Jump to content
The Education Forum

Iraq, 9/11 and the MICIC


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

It has just been revealed that shortly after the plane crashed into the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld issued orders to his aides to look for evidence of Iraqi involvement in the incident. Under the US Freedom of Information Act, Thad Anderson, managed to get the notes taken by Stephen Cambone, senior policy official, at the meetings held by Rumsfeld. According to the notes Rumsfeld said: “Hard to get a good case. Need to move swiftly. Near term target needs – go massive – sweep it all up, things related and not.”

He did not only ask for evidence of Iraqi involvement. He also said: “Best info fast. Judge whether good enough to hit SH (Saddam Hussein) at the same time – not only UBL (Usama/Osama bin Laden). Tasks. Jim Haynes (Pentagon lawyer) to talk with PW (Paul Wolfowitz) for additional support (to obtain) connection with UBL.”

It is now clear that attempts to blame Iraq and Osama bin Laden for 9/11 started within minutes of it happening. As we know they were unable to get any evidence of Iraq involvement but this did not stop them starting a war over it.

Although I would not go as far as to suggest the administration was behind 9/11. Is it possible, like with Pearl Harbor and the assassination of JFK, the intelligence services found out about what was being planned, and for political and economic reasons decided not to stop it happening?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I would not go as far as to suggest the administration was behind 9/11. Is it possible, like with Pearl Harbor and the assassination of JFK, the intelligence services found out about what was being planned, and for political and economic reasons decided not to stop it happening?

Surely what is more tenable in each case is that cynical politicians took advantage of tragic situations to forward their own agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I would not go as far as to suggest the administration was behind 9/11. Is it possible, like with Pearl Harbor and the assassination of JFK, the intelligence services found out about what was being planned, and for political and economic reasons decided not to stop it happening?

Surely what is more tenable in each case is that cynical politicians took advantage of tragic situations to forward their own agendas.

yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible, like with Pearl Harbor and the assassination of JFK, the intelligence services found out about what was being planned, and for political and economic reasons decided not to stop it happening?

It was more than a case of "the intelligence services" letting it happen. There was inside help, as is clear from the WTC collapses. Anyone can see in the clip of WTC7 collapsing (see below) that it was a controlled demolition. And if one's eyes are not enough, the leaseholder Larry Silverstein stated on national TV that a decision was made to "pull" the building (industry jargon for controlled demolition). Simple logic says that the symmetrical collapses of both WTC towers, also leased by Larry Silverstein, were likewise controlled demolitions.

To me the other most obvious evidence of an inside job is the strange and concerted behavior of the Defense Command Authority (the president and Secretary of Defense) plus the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs plus the Vice President during the attacks.

As is famously known, Bush continued to sit for several minutes listening to a pet goat story in a schoolhouse after being informed that America was under attack. Less well known is the fact that the other half of the DCA, Donald Rumsfeld, virtually went into hiding in his office after the tower attacks, listening to a daily briefer as if it was just another day at the office till his own building was hit (on the other side from his office, of course), after which he went outside, instead of going to the War Room to get briefed (gain "situational awareness" as he likes to say) and start doing his sworn duty.

Meanwhile General Myers, Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was holed up in Senator Max Cleland's office on Capitol Hill, "uninformed" of the attacks till they were over!

And the Vice President? The official story is that Cheney was whisked from his office by the Secret Service right after the second tower was hit (no such concern for Bush down in that Sarasota schoolhouse), to be taken through a tunnel to a bunker where he arrived around 10 am. That means that Cheney's whereabouts for almost an hour is unaccounted for (unless one wishes to believe that the tunnel to the bunker is an hour-long trek). Where was he? According to Cabinet member Norman Mineta, he saw Cheney in that bunker around 9:25 tracking Flight 77 (the hijacked airliner that would crash into the Pentagon) with the help of a military aide who kept calling out the closing mileage and asking if "the order still stands." What order would that be? Mineta told this strange story in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission, which decided to ignore it.

I defy anyone to argue convincingly that it's somehow just coincidence that all these men, whose duty was to get up and do something, acted in the same peculiar, indeed inexplicable manner, making themselves as unavailable as possible. They were virtually in hiding, in order to avoid being in a position to ASSESS THE SITUATION and DO SOMETHING that might in some way interfere with the attacks (like get some planes up ASAP from Andrews AFB, 10 miles away from the Pentagon).

The exception to this do-nothing order of the day was Cheney, who apparently was indeed doing something, in a time warp not to be found in the official record. Too bad no one can ask him exactly what he was doing when Mineta dropped in on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David ray Griffin, in his 2nd book, a critique of the official 9/11 Commission Report, claims that only one person had control over what witnesses the commission would hear, who would interview them, and what parts of the invterviews would be included in the final report. This person was Bush transition team member Phillip Zelikow. Zelikow also co-authored a book with the HMS Condaleeza, and now works for her again!(It's a good thing conflict of interest was surgically removed from our media vocabulary). Zelikow also had final editorial control of the report. Keane and Hamilton (MR. Democratic CIA coverup, see October Surprise, and Iran Contra) never even quit their day jobs.

Hey maybe first choice Henry Kissinger wasn't such a bad choice after all.

Along with the WC this was a case of report acompli.

By the way I was unaware that the Rostow who urged LBJ to form the WC was the brother of Walt Rostow. This is definitely interesting, given Rostow's connection to Lansdale and the backchannel Vietnam intelligence going to LBJ that was kept from Kennedy.

I had read of the Yale Law school Rostow's role in two other books,including Breach of Trust, but this is the first time I remember learning this was Walt's brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I defy anyone to argue convincingly that it's somehow just coincidence that all these men, whose duty was to get up and do something, acted in the same peculiar, indeed inexplicable manner, making themselves as unavailable as possible.

They are stupid and were frightened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy,

Thanks, that's real convincing.

"Stupid"? In Bush's case, yes. Which is why I'm willing to believe he actually had no idea what was going down. As the goat story continued, Bush's press secretary actually held up a hand-scrawled sign saying, "Don't say anything yet."

But Myers, Rumsfeld, Cheney? They get no passes from me for being "stupid."

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one person had control over what witnesses the commission would hear, who would interview them, and what parts of the invterviews would be included in the final report

The 911 Commission was a complete scam. Not one word about the operation prior to D-Day, 9/11/01. I consider it another complete waste of time and energy, reminiscent of the Warren Commission in the way they completely ignore relevant facts that are contrary to the "line" they wanted to convey.

Interesting video here, Amanda is quite believable. http://www.madcowprod.com

Wake up and smell the roses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Myers, Rumsfeld, Cheney? They get no passes from me for being "stupid."

You are clearly more generous in your assessments of intelligence than this particular teacher :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy,

Cheney at least was doing something, of an apparently sinister nature, during the attacks on 9/11. But your notion that Rumsfeld and Myers were too "stupid" and "frightened" to perform the basic duties of their job in that situation (Myers claims that he didn't even know what was happening because nobody told him) hardly deserves a reply. And I wonder if John started this thread so you can make fun of the discussion with nonsensical statements and smilies.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Corporate media is always ready to go into their keystone cops mode of intelligence analysis: all I am suggesting is that we should be sceptical of this kind of" bungled intelligence" safety dance especially when its edited and controlled-- in the end-- by Phillip Zellikow.

Let's take for example the FBI "bungeling". In the 9/11 report it comes out like a case of missed hand-offs.

But this is not what C. Rowley of the Minneapolis FBI testified. She claimed that her FISA requests to investigate the Minneapolis laptop of the KNOWN (via French intel) AL Q. agent were deliberately sabotaged

by higher ups in the FBI. She claimed that of the more than 7,300 FISA requests betweeen 1996 and 9-11-01, ONLY ONE HAD BEEN TURNED DOWN-- HERS!

Sybel Edmonds also spoke of deliberate blockage, not missed-handoffs, in her job in FBI's lost in translation department.

Surgical bungeling?

I am basing my doubts on the "bungeling" excuse based on the FBI stuff alone. There is a cumulative lists of circumstantial --because it was deliberately uninvestigated or not investigated objectively-- evidence that might one day rival that of JFK assassination research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I wonder if John started this thread so you can make fun of the discussion with nonsensical statements and smilies.

Ron

Now you're just getting paranoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember much, much, later after 9/11, 'hearing the stories' about very strange goings on, from the confession of a 'pilot' who claimed to shoot down Flight 93, to the well documented oddities, the ones that the 9/11 Commission failed to address.

Prior to the formation of the 9/11 Commission, around the time that Henry Kissinger's name was withdrawn from consideration over the 'conflict of interest' issue, I emailed a nationally syndicated columnist, expressing my concerns that the Commission 'might be to our era what the Warren Commission Report was to the 1960's.'

While he acknowledged that there were certainly some very troubling aspects to the whole event, he expressed confidence in the abilities of Messrs Hamilton and Kean to conducy a thorough and concise investigation, most assuredly, I might add. Afterwards I read that either Kean or Hamilton has ties to the President, that should have been noted when the selection process for the panel was underway. Im sure, as they say that it was 'duly noted.'

While I have not followed the research as closely as I would like, I have heard very bad thing's about the results of said investigation.

Then, just two days ago, I saw the headline concerning '9-11 Scholars for Truth,' and what I have thought for quite some time was even more reinforced, this is just the proverbial status quo, with a chilling difference; the Warren Commission dissenting views, championed by Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, and Bertrand Russell were given a voice by local and international media, I cannot speak for overseas, but I have heard nothing about the dissenting voices in academia getting a mention in American media outlets, but I am not surprised. As far as I am concerned the Fox News Network more or less is synonymous with 'State-Run Television,' if you have watched 'Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism' or even if you haven't I am sure the comparison has merit.

Comparing the two decades is even more unsettling, similarities Two President's, both Texan's with links to the 'oil interests,' two companies what Brown & Root was to Vietnam, Halliburton is to Iraq.

William Bennet's - The Death of Outrage conjures up a completely different imagery for me than the one he no doubt intended.

Some might question why I am so vocal about what is happening, and the answer is to live in a country where dissent is 'frowned on,' to not follow mass perception, as far as unanimity concerning the War Party and to be cowed and intimidated into silence........Thus conscience does make cowards of us all

America has become a land where assassinations do not change the course of history, where people sleepwalk through history, the cycles of hate and prejudice that perpetuate the illogic of 'manifest destiny.'

"Winston, tell me about how we can cut taxes for the rich, and cut benefits for the poor. That is only justice, right, Winston?"

When Facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the Flag and Carrying a Cross.

My consolation is in knowing that Christ and Ghandi were right.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing the two decades is even more unsettling, similarities Two President's, both Texan's with links to the 'oil interests,' two companies what Brown & Root was to Vietnam, Halliburton is to Iraq.

They are in fact the same company. George Brown sold Brown & Root to Halliburton after the death of his brother, Herman Brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...