Political deception: the missing link behind 9-11
26/06/2002
- Opinión
Was it an intelligence failure? to give red carpet treatment to the ?money man?
behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply ?routine??
The foreknowledge issue is a Red Herring: "A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an
irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original
issue."
ON May 16th The New York Post dropped what appeared to be a bombshell: "Bush
Knew..." Hoping to score politically, the Democrats jumped on the bandwagon,
pressuring the White House to come clean on two "top-secret documents" made
available to President Bush prior to September 11, concerning "advance knowledge"
of Al Qaeda attacks. Meanwhile, the U.S. media had already coined a new set of
buzzwords: "Yes, there were warnings" and "clues" of possible terrorist attacks,
but "there was no way President Bush could have known" what was going to happen.
The Democrats agreed to "keep the cat inside the bag" by saying: "Osama is at war
with the U.S." and the FBI and the CIA knew something was cooking but "failed to
connect the dots." In the words of House Minority Leader, Richard Gephardt:
"This is not blame-placing... We support the President on the war against terrorism
have and will. But we've got to do better in preventing terrorist attacks."
(1)
The media's spotlight on ?foreknowledge' and so-called "FBI lapses" served to
distract public attention from the broader issue of political deception. Not a word
was mentioned concerning the role of the CIA, which throughout the entire post-Cold
War era, has aided and abetted Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, as part of its covert
operations.
Of course they knew! The foreknowledge issue is a red herring. The "Islamic
Brigades" are a creation of the CIA. In standard CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is
categorized as an "intelligence asset". Support to terrorist organizations is an
integral part of U.S. foreign policy. Al Qaeda continues to this date (2002) to
participate in CIA covert operations in different parts of the World(2).
These "CIA-Osama links" do not belong to a bygone era, as suggested by the
mainstream media.
The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al Qaeda to agencies of
the U.S. government during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in
Kosovo(3). More recently in Macedonia, barely a few months before
September 11, U.S. military advisers were mingling with Mujahideen mercenaries
financed by Al Qaeda. Both groups were fighting under the auspices of the Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA), within the same terrorist paramilitary formation(4).
The CIA keeps track of its "intelligence assets". Amply documented, Osama bin
Laden's whereabouts were always known(5). Al Qaeda is infiltrated by the
CIA(6). In other words, there were no "intelligence failures"! In the
nature of a well-led intelligence operation, the "intelligence asset" operates
(wittingly or unwittingly) with some degree of autonomy, in relation to its U.S.
government sponsors, but ultimately it acts consistently, in the interests of Uncle
Sam.
While individual FBI agents are often unaware of the CIA's role, the relationship
between the CIA and Al Qaeda is known at the top levels of the FBI. Members of the
Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress are fully cognizant of these links.
The foreknowledge issue focussing on "FBI lapses" is an obvious smokescreen. While
the whistleblowers serve to underscore the weaknesses of the FBI, the role of
successive U.S. administrations (since the presidency of Jimmy Carter) in support
of the "Islamic Militant Base", is simply not mentioned.
Fear and disinformation campaign
The Bush Administration through the personal initiative of Vice President Dick
Cheney chose not only to foreclose the possibility of a public inquiry, but also to
trigger a fear and disinformation campaign:
"I think that the prospects of a future attack on the U.S. are almost a
certainty... It could happen tomorrow, it could happen next week, it could happen
next year, but they will keep trying. And we have to be prepared" (7).
What Cheney is really telling us is that our "intelligence asset", which we
created, is going to strike again. Now, if this "CIA creature" was planning new
terrorist attacks, you would expect that the CIA would be first to know about it.
In all likelihood, the CIA also controls the so-called ?warnings' emanating from
CIA sources on "future terrorist attacks" on American soil.
Carefully planned intelligence operation
The 9-11 terrorists did not act on their own volition. The suicide hijackers were
instruments in a carefully planned intelligence operation. The evidence confirms
that Al Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's military intelligence, the Inter-services
Intelligence (ISI). Amply documented, the ISI owes its existence to the CIA:
"With CIA backing and the funnelling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the
ISI developed [since the early 1980s] into a parallel structure wielding enormous
power over all aspects of government... The ISI had a staff composed of military
and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers estimated
at 150,000"(8).
The ISI actively collaborates with the CIA. It continues to perform the role of a
?go-between' in numerous intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA. The ISI
directly supports and finances a number of terrorist organizations, including Al
Qaeda.
The missing link
The FBI confirmed in late September, in an interview with ABC News (which went
virtually unnoticed) that the 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed
from unnamed sources in Pakistan:
"As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now tracked
more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts
held by suspected hijack ring leader, Mohammed Atta. As well... "Time Magazine" is
reporting that some of that money came in the days just before the attack and can
be traced directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden. It's all part of what
has been a successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijacker's high
commander, the money men, the planners and the mastermind"(9).
The FBI had information on the money trail. They knew exactly who was financing the
terrorists. Less than two weeks later, the findings of the FBI were confirmed by
Agence France Presse (AFP) and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian
intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). According to these
two reports, the money used to finance the 9-11 attacks had allegedly been "wired
to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance
of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad]"(10). According to the AFP (quoting
the intelligence source):
"The evidence we have supplied to the U.S. is of a much wider range and depth than
just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of
terrorism"(11).
Pakistan's chief spy visits washington
Now, it just so happens that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money man" behind
9-11, was in the U.S. when the attacks occurred. He arrived on the 4th of
September, one week before 9-11, on what was described as a routine visit of
consultations with his U.S. counterparts. According to Pakistani journalist, Amir
Mateen (in a prophetic article published on the September 10):
"ISI Chief Lt-Gen. Mahmoud's week-long presence in Washington has triggered
speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and
National Security Council. Officially, he is on a routine visit in return to CIA
Director George Tenet's earlier visit to Islamabad. Official sources confirm that
he met Tenet this week. He also held long parleys with unspecified officials at the
White House and the Pentagon. But the most important meeting was with Marc
Grossman, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. One can safely guess
that the discussions must have centred around Afghanistan... and Osama bin Laden.
What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin
Butt, Mahmoud's predecessor, was here, during Nawaz Sharif's government, the
domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days"(12)
Nawaz Sharif was overthrown by General Pervez Musharaf. General Mahmoud Ahmad, who
became the head of the ISI, played a key role in the military coup.
Condoleezza rice's press conference
In the course of Condoleezza Rice's May 16 press conference (which took place
barely a few hours after the publication of the "Bush Knew" headlines in The New
York Post), an accredited Indian journalist asked a question on the role of General
Mahmoud Ahmad:
Q: Dr. Rice?
Ms RICE: Yes?
Q: Are you aware of the reports at the time that the ISI chief was in Washington on
September 11th, and on September 10th $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these
groups here in this area? And why was he here? Was he meeting with you or anybody
in the Administration?
Ms RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with
me(13)
Although there is no official confirmation that General Mahmoud Ahmad met Dr. Rice,
she must have been fully aware of the $100,000 transfer to Mohammed Atta, which had
been confirmed by the FBI. Lost in the barrage of media reports on ?foreknowledge',
this crucial piece of information, on the ISI's role in 9-11, implicates key
members of the Bush Administration including: CIA Director George Tenet, Deputy
Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, Under-Secretary, Marc Grossman, as well as
Senator Sam Biden, Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee (who
met General Ahmad on the 13th of September)(14).
The Bush Administration had not only provided red carpet treatment to the alleged
"money man" behind the 9-11 attacks, it also had sought his ?cooperation' in the
"war on terrorism". The precise terms of this ?cooperation' were agreed upon
between General Mahmoud Ahmad, representing the Pakistani government and Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage, in meetings at the State Department on
September 12 and 13. In other words, the Administration decided in the immediate
wake of 9-11, to seek the ?cooperation' of Pakistan's ISI in "going after Osama",
despite the fact (documented by the FBI) that the ISI was financing and abetting
the 9-11 terrorists. Contradictory? One might say that it's like "asking the Devil
to go after Dracula".
Cia overshadows the presidency
Dr. Rice's statement regarding the ISI chief at her May 16 press conference, is an
obvious cover-up. While General Ahmad was talking to U.S. officials at the CIA and
the Pentagon, he had allegedly also been in contact (through a third party) with
the September 11 terrorists. What this suggests is that key individuals within the
U.S. military-intelligence establishment knew about these ISI contacts with the
September 11 terrorist ?ring leader', Mohammed Atta, and failed to act. But this
conclusion is, in fact, an understatement. Everything indicates that CIA Director
George Tenet and ISI Chief General Mahmoud Ahmad, had established a close working
relationship. General Mahmoud had arrived a week prior to September 11 for
consultations with George Tenet. Bear in mind that the CIA's George Tenet, also has
a close personal relationship with President Bush. Prior to September 11, Tenet
would meet the President nearly every morning at 8:00 a.m. sharp, for about half an
hour(15). A document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, or PDB, "is
prepared at Langley by the CIA's analytical directorate, and a draft goes home with
Tenet each night. Tenet edits it personally and delivers it orally during his early
morning meeting with Bush"(16). This practice of "oral intelligence
briefings" is unprecedented. Bush's predecessors at the White House, received a
written briefing:
"With Bush, who liked oral briefings and the CIA director in attendance, a strong
relationship had developed. Tenet could be direct, even irreverent and
earthy"(17).
The decision to go to war
Was it an ?intelligence failure' to give red carpet treatment to the ?money man'
behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply ?routine'? At meetings of the National
Security Council and in the so-called "War Cabinet", on September 11, 12 and 13,
CIA Director George Tenet played a central role in gaining the Commander-in-Chief's
approval to the launching of the "war on terrorism."
George W. Bush's Timeline September 11 (from 9.45am in the wake of the WTC-Pentagon
Attacks to midnight) Circa 9:45 a.m.: Bush's motorcade leaves the Booker Elementary
School, Sarasota, Florida.
9:55 a.m: President Bush boards "Air Force One" bound for Washington(18).
Following what was as a "false report" that Air Force One would be attacked, Vice-
President Dick Cheney had urged Bush (10:32 a.m.) by telephone not to land in
Washington. Following this conversation, the plane was diverted (10:41 a.m.) (on
orders emanating from Washington) to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. A
couple of hours later (1:30 p.m.), after a brief TV appearance, the President was
transported to Offut Air Force base in Nebraska at U.S. Strategic Command
Headquarters.
3:30 p.m.: A key meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) was convened, with
members of the NSC communicating with the President from Washington by secure
video(19). In the course of this NSC video-conference, CIA Director George
Tenet fed unconfirmed information to the President. Tenet stated that "he was
virtually certain that bin Laden and his network were behind the attacks...
"(20).
The President responded to these statements, quite spontaneously, off the cuff,
with little or no discussion and with an apparent misunderstanding of their
implications. In the course of this video-conference (which lasted for less than an
hour), the NSC was given the mandate by the Commander-in-Chief to prepare for the
"war on terrorism". Very much on the spur of the moment, the "green light" was
given by video conference from Nebraska. In the words of President Bush: "We will
find these people. They will pay. And I don't want you to have any doubt about
it"(21).
4:36 p.m.: (One hour and six minutes later...) Air Force One departed for
Washington. Back in the White House, that same evening (9:00 p.m.) a second meeting
of the full NSC took place, together with Secretary of State Colin Powell who had
returned to Washington from Peru. The NSC meeting (which lasted for half an hour)
was followed by the first meeting of the so-called "war cabinet". The latter was
made up of a smaller group of top officials and key advisers.
9:30 p.m.: At the war cabinet: "Discussion turned around whether bin Laden's Al
Qaeda and the Taliban were one and the same thing. Tenet said they were"(22).
By the end of that historic meeting of the war cabinet (11:00 p.m.), the Bush
Administration had decided to embark upon a military adventure which now threatens
the collective future of humanity. our civilization.
Did Bush know?
Did Bush, with his minimal understanding of foreign policy issues, know all the
details regarding General Mahmoud and the "ISI connection"? Did Tenet and Cheney
distort the facts, so as to get the Commander-in-Chief's "thumbs up" for a military
operation which was already in the pipeline? In a bitter irony, a meeting between
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and General Mahmoud, the 9-11 "money
man", was scheduled at the State Department for the morning after September 11 to
discuss their strategy.
NOTES
(1). Quoted in AFP, 18 May 2002.
(2). There are numerous documents, which prove beyond doubt the links
between Al Qaeda and successive U.S. administrations. See Centre for Research on
Globalisation, Foreknowledge of 9-11: Compilation of key articles and documents,
(http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.html) May 2002, section 3.
(3). U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn
Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Republican Party Committee, Congressional Press
Release, Congress, 16 January 1997,
(http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html) See also Michel Chossudovsky,
?Osamagate', Centre for Research on Globalisation,
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html) , 9 October 2001.
(4). See Centre for Research on Globalisation, Foreknowledge of 9-11:
Compilation of key articles and documents, op. cit. section 3. See articles by
Isabel Vincent, George Szamuely, Scott Taylor, Marina Domazetovska, Michel
Chossudovsky, Umberto Pascali, Lara Marlowe and Macedonian dailies.
(5). See Bin Laden Whereabouts Before 9-11, CBS Evening News with Dan
Rather; CBS, 28 January 2002, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG)
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html) Alexandra Richard, The CIA met
bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai, Le
Figaro. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html)
(6). The Boston Globe, 5 June 2002.
(7). Fox News, 18 May 2002.
(8). Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs,
November-December 1999. See also Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden,
Global Outlook, No. 1, 2002.
(9). Statement of Brian Ross reporting on information conveyed to him by
the FBI, ABC News, This Week, September 30, 2001.
(10). The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001. 11. AFP, 10 October
2001.
(12). Amir Mateen, ISI Chief's Parleys continue in Washington, News
Pakistan, 10 September 2001.
(13). Federal News Service, 16 May 2002. Note that in the White House and CNN
transcripts of Dr. Rice's press conference, the words "ISI chief" were transcribed
respectively by a blank "--" and "(inaudible)" . Federal News Service Inc. which is
transcription Service of official documents provided a correct transcription, with
a minor error in punctua6tion, which we corrected. The White House transcript is
at: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html) All three
transcripts were verified by the author and are available on Nexus. Federal News
Service documents are also available for a fee at (http://www.fnsg.com/)
(14). New York Times, 14 September 2002,"According to Biden, [Ahmad]
pledged Pakistan's cooperation".
(15). The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, 17 May 2002.
(16). Washington Post, 17 May 2002.
(17). Washington Post 29 January 2002.
(18). Washington Post, 27 January 2002.
(19). Ibid.
(20). Ibid.
(21). Ibid.
(22). Ibid.
Copyright © Michel Chossudovsky and Global Outlook 2002. Permission is granted
to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the original
source and the URL are indicated, the essay remains intact and the copyright note
is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms, including
commercial internet sites and excerpts, contact Global Outlook , at
(editor@globalresearch.ca)
This article was published in Global Outlook , Issue No 2 9-11: Foreknowledge or
Deception? Stop the Nuclear Threat. Now available. Details at
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/orderformI2.html)
Order by phone from publisher. Call (toll free) 1-888-713-8500. Mail-or Fax-in
order form.
--------
Global Outlook, No. 2. Summer 2002 at (http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/orderformI2.html) Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), (http://www.globalresearch.ca), 20 June 2002 The URL of this article is (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html)
Global Outlook, No. 2. Summer 2002 at (http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/orderformI2.html) Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), (http://www.globalresearch.ca), 20 June 2002 The URL of this article is (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html)
https://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/106010?language=es
Del mismo autor
- El escándalo del estudio sobre hidroxicloroquina 15/06/2020
- Coronavirus, una “falsa alarma”: Campaña contra el racismo y el neoliberalismo 12/06/2020
- Capitalismo global, “Gobierno mundial” y la crisis del coronavirus 22/05/2020
- En 2009 la vacuna contra la gripe H1N1 provocó daño cerebral en niños 19/05/2020
- “The Terrorists R Us.” The Islamic State “Big Lie” 25/09/2014
- Reservas-ouro da Ucrânia são evacuadas secretamente e levadas para os Estados Unidos 19/03/2014
- Climate Change: The Philippines Haiyan Typhoon is not the Result of Global Warming 19/11/2013
- Dangerous Crossroads: The Threat of a Pre-emptive Nuclear War directed against Iran 27/03/2013
- Terrorismo com face humana: a história dos esquadrões da morte dos Estados Unidos 15/01/2013
- Towards a "Soft Invasion"? The Launching of a "Humanitarian War" against Syria 05/08/2012