Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation


 "Revealing the Lies" on 9/11 Destroys the Truth

by Michel Chossudovsky

www.globalresearch.ca    3 April 2004

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404C.html

Revealing a lie does not necessarily lead to establishing the truth.

In fact the experience of the 9/11 Commission has proved exactly the opposite.

We know that the Bush administration had numerous "intelligence warnings".

We know they had "intelligence" which confirmed that terrorists had the capacity of hijacking aircrafts and using them to target buildings.

Attorney General Ashcroft had apparently been warned in August 2001 by the FBI to avoid commercial airlines, but this information was not made public.

The Pentagon had conducted a full fledged exercise on an airplane crashing into the Pentagon.

(See http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RYA404A.html )

We also know that senior Bush officials including Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice lied under oath to the 9/11 commission, when they stated that they had no information or forewarning of impending terrorist attacks.

But we also know, from carewfully documented research that:

The White House is being accused by the critics of  "criminal negligence", for having casually disregarded the intelligence presented to president Bush and his national security team, and for not having acted to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attack.

The unfolding consensus is: "They knew but failed to act".

This line of reasoning is appealing to many 9/11 critics and  "Bush bashers" because it clearly places the blame on the Bush administration. 

Yet in a bitter irony, the very process of revealing these lies and expressing public outrage has contributed to reinforcing the 9/11 cover-up.

"Revealing the lies" serves to present Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy", which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus.

The presumption is that these forewarnings and intelligence briefs emanating from the intelligence establishment constitute a true and unbiased representation of the terrorist threat. 

Meanwhile, the history of Al Qaeda and the CIA has been shoved to the background. The fact that successive US governments since the Soviet-Afghan war have supported and abetted the Islamic terror network is no longer mentioned, for obvious reasons. It would break the consensus regarding Al Qaeda as the outside enemy of America, which is a crucial building block of the entire National Security doctrine. 

This central proposition that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11 serves to justify everything else including the Patriot Act, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, the spiraling defense and homeland security budgets, the detention of thousands of people of Muslim faith on trumped up charges, the arrest and deportation to Guantanamo of alleged "enemy combatants", etc.

The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine

Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign.

No Al Qaeda,

No pretext for waging war,

No justification for sending in US special forces into numerous countries around the World.

No justification for developing tactical nuclear weapons to be used in conventional war theaters against Islamic terrorists, who according to official statements constitute a nuclear threat. (See  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html ). The Adminstration's post 9/11 nuclear doctrine, points to Al Qaeda as some kind of nuclear power.

"The Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon development programs." (quoted in William Arkin, Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable, Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002)

Bear in mind that the very existence of Al Qaeda constitutes the justification for a pre-emptive war against rogue states and terrorist organizations. It is part of the indoctrination of US troops fighting in the Middle East. It is also being used to justify the so-called "abuse" of POWs.

The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists":

"The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. …America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.

…Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction (…)

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (…). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively." (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )

To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine requires the "fabrication" of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist threats to "State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states."

But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events" allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are also part of the prpganda ploy which consists in upholding the Legend of an outside enemy. .

9/11 is the Basis of War Propaganda

In other words, the forewarnings sustain the Al Qaeda legend, which constitutes the cornerstone of the "war on terrorism". And the latter serves as a justification for America's "pre-emptive wars"  with a view to "protecting the homeland". 

One year before 9/11, the PNAC called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda. (See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )

The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the use of the September 11 attacks as "a war pretext incident."

The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:

"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.

 "…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter was one of the key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989).

The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ).

Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:

"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (Ibid)

This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and "Homeland Defense." Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.

The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.

General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as to how events ought to unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to "preserving civil liberties."

Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a "trigger mechanism" for a military coup d'état in America. The PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type event" would be used as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military government.

In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.

Foreknowledge is a Red Herring

Foreknowledge implies and requires the existence of this "outside enemy", who is attacking America. Amply documented, the Islamic brigades and Al Qaeda including the madrassas and the CIA sponsored training camps in Afghanistan are a creation of the CIA. The Taliban were "graduates" of the madrassas, which formed a Us sponsored government in 1996. 

During the Cold War, but also in its aftermath, the CIA using Pakistan's Military Intelligence apparatus as a go-between played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam.

Every single US administration since Jimmy Carter has consistently supported the so-called "Militant Islamic Base", including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, as part of their foreign policy agenda.

And in this regard, the Democrats and the Republicans have worked hand in glove. In fact, it is the US military and intelligence establishment which has provided continuity in US foreign policy.

In other words, the focus on foreknowledge has served to usefully distract attention from the US government's longstanding relationship to the terror network since the Soviet-Afghan war, which inevitably raises the broader issue of treason and war crimes. 

The foreknowledge in a sense erases the historical record because it denies a relationship between Al Qaeda and successive US administrations.

The administration is accused of not acting upon these terrorist warnings. 

Bush and the White house intelligence team are said to have ignored these warnings. Richard Clarke who was in charge of counter terrorism on the National Security Council until February 2003 has "apologized" to the American people and the families of the victims. Had they acted in a responsible fashion, had they taken the intelligence briefings seriously, 3000 lives would have been saved on September 11, 2001. But bear in mind that Richard Clarke was part of an intelligence team which was at the time providing support to Al Qaeda in the Balkans. (See below)

This new anti-Bush consensus concerning the 9/11 attacks has engulfed part of the 9/11 truth movement. The outright lies in sworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission have been denounced in chorus; the families of the victims have expressed their indignation.

The debate centers on whether the administration is responsible for an "intelligence failure" or whether it was the result of "incompetence."

In both cases, the al Qaeda legend remains unchallenged. The fact that Al Qaeda hijackers were responsible for 9/11 remains unchallenged.

In other words, nobody seems to have questioned the source of these warnings emanating from an intelligence apparatus, which is known to have supported Al Qaeda throughout the entire post cold War era.

In  other words, are the terrorist warnings emanating out of the CIA a "true" representation of the terrorist threat or are they part of the process of disinformation which seeks precisely to uphold Al Qaeda as an "Enemy of the Homeland".

Meanwhile, the issues of "cover-up and complicity" at the highest levels of the Bush administration, which were raised in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks have been shoved out.

The role of Bush officials, their documented links to the terror network, the business ties between the Bushes and bin Laden families, the role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) which supported and abetted Al Qaeda while working hand in glove with their US counterparts (CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency), the fact that several Bush officials were the architects of Al Qaeda during the Reagan administration, as revealed by the Iran Contra investigation. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html

All of this, which is carefully documented, is no longer relevant. It is no longer an issue for debate and investigation. What the media, as well as some of the key 9/11 investigators are pushing is that "The Saudis did it". The outside enemy Al Qaeda is said to be supported by supported by the Saudis.

This line of analysis which is contained in the 1 trillion dollar law suit by the families of the victims led by Lawyer Ted Motley, is evidently flawed. While it highlights the business ties between the Bushes and the bin Ladens, in does not challenge the legend of the outside enemy.

"The Saudis did it" is also part of the US foreign policy agenda, to be eventually used to discredit the Saudi monarchy and destabilize the Saudi financiers, who oversee 25 percent of the World's oil reserves, ten times those of the US. in fact, this process has already begun with the Saudi privatization program, which seeks to transfer Saudi wealth and assets into foreign (Anglo-American) hands. 

The Saudi financiers were never prime movers. They were proxies. They played a subordinate role. They worked closely with US intelligence and their American financial counterparts. They were never prime movers.

In other words, the "Saudis did It" consensus essentially contributes to whitewashing the Bush administration, while also providing pretext to destabilize Saudi Arabia.

"The Bush Lied Consensus" upholds the Big Lie

This emerging 9/11 consensus (Outside enemy, the Saudis did it, etc) which will eventually be included in American history books, is  "they knew, but failed to act". 

While the Bush administration takes the blame, the "war on terrorism" remains functionally intact.

It was incompetence or criminal negligence but it was not treason. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were "just wars", they were undertaken in accordance with the National Security doctrine, which views Al Qaeda as the outside enemy.

Meanwhile, everybody has their eyes riveted on the fact that Bush officials lied under oath regarding the terrorist warnings.

Yet nobody seems to have begged the key question:

What is the significance of these warnings emanating from the intelligence apparatus, knowing that the CIA is the creator of Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda is an "intelligence asset".

In other words, the CIA is the sponsor of Al Qaeda and at the same time controls the warnings on impending terrorist attacks.

In other words, are Bush officials in sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission  lying under oath on something which is true, or are they lying on something which is an even bigger lie?

The Legend of the "Outside Enemy"

The 1993 WTC bombing was heralded by the Bush Administration as one of the earlier Al Qaeda attacks on the Homeland. Since 9/11, the 1993 WTC bombing has become part of "the 9/11 legend" which describes Al Qaeda as "an outside enemy."

In the words of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (April 2004) in sworn testimony at the 9/11 Commission:  

"The terrorist threat to our Nation did not emerge on September 11th, 2001. Long before that day, radical, freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world. The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the rise of al-Qaida and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on American installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the East Africa embassy bombings of 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, these and other atrocities were part of a sustained, systematic campaign to spread devastation and chaos and to murder innocent Americans." (See complete transcript of her testimony at (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC404A.html )

Below we provide evidence of US-Al Qaeda collaboration from official sources which confirms unequivocally that Al Qaeda was a US sponsored "intelligence asset" during the entire post Cold War era.  

1. BOSNIAGATE  Clinton Administration collaborates with Al Qaeda (1993-1994) 

At the time of the 1993 WTC bombing, the Clinton Administration and al Qaeda were actively collaborating in joint military operations in Bosnia, as confirmed by an official congressional report emanating from the Republican Party.

The Clinton Administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials.

The Militant Islamic Network (page 5): Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin ("holy warriors") from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based "humanitarian organization," called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well documented. The Clinton Administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials.


In short, the Clinton Administration's policy of facilitating the delivery of arms to the Bosnian Muslims made it the de facto partner of an ongoing international network of governments and organizations pursuing their own agenda in Bosnia...For example, one such group about which details have come to light is the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization which has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. ["How Bosnia's Muslims Dodged Arms Embargo: Relief Agency Brokered Aid From Nations, Radical Groups," Washington Post, 9/22/96; see also "Saudis Funded Weapons For Bosnia, Official Says: $ 300 Million Program Had U.S. 'Stealth Cooperation'," Washington Post, 2/2/96] TWA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Binladen, a wealthy Saudi emigre believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [WP, 9/22/96]

bold added

Clinton Administration supported the "Militant Islamic Base", Senate Press Release, US Congress, 16 January 1997,  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html

original Senate Document  http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm

The alleged terrorist Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman was sentenced as the mastermind behind the 1993 WTC bombings and subsequently convicted to life imprisonment.

In a bitter irony, the same individual Omar Abdul Rahman was identified in the 1997 Report of the Republican Party Policy Committee of the US Senate (see above) as collaborating with Clinton officials in bringing in weapons and Mujahideen into Bosnia. In other words, the Republican party confirms that Omar Abdul Rahman and Al Qaeda were US sponsored "intelligence assets".

When Bill Clinton, appeared before the 9/11 Commission (April 2004), was he questioned on his links to the terror network, including the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing?  No! What can conclude: Clinton-Osama-Abdel Rahman Triangle (source the Horse's Mouth) The Foreknowledge issue falls flat on its face. What we are dealing with is "Treason" and Cover-up" on the history of the Clinton Administration's links to the alleged "Outside enemy".  Treason is defined as:  "consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies." 


We provide below several statements from Congressional records which point to US support to the terror network in  Kosovo (1995-1999) and which amply refute the existence of an "Outside Enemy"  

What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the KLA raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo lie at the heart of the Balkan Route that links the "Golden Crescent" of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 per cent of heroin destined for Europe.  (U.S. Congress, Testimony of Frank J. Cilluffo, Deputy Director of the Global Organized Crime Program, to the House Judiciary Committee, Washington DC, 13 December 2000)

The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Osama bin Laden. Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a military commander of Osama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict.

(U.S. Congress, House Judicial Committee, Washington DC, 13 December 2000)

 "We connected ourselves [in 1998-99] with the KLA, which was the staging point for bin Laden." (U.S. Congress, Transcripts of the House Armed Services Committee, Washington, DC, 5 October 1999) 

"Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values."

In making this statement he knew that the KLA was supported by Osama bin Laden.

What can we conclude from these and other statements? The transcripts from Congressional documents refute the existence of the "outside enemy".

Al Qaeda (our "intelligence asset") supported and continues to support the KLA. The Clinton administration supported the KLA.  Secretary of State Madeleine Albright coveted KLA leaders Hashim Thaci.

Military Professional Resources (MPRI), a mercenary company on contract to the Pentagon was involved in the training the KLA.  The KLA was also trained by US and British Special Forces. But the KLA was also trained by Al Qaeda. The US collaborated in training a terrorist organization which has with links to al Qaeda, the drug trade and organized crime. 

The Bush Administration has followed in the footsteps of the Clinton administration. The KLA is supported by the US military, while also being backed by Al Qaeda.


Barely  a few weeks before 9/11, in August 2001, senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon (MPRI), were advising the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA) of Macedonia.

Mujahideen detached by Al Qaeda from the Middle East and Central Asia were fighting in a paramilitary army, which was also  supported by the US military and NATO.

The NLA is a proxy of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn, the KLA and the UN-sponsored Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) are identical institutions with the same commanders and military personnel. KPC Commanders on UN salaries are fighting in the NLA together with the Mujahideen.

Ironically, while supported and financed by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the KLA-NLA is also supported by NATO and the United Nations mission to Kosovo (UNMIK). In fact, the Islamic Militant Network also using Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) as the CIA's go-between still constitutes an integral part of Washington=s covert military-intelligence operations in Macedonia and Southern Serbia.

The KLA-NLA terrorists are funded from U.S. military aid, the United Nations peace-keeping budget, as well as by several Islamic organizations including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Drug money is also being used to finance the terrorists with the complicity of the U.S. government. The recruitment of Mujahideen to fight in the ranks of the NLA in Macedonia is implemented through various Islamic groups.

U.S. military advisers mingle with the Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force; Western mercenaries from NATO countries fight alongside the Mujahideen recruited in the Middle East and Central Asia. And the U.S. media calls this a >blowback= where so-called "intelligence assets" have gone against their sponsors!

But this did not happen during the Cold War! It happened in Macedonia in the months leading up to 9/11. And it is confirmed by numerous press reports, eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence as well as official statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister, who has accused the Western military alliance of supporting the terrorists. Moreover, the official Macedonian News Agency (MIA) has pointed to the complicity between Washington's envoy Ambassador James Pardew and the NLA terrorists.15 In other words, the so-called "intelligence assets" were still serving the interests of their U.S. sponsors. 


The August 6 2001 intelligence briefing (PDB) prepared for President George W. Bush was entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US".

The PDBs are prepared at CIA headquarters at Langley and are presented to President Bush on a daily basis in the form of an oral briefing by CIA Director George Tenet. Below are selected excerpts from the PDB. The complete text of the August 6, 2001 PDB can be consulted at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WHI404A.html

Below are few selected excerpts.

"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US."

[This statement disinformation. During that period the US was collaborating with Al Qaeda in the Balkans, see above]

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ’Umar ’Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

evertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

[Does the CIA Director inform the president that a proxy organization of Sheik Abdu Rahman was actually collaborating with US military inspectors in Bosnia as confirmed by the 1997 Republican Party Committee report.]

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

[Does the CIA Director advise the president that Osama bin Laden was in the UAE in July of that year receiving treatment for a kidney condition at the American Hospital in Dubai, (See the report published in Le Figaro, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html )]

5.  AUGUST 27-30


In late August 2001, barely a couple of weeks before 9/11, the chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss together with Senator Jon Kyl, were in Islamabad for "consultations".  Meetings were held with President Musharraf and with Pakistan's military and intelligence brass including the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmad.

An AFP report confirms that the US Congressional delegation also met the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef. At this meeting, which was barely mentioned by the US media, "Zaeef assured the US delegation [on behalf of the Afghan government] that the Taliban would never allow bin Laden to use Afghanistan to launch attacks on the US or any other country." (Agence France Presse (AFP), 28 August 2001.)

An FBI report published in late September 2001, later confirmed by a Times of India report, suggests that Pakistan's military Intelligence, headed by General Mahmoud Ahmad, played a key role in transferring money to the 9/11 hijackers. General Mahmoud Ahmad had allegedly ordered the transfer of $100.000 to the alleged 9/11 ring-leader Mohamed Atta.

Note the sequencing of these meetings. Bob Graham and Porter Goss were in Islamabad in late August 2001, meeting General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money man" behind 9/1.

The meetings with President Musharraf and the Afghan Ambassador were on the 27th of August, the mission was still in Islamabad on the 30th of August.


General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in Washington on an official visit of consultations barely a few days later (September 4th). During his visit to Washington, General Mahmoud met his counterpart CIA director George Tenet and high ranking officials of the Bush administration including Richard Armitage and Colin Powell. At the US congress, the General meets up with Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee (13 Sept)


Septmber 1o Osama bin Laden is hospialised in Rawalpindi. Hardly the time to go to hospital one day before an alleged major terror event. He is hospitalised in the military hospital. Who is lying.

The Mysterious breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill on 9/11 porter Goss and Bob Graham the men behind

the meetings at the State Department on 12/11 and 13/11 with the money man


What happened in the month prior to 9/11.The evolving consensus points to blowback. We supported Osama bin Laden but he went against us.

A very convenient way of saying Al Qaeda was created during the Soviet Afghan war. That was a long time ago and he went against us.

Among the various intelligence documents suggesting that an attack was imminent is the controversial secret presidential memo (PDB) presented on the 6th of August 2001 to President Bush by CIA Director George Tenet. Nothing proves that these warnings including the the PDBs constitute an accurate assessment of a terrorist attack. In fact quite the opposite.

They PDB memos are presented to the president on a daily basis. They are prepared at Langley, and are presented in an oral briefing from Monday through Saturday to president Bush by CIA director George Tenet.

The Warnings were fabricated

with agencies of the US government, the NATO and the US military up until August 2001, in other words at the same time the various warnings were being fed  into the White House information system. The CIA was not feeding warnings to the effect that Al Qaeda was working hand in glove with senior US military officers on contract to the Pentagon in August 2001. Nor did they in

When half truths support the formation of lies.

We are not dealing with criminal negligence but with an act of treason. This act of treason is intricately related to forewarnings of terrorist attacks on the homeland

can we trust the CIA of stating the truth in these memos, the answer is obvious, the CIA has consistently supported al Qaeda its intelligence asset,

how do you sustain control over an intelligence asset, spread disinformaiton not only in the media to public opinion but withinin the statre apparatus, the president must be convninced that Americais under attack, so that he declares war on terror in the name of the maerican people, he is ocnvinced as the rewst of us that he is doing the right thing, and he is being adivsed by the CIA, did the CIA tell him that they were collaborating with al Qaeda, using it in covert operations, obvioudsly not, the pdbs are read and circulated in the White house and State Department, the legend permeats the State system, america is under attack,

And when this surfaces in the 9/11 commission, these memos then surfacre and are the basis for establishing whether poloiticians acted in the public inyterest,

The whole issue of coverup and complicuity of senior Bush officials is shoved to the background, the official narrative acknowledges that grave errors were committed by the president haaND HIS entourage, and the CIA, George tenet richard clarke are the judges of this process, what this dores is that it distracts from the coverup and ocmplicut, the 9/11 critics are now saying we have positive proof that Bush and Condy Rice arel lying under oath, perjury, but lying under oath in relaiton to the frorewarnings which are lies, so when you lie in relaitron to a lei, naemly sheer disinformaiton, this then becomes the basis not for uncovering the lie but in fact sustaining the lie.

To reveal the truth lets go back to August 6 2001, the day the memo was briefed, now it just so happens that in early August, there was evidence of  active collaboration between the Us military and Nato on the one hand and Al Qaeda operatives on the other, in Macedonia,

so that while the memo is being written in Lsangley, fed to to George W in his oral brieflings by Geeorge Tenet, CIA's inytelligence asset is working hand in golve with the US mlilitary,

Late August, in Islmabad, a congreession la delegation led by Porter Goss and Sen Bob Graham meet the head of pak military intelligence Generla Mahmoud, who is later identified by the FBI azs the alleged money man behind 9/11, transferring money to the alleged ringleader,

9/11 analysts have their eyes riveted on the mysterious August 6 presidential daily briefing (PDB), recently made public by the White House as constituting indelible proof that the Bush Administration "knew but failed to act."  Bush let it happen, we are told.

The document released by the White House is entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in United States''  points  to the existence of so-called Al Qaeda sleeper cells inside the US, "that terrorists had been carrying out surveillance of buildings in New York, and that the terror network wanted to hijack a US aircraft." (See Andrew Bunscombe, The Guardian).

Did not brief Bush on heightened terror threat and the suspected terrorists training in the U.S.

It follows that senior Bush officials including Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Richard Armitage lied under oath, when they said we could not have known that Al Qaeda was planning an attack on America. This constitutes perjury, lying under oath. Yet this very process of lying under oath is there to provide the illusion these senior officials attemted to coverup for the incompetence of the government.

The history of 9/11 is being written, is it cover-up by senior officials regarding the Bush administration's lack of judgment, its incompetence, the intelligence lapses which led to policy errors, in other words is a cover-up of failures, and the administration knew but failed to act, that process of cover-up, in fact is part of the construction of the 9/11 legend, which is to be recorded as history, it is not cover-up of criminal wrong-doing, it is not a cover-up of the links of successive Us administrations to terrorist organizations, not to mention the multibillion dollar drug trade which supported these terrorist groups, not to mention the laundering of drug money recycled towards banks and financial institutions. The critics are shocked, they are lying, but by focusing on the foreknowledge lies, they serve the disinformation campaign, the foreknowledge lies are not part of the official narrative, or is becoming part of the official narrative, Richard Clarke is not a whistleblower or even a critic of the administration's counterterroism operations. he is a protagonist of covert support provided to terrorist organizations. in other words, the counterrorist activities may exist in name. in practice what we have is State terrorism which uses intelligence assets to commit terrorist acts and these terrorist acts are then presented to public opinion as the justification for waging a war on terrorism, but in fact this war on terrorism is nothing else but a bona fide war of conquest. Homeland security is required to uphold the legitimacy of this war agenda which violates both domestic and international law.

Searching to reveal the lies of C Rice, only serves the disinformation campaign, it there is a culprit, let their heads role, the disinformation campaign needs a Fall Guy or a Fall Girl, who will take the blame, and this precisely what this psych op intelligence scam is about, yes me made mistakes, we are sorry, we apologize, in the words of Richard Clarke, Richard Clarke is apologising for supporting bin Laden, he is apologising for not having taken the measures at the right time, which would have prevented bin laden from attacking America. In other words, the adminstraiton is not apolgising for something which constitutes a criminal act. It is not apologizing for  criminal negligence, it apologising for its incompetence and shortcomings in preventing the criminals to perform their criminal acts and for having put the various preices of evidence together prior to the crime. We knew about the Boston strangler, we considered him to be a threat but we misunderstoofd the gravity of this threat. That is the new official narrative which is unfolding. the fact of the matter is that the CIA has known links to the Boston strangler and provides support to the Boston Strangler in his endeavours usually through third parties. And perhas that crime was not even committed by the Boston Strangler, but somebody e3lse was behind the criminal act.

Commititing acts of perjury, namely lying under oath is nothing new. Iran Contra officials were accused and then pardoned for lying to Congress, these same officials were then areappointed to the bush Junior Adminstraiton, including John Pointdexter who heads the TIAP, the Big Brother organisation which prys into the life of private citiznes.

"You had numerous warnings of the risks of 9-11 – sufficient to let the American people know and use their best judgment as to how to protect themselves from a possible attack." This is criminal negligence, you kept silent and let people die, but it is not a deliberate crminal act where the towers were brought down deliberately with a view to buoilding a pretext for war, crminal negligence does not descruibe the diabolical foreign policy agenda which relies on sponsored terrorist acts aspart of its various covert operations, in other wrds the 9/11 attacks were part of a consistent intelligence plan

One (of many) Presidential Daily (Intelligence) Briefs (PDBs), dated August 6th 2001, and a frequent theme in Rice's Q&A -- titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US” -- is only the barest tip of a criminal iceberg. Rice's position that it was a speculative paper was beneath disingenuous and belied by the title itself. The commission's intense focus on that PDB alone, to the exclusion of many other more damning unclassified and available records, is an indication of its deliberate unwillingness to confront Rice or the administration on the simplest points that reveal the administration's guilt. (Ruppert)

that august 6 pdb is meant to protect the intelligence services that they ahd warned the president, that if there were lapses it was not their fault, in all likelihood they knew what was coming becuase they keep track of their intelligence assets. But more importantly, that aug 6 memo is part of the legend, from the mouth of George of Tenet who provides the PDB, it acknoweldges, to recorded for history, that Al Qaeda is preparing to strike but the  head of tghe CIa knows that what wqent into that 6 August PDB was in fact a scam, to confuse the president, perhaps, but it is part of written record that the CIA was concewnrened with the safey of the american public and that it had warned the White house of aan imminent danger. While of course knowing all a long that Al Qaeda was not a threat, because we created him, he is ours, and we intend to continue usuing al Qaeda as an intelligence asset, which justifies Us internveitonism in the name of the war on terrorism in different parts of the World. Manufacturing terror through socaklled mass casualty propducing events is yet another dimension of this proces. It is meant to galvanize public opinion uin support of the war on terrorism and that Al Qaeda is a threat , yet the ntelligence services are not involved in manufsacring terroro alerts the are alsinvolved in fabvricaitong acutal terror altertsusing the intelligence assets.


 The Boston Strangler does not necessarily know where this support is coming from, but by whepolice BosrowtWe are sorry for not havin

To which I say Red herring.

 The August 6 memo is disinformation which serves to place the blame on a number of senior Bush officials, who kenw but failed to act. It also underscores weaknesses of the intelligence apparatus and lapses committed by the the FBI.

But it serves two very very important functions in the 9/11 coverup.

1. It sustains the illusion that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks for which there ia absolutely no proof. In other words it sustains the 9/11 Legend.

2. It sustains the illusion that Al Qaeda is an outside enemy, which threatens the security of the American Homeland when in fact it is a creation of the CIA. And there are important pieces of evidence which confirm that the US administration has used and continues to use Al Qaeda in its covert intelligence operations. 

This outside enemy is a key component of the national security doctrine. It justifies the war on terrorism and the conduct of preemptive wars against rogue states that support al Qaeda. and consequently the illusion that al Qaeda is Enemy Number One has to be sustaoined. And in a twisted logic, the lies emanating out of the 9/11 commission regarding foreknowledge are in fact part of the process of supporting the big lie, namely that there is a impendent outside enemy, vcomposed of terrorist organisations, when in fact everything demonstrates that these terrorist organizations, although having a degree of indepedence in relation to their sponsors would nver have existed in their present form without support of the US intelligence apparatus.

Condoloeeza Rice lied. \And said she did not know about these terrorist warnings. What she did not say was that the US intelligence was actively supporting these terrorist organisations. In other words, the foreknowledge issue is a big red herring and unfortunately several critics have fallen into the trap. Revealing the lies of the Bush adminstration pertaining foreknowledge only serves to reinforcing the legend that Al Qaeda is respibnsible and will attack agains and that we have to be repared and if BNush has committed errors, what we need is another president who will reinforce the CIa abnd the fib to avert aqgainst terrorist attacks. All this reinforces the lie. In other words the process of revealing the lies pertaining to foreknowledge reinforces the big lie regsarding the US sponsorship of Al Qaeda.

OThe official narrative is in fact now changing into yes they lied they covered up the failures of the deicisoin making process, lives could have been saved if they acted otherswise,

revelaing the lies of senior Bush officials only sustainst the bigger lei. and therfore all efforts should be placed not on what c Rice said  but on on what she did not say,on the fact that the republicans accusede Clinton of working with Al Qaeda, that Richard Armitage and colin Powell are maongf ythe architects of al Qaeda, that al Qaeda was collabvorating with Us military and Nato in the Balkans,   and thsat all of this is so well documented. Yes they were lying of course they kbnow about Al Qaefda, they created al Qaeda, which is an intelligencew asswet, lets not b4e diverted into the ritual of saying they knew and failed t0o act. becsause this only suystains the big foreing policy lie, that Us adminstratrion s have been brehind islamic militant netwreork since 1979, when it was launched by the CIa up uuntil the present. That is the big lie which can undermine the legitmacy of the political and military acytors, like a deck of cards, rather than simply place blame on one or other member of a Reublican adminstration and then the Democrats comre in and its business as usual with support to the same terror network,

. and that if we had acted otherwise alll the intelligence failures could been avoided, which is sheer disinformation.

mislead public opinion on the nature of Al Qaeda  and its links to successive US administrations since the onslaught of the Soviet-Afghan war.


           The controversy relates to whether the August 6 briefing contained specific information on the attacks.  In unison, the 9/11 truth movement, the families of the victims are demanding answers.

The main concepts underlying the Naitonal Security doctrine and the administration's war on terrorism are not challenged. The factthat Al Qaeda, this illusive outside enemy is a creation of the Us intelligence apparatus is never mentioned, even by the critics. The .emerging consensus is that lapses and intelligence failures occurred. The President failed to respond adequately to the reports of an impending attack. It conveys the illusion that if they had gone after bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks could have been avoided and lives would have been saved. It c

The composition of the committee is not questioned the fact that it chaired by a business partner of the brother in law of enemy Number one. A cosy relationship The man who is asking the questions should be in the witness stand, wghat does ghe know about the brother in law of Osama, the other two investigators Porter goss sand Bob Gramham have a close relaitronsip with the alleged money man, former head of the ISI, whoich supports bin Laden , in fact most several of the top officials in the witness box have links to Al QQaeda, they are not being interrogated concerning these dubious links because the people conducting the interrogation  als havew dubiious links, they know about these dubious links, their job is to diveret attention from the fact that the withnesses probviding testimony aztre theselves imoplicated in the consitpacy as are those asking the questions.

So let us not be caught up in the ritual of saying they are lying, whats new, they are lying in such an obvious way to make peopel beleive that they are lying, but the questions they are lying to, do not address the key issue, Al Qaeda is a creaiton of the US intelligence, of course they knew all a long,


Mr Bush yesterday claimed his presidential daily briefing (PDB) of 6 August did not contain specific information about an attack on the US. "I cannot say this more plainly. If we knew, we would have acted. Any administration would have acted. The previous administration would have acted. I am saying that I never saw any intelligence that said there was going to be an attack on America ... that said the time and the place."

He added: "Had I known there was going to be an attack on America I would have moved mountains to prevent it."

Mr Bush's comments may have been technically correct in that the PDB prepared by the CIA did not provide specific details of al-Qa'ida's plans. But the document does contain previously unpublished warnings about the terror network's preparations for action.

It says: "Al-Qa'ida members - including some who are US citizens - have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks."

Elsewhere it says: "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [foreign intelligence] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of 'Blind Sheikh' Umar Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

These details would appear to directly contradict previous statements by Ms Rice, made before the release of the document, that its contents were "largely historical". When she gave testimony last Thursday before the independent commission investigating the September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, she also said that the warning about sleeper cells was not something they were warned they "needed to do something about".

In exchanges with commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, Ms Rice said the memo was "not a warning. This was a historic memo - historical memo prepared by the [CIA] because the President was asking questions.... I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington DC. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where."

With its eye to November's presidential election, the administration is desperately trying to counter a public perception that it did not appreciate the threat. A poll published yesterday by Newsweek suggests 60 per cent of Americans believe the administration focused too much on other security issues. James Carville, a veteran Democratic strategist, told the Los Angeles Times: "Maybe I'm lost in a fog, but how much more information could you get? Of course [the PDB] was a warning."

Meanwhile, it was reported yesterday that officials investigating the 2000 al-Qa'ida attack on the USS Cole came very close to detecting the 11 September plot but missed the significance of a series of clues.

The declassified document

Bin Laden determined to strike in US

"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Centre bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America".

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington ...

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative [said] at the same time that Bin Laden [planned] to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qa'ida members ... have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the 1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as [one] in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of 'Blind Sheikh' Umar Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."


 Lawyers Try to Gag FBI Worker over 9/11
    By Andrew Buncombe
    Independent UK

    Monday 26 April 2004

    The Bush administration will today seek to prevent a former FBI translator from providing evidence about 11 September intelligence failures to a group of relatives and survivors who have accused international banks and officials of aiding al-Qa'ida.

    Sibel Edmonds was subpoenaed by a law firm representing more than 500 family members and survivors of the attacks to testify that she had seen information proving there was considerable evidence before September 2001 that al-Qa'ida was planning to strike the US with aircraft. The lawyers made their demand after reading comments Mrs Edmonds had made to The Independent.

    But the US Justice Department is seeking to stop her from testifying, citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege". Today in a federal court in Washington, senior government lawyers will try to gag Mrs Edmonds, claiming that disclosure of her evidence "would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States".

    Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who had top secret security clearance, claimed this month that while working in the FBI's Washington headquarters, she saw information proving senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes. She has provided sworn testimony to the independent panel appointed by President George Bush to investigate the circumstances surrounding 11 September.

    Mrs Edmonds was subpoenaed by the law firm Motley-Rice, which represents hundreds of families who are taking civil action against a number of banks and two members of the Saudi royal family for allegedly aiding al-Qa'ida.

    Her lawyer, Mark Zaid, said last night: "The FBI wants to shut her up completely." He said it was ridiculous to claim that everything Mrs Edmonds knew had national security implications. Rather, he said, the FBI wanted to silence his client to save its embarrassment.

    The Bush administration has been put on the back foot by allegations that senior officials - perhaps even Mr Bush himself - were provided with considerable information warning of an imminent attack by al-Qa'ida and that they failed to act. Mrs Edmonds said yesterday: "What are they are afraid of? If I am not allowed to give evidence, the families will not get the information I have; that will be that."

    She said it was wrong for the Bush administration to claim it wanted a full investigation. "If there is transparency, there is going to be accountability and that is what they don't want."



The Wrong Debate on Terrorism
    By Richard A. Clarke
    New York Times

    Sunday 25 April 2004

    The last month has seen a remarkable series of events that focused the public and news media on America's shortcomings in dealing with terrorism from radical Islamists. This catharsis, which is not yet over, is necessary for our national psyche. If we learn the right lessons, it may also prove to be an essential part of our future victory over those who now threaten us.

    But how do we select the right lessons to learn? I tried to suggest some in my recent book, and many have attempted to do so in the 9/11 hearings, but such efforts have been largely eclipsed by partisan reaction.

    One lesson is that even though we are the world's only remaining superpower - as we were before Sept. 11, 2001 - we are seriously threatened by an ideological war within Islam. It is a civil war in which a radical Islamist faction is striking out at the West and at moderate Muslims. Once we recognize that the struggle within Islam - not a "clash of civilizations" between East and West - is the phenomenon with which we must grapple, we can begin to develop a strategy and tactics for doing so. It is a battle not only of bombs and bullets, but chiefly of ideas. It is a war that we are losing, as more and more of the Islamic world develops antipathy toward the United States and some even develop a respect for the jihadist movement.

    I do not pretend to know the formula for winning that ideological war. But I do know that we cannot win it without significant help from our Muslim friends, and that many of our recent actions (chiefly the invasion of Iraq) have made it far more difficult to obtain that cooperation and to achieve credibility.

    What we have tried in the war of ideas has also fallen short. It is clear that United States government versions of MTV or CNN in Arabic will not put a dent in the popularity of the anti-American jihad. Nor will calls from Washington for democratization in the Arab world help if such calls originate from a leader who is trying to impose democracy on an Arab country at the point of an American bayonet. The Bush administration's much-vaunted Middle East democracy initiative, therefore, was dead on arrival.

    We must also be careful, while advocating democracy in the region, that we do not undermine the existing regimes without having a game plan for what should follow them and how to get there. The lesson of President Jimmy Carter's abandonment of the shah of Iran in 1979 should be a warning. So, too, should we be chastened by the costs of eliminating the regime of Saddam Hussein, almost 25 years after the shah, also without a detailed plan for what would follow.

    Other parts of the war of ideas include making real progress on the Israel-Palestinian issue, while safe-guarding Israeli security, and finding ideological and religious counter-weights to Osama bin Laden and the radical imams. Fashioning a comprehensive strategy to win the battle of ideas should be given as much attention as any other aspect of the war on terrorists, or else we will fight this war for the foreseeable future. For even when Osama bin Laden is dead, his ideas will carry on. Even as Al Qaeda has had its leadership attacked, it has morphed into a hydra, carrying out more major attacks in the 30 months since 9/11 than it did in the three years before.

    The second major lesson of the last month of controversy is that the organizations entrusted with law enforcement and intelligence in the United States had not fully accepted the gravity of the threat prior to 9/11. Because this is now so clear, there will be a tendency to overemphasize organizational fixes. The 9/11 commission and President Bush seem to be in a race to propose creating a "director of national intelligence," who would be given control over all American intelligence agencies. The commission may also recommend a domestic security intelligence service, probably modeled on Britain's MI-5.

    While some structural changes are necessary, they are a small part of the solution. And there is a risk that concentrating on chain-of-authority diagrams of federal agencies will further divert our attention from more important parts of the agenda. This new director of national intelligence would be able to make only marginal changes to agency budgets and interactions. The more important task is improving the quality of the analysts, agents and managers at the lead foreign intelligence agency, the Central Intelligence Agency.

    In addition, no new domestic security intelligence service could leap full grown from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security. Indeed, creating another new organization while we are in a key phase in the war on terrorism would ignore the lesson that we should have learned from the creation of Homeland Security. Many observers, including some in the new department, now agree that the forced integration and reorganization of 22 agencies diverted attention from the missions of several agencies that were needed to go after the terrorists and to reduce our vulnerabilities at home.

    We do not need another new agency right now. We do, however, need to create within the F.B.I. a strong organization that is vastly different from the federal police agency that was unable to notice the Al Qaeda presence in America before 9/11. For now, any American version of MI-5 must be a branch within the F.B.I. - one with a higher quality of analysts, agents and managers.

    Rather than creating new organizations, we need to give the C.I.A. and F.B.I. makeovers. They cannot continue to be dominated by careerists who have carefully managed their promotions and ensured their retirement benefits by avoiding risk and innovation for decades. The agencies need regular infusions throughout their supervisory ranks of managers and thinkers from other, more creative organizational cultures.

    In the new F.B.I., marksmanship, arrests and skill on the physical training obstacle course should no longer be prerequisites for recruitment and retention. Similarly, within the C.I.A. we should quash the belief that - as George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, told the 9/11 commission - those who have never worked in the directorate of operations cannot understand it and are unqualified to criticize it.

    Finally, we must try to achieve a level of public discourse on these issues that is simultaneously energetic and mutually respectful. I hoped, through my book and testimony, to make criticism of the conduct of the war on terrorism and the separate war in Iraq more active and legitimate. We need public debate if we are to succeed. We should not dismiss critics through character assassination, nor should we besmirch advocates of the Patriot Act as fascists.

    We all want to defeat the jihadists. To do that, we need to encourage an active, critical and analytical debate in America about how that will best be done. And if there is another major terrorist attack in this country, we must not panic or stifle debate as we did for too long after 9/11.


    Richard A. Clarke, former head of counterterrorism at the National Security Council, is the author of "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror "  

  Lawyers Try to Gag FBI Worker over 9/11
    By Andrew Buncombe
    Independent UK

    Monday 26 April 2004

    The Bush administration will today seek to prevent a former FBI translator from providing evidence about 11 September intelligence failures to a group of relatives and survivors who have accused international banks and officials of aiding al-Qa'ida.

    Sibel Edmonds was subpoenaed by a law firm representing more than 500 family members and survivors of the attacks to testify that she had seen information proving there was considerable evidence before September 2001 that al-Qa'ida was planning to strike the US with aircraft. The lawyers made their demand after reading comments Mrs Edmonds had made to The Independent.

    But the US Justice Department is seeking to stop her from testifying, citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege". Today in a federal court in Washington, senior government lawyers will try to gag Mrs Edmonds, claiming that disclosure of her evidence "would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States".

    Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who had top secret security clearance, claimed this month that while working in the FBI's Washington headquarters, she saw information proving senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes. She has provided sworn testimony to the independent panel appointed by President George Bush to investigate the circumstances surrounding 11 September.

    Mrs Edmonds was subpoenaed by the law firm Motley-Rice, which represents hundreds of families who are taking civil action against a number of banks and two members of the Saudi royal family for allegedly aiding al-Qa'ida.

    Her lawyer, Mark Zaid, said last night: "The FBI wants to shut her up completely." He said it was ridiculous to claim that everything Mrs Edmonds knew had national security implications. Rather, he said, the FBI wanted to silence his client to save its embarrassment.

    The Bush administration has been put on the back foot by allegations that senior officials - perhaps even Mr Bush himself - were provided with considerable information warning of an imminent attack by al-Qa'ida and that they failed to act. Mrs Edmonds said yesterday: "What are they are afraid of? If I am not allowed to give evidence, the families will not get the information I have; that will be that."

    She said it was wrong for the Bush administration to claim it wanted a full investigation. "If there is transparency, there is going to be accountability and that is what they don't want."

This is a red herring, because it actually shifts the focus on the Saudis which has been the official narrative for some time away from the Bush admin,
who are accused of negligence and incompetence and perjury.

the Saudis are proxies and all this serves to perpetuate the Al Qaeda legend, that the terrorists are supported out of Saudi Arabia;

quite frankly we are dealing with a process of disinformation where the perjury by senior Bush officials regarding foreknowledge and PDBs is being used to uphold the fact that the terrorists are the outside enemy when in fact they are creatures of the Us intelligence apparatus, so all this is really undermining a critical understanding of who is behind 9/11

the coverup of what actually happened now consists in saying they knew and failed to act, there was criminal negligence, they let it happen, the CIA warned the president,

but did it every occur to the critics that the forewarnings and CIA presidential briefings are themselves part of the disinformation process, which are fed into the State information system, picked up by whistleblowers

since when does George Tenet constitute a reliable source of info,

At 04:16 PM 28/04/2004, you wrote:

April 28, 2004


April 27, 2004 - FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has spoken to the press (including Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!) on several occasions, artfully navigating around a topic-specific gag order from the Justice Department.  But now her free speech has become critical to one of the major 9/11 lawsuits currently underway.  That case pits a group of 9/11 families against the Saudi overnment, and represents a major avenue of potential discovery. Subpoenaed by the plaintiffs, Edmonds had been scheduled to testify under oath today (04-27-04).  Earlier this month, the Justice Department took the unusual step of invoking the State Secrets Act, sealing Edmonds' eventual deposition behind the doors of this morning's closed hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington DC.

But before that hearing began, Bush-appointed Judge Reggie Walton yielded to public pressure when journalists and activists appeared at the court and confronted US Marshalls with their objection to the closed hearing. That's the good news: the hearing was opened to public and press scrutiny.  The bad news is that Edmonds' testimony was postponed to June 14th, and the question of whether Edmond's deposition will be allowed remains unresolved until further review.  This opens a significant opportunity for renewed public pressure, demanding that the Court grant a full and open deposition from a woman whose first-hand information could prove decisive.


Los Angeles Times, April 4, 2004, Section M

COUNTERTERRORISM The U.S. Department of Fear Bush's foreign policy is a direct outgrowth of Richard Clarke's Chicken Little mind-set. By William M. Arkin

SOUTH POMFRET, Vt. - For all the sustained attention paid to whistle-blower Richard Clarke, and for all the fireworks surrounding the investigations of the 9/11 commission, we still don't have an answer to the most important question: Could the events of Sept. 11 have been prevented by the Bush and Clinton administrations?

I think the answer is yes. But not by killing Osama bin Laden prior to the attacks or by following the advice of Richard Clarke.

In his book and recent testimony, former terrorism czar Clarke suggests that, because of a myopic focus on war with Iraq, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice and various Cabinet secretaries and Bush political appointees all ignored his warnings that Al Qaeda was the real threat to the United States.

It is true that the new administration believed that a final showdown with Saddam Hussein would take place on its watch. The Bush gang assumed that either sanctions would crumble or the cat-and-mouse game of enforcing the no-fly zones would escalate into a full-fledged war.

The new administration also came to office firmly committed to an "ABC" foreign policy - Anything But Clinton. Central to this philosophy was rejection of the previous administration's tendency to "swat at flies," which is how the Bush crowd saw Clinton's Kosovo air war and his retaliation for earlier Al Qaeda attacks.

So when Clarke, who had also served in the Clinton White House, sent an "urgent" memo to Rice and others on Jan. 24, 2001, warning of an impending Al Qaeda attack, it is no wonder the new administration wasn't seized with any urgency.

Another factor was Clarke himself. Not only was he seen by some as major-domo of a feckless strategy, the overheated Clarke in the past had cried wolf, trumpeting exaggerated warnings of impending doom.

"If an attack comes today with information warfare," Clarke publicly warned on Dec. 7, 1998, it would be "much, much worse than Pearl Harbor." A computer information attack would present the U.S. with "a nationwide catastrophe . [and] severely test our reconstitution capability," he said.

A year later, Clarke warned of another looming nationwide catastrophe: the Y2K computer problem. And after the 2000 election, he called on the next president to boost computer security to prevent a "digital Pearl Harbor."

Clarke often joined Clinton Defense Secretary William S. Cohen in warning of the perils of a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction, cautioning that a tiny number of biological weapons could kill millions of Americans.

All through this period, Clarke was also a master at the Washington game of "I've got a secret." Former colleagues say Clarke frequently bragged of knowing things he couldn't talk about. When military actions were launched, as in the bombing of the aspirin plant in Sudan that the Clinton team claimed was connected to Iraq, Bin Laden and chemical weapons, Clarke hinted at having the tippy-top secrets that justified action.

Cyber warfare, Y2K, Al Qaeda, anthrax. In Clarke's shadowy world, the dots were all connected.

After Sept. 11, the Bush administration in its shock and grief, came around to the Clarke view that the only thing that would have been more awful for the United States was a terrorist attack with biological, chemical or radiological weapons. And so they focused their attentions in that direction.

The Bush administration accepted the Clarke-Cohen conviction that terrorists were eventually going to obtain weapons of mass destruction, and like the previous administration, they began to see signs of impending doom everywhere they turned. Sure, it is the case that Iraq was already on the agenda of administration heavyweights. But as they began contemplating the potential of Hussein handing over weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group, national security professionals from both parties agreed that something needed to be done.

Now Clarke is again unhappy about the way the Bush administration is fighting the war on terror. He says going to war against Iraq was a mistake and a diversion. Yet he fails to see that the White House's grasping at straws of weak intelligence, its unwillingness to take chances with the weapons of mass destruction that they believed Hussein had, and its defiance of many in the international community are a direct outgrowth of the Clarke mind-set.

One can only wonder what Clarke would be saying today had the Bush administration not gone to war with Iraq: What would he be warning us about Saddam Hussein and the threat he poses? No doubt he would have something to complain about, some new apocalypse to warn America about.

And he does. "The No. 1 nation that threatens us today is Iran and has been Iran for a very long time," Clarke said last May. Iran, he warned, uses terrorism to attack the U.S. Iran is about to acquire nuclear weapons.

The bigger problem in all of this, though, is not what Clarke said or didn't say; nor is it whether the Bush administration's Iraq policy is wise. The problem is that we're running American foreign policy on fear. The national security professionals provide raw - and often unreliable - intelligence, which creates a sense of panic, and the imagined consequences of inaction spark covert wars and secret deals that are both seductive and much easier to carry out than openly debated and declared wars.

You want to better understand what happened in the first nine months of the Bush administration? It was in many ways a continuation of the very Clinton approach the new Bush team supposedly hated.

U.S. counterterrorism strategy before Sept. 11 was dominated by largely ineffective covert action. A few officials in soundproofed rooms directed top secret activities based on the highest-level intelligence. Such secret operations had two flaws. They focused on things like killing Bin Laden and picking off terrorists one at a time - an approach subsequently abandoned - and the secretive operations excluded the broader institutions of government and society, even the military, that must be mobilized in any effective strategy for dealing with terrorism.

As a consequence, the State Department and Immigration and Naturalization Service failed to screen Arab visitors and verify passports and visas. The CIA and intelligence community heard the chatter but didn't have a clue. The Justice Department made drugs and crime a higher priority than terrorism. The FBI and local law enforcement agencies couldn't see what was right in front of their eyes. The Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration didn't move to improve airline security.

Ultimately, the federal government failed to fulfill its covenant to protect American lives and liberties because it failed to explain to the public and even to its own institutions the threat that we all faced. Instead of focusing on improving government operations across the board in ways that could have prevented terrorism, both the Clinton and Bush administrations got caught up in the derring-do of assassinations and covert actions. And that meant that plots went undetected, suspects unchecked and box cutters were taken easily onto airliners.



Email this article to a friend

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum , at http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.caFor cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.). For publication of Global Research (Canada) articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] .

© Copyright  2004. For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.