ReThinking 9/11
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American
policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face
a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the
end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have
an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this
threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy
that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies
around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal
of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to
offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily
eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated,
we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue
to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN
inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing
weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even
if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely,
experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor
Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period
during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities
has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s
secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to
determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or
does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness [another way of saying, "Staying the course"] of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction [This was 1998 and the same excuse was used to for the ILLEGAL IRAQ war.] In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies [1998], you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick"
They're Even Dumber Than We Thought
The Five Morons Revisited
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
August 30, 2006
When the neocons launched the Bush administration's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and announced plans for invading Syria and Iran, I labeled Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice "the five Morons." With the passage of time I see that I over-estimated their mental capabilities.
The "cakewalk" war has now lasted longer than World War II with Nazi Germany, and no end is in sight. It has cost the US taxpayers $310 billion in out-of-pocket costs with many additional hundreds of billions coming due in veterans' medical bills and other expenses yet to be paid.
To carry on the pointless war, which has achieved nothing but death, destruction, and hatred of America, Bush has had to call up inactive reserves who long ago completed their active duty service to their country and have managed to get on with their lives. It is well known that the older one gets the harder it is to find employment or the energy to restart a mothballed business. But Bush is too busy saving us from terrorism to care about people's lives.
Despite the lack of US troops and Bush's inability to prevail in Afghanistan and Iraq, neocons in Bush's government are working around the clock to instigate war with Iran and Syria.
I thought that I had Rumsfeld pegged as the complete dolt, but I was stunned when I read Associated Press reporter Robert Burns account of what Rumsfeld told 200 Navy aviators in a question and answer session at Fallon Naval Air Station on August 28. "The thing that keeps me up at night," said Rumsfeld, is the success of terrorist groups in "manipulating the media."
Rumsfeld told the pilots that terrorists "are actively manipulating the media in this country" by falsely blaming US troops for civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. All that "collateral damage" we hear about, the tens of thousands of dead and maimed civilians, is just terrorist propaganda. "The enemy lies constantly . . . and with impunity. . . . The enemy is so much better at communicating." Rumsfeld made similar remarks to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Reno, Nevada, where he was presented the Dwight D. Eisenhower Distinguished Service Award. Eisenhower must be rolling over in his grave [Note: Donald Rumsfeld called Vietnam Veterans "WHAT WAS LEFT AFTER THE BEST & BRIGHTEST FOUND A WAY TO DODGE MILITARY SERVICE" and as a Vietnam Vetran, I was asked to leave a VFW because THEY felt, "I did not serve in a foreign war," so it is easy to understand why these idiots would give an award to this fool.]
Now I get it. When Fox News' Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilley assured us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that would be used against us if we didn't strike first, they were being manipulated by Osama bin Laden, who used America to get rid of the secular Saddam Hussein and to create a new training and recruitment ground for al Qaeda and fundamentalist fanatics.
When the New York Times let Judith Miller serve as a propagandist for war with Iraq, the Times was being manipulated by Muslim terrorists, not by neocons.
When CNN, the networks and columnists like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin reassure us that we will win the war unless we pull out prematurely, they are being manipulated by terrorists. Finally I understand what the Weekly Standard, National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, AEI, and the online site Frontpage are all about.
The terrorists are so clever at manipulation that Americans cannot perceive that we have been sucked deep into a war that is creating the Islamic fundamentalism that we so desperately fear.
Obviously, I misjudged Rumsfeld's intelligence. Anyone who can figure out the Muslim conspiracy is off the charts. What I can't figure is why Rumsfeld is willing for America to continue to be sucked in. Don't tell me that terrorists are manipulating Rumsfeld, too!
I keep waiting for the money appeal from AIPAC. I already know what it is going to say: "Although AIPAC is undisputedly the most powerful lobby in America and can determine with impunity the fate of every elected official, we cannot match the terrorists' ability to manipulate the media. Polls show that terrorists' manipulation of the US media is causing American support for the war to dwindle away. Please send more millions to counter the terrorists' control of the American media. We are winning in the Middle East but losing at home."
One of the lessons one learns in life is that things are not always what they seem to be. Before I watched Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's National Press Club broadcast on C-Span (August 28), I regarded AIPAC as Israel's friend and promoter. Now I realize that I was wrong. As the two distinguished professors made perfectly clear, anyone who cares about the survival of Israel should scorn the bribes, threats, and blandishments of AIPAC.
AIPAC led the Israeli government onto a path where diplomacy is no longer a tool that Israel can use. Instead, Israel relies on Mao's dictum that "power comes out of the barrel of a gun" or from a bulldozer that knocks down Palestinians' homes, uproots their olive groves, and enrages Muslims at Israel's inhumanity. Backed into a corner with no tool but violence, Israel faces hundreds of millions of increasingly angry Muslims.
If Bush were a true friend of Israel, he would never have let Israel again destroy Lebanon, this time under the pretext of striking at Hezbollah.
AIPAC and Bush have allowed, or caused, Israel to do itself so much damage in the eyes of Muslims and the wider world that a peaceful resolution in the MIddle East is no longer in people's thoughts. With the mighty US military checked in Iraq by a handful of Sunnis, and the mighty Israeli army checked in Lebanon by a handful of Hezbollah, violence is unlikely to settle the matter in a way that neocons in the US and Zionists in Israel would like.
The only hope is that Bush and Olmert miraculously turn into grown men, admit their mistakes, apologize, send reparations and commit to winning acceptance of Israel and America based on Israel's and America's good behavior. It would be nice to see in operation some of the superior morality that the two claim.
Considering the extraordinary hubris and self-righteousness of neocons and Zionists, nothing like this can possibly happen. Israel, the US, and the Muslim world will continue to bleed.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/076152553X/counterpunchmaga
He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08302006.html
Birds of a Feather
Stop for a moment and look at the names of those who signed the Neocon letter to President Clinton, because these are EVIL NEOCONS who are attempting to propagate a Crusade against PEACE and LIFE; better yet, here is a breakdown:
Elliott Abrams - Pardoned Crook
Elliott Abrams -- Pleaded guilty October 7, 1991, to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress about secret government efforts to support the Nicaraguan contra rebels during a ban on such aid. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Abrams November 15, 1991, to two years probation and 100 hours community service. Abrams was pardoned December 24, 1992.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/summpros.htm
Richard L. Armitage - Plame Leaker
A conspicuous exception was former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage, whose office would only say, "We're not commenting." He was one of a handful of top officials who had access to the information. He is an old source and friend of Woodward's, and he fits Novak's description of his source as "not a partisan gunslinger." Woodward has indicated that he knows the identity of Novak's source, which further suggests his source and Novak's were one and the same.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10117465/site/newsweek/
William J. Bennett - Congressional Racist
Bill Bennett Tells 1.25 Million Listeners,
Abort Every Black Baby to Stop Crime
109TH CONGRESS - H. RES. 473 - 1ST SESSION
Condemning the racist remarks of William Bennett.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - SEPTEMBER 29, 2005
Mr. RUSH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Condemning the racist remarks of William Bennett.
Whereas William J. Bennett hosts a radio program, "Morning in America"', which airs on approximately 115 radio stations with an estimated weekly audience of 1.25 million listeners;
Whereas on September 28th, 2005, Mr. Bennett said on his radio program, "But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.''; and
Whereas Mr. Bennett's remarks are outrageous and blatantly racist: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives condemns the comments made by William Bennett on his radio program, "Morning in America'', as outrageous racism of the most bigoted and ignorant kind; and condemns all manifestations and expressions of racism and ethnic intolerance.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr109-473
[Ed. Note: Bennett's comment also suggests support for Abortion and since most of these people listed here work for, or have worked for Bush and the Republican Party, is it fair to ask if this is a secret agenda ?]
Jeffrey Bergner
Despite claims to the contrary, Iran is not seeking a peaceful nuclear energy program. Iran has no need of such a program, and its actions to date are not consistent with that end. Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capability, and there is nothing the European trio can offer it to compensate for the perceived security benefits nuclear weapons would bring.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/301fkrie.asp
John Bolton - Who Is Larry Franklin?
John Bolton vs. the world
His job is to keep a hawk eye on dovish Colin Powell. And he's helped turn Bush foreign policy into an ideological hammer. By Nicholas Thompson
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/16/bolton/
Paula Dobriansky
Then there are the sisters Dobriansky. Larisa Dobriansky, currently the deputy assistant secretary for national energy policy at the Department of Energy—in which capacity she’s charged with managing the department’s Office of Climate Change Policy—was previously a lobbyist with the firm Akin Gump, where she worked on climate change for ExxonMobil. Her sister, Paula Dobriansky, currently serves as undersecretary for global affairs in the State Department. In that role, Paula Dobriansky recently headed the U.S. delegation to a United Nations meeting on the Kyoto Protocol in Buenos Aires, where she charged that “science tells us that we cannot say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided.”
Indeed, the rhetoric of scientific uncertainty has been Paula Dobriansky’s stock-in-trade. At a November 2003 panel sponsored by the AEI, she declared, “the extent to which the man-made portion of greenhouse gases is causing temperatures to rise is still unknown, as are the long-term effects of this trend. Predicting what will happen 50 or 100 years in the future is difficult.”
Given Paula Dobriansky’s approach to climate change, it will come as little surprise that memos uncovered by Greenpeace show that in 2001, within months of being confirmed by the Senate, Dobriansky met with ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol and the Global Climate Coalition. For her meeting with the latter group, one of Dobriansky’s prepared talking points was “POTUS [President Bush in Secret Service parlance] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.” The documents also show that Dobriansky met with ExxonMobil executives to discuss climate policy just days after September 11, 2001. A State Department official confirmed that these meetings took place, but adds that Dobriansky “meets with pro-Kyoto groups as well.”
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
Francis Fukuyama
Thus, in the view of the early Bush administration, the planet would come to be dominated more and more by the "universal homogenous state," a mixture of "liberal democracy in the political sphere combined with easy access to VCRs and stereos in the economic." The arid banality of that definition is matched by Fukuyama's dazzled tribute to "the spectacular abundance of advanced liberal economies and the infintely diverse consumer culture." Fukuyama, it turns out, is a resident of the privileged enclave for imperial functionaries that is northeast Virginia, and so has little understanding of the scope of US domestic poverty and immiseration: "This is not to say that there are not rich people and poor people in the United States, or that the gap between them has not grown in recent years. But the root causes of economic inequality have less to do with the underlying legal and social strcutures of our society, which remain fundamentally egalitarian and moderately redistributionist, as with the cultural and social characteristics of the groups that make it up, which are in turn the historical legacy of premodern conditions. Thus black poverty in the United States, for example, is not the inherent product of liberalism, but is rather the 'legacy of slavery and racism' which persisted long after the formal abolition fo slavery." For Fukuyama, writing at a moment when American class divisions were more pronounced that at any time in human memory, "the egalitarianism of modern America represents the essential achievement of the classless society envisoned by Marx." As a purveyor of official doctrine for the Bush regime, Fukuyama is bound to ignore twenty years of increasing poverty and declining standards of living for all Americans which has caused an even greater retrogression for the black population; there is no way that this can be chalked up to the heritage of slavery.
Robert Kagan
"Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty."
Think about what the world will look like the day after the bombing ends. Mr. Hussein will still be in power -- if five weeks of heavy bombing in 1991 failed to knock him out, five days of bombing won't either. Can the air attacks insure that he will never be able to use weapons of mass destruction again? The answer, unfortunately, is no. Even our smart bombs cannot reliably hit and destroy every weapons and storage site in Iraq, for the simple reason that we do not know where all the sites are. After the bombing stops, Mr. Hussein will still be able to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Pentagon officials admit this. [Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough, William Kristol & Robert Kagan, The New York Times, January 30, 1998
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-013098.htm
Zalmay Khalilzad
Washington's Neocon in Baghdad? Zalmay Khalilzad Nominated as U.S. Ambassador
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/07/1343234
William Kristol - Intentionally Left Blank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol
Richard Perle
“This will be the short war I and others predicted… I don’t believe it will be months. I believed all along that it will be a quick war, and I continue to believe that.”
"The President of the United States, on issue after issue, has reflected the thinking of neoconservatives."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle
Peter W. Rodman
FBI agents Sunday and Monday questioned senior officials in the Department of Defense as part of an investigation into allegations that a Pentagon analyst passed on classified documents to an Israeli lobbying group, which may have then passed them on to the government of Israel. The documents in question were papers on the US's stance towards Iran.
The Washington Post reports that Douglas Feith, undersecretary for policy for Defense, and Peter Rodman, assistant secretary for international security affairs, are among those whom the FBI interviewed about the contacts between Lawrence Franklin, a lower-level Pentagon analyst, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and an Israeli diplomat. The Post notes that Mr. Franklin, a Catholic, first came to the attention of the FBI more than a year ago when he appeared at a lunch between an AIPAC official and an Israeli diplomat. The FBI's counterintelligence unit was monitoring the meeting as part of another investigation that it has refused to comment on, although one FBI official said it is part of a broader investigation. [Ed. Note: "Part of a broader investigation," hummm... wonder what that is about.]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0831/dailyUpdate.html
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
William Schneider on CNN’s “American Morning” program today highlighted a talk given by former CIA Director James Woolsey’s, about “World War IV” (He counts the Cold War as number III). He says it will be between most of the Middle East and the so-called Western World. Speaking of the undesirable regimes in that area, he said (I paraphrase), “All these countries are going to feel threatened about our formula of democracy creeping in to their area. I say, ‘Good. We want them to feel threatened.’” Schneider then placed Woolsey as being closely allied with Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, and others, and made the connection that many others have, that 9-11 was seized as an opportunity to carry out their pre-existing goals. He challenged Bush’s public assertion that this was not a clash of civilizations, pointing to the enormous global opposition to the U.S. and Britain’s Western aggression.
http://pnac.info/index.php/2003/hints-of-pnac-on-cnn-world-war-iv/
Vin Weber
THE WELLSTONE MEMORIAL - Republicans, no longer able to say anything bad about the late Paul Wellstone, were reduced to criticizing his mass memorial service, in which thousands of people cheered Walter Mondale, booed Trent Lott, and were exhorted by one of the speakers to go out there and win the election.
Question 4 (Listen
with Real Audio)
CARL: "What a complete, total, absolute sham."
That's former Republican House member Vin Weber giving the GOP take on a service that turned into a political rally. Republicans are so angry about this televised event that they're asking for equal air time to counter the free publicity that it gave to Democrats. What service?
http://www.npr.org/programs/waitwait/archquiz/2002/021102.html
Paul Wolfowitz
"General Shinseki's estimate is wildly off the mark. I am reasonably certain that [the Iraqi people] will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
THE IRAQ CONNECTION - Blood Bath - http://radiobergen.org/terrorism/iraq.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._James_Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick
Trade Hypocrisy: The Problem with Robert Zoellick
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2002/1220hypocrisy.htm
The Project for the New American Century
Neocon 101
Some basic questions answered.
What do neoconservatives believe?, What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?, What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?, How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?, What does a neoconservative dream world look like?
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
ARE YOU WITH US OR EVIL NEOCONS ?
Duck Plucker 101
Source: http://www.middleeast.org/cartoons/U.S.-Bill-of-Right-Wing.jpg
MEDIA WAR WITHOUT END
In early May of 1991, two months after the Gulf War ended, the Washington editors for 15 major American news organizations sent a letter of complaint to then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. They charged that the Pentagon had exerted "virtually total control" over coverage of the war. The letter represented completion of a ritual for American media coverage of U.S. military actions: News outlets routinely engage in self-censorship and sometimes grouse -- especially after the fact -- that the government has imposed too many restrictions on the press. [Complete article located at:]
http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/dec01solomon.htm
"For their part, the leaders of the private sector also have responsibilities to be honest and above board in all dealings, and truthful in reporting profits and losses.""Most people who do business in America are indeed trustworthy and honest. … We must not allow the deeds of a few to tarnish our free enterprise system." - Vice President Dick Cheney, July 2003
"If what Halliburton did was legal in terms of their accounting principles, then why didn't they make full disclosure to the American public? Why did they hide it from the public? Where there is smoke, there's fire." - Larry Klayman, July 2003
WHO IS DICK CHENEY?
Cheney and Bush want privacy for their conversations, but not for anyone else's." --Tony Mauro in USA Today, Feb. 27, 2002
Cheney's 2000 income from Halliburton: $36,086,635
Increase in government contracts while Cheney led Halliburton: 91%
Minimum size of "accounting irregularity" that occurred while Cheney was CEO: $100,000,000 (One hundred MILLION dollars)
Number of the seven official US "State Sponsors of Terror" that Halliburton contracted with: 2 out of 7
Pages of Energy Plan documents Cheney refused to give congressional investigators: 13,500
Amount energy companies gave the Bush/Cheney presidential campaign: $1,800,000
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/bulletin1.html
August 10, 2000
"George is true-blue for God, but he also has a soft spot for Mammon; and an even softer spot for Dick Cheney, who spent much of the last decade scheming with his fellow oil barons to get a pipeline from the virgin fields of the Caspian Sea -- where $4 trillion in profits are waiting for them -- through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. Cheney's business interests in oil and arms, temporarily divested while he helps direct American policy in energy and defense, rival those of the Bushes and bin Ladens. Or as the Chicago Tribune noted last year: 'War is big business, and Dick Cheney is right in the middle of it.'" --Chris Floyd, 10/1/01
Shortly after Desert Storm, the Associated Press reported Cheney's desire to broaden the United States' military role in the region to hedge future threats to gulf oil resources. Cheney is CEO of Dallas-based Halliburton Co., the biggest oil-services company in the world. Because of the instability in the Persian Gulf, Cheney and his fellow oilmen have zeroed in on the world's other major source of oil--the Caspian Sea. Its rich oil and gas resources are estimated at $4 trillion by U.S. News and World Report. [article - August 10, 2000 Cheney's Black Gold: Oil Interests May Drive US Foreign Policy]
http://www.bushwatch.com/oil.htm
Cheney had Iraq in sights two years ago
By Simon English in New York (Filed: 22/07/2003)
Documents released under America's Freedom of Information Act reveal that an energy task force led by vice-president Dick Cheney was examining Iraq's oil assets two years before the latest war began.
The papers were obtained after a long battle with the White House by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal charity that opposes government secrecy and which is suing for the dealings of the task force to be made public.
The emergence of the documents could fuel claims that America's war in Iraq had as much to do with oil as national security. It also indicates that the Bush administration is beginning to lose the battle to keep its internal workings secret.
The 16 pages, dated March 2001, show maps of Iraq oil fields, pipelines, refineries and terminals. A document titled Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts is also included, listing which countries were keen to do business with Saddam's regime.
Judicial Watch requested the papers two years ago as part of its investigation into links between the Bush administration and senior energy executives including Enron's former chairman Ken Lay. Mr Cheney has fought the release of the documents at every stage. A court ordered two weeks ago that at least some of the task forces working papers should be made public *.
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said: "People will draw their own conclusions about the documents, but that is what an open society is about. Given the delay in their release, the Bush administration clearly did not want them to come out."
A spokesman for Mr Cheney did not return calls yesterday. The US Commerce Department said in a statement: "It is the responsibility of the Commerce Department to serve as a commercial liaison for US companies doing business around the world, including those that develop and utilise energy resources. The Energy Task Force evaluated regions of the world that are vital to global energy supply."
Judicial Watch isn't claiming that the documents are proof of any particular intent but says they should be open to public scrutiny. Mr Fitton said: "Opponents of the war will point to the documents as evidence that the Bush administration was after Iraqi oil. Supporters will say the energy task force would have been remiss if it did not take Iraq's oil into account."
Nevertheless, the documents represent a surprising development. Until now it had been assumed that the US government was stonewalling over the energy task force papers because they would show the extent to which major party benefactors, including Enron, effectively wrote national energy policy. Judicial Watch and other watchdogs are now curious what else may be revealed.
A court ordered the government to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and give up these documents more than a year ago. Judicial Watch said it could not explain why the papers were suddenly released. A government spokesman declined to elaborate. Maps of oil fields and pipelines in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and a list of energy development projects in those two countries are also included.
Mr Cheney argues that his consultations with the energy industry should be private so that all parties can speak freely. A US court recently described this invoking of executive privilege "extraordinary" and "drastic".
[Ed. Note - Check links at bottom of UK page links (listed above and below here.]
http://money.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2003/07/22/cncheney22.xml
June 23, 1998
Richard B. Cheney - Defending Liberty in a Global Economy
Selected Paragraphs:
Overall, once we complete the merger, we will have about 100,000 employees. Our sales in 1999 should put us among the top 100 companies in America in terms of revenue. We'll be the largest private employer in Texas and operate in over 130 countries all over the globe. About 70 to 75 percent of our business is energy related, serving customers like Unocal, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and many other major oil companies around the world. As a result, we oftentimes find ourselves operating in some very difficult places. The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is. So, what happens with respect to U.S. commercial policy, how we conduct ourselves as a nation, the kinds of rules and regulations that American firms are expected to abide by and operate under, and how all of that affects our ability to compete overseas is of considerable interest to those of us at Haliburton and Dresser. Obviously, such matters are not only important to our employees, but to our shareholders, and our customers as well.
Another good example of how our sanctions policy oftentimes gets in the way of our other interests occurred in the fall of 1997 when Saddam Hussein was resisting U.N. weapons inspections. I happened to be in the Gulf region during that period of time. Administration officials in the area were trying to get Arab members of the coalition that executed operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991 to allow U.S. military forces to be based on their territory. They wanted that capability in the event it was necessary to take military action against Iraq in order to get them to honor the UN resolutions. Our friends in the region cited a number of reasons for not complying with our request. They were concerned with the fragile nature of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, which was stalled. But they also had fundamental concerns about our policy toward Iran. We had been trying to force the governments in the region to adhere to an anti-Iranian policy, and our views raised questions in their mind about the wisdom of U.S. leadership. They cited it as an example of something they thought was unwise, and that they should not do.
So, what effect does this have on our standing in the region? I take note of the fact that all of the Arab countries we approached, with the single exception of Kuwait, rejected our request to base forces on their soil in the event military action was required against Iraq. As if that weren?t enough, most of them boycotted the economic conference that the United States supported in connection with the peace process that was hosted in Qatar during that period of time. Then, having rejected participation in that conference, they all went to Tehran and attended the Islamic summit hosted by the Iranians. The nation that's isolated in terms of our sanctions policy in that part of the globe is not Iran. It is the United States. And the fact that we have tried to pressure governments in the region to adopt a sanctions policy that they clearly are not interested in pursuing has raised doubts in the minds of many of our friends [Neocons?] about the overall wisdom and judgement of U.S. policy in the area.
Complete text: http://www.flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/cheney23june1998.html
The United States of Oil
No administration has ever been more in bed with the energy industry -- but does that mean Big Oil is calling Bush's shots? First of two parts.
By Damien Cave
Nov. 19, 2001
The Bush administration's ties to oil and gas are as deep as an offshore well. President George W. Bush's family has been running oil companies since 1950. Vice President Dick Cheney spent the late '90s as CEO of Halliburton, the world's largest oil services company. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice sat on the board of Chevron, which graced a tanker with her name. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans was the CEO of Tom Brown Inc. -- a natural gas company with fields in Texas, Colorado and Wyoming -- for more than a decade.
The links don't end with personnel. The bin Laden family and other members of Saudi Arabia's oil-wealthy elite have contributed mightily to several Bush family ventures, even as the American energy industry helped put Bush in office. Of the top 10 lifetime contributors to George W.'s war chests, six either come from the oil business or have ties to it, according the Center for Public Integrity.
"There's no denying that this is an oil administration," says Peter Eisner, managing director of the nonprofit, nonpartisan watchdog group that conducted the study of Bush's campaign finances. "You can't talk about the career of any George Bush -- father or son -- without talking about oil."
But talking is one thing; determining exactly how the ties to the oil industry affect domestic and foreign policy is another. How much influence does the oil industry have? Is the U.S. bombing Afghanistan in part because -- as antiwar critics have claimed -- the industry wants to clear a path for oil and gas pipelines? Will the Bush administration steadfastly avoid confrontation with Saudi Arabia -- home of 15 of the 19 suspected hijackers -- because it doesn't want to upset ExxonMobil and the other oil companies with a deep Saudi stake? Or, even more intriguingly, could the close ties between Bush and the Saudis lead to increased U.S. pressure on Israel to create a peace settlement?
Or is this too simplistic? Since at least World War II, the oil industry has often been forced by the U.S. government to serve foreign policy objectives, rather than the other way around. Presidents have generally accepted oil's economic significance, its role as the grease that makes capitalism go. But even the most conservative administrations have regularly emphasized geopolitical objectives -- Soviet containment, for example -- at the expense of oil industry interests. Aspects of Bush's energy plan suggest that even this administration will not break the give-and-take pattern.
The problem, however, is that this pattern, the so-called "cheap oil strategy" looks more and more like a failure. Foreign oil dependence has risen over the past decade while now -- with anti-American sentiment growing in the Arab world -- foreign oil supplies are looking increasingly insecure. More than ever, some kind of national policy pushing both conservation and the development of renewable energy resources seems eminently prudent, if not necessary.
And that's where the current makeup of the Bush administration becomes crucial -- not because Bush-Cheney and company plan to invade Iraq to make it safe for ExxonMobil, (although that's not totally beyond the bounds of possibility) but because these are the last men and women in the world to expect radical change from on questions related to energy. Their friends, finances, and world views are all oil-drenched.
George W.'s ties to oil don't prove that the industry decides our every foreign policy move. But they do just about guarantee, for all practical purposes, that nothing significant will change in American energy policy. With Bush-Cheney in power, oil addiction is here to stay.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/11/19/bush_oil/index.html
Oil: It's a Bush family affair
The fusion of oil and politics is a Bush family tradition. For generations, the Bushes and their friends have been shuttling back and forth between energy industry boardrooms and Washington's hallowed halls.
Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, initiated the pattern. Shortly before winning a Connecticut Senate seat in 1952 he helped his son George raise $350,000 to start what would become Zapata Petroleum.
Sen. Bush also regularly looked out for the oil industry and his son's interests while in Washington. His biggest single favor, according to Herbert Parmet's book "George Bush: The Life of a Lone Star Yankee," came a year into his first Senate term, when he opposed legislation that would have federalized offshore resources -- including oil -- to raise money for education. In the name of states' rights and free enterprise, the bill's defeat helped both the oil companies and gave Zapata just what it needed to expand. In fact, soon after the legislation failed, Zapata moved into offshore drilling -- eventually one of Zapata's most lucrative ventures
George Bush made millions during the '50s and '60s Texas oil boom, and he also made many friends, most notably James Baker, who became Bush's company lawyer in 1963 after Zapata merged with Penn to become Pennzoil.
Bush later brought his friends to Washington, first as a representative in the House, then as head of the Republican National Committee and finally as vice president and president. He didn't stock his administration as full of oilmen and women as his son has, but like Prescott Bush, he didn't mind doing the industry's bidding either. His most public act for oil came in 1981. While serving as Ronald Reagan's vice president, he departed from the White House's official stance and visited Saudi Arabia to plead for an end to sliding prices. Bush argued that he was simply trying to protect American security interests by protecting domestic producers, who have higher costs than their Persian Gulf counterparts. But higher prices had another benefit: by protecting domestic oil jobs, they helped shore up support in Texas for what would eventually become his successful 1988 presidential campaign.
Higher prices also directly helped Bush's son, George W. Bush. George W.'s oil career started in 1978 -- 12 years after his father first entered Congress -- when several of his father's friends invested in his firm, Arbusto ("Bush" in Spanish). Unlike his father, George W. spent much of his oil career in the red. As Joe Conason pointed out in Harper's last year before the election, the company's original investors and others bailed out his firm at least three times. But after a final act of corporate CPR -- a merger with Harken Energy in 1986 -- Bush's connections to power really paid off. Two years after the merger, Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, a former director of Saudi Arabia's income tax department, purchased an 11 percent stake in Harken through his company Traco International. That same year, Harken won a contract for oil-drilling in Bahrain.
"Harken had no international experience at the time," says Eisner at the Center for Public Integrity, which published a detailed account of Bush's rise to power titled "The Buying of the President: 2000." "It was their first out of country contract."
Press reports at the time questioned Bahrain's motivations. Even the normally reserved Wall Street Journal reported in 1991 that the contract "raises the question of ... an effort to cozy up to a presidential son."
The Bush family countered that the contract was well deserved. Regardless, the deal in the Persian Gulf gave Bush a direct tie to the Saudi elite and set Bush on a suddenly successful path.
"It's not just the matter of a single contract," Eisner says. "It also has to do with converting Harken into a player that was then converted into a stake in the Texas Rangers and a run for governor. It's not incidental. The Bahrain deal is central to Bush's life."
Some experts suggest that it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a presidential family so steeped in oil knowledge, given the importance of oil to both national security and the domestic economy. But Bush has shown a pervasive willingness to let oil interests define energy and environmental policy. After accepting millions from the industry during his run for governor, he signed into law tax breaks for state energy producers, and in 1997, he gave them a hand in writing their own rules. Upon hearing that Texas' state environmental agency planned to end an exemption that allowed power plants built before 1971 to avoid complying with state pollution laws, Bush tapped two people to come up with an alternative plan: Vic Beghini, an executive with Marathon Oil Inc. and Ansel Condray, an executive with Mobil.
The plan they came up with initiated a voluntary pollution reduction program that didn't punish companies for noncompliance and thus essentially failed. A study by the Environmental Defense Fund published six months after Bush announced the program revealed that only three of the 26 companies had actually cut their emissions. Two years later, under increasing public pressure, Bush signed a bill forcing power plants to cut their emissions in half by 2003 -- but the essential exemption, as the industry wanted, still stands.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/11/19/bush_oil/index1.html
The Condoleezza Rice-Chevron-Central Asia connection
http://www.aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm
The politicos surrounding Bush also have enjoyed warm government/oil-industry connections. While Bush used his elected position to help friends in his former industry, Cheney employed past government connections to improve his own bottom line.
Iraq provides the most dramatic example. Cheney, intentionally or inadvertently, went against his own edicts in order to pad his company's profits. He told Sam Donaldson in August 2000 that, as the head of Halliburton, "I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." And yet, as the Financial Times eventually proved, Cheney oversaw $23.8 million in sales to Iraq in 1998 and 1999. Cheney, who collected a $36 million salary before becoming vice president, essentially profited from the destruction of Iraq that he oversaw as secretary of defense during the Gulf War. And while the oil-rig and equipment sales were legal -- a 1998 U.N. resolution gave Iraq the right to rebuild its oil industry -- Cheney's firm sold through European subsidiaries "to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government," according to a November 2000 Financial Times report.
Cheney also helped Halliburton obtain a windfall of U.S. government loans. He secured $1.5 billion in taxpayer-backed financing for Halliburton -- a massive increase over the $100 million loan it received during the five-year period before Cheney took over. And while Cheney has claimed that Halliburton's rise to power had nothing to do with his political stature, State Department documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times suggest that U.S. officials assisted Halliburton both in Asia and Africa. Even the domestic defense-contracting arm of Halliburton -- Brown & Root -- saw its fortune change drastically once Cheney took over. The company booked $1.2 billion in contracts between 1990 and 1995; with Cheney at the helm, contract awards spiked to $2.3 billion between 1995 and 2000.
Other Bush administration officials have also profited from past government experience and influence. Bush's father and his then Secretary of State James Baker -- the lawyer who fought for Bush during the Florida election fiasco -- work for the Carlyle Group, an investment firm that until recently collected investments from the bin Laden family and other members of the Saudi elite. Reagan's Secretary of State George Schultz sat on the board of Chevron before the arrival of Condoleezza Rice.
Rice joined the Chevron board in 1991, after serving for a year on Bush Sr.'s National Security Council. There, she earned a $35,000 annual retainer, $1,500 for every meeting she attended and stock options worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to SEC documents. She was reportedly hired for expertise in the former Soviet states, and long before U.S. planes started dropping bombs in nearby Afghanistan, she spent much of her time at Chevron working on prospective deals in the Caspian region. Chevron (with Mobil) already produces 70 percent of the oil coming out of the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan, according to Ahmed Rashid's book, "Taliban," and the company has been working hard to secure a pipeline that would allow more oil to be produced. In 1993, with Rice on the board, the company pulled together a pipeline project to carry oil to a Russian port on the Black Sea. Russian opposition eventually postponed the plan indefinitely but Chevron still holds a 45 percent stake in the project -- and given the present state of improved Russian-American relations, many suspect that project will eventually get off the ground.
The slowly improving relations between the U.S. and Iran could also help Chevron. When negotiations over pipelines from Tengiz broke down a few years ago, Chevron turned its focus toward the Islamic theocracy, asking the Clinton State Department for a "swapping" license. Approval would have allowed oil from Tengiz to be shipped across the Caspian to Iran while, in exchange, Chevron would be able to sell an equal amount of Iranian oil that would be shipped from the Persian Gulf. The proposal was never approved, but given Rice's ties, many have suspected that Chevron will soon play a larger role in American foreign policy, whether in Iran or the Caspian.
Critics of the Bush administration point out that a stabilized Caspian region could benefit Rice's friends at Chevron, and if she returns to the board, Rice herself. They also argue that maintaining dependence on Saudi oil could benefit Cheney's old firm and Bush's father, and ultimately, the president himself when an inheritance comes his way.
But there is no clear evidence, right now, of oil company desires affecting current U.S. foreign policy. If anything, the terrorist attacks have reduced the energy industry's influence. Before Sept. 11 Saudi Arabia was reportedly pushing the U.S. to pressure Israel into Palestine peace concessions and, according to a Newsweek story, Bush was beginning to comply. But after Sept. 11, the chance that the U.S. would accede to Saudi requests evaporated, given the numerous Saudi connections to the attacks.
In that sense, the trajectory of oil influence over foreign policy has continued upon its historical path. A review of the evidence suggests that over time, the oil industry has progressively lost power. But that still doesn't mean that the current administration is likely to do anything radical to alter U.S. dependence on foreign oil -- barring the unlikely event of Bush pulling a Nixon-visit-to-China shock, and using his oil ties to force a real commitment to renewable energy and conservation.
Tuesday: George Bush may not be a puppet, but he's no groundbreaker either.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/11/19/bush_oil/index2.html
Source: http://groups.google.com/group/misc.activism.progressive/
Investigate Cheney's Secret Energy Deals
Cheney Dismisses Critic With Obscenity
Clash With Leahy About Halliburton
By Helen Dewar and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 25, 2004; Page A04
"Go Fuck Yourself"
Dick Cheney
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3699-2004Jun24.html
[Language Police: Do not downgrade this page. Those were Vice pResident's Cheney's words.]
"As I was telling my husb—"
BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was,
"Bin Laden Determined to
Attack
Inside the United States."
Condoleezza
Rice's 9/11 Historical Statements
by Balzac
I would move heaven and earth to
protect my
husb..errr.. President
Bush!
Condoleezza Rice
A pressing issue of dinner-party etiquette is vexing Washington, according to a story now making the D.C. rounds: How should you react when your guest, in this case national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice, makes a poignant faux pas? At a recent dinner party hosted by New York Times D.C. bureau chief Philip Taubman and his wife, Times reporter Felicity Barringer, and attended by Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Maureen Dowd, Steven Weisman, and Elisabeth Bumiller, Rice was reportedly overheard saying, “As I was telling my husb—” and then stopping herself abruptly, before saying, “As I was telling President Bush.”
http://nymetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/n_10245/
[If one were to consider this was a Freudian Slip, would it indicate that hot burning desire driven by blind devotion could hinder Condoleezza's judgement when it comes to protecting U.S. and our "sitting duck" military in an ILLEGAL IRAQ WAR?
We think NOT, because THEY had intelligence suggesting bin Laden wanted to attack U.S., did NOTHING about it (except use it as an excuse to start an illegal war with Iraq), and why this piece on Rice is short.]
THE LAVON AFFAIR
IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?
In 1954, Israeli agents working in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including a United States diplomatic facility, and left evidence behind implicating Arabs as the culprits. The ruse would have worked, had not one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to capture and identify one of the bombers, which in turn led to the round up of an Israeli spy ring.
Some of the spies were from Israel, while others were recruited from the local Jewish population. Israel responded to the scandal with claims in the media that there was no spy ring, that it was all a hoax perpetrated by "anti-Semites". But as the public trial progressed, it was evident that Israel had indeed been behind the bombing. Eventually, Israeli's Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon was brought down by the scandal, although it appears that he was himself the victim of a frame-up by the real authors of the bombing project, code named "Operation Susannah."
It is therefore a fact that Israel has a prior history of setting off bombs with the intent to blame Arabs for them.
This is not the only example of a "False Flag" operation designed to trick the United States into attacking Israel's enemies. According to Victor Ostrovsky, a Mossad defector now living in Canada, Ronald Reagan was tricked into bombing Libya by means of a radio transmitter smuggled into Tripoli by the Mossad, which broadcast messages designed to fool the United States into thinking Libya was about to launch a massive terror attack on the west. On the basis of this fake evidence, the US bombed Libya, killing Khadaffi's daughter.
The Jews of Iraq is a story by a Jewish writer revealing yet another false flag operation where Israelis used bombs and planted the blame on Arabs
More recently, Captain Ward Boston, who served as senior legal counsel for the Navy's Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack on USS Liberty, has come forward to report that the Court of Inquiry was ORDERED to conclude that the attack was an accident by President Lyndon Johnson. In hindsight, given the use of unmarked aircraft and boats by Israel during the actual attack, it appears that Israel intended to sink the US ship and frame Egypt for the attack, tricking the US into the war against Egypt.
So, with this established history, it is now time to re-examine some facts about the World Trade Towers:
1. There is no proof at all of who was actually on the hijacked airplanes last 9/11. Even the head of the FBI admits that the only hard evidence are the names used by the hijackers on faked IDs. At least 7 of the men whose names were on those IDs have since turned up alive. Another had died back in 1999. None of the names of the alleged hijackers were on the passenger lists of the four aircraft. We do not know who was on those planes, only that we are supposed to think they were Arab Muslims.
2. The night before the attacks on the World Trade Towers, men using those stolen identities visited bars and strip clubs, making sure they would be noticed and remembered by all they met. Students of Islam will confirm that no Muslim devout enough to be willing to commit suicide would spend the night before he was to meet Allah violating so many of Islam's laws regarding alcohol and nude women. This suggests the planting of a false trail ahead of time, doubly so because we know the identities were stolen. Coupled with the deception of the faked Osama "confession" video tape , it is beyond question that deception and fraud exists in the World Trade Towers case.
3. Contrary to early reports (including a statement by George Bush) of large numbers of Israelis being killed in the 9-11 attacks, only two Israelis died, both passengers on the airplanes. No Israelis working in or near the World Trade Towers died. The foreign press has long rumored that Israelis were given an advance warning not to go to work on 9-11, and in the case of Odigo, an Israeli company with offices located near the World Trade Towers, the existence of a warning message sent before the four aircraft had even left the ground is an established fact. That someone in Israel knew of the attacks ahead of time is beyond question.
4. There is an Israeli spy ring. As in the Lavon Affair, Israeli assets have been trying to dismiss the spy ring story (apparently with the FBI's help) while accusing those who refuse to be silent of "anti-Semitism". The lesson from the Lavon case is that Israel's strident denials and smear campaigns are a sure sign that something is indeed being covered up, even as the "art students" continue to be deported. And, as a US Official stated in Carl Cameron's suppressed story on the Israeli Spy/Bugging Ring, evidence does exist that links the arrested Israeli spies with 9-11, but that this evidence has been classified by the United States Government, probably to keep from looking like total idiots at having been so easily fooled for the Nth time.
The United States has been deceived before by Israeli covert operations with the intention of harming American relations with the Arab nations. Israel has never hesitated to kill Americans (USS Liberty) or allow Americans to be killed (The bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American Marines) when it serves a purpose. And, the fact remains that Israel has exploited 9-11 from the instant when Ehud Barak appeared on the BBC moments after the attacks on the World Trade Towers (holding a prepared speech) to the aggression against the Palestinian people which has escalated non-stop ever since 9-11.
Who is responsible for the World Trade Towers attacks? We truly do not know. What we do know beyond all doubt is that someone went to a great deal of effort to provide an easy and at times all-too-obvious a target to blame. Our nation was fooled by that stunt before. The result was that our money and the blood of our children was spent to attack someone else's enemies.
There is an old saying that goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME!"
There is another saying, "We won't get fooled again!"
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lavon.html
11 Questions Avoided by Corporate Media On NORAD Tapes
1. *Who was responsible for scheduling multiple war games and terror exercises involving aircraft for Sept. 11th
2. Who moved "Global Guardian" normally scheduled for October to September?
3. Who designed the war games to involve 'hijackings'?
4. Who planned and scheduled the movement of Airforce aircraft north to Canada, Alaska and Greenland?
5. Who planned the terror exercise at the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) involving an evacuation in response to threat from the air?
6. Who was "hands-on" responsible for coordinating all the war games the morning of September 11th?
7. Who would have been responsible for turning off the war games to enable a timely real world response to the attacks?
8. How were as many as 21 false radar blips or possible targets (per Jane Garvey) inserted into FAA radar screens?
9. Who was responsible for the identification of ghost flight 11 which allegedly continued to fly south past Manhattan and which may have caused NORAD's Langley intercept jets to vector North toward NYC rather than D.C.? * [NOTE: John Farmer of the 9/11 Commission said to me personally that the 9/11 Commission was never able to identify the individual for this information--to resolve this anomaly.]*
10. Why was there no reference to the pattern of 9/11 Commission cover-up including that of Able Danger as revealed by Capt. Scott Philpott?
11. *The bottom line question that corporate media refuse to answer and which the 9/11 Commission ignored is who, specifically, would have been responsible for creating the circumstances that led to the confusion or fog the morning of 9/11 and who should have immediately ceased any and all war gaming activity and deceptive radar data?
To begin to answer these questions journalists intent on getting answers to questions long asked by the families and others should visit:
*Center for Cooperative Research: Essay -- "U.S. Military Exercises up to 9/11"*
Continue Reading at Source: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00053.htm
THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11
The following links are collected by an earth citizen, Gerard Holmgren, who wants the truth to come out on september 11 events. He doesn't have a web site and posts his link on forums, to mailing lists. I saved his message in html and give it here.
http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/investigation77.htm
Section 1: Airforce stand-down
1:1 It has become popular mythology in the media that fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the hijacked planes. This is completely untrue as the following research shows. Guilty For 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, 14 Nov 2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
1:2 Mr. Cheney's Cover Story -- Section 2 of Guilty For 9-11, 20 Nov 2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
1:3 9-ll: Nothing Urgent, by George Szamuely, Research & documentation by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, Jan 2002
http://emperor.vwh.net/indict/urgent.htm
1:4 Planes "did scramble " on 9/11, they just "arrived late"
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq.htm
1:5 Scrambled Messages, by George Szamuely, 12 Dec 2001
http://www.nypress.com/14/50/taki/bunker.cfm
1:6 Air National Guard Mission and Vision statements
[NON WORKING LINK] http://nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/
ang-mission.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/
ang-mission.htm
1:7 Russian Air Force chief says official 9/11 story impossible
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm
Scrambling of fighter jets to intercept stray aircraft is a routine procedure. Here's an example of how routine it is.
1.13 Jet Sent to probe Fla. Gov. Plane. Netscape news. May 15 2003.
[NON WORKING LINK] http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/
story.jsp?floc=NW_2-T&oldflok= FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001/
20030515/001648315.htm&sc=1110&floc=NW_2-T
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/norad-faa-response/
jeb-bush-plane-intercepted.txt
The procedures were already in place before Sept 11 2001. It happened 67 times in the 10 months between September 2000 and June 2001.
1.8 Use of military jets jumps since 9/11. Associated Press Aug 13 2002.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/2002/ap081302.html
1.9 CBS News. Scrambling to prevent another 9/11 Aug 14 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/14/attack/main518632.shtml
1.10 Preventing another 9/11 Military.com
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/1,13319,FL_jet_081502,00.html
1.11 ABC News Jets on high Alert. Aug 13 2002.
[NON WORKING LINK] http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/
DailyNews/homefront020813.html
http://www.public-action.com/911/suit/nrdsrmbl-ap-8-13-02/index.html
1.12 Military now notified immediately of unusual air traffic events. Fox news Aug 12 2002
[NON WORKING LINK] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60245,00.html#top
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/norad-faa-response/norad-not-notified.txt
So on Sept 11, 2001 - Why were no fighter jets scrambled, and why has a cover up story been concocted?
In the unlikely event that the airforce failed through incompetence, ( not once but 4 times! ) where is the major inquiry?
I have seen bigger inquiries into car crashes at race tracks.
Section 2: Complicit behaviour of G.W.Bush
It has become common mythology in the media that George W. Bush was at Booker Elementary School when he learned of the first WTC crash. This is a lie. Why is Bush lying about where he was, and what he knew?
2:1 Guilty for 9-11 Section 3: Bush in the open by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel.
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm
This is not the only lie Bush has told about his movements that morning. See how many times he has changed his story.
2:2 Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion by Steve Grey.
[NON WORKING LINK] http://austin.indymedia.org/front.php3?
article_id=2342&group=webcast
(Read the section called "A tangle of lies")
http://mumbai.indymedia.org/en/2002/01/543.shtml
2.3 Bush gets tangled in his lies Part 1. A strange press conference. By Jared israel and Francisco Gil-White Sept 25 2002.
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/calif1.htm
2:4 Bush Gets Tangled in his 9-11 Lies, Part 2: White House Cover-up Creates More Problems than it Solves by Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White [7 October 2002]
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/calif2.htm
2:5 The President as Incompetent Liar: Bush's Claim that he Saw TV Footage of 1st Plane Hitting WTC. Comments by Jared Israel [Posted 12 September 2002]
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/liar.htm
Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair.Bush is lying about where he was, what he was doing and what he knew, during the crucial period between 8.45 and 9 AM on Sept 11.
----
Why did the President - after being told "America is under attack" continue to listen to school children reading for another 25 minutes ? Why was he cheering, smiling and joking even as it was known that at least one more hijacked plane was on the loose ? View the TV footage which proves treason at the top level.
2:6 http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/vid.htm
----
Section 3: The Fictitious Hijackers
If 19 Arabs hijacked the planes, why are there no Arabic names on any of the passenger lists? If they used non-Arabic aliases, which of the "innocents " on the lists are alleged to be the hijackers?
3:1 Passenger and crew list for AA 11 (first WTC crash.)
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
3:2 AA 77 (Pentagon crash)
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
3:3 UAL 175 (2nd WTC crash)
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
3:4 UAL 93 (Pennsylvania crash)
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
If they are alleged to have been using non-Arabic aliases (19 obviously Arabic men got on board using non-Arabic ID, with 100% success rate ?), why did the FBI claim that they were traced through the use of credit cards to buy tickets in their own names?
If 9 of the alleged hijackers were searched before boarding, as claimed in this article
3:5 http://www.policetalk.com/9_hijackers.html
why is there no airport security footage of them? How did they (allegedly) get on board with knives, guns, AND electronic guidance systems, while being searched, but avoiding security cameras and not being on the passenger lists?
What aliases were they alleged to be using when they were searched,and if they were not using aliases, why are they not on the passenger lists?
What of reports that some of the alleged hijackers are still alive, and had nothing to do with the attacks ?
3:6 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
3:7 http://www.rense.com/general20/alives.htm
3:8 http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world01/afgwar-die.htm
3:9 [NON WORKING LINK] http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_12_01/
STILL_ALIVE__FBI_Mixed_Up_on_T/still_alive__fbi_mixed_up_on_t.html
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-21-01/discussion.cgi.57.html
3:10 [NON WORKING LINK] http://www.corpust.com/CorpusTArchiveFBI70f19Alive.cfm
http://www.caller2.com/2001/september/13/today/national/11307.html
3.12 http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
3.13 http://truedemocracy.net/td4/24s-c-6men.html
3.14 http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news01/092001_news_trail.shtml
3.15 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2001/09/23/widen23.xml
3.16 [NON WORKING LINK] http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/alive.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/worldmessenger_alive.html
3.17 [NON WORKING LINK] http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/NEWSTF/stfch11.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html
3.18 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/
chi-0109190363sep19.story?coll=chi-news-hed
According to this article
3:11 [NON WORKING LINK] http://216.239.33.100/search?
q=cache:uEUylyDIXdYC:www.dallasnews.com/ sharedcontent/dallas/
nation/9-11/stories/121202dnint911gas.928b2377.html+FBI+Agent
+Sept.+11+Hijackers+Probably+Used+Gas&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/911-gas-theory.txt
The FBI now claims that the hijackers used gas to subdue the passengers and crew. If they used gas they would have been affected themselves - unless they had masks. The story gets better all the time. They somehow got on board with masks, gas, guns, knives and electronic guidance systems, in spite of being searched, didn't show up on the airport security cameras, and were not on the passenger lists. They left flight manuals in Arabic in rented cars outside the airport (last minute brushing up on the way there, about how to fly the things!) and then crashed the planes in breath taking displays of skilled piloting. Just to make sure we knew who they were, their passports were conveniently found in spite of fiery crashes which incinerated the planes and occupants. So they got on board with false IDs but used their real passports ?
If the mythical Arab hijackers really were on the planes and airport security systems failed due to incompetence (not once but 19 times!), where is the major inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into racehorse doping scandals.
Section 4: More oddities
Why the official story concerning the hijacking of AA11 (first WTC crash) cannot possibly be true.
4:1 9/11 Redux: (The Observer1s Cut) American Airlines Flight 11, Re-examined By David L. Graham
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/redux.html
Was an urban rescue team sent to New York the night before the attacks?
4:2 http://www.halturnershow.com/FEMA.htm
4:3 http://www.tpromo.com/gk/jun02/062602.htm
4.4 Former top German Cabinet Minister rejects official story of 9 11 attacks. Interview with Andreas von Buelow. Tagesspiegel Jan 13 2002.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html
National Security Advisor Rice and White House spokesman Fleischer lied in saying that nobody had ever conceived of planes being used in this manner, their statements in this article,
Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry ABC News May 16 2002
4:5 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html
when the 1994 extract from Time magazine, quoted in article 2:1 demonstrates that the potential problem had been recognized for decades. And there are other examples of this possibility having been widely recognized prior to Sept 11.
4:6 "Omens of terror." by David Wise Oct 7 2001
http://www.hermes-press.com/omens.htm
In article 4:5 Rice also lied in saying that any threat had been overwhelmingly perceived as being overseas. The statement she made is in this press briefing. 4:7 Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice. The James S. Brady Briefing Room May 16 2002 . 4.10PM EDT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html
But this is the truth about the memo to which she refers. 4:8 August memo focused on attacks in the U.S. by Bob Wooward and Dan Eggen. Washington Post staff writers. May 18 2002. page A01.
What did happen to Flight 93? by Richard Wallace. The Daily Mirror Sept 13, 2002
4:9 http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/mirror091302.html
4:10 http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-three/flight-93-shot-down.htm
4.11 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm
?objectid=12192317&method= full&siteid=50143
Are cell phone calls from planes, of the type allegedly made by passengers on Sept 11 possible?
4:12 http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/
project_achilles_report_1_030123.html
4.13 http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/
project_achilles_report_2_030225.html
Section 5: Where is the evidence against Bin laden?
Why is it that the US government doesn't feel confident enough of it's case against Bin laden to lay any formal charges, but keeps " finding" convenient video " confession" tapes ? Probably because new video technology makes it impossible to distinguish between a real video confession and a fake. When seeing and hearing isn't believing. by William M. Arkin. Washington Post Feb 1 1999
5:1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm
Last word in High Tech trickery. by David Higgins Sydney Morning Herald. may 16 2002
5:2 http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/16/1021415016681.html
For more detailed evidence of a preplanned agenda to fabricate evidence against Bin Laden, Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion by Steve Grey.
2:2 http://austin.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=2342&group=webcast
(Read the section called "Evidence please !")
It has become a common myth that Bin Laden has admitted to the attacks. This simply isn't true.Bin laden denies terror attacks and points finger at Jews. Annanova news.
5:3 http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_410936.html?
menu=news.latestheadlines
Bin laden denies attacks as Taliban talks holy war. ABC news online Sept 17 2001.
5:4 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2001/09/item20010917010639_1.htm
Bin Laden denies being behind attacks. JS ONline Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Sept 16 2001
5:5 http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/sep01/binladen-denial.asp
Osama Bin Laden claims terrorist attacks in USA were committed by some American terrorist group. Pravda Sept 12 2001
5:6 http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/2001/09/12/14910.html
Bin laden Denies US attack says paper. Middle East News
5:7 http://www.metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-37/reg/bin_laden_denies.htm
Bin laden says he wasn't behind attacks CNN Sept 17 2001
5:8 http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html
Bin Laden denies role in attacks. newsday.com Sept 17 2001
5:9 http://www.newsday.com/ny-wobin172369727sep17,0,7370581.story
Taliban says Bin Laden denied role in attacks. Yahoo news Sept 13 2001.
5:10 http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/denies-reuters-taliban.htm
Section 6: Insider trading reveals high level foreknowledge
In the first few hours after the attacks, it was reported that investigators were already looking into huge volumes of insider trading on airline stocks in the weeks leading up to the attacks. Why has this story since completely disappeared? Do authorities seriously expect us to believe that more than a year later, they still do not know who was responsible? Should not alarm bells have been ringing BEFORE the attacks with these record volumes of trading? If the executive director of the CIA had previously managed the firm which handled much of the trade, are we seriously expected to believe that he doesn't know who was responsible?
Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly Into The CIA's Highest Ranks -- CIA Executive Director `Buzzy' Krongard Managed Firm That Handled `Put' Options on UAL, by Michael C. Ruppert, 9 Oct 2001
6:1 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html
Mystery of terror `insider dealers', by Chris Blackhurst, 14 Oct 2001
6:2 http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=99402
Profits of Death -- Insider Trading and 9-11, by Tom Flocco - Edited by Michael C. Ruppert, 6 Dec 2001
6:3 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FLO112B.html
Where is the major inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into local government contract scandals.
Section 7: The pentagon frame up and the WTC plane switch
It is alleged that American Airlines 77 (a hijacked Boeing 757) crashed into the Pentagon. A Boeing 757 is a very large aircraft with a wingspan of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft. So how did it make an initial hole 12 ft wide, collapsing only about a 35 ft depth of the outer ring of the building - and not leave any wreckage outside ?
This photo of the damage to the Pentagon wall
7:1 http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm
proves that whatever crashed into the pentagon was NOT AA 77, which demonstrates the Pentagon attack to have been a self-inflicted frame up.
For a quick overview of the impossibility of the official story
7:2 http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
For a full physical analysis of the crash scene Physical and mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash. by Gerard Holmgren Oct 2002
7:3 http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4578.php
Why was there a concerted effort to fabricate eyewitness evidence for the official story regarding AA 77? Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined. by Gerard Holmgren June 2002
7:4 http://hamilton.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=1786&group
=webcast
7:5 The Pentagon crash hoax
http://nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon/
What hit WTC towers? Were they the planes we've been told ? ( AA 11 and UAL 175)
Section 8: If the Attack on Afghanistan was a retaliation for Sept 11, why had it already been planned months before ?
BBC News report by George Arney.
8:1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/
newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
U.S. Planned for attack on Al -Qaida. White house given strategy two days before Sept 11. NBC news. May 16 2002
US planned to hit bin Laden ahead of September 11. By David Rennie in Washington
8:3 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/05/
walq05.xml
US Tells of covert Afghan plans before 9/11 By Bob Drogin LA Times May 18 2002
8.5 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-051802strike.story
Why were we originally told that the attack on Afghanistan was not planned prior to Sept 11, and was purely a retaliation to a " surprise" attack, and the story then changed after proof of the preplanned attack came to light ?
Section 9: U.S. and Bin Laden co-operate behind the scenes.
The new story is that they allegedly feared Bin Laden so much that they wanted to get him first. So why didn't they arrest him when they had the chance in July 2001? The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai, by Alexandra Richard, Translated courtesy of Tiphaine Dickson, Le Figaro, 11 Oct 2001
9:1 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html
9:2 http://guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html
9:3 http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/lefigaro.htm
Bin Laden met with the CIA in July and walked away by Michael C. Ruppert
9:4 http://www.rense.com/general16/bin.htm
And why was the Bush family still in business with the Bin Laden Family, even AFTER Sept 11?
Osama bin Laden's Bush family Business Connections, Alliance With Pakistan Will Stimulate Drug Trade, Bring Revenues Under U.S. Control --Colombian Opium Production Will Soar; The Taliban's Biggest Economic Attack on the U.S. Came in February With The Destruction of Its Opium Crop by Michael C. Ruppert, 18 Sept 2001
9:5 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/09_18_01_bushbin.html
Carlyle profit from Afghan war, by David Lazarus, 2 Dec 2001
9:6 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LAZ112A.html
Elder Bush in Big G.O.P. Cast Toiling for Top Equity Firm, by Leslie Wayne, 5 Mar 2001
9:7 http://www.truthout.com/0662.Bush.Saudi.htm
The George W. Bush Money Tree
9:8 http://www.bushnews.com/bushmoney.htm
Bush Family's dirty little secret: President's oil companies funded by Bin Laden family and wealthy Saudis who financed Osama bin Laden, by Rick Wiles, Sept 2001
9:9 http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/afn_articles/bushsecrets.htm
Arms Build-up Enriches Carlyle Group, Bush Sr. is Consultant, by Mark Fineman, 10 Jan 2002
9:10 http://www.truthout.com/01.11F.Arms.Carlyle.htm
Gaping holes in the CIA V Bin Laden Story by Jared Israel
9:11 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm
BushLaden by Jared Israel
9:12 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm
Addition to the above article
9:13 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen2-i.htm
Judicial Watch: Bush/Bin Laden connection "has now turned into a scandal" Statement from Judicial watch with comments by Jared Israel
9:14 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/jw.htm
9:15 Bin laden. Terrorist monster: Take two ! by Jared Israel. Oct 9 2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo-a.htm
9:16 New Chairman of 9/11 Commission had business ties with Osama's Brother in Law by Michel Chossudovsky 27 December 2002
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO212A.html
And why did the US turn down an offer to extradite Bin Laden in 1996, AFTER naming him as wanted for the 1993 WTC bombing?
Section 10: The suspicious collapse of the World trade centre Towers.
How did the WTC collapse? Why no serious inquiry? Why was the debris rushed away for recycling before any examination could be held?
10:1 Muslims suspend laws of physics by J. McMichael Nov 25 2001
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html
10:2 Muslims suspend laws of Physics. part 2 by J.McMichael
http://serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm
"Burning Questions...Need Answers": Fire Engineering's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse, 4 Jan 2002
10:3 http://zgrams.zundelsite.org/pipermail/zgrams/2002-January/000200.html
10:4 http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/jan2002/markr19-12.htm
10:5 http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/
FireEngineering-1-4-02-BurningQuestionsNeedAnswers.pdf
10:6 A firefighter says "we think there were bombs set in the building"
http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-3,00.html
10:7 In Curious Battle: An expert recants on Why the WTC collapsed by John Flaherty and Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm
10:8 Documentary footage from the scene of the WTC attacks, and eyewitness accounts from firefighters at the scene reveal serious flaws in the official accounts.
http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings/911-oddities-revealed.htm
For a series of engineering articles and informative videos on the WTC collapse, see
10:9 http://home.attbi.com/~jmking/Collapse_update.htm
10:10 Evidence of explosives in South WTC Tower collapse
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/23816.php
10:11 The World Trade Centre demolition
http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc-demolition.htm
10:12 Chapter 1 of the FEMA WTC collapse report (with comment)
http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm
10:13 Chapter 2 (with comment)
http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch2.htm
10.14 The jet fuel. How hot did it heat the World trade Center?
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064
10.15 Proof of controlled demolition at the WTC by Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm
10.16 Where's the inferno?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm
Steel melts at 1539 degrees. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns at 800 degrees. Are we seriously expected to believe that burning kerosene towards the top of the building (heat travels upwards) somehow caused both towers to neatly implode in a manner identical to that of a controlled demolition ? Where is the inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into suburban housefires. Why is discussion of the possibility of a controlled implosion completely taboo? Why do authorities keep inventing ridiculous stories about burning jet fuel melting steel?
Section 11: Hands off Bin Laden !
Why were the FBI told to not investigate the Bin Laden family links in the US?
Has someone been sitting on the FBI? Transcript of a BBC Newsnight Report on "the questionable links of the bin Laden Family," 6 Nov 2001
11:1 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BBC111A.html
11:2 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probetrans.htm
(added comments by Jared Israel)
Bush thwarted FBI probe against bin Ladens, Hindustan Times, 7 Nov 2001
11:3 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HIN111A.html
US efforts to make peace summed up by `oil', by Lara Marlowe, 19 Nov 2001
11:4 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR111A.html
11:5 http://www.fisiusa.org/fisi_News_items/news369.htm
Called Off the Trail? FBI Agents Probing Terror Links Say They Were Told, "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie" By Brian Ross and Vic Walker. ABC News Dec 19 2002
11:6 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/
FBI_whistleblowers021219.html
After capturing one of the six most wanted Taliban leaders, the US then let him go. "By mistake " of course, because of "flawed intelligence."
11:7 Taliban general 'freed by mistake' Sunday Times Dec 19 2002
http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/
0,7034,5704967%255E15574,00.html
11:8 US accidentally set wanted Taliban Leader free. Clari news dec 18 2002.
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bn/
Qus-attacks-taliban.RVGa_CDI.html
11:9 FBI agent Robert Wright says FBI assigned to intelligence operations continue to protect terrorists from criminal investigations and prosecutions. Judicial Watch Sept 11, 2002.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/2469.shtml
Section 12: Its really not so surprising.
In 1962, the joint chiefs of staff approved a CIA plan to commit terrorist acts against the US and frame Cuba.
Friendly Fire -- Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba, by David Ruppe, 1 May 2001
12:1 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html
Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962, The National Security Archive, 30 Apr 2001
12:2 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
Northwoods - a plan for terror to justify war.Comments by Jared Israel.
12:3 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-int.htm
Scanned images of the actual document.
12.4 Page i http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-i.htm
12.5 Page ii http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-ii.htm
12:6 Page iii http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-iii.htm
12.7 Page 1 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-1.htm
12.8 Page 2 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-2.htm
12.9 Page 3 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-3.htm
12.10 Page 4 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-4.htm
12.11 Page 5 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-5.htm
12.12 Page 6 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-6.htm
12.13 Page 7 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-7.htm
12.14 Page 8 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-8.htm
12.15 Page 9 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-9.htm
12:16 Page 10 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-10.htm
12.17 Page 11