if i can just frontpage a couple of comments from there - not becuase they are better than the others, but only becuase i have some observations:
"As far the ATC infiltration of the FBI translation program, I would like to present a third possibility: the ATC tried to infiltrate the FBI before 9/11, but it was only after 9/11 that the opportunity came up when there were multiple positions for Turkish translators that came open."i disagree. sibel's application was on ice for years, but ready to go the day after 911. as far as i can tell, the fbi had NO turkish translators before then - so maybe it depends on how you define 'infiltration.' remember, robert wright (or whoever) somehow knew that he was getting dodgy translations out of that office. my guess is that the ATC (et al) 'knew' that they could chata away as they liked - becuase they didnt think their conversations would ever get translated, even though they presumably had suspicions that they were being recorded. mike feghali was presumably complicit.
and look who they recruited - apart from sibel, there was kevin - who could hardly speak any language by all accounts, although his sister (or wife or someone) worked at the fbi, and then there was melek can dickerson. my best guess is that the 'infiltration' was more that they didnt have anyone to translate, rather than they had agents there.
damien says:
"My basic premise is that there is considerable evidence for 911 as a US inside job."miguel says:
"As much as I despise the Bush Administration, I don't think Bush and Cheney are quite that evil- or that competent to pull something like that off. "you'll have to read the rest for the full context - but i generally agree with damien - there sure is a lot evidence to support that theory - or more generally, that it certainly wasnt exclusively the job of a bunch of cave-dwelers.
as to miguel's point that bush/cheney arent sufficiently evil - i kinda agree that its difficult to imagine that anyone is so evil - yet it happened. someone is apparently sufficiently evil - so the only question is 'who?' we know that bush/cheney created a war out of cloth which has killed nearly 200,000 people, so far - so we know they are at least that evil
damien points to one of the more telling issues - any reasonable hijacker would have headed straight fof the wtc - but these goons flew around for 90 minutes or something. the issue isnt so much that norad 'stood down ' - but rather that the hijackers acted like they knew that norad would stand down.
anyway - they both make great (supplementary) points. go read
21 comments:
My apologies to Miguel. I intended to respond to his excellent points, but was distracted. Cheers.
Lukery/Damien,
Don't get me wrong- I still hold out the possibility that there was at least foreknowledge from high-level Bush Admin. officials about 9-11 and maybe complicity. But I guess I just like to be cautious about accusing them of masterminding 9-11, because I don't believe there is sufficient proof at this point. There IS proof that they have been hiding the full truth from coming out, but what that 'full truth' is I do not claim to know.
As far as them being evil enough, I guess I should backtrack from that statement. Yes, they ARE evil enough. They have proven how evil they are in the callous way their aggressive war in Iraq has led to the death of tens of thousands of innocents. However, I think for an Administration to cook up such an elaborate plot to attack their own country in such a short time after taking office strikes me as unlikely.
I am more open to the idea that an off-the-shelf, kind of informal network associated with people like Perle and Feith collaborated with the Islamic extremists to ensure that 9-11 could be pulled off without a hitch.
Miguel, I wanted to respond to your points but I want to do justice to them. Unfortunately, as you're aware, anything to do with Bush and/or 911 is always circumstantial and messy. But courts obtain murder convictions on less evidence than is currently available on the Bush admin. So, below, are some responses to your points (I will be expanding on all these points over the next week or so, at my developing blogspot. Click on my link):
I don't believe there is sufficient proof at this point.
I think there is compelling evidence in the following areas:
BUILDING COLLAPSES can only be explained as controlled demolitions. There is overwhelming evidence for this.
NORAD FAILURE ON 911: The Washington-New York air corridor is one of the most heavily monitored airspaces in the world. We would not expect that hijacked aircraft could fly around unchallenged over Frankfurt, Tokyo or London for over an hour. It’s simply inconceivable. Why should we accept this idiotic account for Washington?
HUFFMAN AVIATION - The terrorist's (most of them) couldn't fly. Out of the 200 flight schools in Florida they chose to attend Hufmann Aviation. This was owned by Wally Hilliard who had previously flown Osama's brother Yeslam Bin Laden around the Caribeean. In the year prior to 911 Hufmann Aviation flew about one drug flight a week from Central America and the Caribean despite having no licences to fly internationally. They were never stopped by FAA, Customs or DEA until an apparently uninformed, DEA official did so on July 6 2001 and 43 pounds of heroin. No-one was ever charged. The owners of Huffman would certainly have scrutinised a bunch of arabs rolling up to their flight school. This means the hijackers were 'known quantities' to Huffman and likely to the DEA and CIA.
PAKISTAN - Pakistan’s Intelligence chief General Mahmoud Ahmad was in Washington on the morning of 911 meeting with congressmen Porter Goss and Bob Graham in discussions on Intelligence. 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. Pakistan's military intelligence had close ties to US intelligence. Sen. Bob Graham, Head of the 911 Commission, has admitted publicly on US tv that a foreign nation was identified as complicit in the events of 911.That nation is almost certainly Pakistan.
There is also strong circumstantial and supporting evidence in the following areas:
PNAC document - we know the neocons liked the idea of a catastrophic 911 type event. They got it.
FALSE BIN LADEN CONFESSION VIDEO - rock solid 100% fake, yet fully supported by Bush. He bare-faced lied to the US people on this. Bin Laden's public comments immediately after 911 denied any participation in 911.
TORA BORA - US leaders allowed al qaeda leaders to escape despite US military having them cornered.
US LEADERS - all of the US leaders on 911 either went missing or did strange things. Rumsfeld and Myers were missing. Cheney watched Flight 77 approach the Pentagon from 50 miles out and did nothing. Bush's delay at Sarasota had the happy outcome of providing a cover for the complete failure of NORAD on that day.
ATTA - there were 3 Mohammed Atta's. Atta(1) was an amiable 5'4" man in Germany in Dec 2000. Atta (2) was the 5' 10" psychopathic, drug trafficker who took part in the events of 911 and was tracked by Able Danger in Dec 2000 in the USA. Atta (3) was an arab man who appeared for a while in Florida when Atta(2)'s stripper girlfriend Amanda Keller started making noises after 911, claiming that he had been her boyfriend. He disappeared from the scene.
TERRORISTS - many of their identities are in question; they seem to be stolen identities. THESE PEOPLE COULD NOT EVEN FLY CESSNAS.
INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS- there was a mass of intelligence warnings to the US prior to 9/11 including a briefing to Bush headed "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US". Bush and Cheney both went on holidays for a month.
RUMSFELD'S LOST TRILLIONS- In a show of exquisite timing, on September 10, 2001 Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon couldn’t account for $2.3 TRILLION. That’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in the US. That's 1/3 of the entire US public debt at that time. The scandal was lost in the 911 noise. How convenient.
TROOP MOVEMENTS: In an exercise, called Operation "Swift Sword" planned for four years, 23,000 British troops were on their way to Oman the day before the attacks. These troops were the ones used to assist the Americans in the Afghan invasion. At the same time two U.S. carrier battle groups arrived on station in the Gulf of Arabia just off the Pakistani coast. Also at the same time, some 17,000 U.S. troops join more than 23,000 NATO troops in Egypt for Operation "Bright Star." All of these forces were in place before the first plane hit the WTC.
You also say: However, I think for an Administration to cook up such an elaborate plot to attack their own country in such a short time after taking office strikes me as unlikely.
My claim is that 9/11 was several years in the planning and there is good evidence for it.
Intelligence experts from places like MI5, former Russian States and Germany insist that the type of attack carried out on 911 could only have been achieved with the active participation of one or more intelligence agencies.
In regard to who were the US culprits, that's a matter for another time and I'll try to get to that at some stage on my own blog. When I get something useful there, I'll mention it here.
Here's a fun bit: Ex-CIA Frank Carlucci from Carlyle once was legal counsel for Barry Seal, CIA operative and the largest drug trafficker in US history (till his assassination for threatening to spill the beans). Barry's plane ended up with one Wally Hilliard. Hmmm... small world.
Sorry, Miguel, I missed this one:
ANTHRAX ATTACKS There were never good reasons to believe that bin Laden was behind the anthrax attacks of late 2001 since he would hardly attack such specific targets as the two leading congressional opponents of the Patriot Act.
Bob Stevens, a photo editor working for a Florida newspaper, was the first American to die in the 911 anthrax attacks. Bob's mistake was to publish an unflattering photograph of a drunken Jenna Bush, daughter of the President. Are we to believe that the attack on Stevens was some sort of Xmas present to Bush from Osama?
The difficult-to-produce 'Ames' strain of anthrax was sourced to the Dugway US military base. Inconclusive evidence pointed to one government virologist, Stephen Hatfield (who protested his innocence throughout and cooperated with the authorities). The investigation petred out.
Also, on 9/11 itself, Bush and the White House staff went on the anti-biotic "Cipro" used to ward off anthrax infections - weeks before the anthrax attacks.
Think about it? Osama would not have targetted these particular persons, nor is it likely he had access to this anthrax strain. So either there is another terrorist organisation out there we don't know about, a disturbed individual, or this is a US sponsored exercise. The evidence strongly supports the last case.
Damien,
To the first point about Building Collapse, I had an interesting encounter about 3 or 4 months ago. I met a gentleman at a party of a friend of ours- he was a British man in his 40s or 50s. When he told me his profession was "an explosives engineer", which is kind of like a demolition expert, I asked him if he thought it was funny the way the World Trade Center collapsed- if it looked like a controlled demolition. He did, in fact, say that he thought the buildings collapsed in a way that he would not have expected, and left it at that (I didn't want to press him- it was a party after all.)
That being said, it's hard to know what the effect of a plane with that amount of fuel hitting a building of that structure should look like. I mean, it's not inconceivable that the planes themselves could cause such a collapse, is it?
As to point 2, I thought the issue was that the 9-11 Commission final report says the Norad base for that corridor was not operational on 9-11- although that conclusion contradicted other reports. Isn't it possible that it was just pure incompetence in the interaction between FAA and NORAD?
As far as Huffman Aviation, I have not read Hopsicker's book, so I don't know all the evidence he has. From what I'v e heard though, it wasn't Huffman planes running drugs, but another company owned by a guy named Wally Hilliard, and Hilliard said that plane was leased to a third party. Furthermore, Hilliard denied he was also owner of Huffman Aviation. Again, not having read the book, it's hard for me to evaluate.
but most importantly, why go to such extreme lengths to attack your own country and risk being caught and sent to prison? What would happen if a whistleblower were to come forward and opposition politicians seized on this whistleblower's info to expose the treason?
It seems to me if the goal were to gain an excuse to expand the American Empire, they could have just blown up a couple of more embassies or something.
Miguel, unfortunately in the 9-11 stuff, you have to do a lot of digging and reading:
"I mean, it's not inconceivable that the planes themselves could cause such a collapse, is it?"
Yes it is. The buildings were built to withstand impacts from aircraft like those on 911. None of the offical reports (FEMA, NIST, 911 REPORT) claim that the buildings collapsed due to structural failures caused by the impact of the planes. They all claim it was due to fire. When you look at this claim you see that the temperatures don't make sense. Jet fuel is kerosine. I's not oxy-acetalyine. Yet the pieces of steel pulled out of the rubble weeks later looked, as I have said elsewhere, as though they had been in a blast furnace. The fire in the south tower burned intensely for only fifteen minutes and most of the planes' fuel exploded outside the tower. You really need to read Prof. Steven Jones' main article. It's all there.
"Isn't it possible that it was just pure incompetence in the interaction between FAA and NORAD?"
No. David Ray Griffin does a lengthy article comparing the different accounts provided by the FAA and NORAD. They are wildly incompatible, and the NORAD account is just not credible at all.
"From what I'v e heard though, it wasn't Huffman planes running drugs, but another company owned by a guy named Wally Hilliard, and Hilliard said that plane was leased to a third party. Furthermore, Hilliard denied he was also owner of Huffman Aviation."
Hilliard ran a number of Aviation companies (and subcompanies). Huffman Aviation is his. The two nominal owners (Dreckers and the other guy) were two front men. This has all been established fairly clearly.
"but most importantly, why go to such extreme lengths to attack your own country and risk being caught and sent to prison?"
They didn't expect to be caught because the Bushites and neocons and CIA operatives doing all of this haven't been caught in nearly 30 years. They have been doing this since Iran/Contra, the Savings & Loans, etc. They control the US government and the media and hence any investigations. They are ambitious, greedy and conceited. Bush got away with stealing two national elections (2000, 2004). The CIA drug smuggling in Iran/Contra ran for several years, had a staff of 3,500 and a profit of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It was run by the Government and no-one knew for a long time. These guys simply don't expect to get caught.
Some more links Miguel (link)(link)(link)
I have to admit that some of these links are quite convincing. On the other hand, I am not a structural engineer and it is hard for me to evaluate information like this- unfortunately, science and math were not my strong suit.
But let me throw out another caution- if this were a controlled demolition, why go to the trouble of hijacking airplanes? Why not just blow the buildings up and blame it on terrorists? Secondly, how do people like Michael Scheuer and Richard Clarke play into this? If we assume the 'inside job' theory, are they dupes or are they part of the plot?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to show how difficult it would be to pull off something as elaborate as this without someone on the inside blowing the whistle.
As far as the Anthrax Attacks goes, I think the FBI has long maintained that it was done by an American, probably a white male right winger. So if the US were trying to pin the blame on Osama, they would continue to claim he was responsible. But they are not. In fact, they went after (unfairly, I might add) Steven Hatfield, a former microbiologist or something like that.
Secondly, I did not know about the Jenna Bush pictures. However, I don't think we know enough to say that those pictures had anything to do with anything.
I will note however, that the targetting of U.S. Senators reminded Chalmers Johnson of attempted assisinations in the Imperial Rome Senate. And Chalmers Johnson is a former neocon himself.
By the way, Damien, that's a great blog you have.
Thanks for the compliment Miguel. The blog is mainly my way of summarising what I have learned as I've gone along and so I could point friends to interesting stuff without having to explain it all to them. But there are some factual errors in there I have to correct (stuff on the planes, mostly) and there are about 6-7 pages that need to be totally upgraded due to new facts and material. There is a further 10 pages to be inserted on various topics that I have't got around to. So, it's definitely in need of work. The only problem is I have a real life that needs attention.
Re anthrax: The targetting of the two active opponents of the Patriot Act is the giveaway, in my view. There is no way that's due to Osama. If it was due to a right wing nut then you have to ask yourself why the White House started taking CIPRO on 9/11? What did they know that led them to believe anthrax attacks were in the wing?
I don't buy it. I suspect that the anthrax attacks (inc.Bob Stevens, the very first to die ...that's significant) were run by this RogueNet (Bushie, Neocon et al) team that I referred to, but they didn't pursue it for one PR reason or another. Perhaps they just wanted to nudge the Patriot Act through or get their funding. Who knows?
Also (I need to check this, but I think the CIPRO was Carlyle produced, with the possibility of a big fat govt contract waiting for them for CIPRO production..I'll check)
The specific congressional targets tell me it wasn't Osama; and the CIPRO tells me it wasn't a lone nut.
Re Buildings: "Why not just blow the buildings up and blame it on terrorists?"
As I say, I think the CIA (through their ISI connections) and RogueNet guys became aware of Osama's plans and just coopted them. Remember, too, in 1995 Ramzi Yousef planned to blow up a dozen US passenger jets in mid-flight and the US authorities were aware of this (link).
Re Engineering:the official account from NIST is unsatisfactory, for reasons I've set out previously. Jones attempts, quite well, to address those deficiencies. Have a look at the photos that Jones includes of glowing metal pulled out of the ground weeks later. He does a standard color-coded analyis of the metal's appearance and the temperature comes out way over what a jet fuel fire produces. Game over. You don't need a PhD. The evidence supports the presence of a high temperataure fuel (not kerosine) and the NIST report stopped analysing very early on in the collapse sequence. NIST was unsound and the primary evidence is of a demolition.
Look, I worked in a steel mill for three years. I can tell you flat out that it takes a HELL of a lot of heat over MANY HOURS to get steel to buckle. The fire in WTC south burned intensely for only 15- 20 mins and was out when the building collapsed. It's a joke.
Re Participants: Richard Clarke is ok. In fact, he says Rumsfeld was actively involved in a conference call at 9:10 am - rather than being out of the loop till 9:43 as he claims (link). Michael Scheuer I don't know much about. Porter Goss was in on it imo (but without knowing all the details).
This whole business of the participants (who I term RogueNet) has some key aspects:
(a) They're all from the Iran/Contra crowd, together with Poppy Bush, his CIA connections, some of the neocons such as Perl, Feith and companies like CARLYLE.
(b) This crowd has arisen in a context of very serious crime at all levels going back to Reagan (drugs, corporate, Savings & Loans (run through the Mafia), illegal arms trafficking etc).
(c)There are extensive CIA (and international Mafia) connections formed largely through Poppy Bush and the Iran/Contra crowd.
(d) Any operations run by these people can often be run seemlessly as part of normal military, diplomatic or commercial activities (or even on top of 'not so normal' activities as sponsored drug running). Very hard to spot.
(e) Not all of the Iran/Contra players are necessarily part of 9/11. Only a select number and not all of them knew the whole way it was going to play out.
(f) Since the US was bringing islamic terrorists to train at US military bases, the US instigators of 9/11 could always paint it as 'blowback' to any suspicious colleagues. They weren't going to question or object because 9/11 produces benefits all round.
(g) It's mostly about the money, a little bit about the power, and some of the players are in it to advance Israel's ME security agenda.
(h) It's not necessary to identify individual participants in order to declare 911 an inside job. The building collapses and the NORAD standown on their own prove that.
Lukery pointed out this bit from Theodore Draper (link):
"I shared some of my concerns with a civilian who had been remotely acquainted with the Luti-Feith-Perle political clan in his previous work for one of the senior Pentagon witnesses during the Iran-Contra hearings. He told me these guys were engaged in something worse than Iran-Contra. I was curious but he wouldn't tell me anything more. I figured he knew what he was talking about. I thought of him when I read much later about the 2002 and 2003 meetings between Michael Ledeen, Reuel Marc Gerecht and Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar -- all Iran-Contra figures."
What we are seeing with neocons and the Bushies now is the 20 year working out of their ideas. This is just Iran Contra 2. (link)
Cheers.
Ex-CIA Frank Carlucci from Carlyle once was legal counsel for Barry Seal, CIA operative and the largest drug trafficker in US history (till his assassination for threatening to spill the beans). Barry's plane ended up with one Wally Hilliard. Hmmm... small world.
Apologies, Miguel, I made an error. Frank Carlucci was NOT legal counsel for drug trafficker Barry Seal, it was Richard Ben-Veniste, one of the 911 Commissioners (whose legal firm used to get work from Carlyle).
Here are some links you may find useful:
Carlyle
Rand
Sanders Hicks
911Report
(1) (2)(3)
I get the sense Richard Clarke is in on the whole thing. His testimony, which was hyped like crazy by the media, became the Clarke vs. Rice show...which was Clinton vs. Bush by proxy. His views are very similar to former CIA (head of the Bin Laden taskforce) agent Michael Scheuer. Both men believed that Bin Laden was a serious threat. Clarke's story was that Clinton was serious about Bin Laden and had Cabinet level meetings to deal with the problem. Scheuer thinks Bin Laden is a great leader, going so far to suggest his brilliant tactical skills have been underestimated by western intelligence. Both men suggest that Bush screwed up badly by diverting the war on terror from Bin Laden/Al Qaeda to Hussein/Iraq. And both men are critical of the risk averse nature of CIA higherups...ie...Tenet.
Their views sound pretty reasonable for the most part. Their reasons for 9/11...incompetence, bureaucratic cowardice and the failure of the Bush administration to address the problem with the required amount of urgency.
But if 9/11 was an inside job, then they are either really out of it (almost impossible to believe) or they are very clever officials involved in the coverup (which I would speculate is their role).
The theory that makes the most sense to me is that both the Clinton and Bush administrations were involved in 9/11. If true, that would go a long way to explain why the entire US government (except Cynthia McKinney) has not really questioned the official story at all.
Noise, I apologise for the delay in reponding to you. Since most of my ideas are in development and messy I've put them here - Lukery is nice guy, I want to be a respectful guest (But I am entitled to some privacy Lukery!!) Cheers.
damien - i hope that you are joking about yuor privacy, given that every post of yours points to your website - if not, i apologise profusely for being a bad host. and thanks for all your expertise above
noise - yeah - i was suspicious as hell about Clarke and the perfect media storm of his 60mins appearance immediately prior to his 911comm appearance and his famous apology - and i'm also suspicious of scheuer - although i dont really know how it all fits together.
everyone - you'll note that some of damiens (Carlyle, Rand, Sanders Hicks, 911Report etc) links dont work - i think Blogger is being funky - you have to delete the first part of the URL
Lukery, my sincere thanks always for the welcome to your site. I try to keep my full name out of things because I don't want my life laid out(as it is now) on every google search. I thought you might have been playing with me. I appreciate the welcome.
To avoid confusion I need to say this again: I am no expert at all (as my errors attest), rather an amateur who's way up on the general public over a string of unconnected tidbits, but otherwise clueless. A search through your archives shows you up as a lot more informed on the players and issues. So, well done.
Carlyle
Rand
Sanders Hicks
911Report
Scoop (1)(2)(3)
Okay, so this is some serious tinfoil s*it, but this lady has documents on her website that look too authentic to be forged, so I don't know what to think.
Go check out www.theantechamber.net
Okay, I freely admit that the woman who writes there may be a little nutty when it comes to a lot of things, but the documents she has are just astounding. Her prose and reasoning are convoluted and difficult to follow , almost a "word salad" at times (which makes me suspect that she may be suffering from a schizophrenic-spectrum disorder), but in the little coherent parts that I've been able to piece together, she insinuates that nearly the US's entire economy (and by extension, the world) is a fraud, built on a massive pyramid scheme based on a few documents that apparently have value of hundreds of trillions, if not quadrillions of dollars.
Apparently what poppy bush and his cabal (which includes the iran-contra gang and, if she's to be believed, Alan Greenspan) have been doing is taking out massive illegal loans from both respectable and criminal elements, and then laundering the proceeds into the US banking system to prop up the dollar and our economy. The problem is, they've used the same security document (apparently gold certificates from Peru dated back to 1875) over and over again as collateral for these loans, and the lenders have gotten wise to this and realize that they may never be paid back.
One of these schemes involved a special 10-year "Brady bonds" issue in 1991, which was underwritten by none other than Cantor-Fitzgerald, the firm that was basically wiped-out by the 911 WTC attacks (it was at, or just above the impact zone in the North tower). Interestingly enough, these bonds were to have matured on Sept 12, 2001. And all the documentation was in the WTC offices of Cantor-Fitzgerald.
Maybe that's a good reason for 9/11, maybe not. I'm sure that even if this isn't true, there were all kinds of inconvenient documents housed in the WTC that the government wanted "disappeared" as damien suggests on his blog.
In any case, and now this is my own sort of speculation, the info on that site also talks of complaints from a former Somalian ambassador to Switzerland to Cheney shortly after 9/11 that "the family wants their money" and that billions of dollars in cash stashed in the Phillipines have been moved and the "family" isn't too happy about it. My speculation is that, is this family worldwide mafia concerns (Russia, Chinese, Japenese, etc.) that the US Treasury is on the hook for hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars? And if 9/11 was an inside job, did we just obliterate their claims on the US, and now they're none too happy about it?
Perhaps this is why Cheney is so gung-ho with his illegal wiretapping, Iraq/Iran invasions, and authoritarian control over the nation's intelligence capabilities. Maybe he's so concerned that the family (who may be the true terrorists) are going to come after the US with a "lead pipe" (if you get my drift) and render another terrorist attack on the homeland. This is not to excuse his idiotic and criminal behaviors, but it could explain why he seems to think it's so important to have these expanded intelligence powers. He knows who the real danger is.
Anyway, just some random thoughts. It kind of builds on Damien's speculation that 9/11's main purpose may have been the destruction of the WTC complex and the damaging documents housed within.
Nice one, Viget. Yeah, I read a story somewhere about the Brady bonds, and also someone from the Phillipines pressing Cheney hard for a payment after 911. They're both worth following up. Thanks.
Good stuff Damien.
I agree that the people who pulled it off (planned the actual attack details) were likely those you define as "RogueNet."
One important question...was Bin Laden a real threat or just an invention...ie...Emmanuel Goldstein? Maybe he really orchestrated the embassy bombings, but as for 9/11...no way he could have done it. There are too many good arguments against LIHOP. Meaning if 9/11 was MIHOP then Bin Laden was used as Goldstein at least as it concerned 9/11.
One theory is that the Clinton administration's job was to set the stage for 9/11. In this scenario, after 9/11 Clarke and Scheuer were tasked with reinforcing the idea that Bin Laden was an ACTUAL threat and attributing incompetence to the failure to thwart the attacks.
Both parties fawned over the 9/11 commission's whitewash. Both parties have signed on for this absurd War on Terror.
9/11 was a mass murder that led to policies of large scale death and destruction. ANYONE who covered it up has a lot of blood on their hands.
No criticism intended, Noise, but I just don't get it why people think Clinton was involved in 911? In US parlance he is a 'bleeding heart liberal'. I remember reading a biography of him (forget which one) all about his time at Oxford etc. This guy is people savvy and VERY smart, widely read, amd with a social conscience. Now, I know he had to turn a blind eye to some established corruption in Arkansas, and Hillary did make some dodgy money on the futures market but, really, he is light years from the Bush family. Clinton basically likes life and likes people too much for him to go along with 911. Remember when Bush, as Texas gov, refused a clemency plea from Karla Faye Tucker? Then he want on tv to laugh, mimic and mock her pleadings as if she was a bug to be squashed underfoot. Clinton would never have done that, he doesn't have it in him. [Tucker had a life of abuse, underwent a genuine religious change in gaol, even had the Pope calling for clemency - she deserved a break].
I know Clinton has had some affairs, but who cares? Those adult choices are hardly the same as asset stripping super funds which is the stock in trade of the Bushies.
Nothing I've seen tells me Clinton was in on 911. He organised attacks against bin Laden and warned Bush that bin Laden was the main thing to look out for.
But, I am quite happy to stand corrected, if you have the evidence. I maintain that the GOP/neocon/Bush perpetrators of 911 had sufficient CIA/military/crime contacts established during the Reagan era that were available to them throughout the Clinton presidency.
You say: Both parties fawned over the 9/11 commission's whitewash. Both parties have signed on for this absurd War on Terror.
Yeah, but Clinton was out of office on 911. He had to rely on the gov. account like everybody else. He fawned over the 9/11 Commission's report because it would have ripped the country apart if he had criticised it. He really had no choice. As an ex-pres he has to appear as magisterial, statesman-like, always confident about the direction of the nation. As an ex-pres he can make a moral contribution to the nation, but he is expected to essentially tone down his political profile. Unless Clinton got a signed confession from the culprits, he was always going to back the official account. In the same way, he signed up for the 'war on terror'.
My two main arguments for MIHOP over LIHOP are (i)building demolitions and (ii) NORAD stand down.
I am going to put together some more stuff about Osama that I can point to on my site when I can get organised. But, basically, OBL did issue a fatwah against the US and Israel for their presence in muslim countries in 1998. The Osama 12 Dec video is fake and the al-jazeera interviews in the months that follow show the real OBL. But, more importantly, while those transcripts show him approving of the 911 attacks he does not admit the attacks or say he had a hand in them.
There's no reason to believe OBL had any close contact with the hijackers. There may have been intermediaries but I'm not even sure how many would have even met or spoken with Osama. Phone communications were out [because a cell phone was used to target OBL for a missile attack previously, and also it was publicly known that US intelligence was monitoring al qaeda phone calls]. How the terrorists did any communication with their handlers (and who were their handlers?) is beyond me.
Something specific happened on 911. It doesn't matter what beliefs you or I might LIKE to hold, only when we isolate undeniable facts will we have a true picture. I am disappointed in myself that I know less than I should here. It seems like we've all got a lot of digging to do. Cheers.
We know that Albanian and Bosnian guerrillas in the Balkans were being backed by elements of Al Qaeda.
We now know that these guerrillas were being backed by money provided by the Bosnian Defense Fund, an entity established as a special fund by the Bush-influenced Riggs Bank and directed by Perle and Feith.
What did Clinton know of this?
I can't help anyone at this point, Noise. I've just got do more hw.
We've had valuable input from anon.
Here's a background link.
Post a Comment