Here's the other factoid that has simply never registered with the American public the way it should have (link):ummm - i must admit that i didnt know this either. call me shirley and slap me with a trout.
Senator Bob Graham, Head of the 911 Commission, has admitted that a foreign nation was complicit in the events of 911.
"I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments 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"
".... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now."
The country is almost certainly Pakistan. Damn! Oh well, we'll just put them in there somewhere on the invasion list...
this is fascinating - not least because graham was with grossman and mahmoud (head of pakistan's ISI) on 911 - and sibel specifically points to this meeting as being significant.
what did graham learn over breakfast with grossman, Mahmoud and Goss on that fateful day? did he notice them gloating with pride?
incidentally, there was a courtcase back in 03 which scott recently pointed to where Mylroie, Woolsey ( i bet we see his ugly war-rootin' head on tv a lot in the few months), Tenet and Powell all testified that "it took a state like Iraq to carry out an attack as really sophisticated, massive and deadly as what happened on September 11'." they convinced the judge that only a state could have had the wherewithal to do what the cavedwellers apparently did - ie the judge is on record saying that alqaeda didnt do it.
pick a state, any state.
12 comments:
"I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States."
Of course, this is all very vague. The 9-11 Commission report pointed to Pakistan and Iran as two countries that might have been supporting some of the activities of the terrorists.
However, it is hard for me to believe that the highest-levels of the Pakistani government would actively participate in attacking the United States. Musharref would have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. It just doesn't make any sense for Pakistan to attack the US, which has been for the most part, a great ally of Pakistan over the years.
On the other hand, there are some elements of the Pakistani ISI that may have some sympathies with Bin Laden. It is my understanding that the ISI is somewhat autonomous, and they could very well have given some covert support for 9-11.
I pick Ohio!
Graham's phrase is 'sovereign foreign government'. That's not a mistake.
The background is that the CIA was using the ISI as a funding and training agent for the Taliban for a long time and many in Pakistan had always been sympathetic to the Taliban - and bin Laden. The evidence is the ISI helped pay for the 9/11 terrorists. It's not impossible in these cirumstances that cabinet ministers in the Pakistan govt, or other high officials, knew of the attacks beforehand. (Musharref has been fighting to keep Pakistan from becoming a nuclear-jihadist state. He would not have been told.)
ISI chief General Ahmad was in Washington on the morning of 911 meeting with Goss and Graham in Intelligence discussions (the ISI was supposed to keep track of al Qaeda's operations in Pakistan). We need to keep in mind that Porter Goss was involved with CIA 'wet ops' teams early on (Hopsicker has an alleged photo of him with mafia guys and CIA drug trafficker Barry Seal)and is total Iran-Contra, so he's capable of absolutely anything. Graham, I don't know.
Certainly, the meeting of the three on 9/11 is not, of itself, sinister since they would normally consult as intelligence officials. (But if Sibel says it was significant, so that's different.)
Immediately following 9/11 Ahmad was stuck in Washington by the flight restrictions and it's said he got a shellacking from Powell - who would have correctly concluded that the planned attacks were known to at least some members of the ISI. Also, most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, but nearly all of them commenced their journey from Pakistan.
Subsequent to 911 it emerged that General Ahmad had authorized the payment of $100,000 into the Florida bank account of chief 911 hijacker Mohammed Atta. The transfer of funds was effected by Saeed Sheikh (al-Qaeda chief financial officer, later convicted of the murderer of Daniel Pearl). When the details of this payment emerged late in 2001 Gen Ahmad retired quietly to suburban Islamabad, where he remains. No extradition.
Of far more interest to me is that Ahmad met Marc Grossman shortly after 9/11. This is Sibel stuff as well, I think.
The 9/11 Commission did not go anywhere near terrorist financing- whether either forbidden to do so, or by choice. See PD_Scott
Also, keep in mind that the Bush administration ALLOWED senior al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders to escape at Tora Bora in order that Pakistan leaders not be embarrased by the haul (and also so secrets would remain).
Finally, of all the pre 9/11 intelligence warnings from many countries NONE came from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
There is considerable Bush administration reticence about US Pakistani, and Saudi associations, that exist on a 'continuum of terror'. The fear is that if the continuum is explored it will show up -
(a) continuing (current) US support for sponsored terrorist activities in former Russian states.
(b) a history of US support for al Qaeda operatives in the Balkans until 1999, and
(c) disturbing questions about what the CIA - with close ties to Saudi and Pakistan intelligence agencies - did, or did not know, prior to 911.
It is almost certain, in my view, that the US government is aware of persons in the ISI and Pakistan leadership who either supported 9/11 or allowed it to happen. They can't be pursued because Pakistan will go jihadist. Similarly, Saudi terrorist financiers get a free pass, because US connections to Saudi Arabia are intermeshed over intelligence, investment, arms and oil trading, Bush-Saudi finances etc.
There are a number of other juicy tidbits you might like to google about re US equivocation over its friends and allies:
Yasin al-Qadi, a Saudi, was named by the Bush Administration as a financial backer of the al-Qaeda terrorist network. He was also the principal financier of Ptech, a CIA front company responsible for the software systems of most US defense and senior government agencies - including the FAA software used on 911. Al-Qadi and Ptech were cleared of any wrongdoing by President Bush on the very day that their offices were raided by the US Dept of Treasury in their terrorism investigation, Operation Greenquest. No Guantanimo for Yasin. (ref)
Prince Bandar, Saudi ambassador to the US, resigned on 26 June 2005. But there were reports available long before this about payments made by his wife, Princess Haifi, to two of the 9/11 terrorists based in San Diego. The evidence was circumstantial, but fairly compelling. Bandar continued as ambassador throughout.
[Apologies if there are any inadvertent factual errors here]
Oh, I forgot -
On May 13, 2003, John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge signed a "Memorandum of Agreement between the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security", giving the FBI "unprecedented unilateral control of all terrorist-financing investigations and operations." The memorandum places the FBI in an incredibly powerful position over Homeland Security.
...."all appropriate DHS leads relating to money laundering and financial crimes will be checked with the FBI".
Sibel identified a litany of corruption,incompetence and espionage at the FBI. If the Bush administration wanted to conceal terrorist finances, handing it all over to the FBI would be a great way to go about it.
I'm not sure where Lukery stands in regard to 9/11. I believe in MIHOP. Based on the lack of flight skills (of some of the hijackers), combined with reports that suggest the hijackers were actually drug runners and not Islamic fundamentalists, there is a good chance they weren't even on the flights. There is a very interesting link to Dov Zakheim's company that specialized in remote control technologies.
I say US op with support possibly from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel.
Mike
O/T but...
Via TPM, here's gem that if true throws a whole new monkey wrench into the connections between Abramoff and other Republican factions:
Jack Abramoff's partner Mike Scanlon admitted to digging up former Congressman Robert Livingston's private life. Set to become speaker, Livingston then got sidelined for Tom DeLay's man Denis Hastert. Prosecutors now checking if Abramoff and Scanlon took Livingston down at DeLay's behest.
This is from the NY Post's gossip column by Cindy Adams, so grain of salt. But if true, Jack was taking Livingston down for DeLay.... why exactly? Was it because Livingston was Poppy's choice for the house, and DeLay had other designs? Did Livingston have connections in Turkey at this point already, or did that only come later?
Needless to say, I find this whole twist fascinating. Clearly it suggests there were at least 2 different factions even back then.
What do you make of it lukery?
Viget,
"Prosecutors now checking if Abramoff and Scanlon took Livingston down at DeLay's behest."
My only problem with this is that it does not seem to me to that a crime would have been committed. Digging up dirt on political rivals is par for the course in D.C.
By the way, this is Mike1 changing my screen name to avoid confusion with the Other Mike.
Miguel--
Yes, but Scanlon was an aide to DeLay during the relevant time period (Dec 1998). Wouldn't it be misuse of government resources or something like that?
What's even weirder is this quote from the Texas Observer on May 27, 2005 about the gala the American Conservative Union threw for DeLay:
The biggest names from K Street were Bob Livingston and Bill Paxon, two former House members indebted (if that’s the right word) to DeLay for their careers in the lobby.... Livingston, who delivered a forceful speech blaming the liberal media for DeLay’s problems (and claiming both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal rejected his op-ed pieces defending the majority leader), has his own DeLay backstory. When Gingrich finally did collapse under the accumulated weight of scandal and lost House seats in 1998, DeLay used his influence and his whip team to make Livingston speaker-designate. DeLay’s kingmaking unraveled when Hustler publisher Larry Flynt revealed Livingston’s extramarital affairs. Livingston left the House and he also moved onto the lobby. (DeLay then selected Hastert for the position.) link
So apparently, on the up and up, DeLay was publically behind Livingston 100%, but was secretly having his aide work with Abramoff to do oppo research on the guy? What gives? Something's not right.
gday everyone. more great comments. thnx. i think PwapVt is on the money. ohio dunnit!
let's see what i can add.
firstly, i was in a rush yesterday and didnt fully read the Newshour report. ftr, that show was after the joint Senate and House Intelligence Committees, prior to the 911comm. in fact, the "Kissinger COmmision" had just been announced.
Mike - i must admit that i dont know anything about the ISI, so i can't really comment. the relevant question probably is whether the ISI was involved as an institution, or whether there were rogue elements/people from the ISI involved.
damien is correct to note that graham seems to specifically point to direct state involvement, rather than a rogue operation. it's interesting that graham used the word 'sovereign' - which appears redundant at face value. any thoughts? also curious was ifill's response: "IFILL: Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you're talking about?" - a normal journo surely would have straightup asked "which countries?"
damien - Ahmad/Mahmoud is now working as a business person, working in conjunction with the support of the Pakistan govt. he actually met with tenet in the days before 911. sibel emailed me and said: "You picked the Zogby report, even though it was written a while ago (good research); cleverly put it together with Mahmud, Grossman, and even Brewster Jennings."
mike - i didnt closely follow the mihop/lihop debate - frankly, i cant see much of a difference in terms of complicty. the only real difference is that in lihop, the americans are simply claiming that they didnt have the requisite imagination!
viget/mig - yep - that is kinda interesting. i dont really know the history behind Livingston's dethronement (apart from The Sex). i've actually been working on another post about Livinsgton - i'll try to get that out in the next couple of days . as i mentioned the other day, there seems to be some shady biz going on there - sibel's made a point to AlexJones last week that Livinsgton wasnt working for Turkey, but rather (as i later learned) the Turkish embassy in washington. (livingston's website doesnt mention the 'embassy' part of the story.) As it happens, the DoJ's Foreign Agents Registration Act (for lobbyists) appears to be intentionally broken.
one (of many) interesting question about the scanlon/livingston thing is how on earth it came up at all. i wonder what triggered them to ask scanlon that question, or even weirder - did scanlon offer it up as part of a plea deal? still, why would he think it was noteworthy?
spaghetti - which post are yuo pointing to?
Wayne Madsen 26Jan on 9/11 financing:
Jan Fayyaz Ahmed, named as one of the hijackers aboard United 175 that crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, received $50,000 from a Houston based company that originated from a $10 million transfer by the Saudi Royal family in 1995.
"According to a source close to the case, the $10 million was moved from Bluelake World SA, a Switzerland-based firm, via Topaz Liberty and Andromeda International (both Panamanian firms), to the account of Southwest Services of Houston, the account from which Fayyaz Ahmed was paid $50,000. Another intermediary for the funds transfer was reportedly Hamilton House of Nassau, Bahamas, a possible off-shore entity of Hamilton Bank in Miami. The financial network that moved the $10 million to Arizona and Texas reportedly has close links to Potomac Capital, a Geneva-based entity set up by CIA Director George H. W. Bush in 1976.
The Bush financial networks involved with Metrobank and Hamilton also involve the entry of illegal foreign money into the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign." ((link))
Also worth a look is the letter of Michael Springmann, former consular official at Jedda, to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (link)
Fayyaz Ahmed, not Jan Fayyaz Ahmed. apologies.
Post a Comment