Centre for Research on GlobalisationCentre de recherche sur la mondialisation www.globalresearch.ca
Barely a month after the mainstream media called for Cynthia McKinney's head, Richard Gephardt, the House Minority Leader, and the rest of the Democrats, joined her in demanding a full and ‘independent' investigation into what the President knew
ON May 16, 2002, "all hell broke loose" for the Bush Administration, when the New York Post hit the streets with: "BUSH KNEW" plastered across the front page, plus: "Prez Was Warned of Possible Hijacking Before Terror Attacks." What sparked the furor was the revelation that President Bush had received an FBI briefing, on August 6, five weeks before September 11, which warned him that Al Qaeda might attempt highjackings in the U.S., and yet, the President did nothing. Moreover, until the controversial report had been leaked to the press, the White House failed to inform the congressional intelligence committees about that important FBI briefing. According to the Toronto Star (05/18), the top secret report contained information that warned the Bush Administration that Osama bin Laden and his followers were planning to "bring the fight to America" in retaliation for the cruise missile strikes on Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan by President Clinton in 1998. In the New York Times (05/19), it was reported that, Bush had also been briefed prior to September 11 about "a 1999 report for the National Intelligence Council, which oversees government intelligence analysis. That report said: ‘Suicide bomber(s) belonging to Al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the [CIA] or the White House'."
Was Bush Lying?
After the controversial report was leaked, on May 15, by CBS, the President swore he had no idea that terrorists would crash jet-liners into buildings. The Globe and Mail (05/18), quotes George W. Bush as saying:
"Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people."
According to The Guardian (05/19), "The Democrat Party, which had hitherto taken the notion of a ‘loyal opposition' to the extremes of patriotic fidelity . . . broke ranks with a battered White House. The charge was led by none other than former First Lady, Hillary Clinton. ‘The President knew what?', she said in a speech on Thursday [05/16]. ‘My constituents would like to know the answer to that and many other questions'." Richard Gephardt, the House Minority Leader, said the American people now have a lot of unanswered questions. According to the Globe and Mail (05/18), he demanded, "We need to find out who knew what, and when they knew it. We need to know what the White House had. We need to know what went to the intelligence committees." So, just barely a month after the mainstream media were calling for Cynthia McKinney's head, and labeling her as ‘crazy', and ‘treacherous', she has been vindicated. Here, in part, is what Congresswoman McKinney, herself said, in her follow-up statement, dated May 16, entitled, Terrorist Warnings:
Several weeks ago, I called for a Congressional investigation into what warnings the Bush Administration received before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I was derided by the White House, right wing talk radio, and spokespersons for the military-industrial complex, as a conspiracy theorist. Even my patriotism was questioned because I dared to suggest that Congress should conduct a full and complete investigation into the most disastrous intelligence failure in American history. . . . Today's revelations that the Administration, and President Bush, were given months of notice that a terrorist attack was a distinct possibility, points out the critical need for a full and complete congressional investigation. It now becomes clear why the Bush Administration has been vigorously opposing congressional hearings. The Bush Administration has been engaged in a conspiracy of silence.
The intelligence committee investigation, which began June 4, into the so-called "intelligence failures" leading up to 9-11, will only result in minor changes to the workings of the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies. That's why an independent investigation is essential — one that will answer some of the thornier questions, which the joint committee will not be asking: 1. If President Bush would have done "everything in [his] power to protect the American people", then why did Bush, as U.S. ‘Commander-in-Chief', just sit there, doing absolutely nothing, for a full 25 minutes, in that Florida classroom, after being informed by Andrew Card that America was under attack? 2. Why didn't the President rush off to make sure the U.S. Air Force was scrambling all possible fighter jets to intercept the other two hijacked airliners? (Global Outlook No. 1 - page 26.) 3. Why have no heads ‘rolled' over any of the so-called "intelligence failures" leading up to 9-11? 4. Why did the U.S. not arrest Osama bin Laden, firstly, when one of their top CIA officials visited bin Laden in a Dubai hospital, just two months prior to 9-11, and, again, at a Pakistani military hospital, on September 10? (G.O. No. 1 - pages 7, 10.) 5. Why is Congress not investigating the links between the Bush family and the bin Laden family? 6. Why have the various money trails not been fully investigated, from the money men behind the hijackers, to those who made millions on insider trading deals, leading up to 9-11?
Ian Woods is publisher and editor of "Global Outlook". All rights reserved. Copyright © Ian Woods 2002. For fair use only
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/WOO207A.html