Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination

[Tim Gratz]

Well, I thought I'd heard just about everything here, but Mark's last post is beyond comprehension.

It is clear as a bright Florida day that freedom of speech does not extend to organizing violence and murder. Obviously all civilized nations should do whatever they can to shut down terrorist networks, including interference with their web-sites, their cell-phones and even their camels.

[Charles Drago]

Well, I thought I'd heard just about everything here, but Mark's last post is beyond comprehension.

It is clear as a bright Florida day that freedom of speech does not extend to organizing violence and murder. Obviously all civilized nations should do whatever they can to shut down terrorist networks, including interference with their web-sites, their cell-phones and even their camels.

Not to mention their Oval Office hand puppet fuhrer, Pentagon Runstedts, Foggy Bottom Ribbentrops, KUBARK Gehlens, Blackwater Skorzenys, media Geobbels, and all the Red State willing executioners.

Charles

[Cliff Varnell]

The "official story" is falling apart.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_al...ief_of_nist.htm

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety

engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to

scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become

'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

Amen.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Len Colby]

My current comments are in this lovely shade:

How is it possible that OBL was capable of masterminding or orchestrating the Nine-One-One horrors, but since that time has been unable to so much as blow up a mailbox on US soil? Should that odd unwillingness to continue what was begun not make people wonder who the true author/s of the original event was/were? And should they not likewise wonder what the intent of the original event might have been?

Perhaps that’s because they’ve been unable to. It took them years to pull off 9/11, there first ever attack on the US when they had safe haven and the US had “its pants down” now that they/he is on the run and US security has tightened doing so again would not be easy.

How difficult is it to arrange car bombs in Washington?

I doubt either of us can answer that authoritatively. A car bomb in front of a post office or mall probably would not too difficult assuming they could 1) still put cells together in the US with the know how 2) obtain bomb making materials without being detected but hard targets wouldn’t be so easy.

They need not execute a full-scale attack of any great magnitude; regular small-scale reminders would do the trick just as effectively. .

That doesn’t seem to be their style.

When people theorize that the absence of secondary attacks on US soil are attributable to improved US security regimes, I can provide just as much evidence that this absence of violence is because I pray very hard to a pet rock in my basement which is all powerful. Which is to say, there is no evidence for either conjecture. At least you prefaced your supposition with "perhaps," an important qualifier to provide in such assertions.

I rarely agree with Tim but such an assertion is silly, is it really your contention that increased: security at airports, boarder crossings and other “hard targets”/critical locations; surveillance of suspects; coordination between the FBI, CIA etc and the other steps taken post 9/11 have as much effect as praying to your rock?

Let us recall that the original attempt to bring down the WTC would never have transpired without the timely aid provided by an FBI agent provocateur, who was subsequently all but disowned by the very FBI men controlling him.

I’ve heard that claimed but see little supporting evidence. All there is are tapes made by the informant after the fact in which he claimed he had told them about the attack ahead of time and could have switched the explosives but it seems they had basically “disowned” him before the bombing.

There's far more to the tale than that, which I cannot go into at the moment, but let's assume your assertion is correct. How stunningly successful a result ensued from FBI first planting a mole into a radical cell and then ignoring him?

1. IIRC it is far from certain he had told them only that he claimed after the fact he had. Apperently they lost faith in him he was a paid informer not an agent.

2. Even if they did screw up that does prove conspiracy.

Is this not akin to the later lapse when one George Bush, et al, managed to ignore a briefing memo headed "OBL determined to attack the US," which included the prediction that such an attack would use hijacked planes to accomplish the deed?

I agree with you that the Bush administration (and to a lesser extent the Clinton administration) was grossly negligent but once again incompetence doesn’t = conspiracy. The memo contained little intelligence that could have been acted on nothing indicated such attacks were imminent.

The Project for a New American Century, penned by the very same people who would thereafter run the "appointed" government, virtually prescribed what would be necessary in order to sell to the US populace its plans for the Middle East - "a new Pearl Harbour" - and that prescription was filled.

Untrue. I’m no fan of PNAC or their agenda but that’s not what their paper (which you apparently never read) called for. They said: “…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". “The process of transformation” it was referring to was not regime change in the Middle East or anything along those lines (which isn’t called for anywhere in the paper) but for “the Department of Defense [to] move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems.”

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

I see that the formidable Ron Ecker has already dispatched that particular canard, so I'll not dwell upon it.

All due respect to Ron aside he misquoted the paper so maybe you’d like to address it or admit error.

[Len Colby]

Pat Speer - It's a big messy situation, with psyops on both sides. It''s ridiculous, IMO, to think Bush is running the show. Bush's inability to catch Bin Laden, and his failed "war" against terrorism, has DAMAGED not only his own legacy, but his father's legacy.

What "inability" to catch OBL? Had there been such an interest, would the Buxxxxes really have allowed chartered flights to spirit all the Bin Ladens in the USA out of the country immediately after the event?

A bit of a myth http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html

I see you subscribe to a contra-myth, which is precisely what is contained in the above link. A far more accurate, albeit convoluted, chronogy of events is provided by Daniel Hopsicker at:

http://www.madcowprod.com/06282007a.html

It should disturb you as much as it does me that we have known since October 5, 2001, when it was reported by the Tampa Tribune, that at least one such flight did take place in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized - despite repeated denials by Bush, the FBI, the FAA, et al that such had ever occurred - only to later be grudgingly acknowledged. When agencies of one's own government repeatedly lie, and come clean only when there is no other option, what does it say about one's government, or the credulity of people who continue to embrace such myths only because they wish them to be true?

Did you actually look at my link? It didn’t dispute that Saudis, even bin-Ladens, were flown out of the US only the contention that they weren’t interviewed first.

Hopsicker doesn’t document what you claim according to the Tampa Tribune article:

"On Sept 13, 2001, a private Lear jet flew three young Saudi men—a Saudi Arabian prince, the son of the Saudi Arabian defense minister, and the some of a top Saudi army commander—from the Raytheon Terminal at Tampa International Airport to Lexington, Kentucky."

So it was a domestic flight and there was no mention of members of the Bin-Laden family being on it. Try again.

Had there been such an interest on Bush's part, would US forces at Tora Bora have really been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing?

Can you provide a citation for this claim?

Sure. You may recall that John Kerry repeatedly made this claim, presumably with some basis in fact, while running in the '04 election. It would be a simple matter to cynically denounce such claims as political posturing by a Presidential candidate at the expense of the incumbent. Were it not for the subsequently published book "Jawbreaker" [Dec. '05], written by the CIA point man in charge of seeking out OBL at Tora Bora. CIA initially stalled vetting his book, which had to be submitted to the Agency prior to publication as is common in all such cases, then ensured that some of the book's most damning allegations were excised. Those interested in the meat of the matter might benefit from reading what can be found at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

A transcript of a January '06 Paula Zahn interview on CNN with the book's CIA-operative author, Gary Bernstein, can be found midway down the page at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/06/pzn.01.html

Much that corroborates Bernstein's version of events can be found in "First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan" by Gary Schroen, also a Jawbreaker veteran, and Robert Baer has been no wallflower in recounting his own bitter experiences trying motivate a serious hunt for Bin Laden. <

Once again none of your linked sources back your claim. Did you read them? Bernstein was interviewed by David Ensor not Paula Zahn. You said “US forces at Tora Bora [had] been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing.”

1) The US DID fire on the al-Queda positions, from the CNN transcript you cited:

DAVID ENSOR, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (VOICE OVER): In late November of 2001, the CIA sent a four-man CIA military team to hunt Osama bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan.

With donkeys and ten Afghans for security, the team scaled a 14,000 foot peak overlooking al Qaeda's mountain retreat at Tora Bora. From there the men used lasers to call in massive firepower from the air.

GARY BERNSTEIN, AUTHOR, "JAWBREAKER": And they rained down death and destruction on al Qaeda up in those mountains. The first 56 hours alone.

2) Bernstein didn’t complain about the lack of bombing but, like Kerry, the failure to use US as opposed to Afghan ground troops,

3) That decision even according to Bernstein was made by General Franks a career military officer who’d been a general well before Bush jr. came to power not one of his neo-con politicos. Again according to Bernstein, Franks wasn’t sure OBL was in the area and though the risk was too high. He told Ensor:

“We had an opportunity. It would have required a bit more acceptance of risk in that case.”

And told MSNBC:

“Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."”

The evidence that OBL was there is less than rock solid:

BERNSTEIN: …my linguist was listening to him on the radio, on that un-encrypted radio. And the linguist I had listened to Osama bin Laden's voice four years straight. Any time we wanted someone to translate something it was him.

ENSOR: So he knew for sure it was him?

BERNSTEIN: He knew for sure. He knew for sure.

OK according to Bernstein a CIA linguist strongly believed it was him, it probably was. Might Franks who would have been ordering his troops into harm's way had reasons to be dubious since he didn’t know the linguist? What if he had ordered the troops in and a lot got killed (the Black Hawk Down incident had only been a few years earlier) and OBL wasn’t there or got a way?

And this solicitude toward the Bin Ladens by the Bushes is not the first, nor unique. Now that I now you share my admiration for Greg Palast, Len, allow me to direct your attention to an old report of his - November '01 - illustrating that the Bush White House seems to have shut down US intelligence interest in two members of the Bin Laden clan living next door to the CIA in early '01. While this event, transpiring prior to the attacks, is less damning than solicitude shown by Bush toward OBL and kin after the attacks, it illustrates the unbroken pattern of a President doing his level best to ensure that a presumed enemy - already wanted for prior crimes against US interests abroad and already slated for murder by CIA via a Clinton authorization - has never had to pay for his crimes, real and alleged. I look forward to your comments once you've had a chance to read Palast's piece, which can be found at:

http://www.gregpalast.com/september-11-wha...0%9d/#more-1844 <

He wrote:

"Before you jump to the wrong conclusion, let me tell you that we found no evidence — none, zero, no kidding — that George Bush knew about Al Qaeda’s plan to attack on September 11. Indeed, the grim joke at BBC is that anyone accusing George Bush of knowing anything at all must have solid evidence. This is not a story of what George Bush knew but rather of his very-unfunny ignorance. And it was not stupidity, but policy: no asking Saudis uncomfortable questions about their paying off roving packs of killers, especially when those Saudis are so generous to Bush family businesses."

It seems you did precisely what he didn’t want his reader to. He’s saying this was done for political and personal financial reasons.

Nothing in the article indicates he called the FBI off of OBL himself. The evidence that having done what Plast though should have been done would have prevented the attack

[Len Colby]

The "official story" is falling apart.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_al...ief_of_nist.htm

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety

engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to

scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become

'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

Amen.

A bit off topic don’t you think?

"Falling apart" not by a long shot

From your article:

"Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

Some creationists point to disagreement among biologists as evidence that evolution is questionable even though only one biologist (that I know of) actually questions evolution itself.

So far the only structural engineer to say he believes the towers we felled due to controlled demolition is an oil rig specialist who hasn’t worked on buildings since he was an unlicensed just graduated intern in the early 70’s

[Len Colby]

I’ve seen no evidence that 9/11 or the Iraq disaster have done anything to further that goal it might even have set it back

On the contrary, new military technologies may have been used on 9/11. The collapse of the towers in particular remains unexplained IMO. New remote control systems for aircraft is also a possibility. I don't espouse such theories of 9/11, I say they are possibilities, given all the unanswered questions and the odiferous official story. If it did involve some new technology or technologies, it was done with smashing success.

No matter how you want to stretch it, slice it, dice it or skew it PNAC didn’t:

- call for or desire “a new Pearl Harbor”

Yes, I can tell from reading their document that these war-loving hegemonists had no desire for some event to quicken their "transformation of warfare." They just mentioned it because - because why? No need to respond.

Come on Ron! When people complain about government inaction in face of some dangerous situation it’s common for them to say such things as “They won’t do anything until someone gets killed/there is a disaster” etc (people said that about the airport is Sao Paulo with the short slippery runway). They aren’t calling for people to get killed or disaster to strike just bemoning that something they think important is unlikely to take place anytime soon

Riddle me this why would a group closely associated with one candidate openly call for such a thing a month or two before a hotly contested election?

[Ron Ecker]

All due respect to Ron aside he misquoted the paper so maybe you’d like to address it or admit error.

I did not "misquote" the paper. I accurately summarized the import of the document vis-a-vis the desired "transformation of warfare" and the need for "a new Pearl Harbor" if that transformation was not to be long and drawn out. If you can't see it, too bad. I tried.

[Cliff Varnell]

A bit off topic don’t you think?

Not at all.

The JFK assassination was very likely a failed false flag operation; the attacks of

9/11 were a highly successful false flag operation.

The American people must insist its foreign policy is never again so hijacked.

The added emphasis in the following is mine...

"Falling apart" not by a long shot

From your article:

"Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think,

more likely

, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

Dr. Quintiere scientifically ratifies the controlled-demolition scenario as

possible albeit "less likely" than his pancake collapse theory.

Others disagree and posit a controlled-demolition as far "more likely."

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Some creationists point to disagreement among biologists as evidence that evolution is questionable even though only one biologist (that I know of) actually questions evolution itself.

So far the only structural engineer to say he believes the towers we felled due to controlled demolition is an oil rig specialist who hasn’t worked on buildings since he was an unlicensed just graduated intern in the early 70’s

Wrong. See above.

[Ron Ecker]

Riddle me this why would a group closely associated with one candidate openly call for such a thing a month or two before a hotly contested election?

To begin with, most Americans had never heard of the PNAC (and still haven't) before the election. It therefore didn't garner any attention. And the reference to "a new Pearl Harbor," if anyone noticed (how many people besides neocons do you think sat down and read this document in 2000?), the import did not become significant until there was in fact a new Pearl Harbor.

I wouldn't be surprised if George W. Bush himself had not heard of the PNAC before the election. The 2000 election was in effect a PNAC coup, assured when PNAC member Dick Cheney informed Bush that he was going to be his running mate. A friend of Cheney commented that "it was the Machiavellian (expletive deleted) thing I have ever seen." And thus the PNAC was in (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and several fellow travelers, if that is a correct term) to run the country, through an imbecilic puppet. That's when people (at least those who were interested) started hearing about the PNAC and its manifesto of American global hegemony through the transformation of warfare. And what we have gotten through this coup is an unmitigated disaster (except of course for the war profiteers).

Edited September 12, 2007 by Ron Ecker

[Charles Drago]

The JFK assassination was very likely a failed false flag operation; the attacks of

Nice try, Cliff.

The JFK assassination was a total success -- including its false false flag aspect.

Charles

[Cliff Varnell]

The JFK assassination was very likely a failed false flag operation; the attacks of

Nice try, Cliff.

The JFK assassination was a total success -- including its false false flag aspect.

Charles

Our degrees of certainty on this score are significantly different, Charles.

I qualifed my observation with "very likely." At this point I'm looking for

consistencies in the evidence, rather than hard historical conclusions.

I take issue with the construction: total success.

To so readily dismiss the importance of Havana in black market operations,

and the "deep" powers behind those operations, strikes me as unwise.

I differ from most here in my assessment of JFK's control of US foreign

policy in SE Asia in the fall of 1963.

This tape of JFK a few days after the Diem coup tells me of a man who

was detached from the decision-making process.

http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/cli...nam_memoir.html

The White House voice for the coup was Mike Forrestal!

Where the Hell was John F. Kennedy in the decision to overthrow Diem?

Who called the shots on the Diem coup?

Averell Harriman.

Who pulled up at the White House minutes after LBJ arrived on Eleven Twenty Two

to tell Johnson that the Commies had nothing to do with the assassination?

Averell Harriman.

Do I think JFK was murdered because of his policies on Vietnam?

Perhaps, but I doubt it -- it sure looks to me like Averell Harriman was in control.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

My current comments are in this lovely shade:

How is it possible that OBL was capable of masterminding or orchestrating the Nine-One-One horrors, but since that time has been unable to so much as blow up a mailbox on US soil? Should that odd unwillingness to continue what was begun not make people wonder who the true author/s of the original event was/were? And should they not likewise wonder what the intent of the original event might have been?

Perhaps that’s because they’ve been unable to. It took them years to pull off 9/11, there first ever attack on the US when they had safe haven and the US had “its pants down” now that they/he is on the run and US security has tightened doing so again would not be easy.

How difficult is it to arrange car bombs in Washington?

I doubt either of us can answer that authoritatively. A car bomb in front of a post office or mall probably would not too difficult assuming they could 1) still put cells together in the US with the know how 2) obtain bomb making materials without being detected but hard targets wouldn’t be so easy.

Insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere have little trouble managing this, in an environment more heavily secured by military than anywhere in the US. For an implacable enemy, OBL has shown as little interest in continuing what he started as GWB has shown in hunting OBL down. Rather odd that the leaders of both factions, bitter enemies on the surface, seem to have lost all interest in each other.

When people theorize that the absence of secondary attacks on US soil are attributable to improved US security regimes, I can provide just as much evidence that this absence of violence is because I pray very hard to a pet rock in my basement which is all powerful. Which is to say, there is no evidence for either conjecture. At least you prefaced your supposition with "perhaps," an important qualifier to provide in such assertions.

I rarely agree with Tim but such an assertion is silly, is it really your contention that increased: security at airports, boarder crossings and other “hard targets”/critical locations; surveillance of suspects; coordination between the FBI, CIA etc and the other steps taken post 9/11 have as much effect as praying to your rock?

As did Tim, you are purposefully missing the key point - "Which is to say, there is no evidence for either conjecture." Unless one can point to repeated examples of intended AQ strikes on US soil being foiled by DHS, et al, one must surmise there is no evidence upon which to believe AQ exhibits such intent. If you can provide such examples, I'm all ears.

Let us recall that the original attempt to bring down the WTC would never have transpired without the timely aid provided by an FBI agent provocateur, who was subsequently all but disowned by the very FBI men controlling him.

I’ve heard that claimed but see little supporting evidence. All there is are tapes made by the informant after the fact in which he claimed he had told them about the attack ahead of time and could have switched the explosives but it seems they had basically “disowned” him before the bombing.

From which you draw what inference? That they were correct to do so? If so, the result militates in the opposite direction. That they were incorrect to do so? Then why did they? Because a man whom they had previously thought credible, a man whom they insinuated into the alleged cell and whose actions they had directed, suddenly became unworthy of their continued confidence precisely at the time he allegedly warned them the plot was about to reach fruition? What an odd way to conduct such affairs.

1. IIRC it is far from certain he had told them only that he claimed after the fact he had. Apperently they lost faith in him he was a paid informer not an agent.

2. Even if they did screw up that does prove conspiracy.

I realize you meant the opposite of what you have typed here, but I prefer what you wrote to what you intended.

Is this not akin to the later lapse when one George Bush, et al, managed to ignore a briefing memo headed "OBL determined to attack the US," which included the prediction that such an attack would use hijacked planes to accomplish the deed?

I agree with you that the Bush administration (and to a lesser extent the Clinton administration) was grossly negligent but once again incompetence doesn’t = conspiracy. The memo contained little intelligence that could have been acted on nothing indicated such attacks were imminent.

Precisely how many times must one swallow the "incompetence" line before it demonstably ceases to be incompetence, requiring you to entertain more unsavoury possibilities? Just how credulous would you have your fellow citizens be? Such a blase uncritical credulity is not an attribute when attempting to divine the truth in such matters.

The Project for a New American Century, penned by the very same people who would thereafter run the "appointed" government, virtually prescribed what would be necessary in order to sell to the US populace its plans for the Middle East - "a new Pearl Harbour" - and that prescription was filled.

Untrue. I’m no fan of PNAC or their agenda but that’s not what their paper (which you apparently never read) called for. They said: “…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". “The process of transformation” it was referring to was not regime change in the Middle East or anything along those lines (which isn’t called for anywhere in the paper) but for “the Department of Defense [to] move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems.”

I see that the formidable Ron Ecker has already dispatched that particular canard, so I'll not dwell upon it.

All due respect to Ron aside he misquoted the paper so maybe you’d like to address it or admit error.

Sorry, but no dice. I read the documentation in precisely the way Ron does, and I notice he's added some further comments, with which I also concur. You are free to disagree. However, irrespective of the goal in mind - territorial hegemony or development of new weapons or whatever else is inferred - the fact remains that precisely the scenario that they identified as speeding the achievement of their goals is what transpired. Precisely how many times must one swallow the "happy coincidence" line before it demonstably ceases to be coincidence, requiring you to entertain more unsavoury possibilities?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

What "inability" to catch OBL? Had there been such an interest, would the Buxxxxes really have allowed chartered flights to spirit all the Bin Ladens in the USA out of the country immediately after the event?

A bit of a myth http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html

I see you subscribe to a contra-myth, which is precisely what is contained in the above link. A far more accurate, albeit convoluted, chronogy of events is provided by Daniel Hopsicker at:

http://www.madcowprod.com/06282007a.html

It should disturb you as much as it does me that we have known since October 5, 2001, when it was reported by the Tampa Tribune, that at least one such flight did take place in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized - despite repeated denials by Bush, the FBI, the FAA, et al that such had ever occurred - only to later be grudgingly acknowledged. When agencies of one's own government repeatedly lie, and come clean only when there is no other option, what does it say about one's government, or the credulity of people who continue to embrace such myths only because they wish them to be true?

Did you actually look at my link? It didn’t dispute that Saudis, even bin-Ladens, were flown out of the US only the contention that they weren’t interviewed first.

The site you referenced stipulates several things that remain less than certain, which is only naturally since their source material comes from the 9/11 Commission whose credility is less than stellar, as we'll soon see, and a few that are demonstrably untrue. To wit:

"Many sites are a little coy about when this flight occurred, but we'll tell you; it was September the 20th. Not such a rush, really, and no, US airspace was not closed."

Technically, this is true, so far as it goes, but its placatory tone is a false one. What it fails to address, which is why I directed your attention to Hopsicker's site, is that such a flight containing Saudis did take place while there was an FAA embargo on air travel, albeit in this instance a domestic one. And, as was initially the case with the Bin Laden flights departing the US, it was originally denied by FBI, FAA and the White House, none of whom seemed capable of discovering what they did not seek. Reading Hopsicker's piece illustrates as much.

911myths. com also contends: "The family members weren't simply allowed to leave, either. The 9/11 commission pointed out:

"Twenty-two of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity... The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft".

How does one square this with FBI's initial, wholly contradictory claims that no such flights had ever taken place? How does one interview passengers who never flew? Either FBI's initial denials were wrong, or the Commission's Report is, for those two opposing "facts" cannot both be true. I understand your failure to acknowledge the disconnect; so long as you accept the most recent statement - the 9/11 Commission's - as true, you are untroubled by whatever preceded it, no matter how contrary.

Your site also asserts: "Had they driven across the border to Canada instead, they could have flown home from there with no questions at all."

This is wholly untrue. It presupposes that Canadian air travel security protocols were so lax that persons could come and go as they pleased, with "no questions at all." Only somebody who's never flown in or out of my country would say so silly a thing. Our system may be less draconian than some others, but we do have a system, and thus far it's worked with reasonable efficiency.

Hopsicker doesn’t document what you claim according to the Tampa Tribune article:

"On Sept 13, 2001, a private Lear jet flew three young Saudi men—a Saudi Arabian prince, the son of the Saudi Arabian defense minister, and the some of a top Saudi army commander—from the Raytheon Terminal at Tampa International Airport to Lexington, Kentucky."

So it was a domestic flight and there was no mention of members of the Bin-Laden family being on it. Try again.

A simple reference to what I wrote illustrates that this isn't quite so: "It should disturb you as much as it does me that we have known since October 5, 2001, when it was reported by the Tampa Tribune, that at least one such flight did take place in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized - despite repeated denials by Bush, the FBI, the FAA, et al that such had ever occurred - only to later be grudgingly acknowledged."

I said nothing about a foreign flight, or the Bin Ladens in referencing the Hopsicker site. "...in US airspace at a time when no other flights were authorized..." If this was a mere oversight, or benign, why did the White House, FAA and FBI all feel compelled to lie about it? This is a fact that Hopsicker makes clear:

When the FBI was insisting the Saudi boys in Tampa never flew to Lexington, KY, on Sept 13, the FBI documents state that if there was a phantom flight:

"Such a flight would have been in violation of the FAA's flight ban."

Also, that:

"FAA reports that full flight restrictions were in effect on 9/13/2001."

But when the 9/11 Commission Report admits the flight actually did happen, there's a catch:

"The flight definitely took place, and there is nothing improper about it" because "both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open."

And:

"At the time this charter flight took off, both the national airspace and Tampa Airport were open."

However, the key point is the one regarding Bush administration solicitude, and this 'phantom flight' was just one such example. Again, from Hopsicker:

Today we only know about the phantom flight from Tampa because a former Tampa police officer, Dan Grossi, and a retired FBI Agent, Manuel Perez, provided security on the flight from Tampa to Lexington KY.

And then, when asked about it, they told the truth.

In October of 2001, Grossi confirmed to the Tampa Tribune that he had been on the flight, and added that he “was told clearance came from the White House after the Saudi royal family asked a favor from former President Bush.”

Perez agreed with Grossi’s assessment.

"They got the approval somewhere," Perez is quoted in the Vanity Fair article telling reporter Craig Unger. "It must have come from the highest levels of government."

Had there been such an interest on Bush's part, would US forces at Tora Bora have really been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing?

Can you provide a citation for this claim?

Sure. You may recall that John Kerry repeatedly made this claim, presumably with some basis in fact, while running in the '04 election. It would be a simple matter to cynically denounce such claims as political posturing by a Presidential candidate at the expense of the incumbent. Were it not for the subsequently published book "Jawbreaker" [Dec. '05], written by the CIA point man in charge of seeking out OBL at Tora Bora. CIA initially stalled vetting his book, which had to be submitted to the Agency prior to publication as is common in all such cases, then ensured that some of the book's most damning allegations were excised. Those interested in the meat of the matter might benefit from reading what can be found at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

A transcript of a January '06 Paula Zahn interview on CNN with the book's CIA-operative author, Gary Bernstein, can be found midway down the page at:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/06/pzn.01.html

Much that corroborates Bernstein's version of events can be found in "First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan" by Gary Schroen, also a Jawbreaker veteran, and Robert Baer has been no wallflower in recounting his own bitter experiences trying motivate a serious hunt for Bin Laden. <

Once again none of your linked sources back your claim. Did you read them? Bernstein was interviewed by David Ensor not Paula Zahn.

You are correct. I referenced Paula Zahn because it was her show, but it was Ensor who filed the report.

You said “US forces at Tora Bora [had] been ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing.”

1) The US DID fire on the al-Queda positions, from the CNN transcript you cited:

DAVID ENSOR, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (VOICE OVER): In late November of 2001, the CIA sent a four-man CIA military team to hunt Osama bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan.

With donkeys and ten Afghans for security, the team scaled a 14,000 foot peak overlooking al Qaeda's mountain retreat at Tora Bora. From there the men used lasers to call in massive firepower from the air.

GARY BERNSTEIN, AUTHOR, "JAWBREAKER": And they rained down death and destruction on al Qaeda up in those mountains. The first 56 hours alone.

2) Bernstein didn’t complain about the lack of bombing but, like Kerry, the failure to use US as opposed to Afghan ground troops,

You are right, Bernstein didn't "complain about a lack of bombing." I never said he did. What he did complain about was that he knew where OBL was, requested the necessary troops to fire upon and clean out those positions, and his request was overridden [admittedly, I could have phrased my point more cogently]:

ENSOR: One of the team's leaders radioed Gary Bernstein, their CIA boss in Kabul, the U.S. should send troops to make sure bin Laden did not get away somehow. Bernstein pleaded the case.

(on-camera): How many times and in what way did you ask for American forces?

BERNSTEIN: Well, I did it in writing, and then I did it orally with the senior military commanders on the ground.

ENSOR (voice over): But the troops to block the Pakistani border were not sent.

3) That decision even according to Bernstein was made by General Franks a career military officer who’d been a general well before Bush jr. came to power not one of his neo-con politicos. Again according to Bernstein, Franks wasn’t sure OBL was in the area and though the risk was too high. He told Ensor:

“We had an opportunity. It would have required a bit more acceptance of risk in that case.”

And told MSNBC:

“Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."”

The evidence that OBL was there is less than rock solid:

BERNSTEIN: …my linguist was listening to him on the radio, on that un-encrypted radio. And the linguist I had listened to Osama bin Laden's voice four years straight. Any time we wanted someone to translate something it was him.

ENSOR: So he knew for sure it was him?

BERNSTEIN: He knew for sure. He knew for sure.

OK according to Bernstein a CIA linguist strongly believed it was him, it probably was. Might Franks who would have been ordering his troops into harm's way had reasons to be dubious since he didn’t know the linguist? What if he had ordered the troops in and a lot got killed (the Black Hawk Down incident had only been a few years earlier) and OBL wasn’t there or got a way?

There are any number of possibilities. However, as Bernstein said, he had requested the troops orally and in writing, and no doubt provided his basis for believing OBL had been located. Commanders who refrain from actions because they are afraid of losses should perhaps be pushing paper in the Pentagon and not troops in the field.

While the Black Hawk Down episode was a grisly one, a failure of nerve will never obtain Osama's head. The opportunity to kill or capture Bin Laden seems to have existed, and was foregone. If US losses had been heavy, a dead Osama would have been considered worth the effort. And even if OBL did manage to elude US troops, the Bush-ites could at least have pointed toward the serious effort undertaken, including the loss of US lives, as a measure of their genuine desire to catch the bastard. As it stands, what can they point to with pride in this so-called hunt for OBL? Precious little, it seems. As Bush himself declared, it seems to have been some time since he even cared.

And this solicitude toward the Bin Ladens by the Bushes is not the first, nor unique. Now that I now you share my admiration for Greg Palast, Len, allow me to direct your attention to an old report of his - November '01 - illustrating that the Bush White House seems to have shut down US intelligence interest in two members of the Bin Laden clan living next door to the CIA in early '01. While this event, transpiring prior to the attacks, is less damning than solicitude shown by Bush toward OBL and kin after the attacks, it illustrates the unbroken pattern of a President doing his level best to ensure that a presumed enemy - already wanted for prior crimes against US interests abroad and already slated for murder by CIA via a Clinton authorization - has never had to pay for his crimes, real and alleged. I look forward to your comments once you've had a chance to read Palast's piece, which can be found at:

http://www.gregpalast.com/september-11-wha...0%9d/#more-1844 <

He wrote:

"Before you jump to the wrong conclusion, let me tell you that we found no evidence — none, zero, no kidding — that George Bush knew about Al Qaeda’s plan to attack on September 11. Indeed, the grim joke at BBC is that anyone accusing George Bush of knowing anything at all must have solid evidence. This is not a story of what George Bush knew but rather of his very-unfunny ignorance. And it was not stupidity, but policy: no asking Saudis uncomfortable questions about their paying off roving packs of killers, especially when those Saudis are so generous to Bush family businesses."

It seems you did precisely what he didn’t want his reader to. He’s saying this was done for political and personal financial reasons.

Re: your fine distinction that Bush was motivated by personal greed and personal political considerations, and hence wasn't solicitous toward the Bin Ladens, you seem that have it somewhat backwards. Bush was solicitous toward the Bin Ladens, and this seems to haved earned Bush a pass from you, so long as it was motivated by personal gain. To me, it is largely irrelevant for which corrupt reasons that is true, only that it is. You neglected a pithy piece of Palast's post:

In November 2001, when BBC ran the report on the spike of investigations of Saudi funding of terror, the Bush defenders whom we’d invited to respond on air dismissed the concerns of lower level FBI agents who’d passed over the WAMY documents. No action was taken on the group headed by the bin Ladens.

Then, in May this year, fifty FBI agents surrounded, invaded and sealed off WAMY’s Virginia office. It was like a bad scene out of the ‘Untouchables.’ The raid took place three years after our report and long after the bin Ladens had waved bye-bye. It is not surprising that the feds seized mostly empty files and a lot of soccer balls.

Why now this belated move on the bin Laden’s former operation? Why not right after the September 11 attack? This year’s FBI raid occurred just days after an Islamist terror assault in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Apparently, messin’ with the oil sheiks gets this Administration’s attention. Falling towers in New York are only for Republican convention photo ops.

The 199-I memo was passed to BBC television by the gumshoes at the National Security News Service in Washington. We authenticated it, added in our own sleuthing, then gave the FBI its say, expecting the usual, “It’s baloney, a fake.” But we didn’t get the usual response. Rather, FBI headquarters said, “There are lots of things the intelligence community knows and other people ought not to know.”

Ought not to know?

What else ought we not to know, Mr. President? And when are we supposed to forget it?

Nothing in the article indicates he called the FBI off of OBL himself. The evidence that having done what Plast though should have been done would have prevented the attack

Since you've stopped in mid-sentence, I should allow you to complete it prior to responding to whatever point you intend to raise.

[Charles Drago]

Cliff,

In my response I was referencing past exchanges (in which Robert Charles-Dunne participated) regarding our conflicting views of the sponsors' baseline intentions regarding the role of Cuba in the plot. Hence I wrote:

"Nice try, Cliff.

"The JFK assassination was a total success -- including its false false flag aspect."

I'll address your most recent points below. My comments are in red.

________________________________________

Our degrees of certainty on this score are significantly different, Charles.

Indeed.

I qualifed my observation with "very likely." At this point I'm looking for

consistencies in the evidence, rather than hard historical conclusions.

Let's fact-check you on this in just a bit.

I take issue with the construction: total success.

And based upon my own interpretation of the sponsors' goals in hitting JFK, I see not a scintilla of failure.

To so readily dismiss the importance of Havana in black market operations,

and the "deep" powers behind those operations, strikes me as unwise.

You miscontrue. I acknowledge the "importance of Havana" to the "'deep' powers" you reference. We disagree substantively on how those powers cast Havana in their grand drama.

I differ from most here in my assessment of JFK's control of US foreign

policy in SE Asia in the fall of 1963.

This tape of JFK a few days after the Diem coup tells me of a man who

was detached from the decision-making process.

"Detached"? No. Treasonously eliminated? Absolutely!

The White House voice for the coup was Mike Forrestal!

Quote Brother Varnell: "I'm looking for consistencies in the evidence, rather than hard historical conclusions."

Really?

Where the Hell was John F. Kennedy in the decision to overthrow Diem?

Who called the shots on the Diem coup?

Averell Harriman.

Quote Brother Varnell: "I'm looking for consistencies in the evidence, rather than hard historical conclusions."

Really?

Who pulled up at the White House minutes after LBJ arrived on Eleven Twenty Two

to tell Johnson that the Commies had nothing to do with the assassination?

Averell Harriman.

Quote Brother Varnell: "I'm looking for consistencies in the evidence, rather than hard historical conclusions."

Really?

Do I think JFK was murdered because of his policies on Vietnam?

Perhaps, but I doubt it -- it sure looks to me like Averell Harriman was in control.

The motives of the sponsors of JFK's murder were many and varied. Was Harriman a sponsor, facilitator, and/or false sponsor?

Charles