
BBC has a role in this, and it's been at it for decades. It's waged a multi-year anti-Mugabe jihad and seems now to be going for broke. For days, broadcasts practically scream regime change. Reports are inflammatory, visibly one-sided, with correspondents saying (MDC's) Tsvangirai won, election results are being withheld, no runoff is necessary, and when it's held Mugabe will use violence to retain power.
On April 5, BBC quoted Tsvangirai accusing Mugabe of "preparing to go to war against the country's people (and) deploying troops and armed militias to intimidate voters ahead of a possible runoff....thousands of army recruits are being recruited, militants are being rehabilitated and some few claiming to be war veterans are already on the warpath."
Tsvangirai wants the courts to force officials to release the results, Zimbabwe's High Court is hearing MDC's petition, but earlier it was claimed "armed police prevented MDC lawyers" from petitioning the Court to get them. BBC quoted one of them saying "police had threatened to shoot them," then quoted Tsvangirai again saying Zimbabwe's central bank was printing money for bribes and government-financed violence and intimidation campaigns.
BBC also suggests that international intervention is needed "to prevent violence if a second round is held (because) violence and intimidation (have) been characteristic of past (Zimbabwe) elections." It quotes another MDC spokesman saying ZANU-PF will "use a runoff to exact revenge....it's a strategy for retribution."
Its correspondent Peter Biles reports "the ruling party remains divided....many (want) a change of leadership, and believe under Mr. Mugabe, Zimbabwe has no future." BBC hammers at this daily in a full-court press to force out Mugabe either willingly or with outside intervention, and now is the time.
A broadcaster is supposed to be neutral, fair and balanced and BBC states "Honesty and integrity (is) what (it) stands for." BBC is dedicated to "educate (and) inform, free from political interference and commercial pressure."
The US-based Society of Professional Journalists states in its Preamble that it's the "duty of the journalist (to seek) truth and provid(e) a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. (They must) strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility....Seek truth and report it....honestly, fairly, courageously."
In serving power against the public interest for 86 years, BBC fails on all counts.
Stephen Lendman is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
++++++++++ PART TWO ++++++++++++++++++++++++
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
SEE LINKS BELOW ,PROBLEMS AT THE BBC,plenty more but enough here to make a point.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1362
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1287
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14198
-
Al-CIAda Sock Puppet Zawahiri Claims Iran Behind 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Al-CIAda sock puppet Ayman al-Zawahiri was quoted in an audiotape released today accusing Iran of behind behind 9/11 conspiracy theories, in another crude public relations stunt designed to generate hostile opinion towards the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The tape had been promised three weeks ago by monitoring group IntelCenter, who have been caught in the past putting out fake and misleading "Al-Qaeda" material via the alleged media arm of the terrorist organization As-Sahab, and was finally released today.
The set-up revolved around Al-Zawahiris responding to questions submitted by the public via the Internet.
One of the questioners asked about the theory that has circulated in the Middle East and elsewhere that Israel was behind the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon," reports the Associated Press.
Al-Zawahiri accused Hezbollahs Al-Manar television of starting the rumor.
"The purpose of this lie is clear (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said.
As anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the 9/11 truth movement can attest to, the sock puppet Zawahiris claim that Iran were the first to question the official 9/11 story is completely ludicrous.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejads recent bumbling comments about 9/11, the date of which he cannot even accurately remember, were music to the ears of Neo-Cons who seized upon the statements as fodder to debunk the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Zawahiris single sentence retort, and the fact that it has been used to generate headlines that link alternative theories about 9/11 with those evil Iranians in a clear smear effort, is highly suspicious considering the history of these "Al-Qaeda tapes" and Zawahiris own background.
Is this Neo-Con friendly Al-Zawahiri a different person to the real Al-Zawahiri who was reported to have been captured in Tehran in February 2002?
Is this a different Al-Zawahiri to the one reportedly captured near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in September 2004?
Or is this the same Al-Zawahiri who, as the head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, fought for the CIA in Bosnia?
Is this the same Al-Zawahiri who, according to January 2000 U.S. Congressional testimony, was granted U.S. residence by the Immigration and Naturalization Service something almost impossible for many legitimate immigrants to obtain?
Is this the same Al-Zawahiri whose brother Zaiman is running terrorist camps under NATO protection in the U.S. zone in Kosovo?
Previous tapes which featured Ayman al-Zawahiri were found to be cobbled together from old footage but that doesnt bother a lapdog media well versed in manufacturing consent and never offering retractions when said tapes turn out to be questionable frauds.
A 2006 Ayman al-Zawahiri tape was studied by a computer expert, who discovered that the As-Sahab logo (the alleged media arm of Al-Qaeda) and the IntelCenter logo (a U.S. based private intelligence organization that "monitors terrorist activity") were both added to the video at the same time meaning the Pentagon-affiliated group releasing the tapes were slapping on the Al-Qaeda brand right before they released them to the media. The expert suspiciously reversed his stance a day later despite producing detailed technical analysis to justify his claim.
Any credibility that these so-called "Al-Qaeda tapes" had was devastated after our investigation revealed that the people putting them out had connections into the highest ranks of the military-industrial complex.
In our exposé, we unveiled the ties between IntelCenter, a group that regularly obtains Al-Qaeda tapes and the Pentagon. IntelCenter is an offshoot of IDEFENSE, which was staffed by a senior military psy-op intelligence officer, Jim Melnick, who has worked directly for Donald Rumsfeld.
IntelCenter were behind the October 2006 release of the "laughing hijackers" tape that showed Mohammad Atta and Ziad Jarrah allegedly attending a 2000 Al-Qaeda meeting and reading their last will and testament.
Segments of the video that were interspersed with footage of the "laughing hijackers," Jarrah and Atta, showing Bin Laden giving a speech to an audience in Afghanistan on January 8 2000, were culled from what terror experts described as surveillance footage taken by a "security agency."
News reports at the time contained the admission that the U.S. government had been in possession of the footage since 2002, while others said it was found when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and yet it was still bizarrely reported that the tape, bearing all the hallmarks of having been filmed and edited by undercover US intelligence and having admittedly been in US possession for five years, was released over the weekend of September 31/October 1 by "Al-Qaeda".
The video also contained segments that were first broadcast in a British documentary called The Road to Guantanamo, which was originally aired in March 2006. The context of the corresponding scene in the dramatized documentary featured U.S. interrogators attempting to coerce Gitmo detainees into confessing Al-Qaeda membership by showing them fake videos where their likeness had been computer generated to appear as if they were in attendance during Bin Ladens January 8 2000 speech.
IntelCenter were also behind the release of the July 2007 "new" Bin Laden tape, which in actual fact was old footage filmed in 2001 and had been released, including by IntelCenter itself, on no less than two previous occasions spanning back five years.
Al-Zawahiri has a history of popping up at the most politically expedient times, most notably when he appeared right before State of the Union speeches two years running, to attack Bushs policy in Iraq and allow him to use Al-Zawahiris words as a rallying call to prolong the occupation, following in the footsteps of Dick Cheney and former Press Secretary Tony Snow, who had compared troop surge skeptics to Al-Qaeda sympathizers.
His latest comments linking the questioning of the official 9/11 story with Americas supposed enemy, Iran, are transparently part of a crude ploy to allow the media to embark on a fresh round of demonizing legitimate 9/11 truth activists
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The alleged link between CIA and Al Queda man al-Zawahiri is discussed in this website.
Quote:
Could be that Zawihiri is on the CIA's payroll. He could be an informant. How else would we so consistently know where not to look for Osama?
FROM INTERNET SITE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mohammed Al-Zawahiri, the comander of special forces of #KLA is the brother of 2nd man of #alQuaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Ayman Al- Zawahiri doesn't have to be on the CIA's payroll to get his payoffs. Just a few weeks after 9-11, this article came out: Bin Laden Puppetmasters Smoked Out In Balkans. One of Ayman's brothers was caught running a KLA-NLA training camp in the US-occupied sector of Kosovo. His trainees were headed for the "jihad" in Macedonia. Since the Cold War, the US has consistently maintained operational ties with Zawahiri. In the 1990's, Aymam held a powwow with a CIA "asset" to hammer out the Balkans strategy:
The Strange Saga Of `Mohamed The American' -
····So, it is not hard to see why the ``Islamists' would
have an open channel with Western agencies including the
CIA. The man who reportedly presented to al-Zawahiri the
$50 million proposal and the encouragement to destabilize
Egypt, is known as Abu Mohamed al-Amriki, ``Mohamed the
American.'
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
How many times has this CIA sock puppet been killed now?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Airstrike may have killed bin Laden's No. 2
January 14, 2006|From David Ensor CNN
Ayman al-Zawahiri -- Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in the al Qaeda terrorist network -- was the target of a CIA airstrike Friday in a remote Pakistani village and may have been among those killed, knowledgeable U.S. sources told CNN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 01, 2008
Report: Al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri Dead!?! (Bumped)
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/193493.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 10, 2009
Top Al Qaeda Official Believed Killed
Report: U.S. Officials Tell CBS News Missile Fired from Predator Drone Likely Killed High-Ranking Operative in Pakistan
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/10/world/main5963766.shtml
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush blocked Secret Service investigations into US-based al-Qaeda sleeper cells while he continued to negotiate secretly with Taliban officials. The last meeting, headed by Bush NSA and former Unocal official Zalmay Khalilzad, was in August 2001, just five weeks before the terror attacks. { “US Ties to Saudi Elite May be Hurtng War on Terrorism”. Jonathan Wells, Jack Meyers and Maggie Mulvihill. Boston Herald Online. 12-10-01} 
one of their sources ‘provided her information in the form of riddles, like the comic book character, "the Riddler"’ c) they “had been recently sprayed by an aerosol can of Yesinia pestis (black plague)” etc etc . 
Few words from a window = a 911 key
in 11 September 2001 attacks
Posted · Edited by Steven Gaal
##########################################################################################
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++OOOOoooOOOO+++++
COMMA COMMA ,,,,,,, COMMA
The last meeting, headed by Bush, NSA and former Unocal official Zalmay Khalilzad, was in August 2001, just five weeks before the terror attacks. { “US Ties to Saudi Elite May be Hurtng War on Terrorism”. Jonathan Wells, Jack Meyers and Maggie Mulvihill. Boston Herald Online. 12-10-01}
**********************&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&**************************************
and and &&&&&&& and you have no comment on 911 timeline material or EUROPEAN scourced article that help the meta argument , (comma), AQ=USG if ZAWAHIRI USG Spook. (period)