September 11

"Revealing the Lies" on 9/11 Perpetuates the "Big Lie"

by Michel Chossudovsky
 

Text of Michel Chossudovsky's keynote presentation at the opening
plenary session (27 May 2004) to The International Citizens Inquiry
Into 9/11, Toronto, 25-30 May 2004.  
www.globalresearch.ca 27 May 2004

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

The Bush administration  had numerous intelligence warnings. "Revealing
the lies"  of Bush officials regarding these "intelligence warnings"
has served to uphold 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.

America’s leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the
righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means
to "safeguarding democratic values".

9/11 is the justification.

According to Homeland Security "the near-term attacks will either rival
or exceed the 9/11 attacks".

An actual "terrorist attack" on American soil would lead to the
suspension of civilian government and the establishment of martial law.
In the words of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge: "If we go to Red
[code alert]... it basically shuts down the country,"

"You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that
unless it's a serious situation." (Donald Rumsfeld)

The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately
occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the
criminals", when in fact they are the criminals.

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of War and Globalization, The Truth
behind September 11 at
http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html

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

In fact the experience of the 9/11 Commission  which has a mandate to
investigate the September 11 attacks 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 John Ashcroft had apparently been warned in August
2001 by the FBI to avoid commercial airlines, but this information was
not made public. (See Eric Smith at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html )

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 carefully documented research that:

There were stand-down orders on 9/11. The US Air force did not
intervene. see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ELS305A.html ,
Szamuely at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SZA112A.html )

There was a cover-up of the WTC and Pentagon investigation. The WTC
rubble was confiscated. (See Bill Manning at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html

The plane debris at the Pentagon disappeared. (See Thierry Meyssan,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MEY204C.html )

Massive financial gains were made as a result of 9/11, from insider
trading leading up to 9/11 (See Michael Ruppert,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html .)

There is an ongoing financial scam underlying the 7.1 billion dollar
insurance claim by the WTC leaseholder, following the collapse of the
twin towers (See Michel Chossudovsky,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO403B.html

Mystery surrounds WTC building 7, which collapsed (or was "pulled" down
in the afternoon of 9/11 mysteriously (For details see  WTC-7: (Scott
Loughrey at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html ).

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 war on terrorism

No rogue States which sponsor Al Qaeda

No pretext for waging war.

No justification for invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq

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 Administration'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)

Central Role of al Qaeda in US Military Doctrine

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, including the use of nuclear
weapons in conventional war theaters (approved by the Senate in late
2003),  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
propaganda ploy which consists in upholding the Legend of an outside
enemy.

9/11 and 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 Project for a New American Century (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 declared objective is "Defend the Homeland'' and  "Fight and
decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars" , perform global
constabulary funcitons including punitive military actions around the
World, and the so-called "revolution in military affairs", essentially
meaning the development of a new range of sophisticated weaponry
including the militarisation of outer space,the development of a new
generation of nuclear weapons, etc. (on nuclear weapons see  
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html ,, on the PNAC, 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )

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). (See Brzezinski at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.print.html )

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.

Actual Terrorist Attacks

To be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely
rely on unsubstantiated "warnings" of future attacks, it also requires
"real" terrorist occurrences or "incidents", which provide credibility
to the Washington's war plans. These terrorist events are used to
justify the implementation of "emergency measures" as well as
"retaliatory military actions". They are required, in the present
context, to create the illusion of "an outside enemy" that is
threatening the American Homeland.

The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's
assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US military history.(See
Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a War, Global
Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled
"Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to
justify the invasion of Cuba:

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We
could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in
other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S.
newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See
the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for
U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"16 (See Operation Northwoods at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).

There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role
in recent terrorist attacks, including those in Indonesia (2002), India
(2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).

According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations
(or cells of these organizations), which operate quite independently,
with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the very
nature of a covert intelligence operation. The «intelligence asset» is
not in direct contact with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily
cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence sponsors.

The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources
are they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties?

For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged
terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia's
military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA and
Australian intelligence.

The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which
contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were
allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba
("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of Mohammed"), both of
which according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported
by Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations at
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html , Washington 2002).

What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between
the ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support
Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen
(JKHM), while also collaborating with the CIA. (For further details see
Michel Chossudovsky, Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html )

A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for the
creation of a so-called 'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group' 
(P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions"
among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction --
that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and
exposing themselves to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S. forces."
(William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)

The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing
apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA has supported
terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This  "prodding of terrorist
cells" under covert intelligence operations often requires the
infiltration and training of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.

In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence
apparatus has been channeled to various Islamic terrorist organizations
through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence proxies.
(See below in relation to the Balkans)

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.

Media Reports on Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)

It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist
occurrences, the terrorist organization is reported (by the media and
in official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda".
This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact
that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA is neither mentioned in the
press reports nor is it considered relevant to an understanding of
these terrorist occurrences.

The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia)
to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few
cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to
have links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these
links. Needless to say, this information is crucial in identifying the
sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to
support these terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining
close ties to the CIA.

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 issue 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. 

In the words of Richard Clarke:

"we must try to achieve a level of public discourse on these issues
that is simultaneously energetic and mutually respectful... We all want
to defeat the jihadists. [this is the consensus] 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." (New York Times, 25 April 2004)

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.

Source of Terrorist Warnings

Beneath the rhetoric, 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, t he 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

"The Saudis Did It"

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 characterizes 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 involved in the
laundering of drug money working closely with the CIA. Thew Wahabbi
sects from Saudi Arabia were sent to Afghanistan to set up the
madrassas. The Saudis channeled covert financing to the various Islamic
insurgencies on behalf of the CIA. 

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", intelligence failures,
criminal negligence, "the Saudis did it", etc.) which is making its way
into American history books, is  "they knew, but failed to act". 

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. It is worth noting that at the outset of the war on
Afghanistan, a number of prominent Western intellectuals, trade union
and civil society leaders supported the "Just War" concept. 

While the Bush administration takes the blame, the "war on terrorism" 
and its humanitarian mandate remain functionally intact.

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.  

POST COLD WAR ERA:  Time Line of Al Qaeda- US Collaboration

1993-1994 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.

From the Horse's Mouth

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 : A Clinton-Osama-Abdel Rahman Triangle. 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." 

1995-1999. NATO AND THE US MILITARY COLLABORATED WITH AL QAEDA IN
KOSOVO (1995-1999)

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"  
Frank Ciluffo of the Globalized Organized Crime Program in a testimony
presented to the House of Representatives Judicial Committee:

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)
Ralf Mutschke of Interpol's Criminal Intelligence division, also in a
testimony to the House Judicial Committee:

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)
Rep. John Kasich of the House Armed Services Committee:

 "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) 
In 1999, Senator Jo Lieberman stated authoritatively that

"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.

2000-2001: 8/01 :  THE ISLAMIC MILITANT NETWORK, NATO AND THE US
MILITARY JOIN HANDS IN MACEDONIA

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 C entral 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. In other words, the so-called "intelligence assets" were
still serving the interests of their U.S. sponsors.  

8/06 THE AUGUST 6, 2001 THE PRESIDENTIAL INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING (PDB)

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

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

The presumption in media reports is that this August 6 PDB is based on
an actual terror threat. In fact, what the PTB does is to fabricate a
terror threat. 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 is 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.

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.

[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 and that the American hospital has
close links to the US embassy (See the report published in Le Figaro,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html )]

8/27-8/30 2001   AUGUST 27-30: MISSION TO ISLAMABAD AND RAWALPINDI FOR
INTELLIGENCE CONSULTATIONS

From the 27th to the 30th of August 2001, barely a couple of weeks
before 9/11, the chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence
committees, respectively  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.
(see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html

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.)

The September FBI Report

An FBI report released to ABC news in late September 2001, which was
subsequently confirmed by a Times of India report, suggests that
Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI), 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. (See Michel Chossudovsky,
War and Globalization, The Truth behind 9/11,
http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html )

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, this morning, 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.21

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 9/11. 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.

9/ 4- 9/13: HEAD OF PAKISTAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE (ISI) ARRIVES IN
WASHINGTON ON  SEPTEMBER 4, DEPARTS ON SEPTEMBER 13

General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in Washington on an official visit of
consultations barely a few days later (September 4th). During his visit
to Washington he 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),
Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss. Graham and Goss, the
men who hosted the general will alter be called upon to set up the
Joint Senate-House Inquiry on 9/11.

9/9: THE ASSASSINATION OF THE LEADER OF THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE AHMAD
SHAH MASSOOD

The leader of the Northern Alliance Commander Ahmad Shah Masood was
mortally wounded in a kamikaze assassination on September 9, 2001. It
happened two days before the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.
Masood later died from wounds suffered in the suicide attack on the
Saturday (9/15) following 9/11.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the killing of Ahmad Shah
Masood was barely mentioned. The broad media consensus was that the two
events (9/9 and 9/11) were totally unrelated. Yet the Northern Alliance
had informed the Bush administration through an official communiqué
that Pakistan's ISI was allegedly implicated in the assassination:

"A Pakistani ISI-Osama-Taliban axis  [was responsible for] plotting the
assassination by two Arab suicide bombers.. 'We believe that this is a
triangle between Osama bin Laden, ISI, which is the intelligence
section of the Pakistani army, and the Taliban'" ( The Northern
Alliance's statement was released on 14 September 2001, quoted in
Reuters, 15 September 2001)

'Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), the Taliban and Osama
bin Laden appear to be behind this plot.'" (AFP, 10 September 2001)

In other words, there is reason to believe that the 9/9 and 9/11 are
not isolated and unrelated events.

According to official statements and reports, the ISI was allegedly
implicated in both events: the September 9, 2001 assassination of Shah
Masood and the financing of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Both these
events directly implicate senior officials in the Bush administration.

While the US media tacitly acknowledges the role of Pakistan's ISI in
the assassination of Shah Masood, it fails to dwell upon the more
substantive issue: How come the head of the ISI was in Washington, on
an official visit, meeting Bush administration officials on the very
same day Masood was assassinated?

Had Masood not been assassinated, the Bush administration would not
have been able to install their political puppet Hamid Karzai in Kaboul.

Masood rather rather than Hamid Karzai (a former employee of UNOCAL oil
company), would have become the head of the post-Taliban government
formed in the wake of the U.S. bombings of Afghanistan.

9/10 OSAMA IN HOSPITAL ON 9/10, ONE DAY BEFORE THE ATTACKS ON THE WTC

Don Rumsfeld states that the whereabouts of Osama are unknown. Yet, 
according to Dan Rather, CBS, Bin Laden was back in Hospital, one day
before the 9/11 attacks, on September 10, this time, courtesy of
America's indefectible ally Pakistan. Pakistan's Military Intelligence
(ISI) told CBS that bin Laden had received dialysis treatment in
Rawalpindi, at Pak Army's headquarters:

[transcript of CBS report, see
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html ,

see also
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml ]

It should be noted, that the hospital is directly under the
jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to
the Pentagon. U.S. military advisers based in Rawalpindi. work closely
with the Pakistani Armed Forces. Again, no attempt was made to arrest
America 's best known fugitive, but then maybe bin Laden was serving
another "better purpose". Rumsfeld claimed at the time that he had no
knowledge regarding Osama's health. (see CBS transcript above).

Needless to say, the CBS report is a crucial piece of information in
the 9/11 jigsaw. It refutes the administration's claim that the
whereabouts of bin Laden are unknown. It points to a Pakistan
connection, it suggests a cover-up at the highest levels of the Bush
administration.

Dan Rather and Barry Petersen fail to draw the implications of their
January 2002 report.  They fail to beg the question: where was Osama on
9/11? If they are to stand by their report,  the conclusion is obvious:
The administration is lying regarding the whereabouts of Osama.

If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the
Pakistani military hospital on September 10, courtesy of America's
ally, he could still be in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of
September, when the attacks occurred. 

In all probability,  his whereabouts were known to US officials o n the
morning of September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated
negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing
bin Laden.

These negotiations, led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's
military intelligence, on behalf of the government of President Pervez
Musharraf,  took place on the 12th and 13th  of September in Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage's office. The general also met
Colin Powell in discussions at the State Department on the 13th.

9/11. THE FOLLOW-UP BREAKFAST MEETING ON CAPITOL HILL WITH GENERAL
MAHMOUD AHMAD

On the morning of September 11, the three lawmakers Bob Graham, Porter
Goss and Jon Kyl (who were part of the Congressional delegation to
Pakistan) were having breakfast on Capitol Hill with General Ahmad, the
alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers. Also present at this
meeting were Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. Maleeha Lodhi and
several members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees were
also present. This meeting was described by one press report as a
"follow-up meeting" to that held in Pakistan in late August . (see
above) " On 8/30, Senate Intelligence Committee chair Sen. Bob Graham
(D-FL) 'was on a mission to learn more about terrorism.' (…) On 9/11,
Graham was back in DC 'in a follow-up meeting with' Pakistan
intelligence agency chief Mahmud Ahmed and House Intelligence Committee
chair Porter Goss (R-FL)" 3 (The Hotline, 1 October 2002):

While trivializing the importance of the 9/11 breakfast meeting, The
Miami Herald (16 September 2001) confirms that General Ahmad also met
Secretary of State Colin Powell in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Again the political significance of the personal relationship between
General Mahmoud (the alleged "money man" behind 9/11) and Secretary of
State Colin Powell is casually dismissed. According to The Miami Herald
, the high level meeting between the two men was not planned in
advance. It took place on the spur of the moment because of the shut
down of air traffic, which prevented General Mahmoud from flying back
home to Islamabad on a commercial flight, when in all probability the
General and his delegation were traveling on a chartered government
plane. With the exception of the Florida press (and Salon.com, 14
September), not a word was mentioned in the US media's September
coverage of 9-11 concerning this mysterious breakfast reunion.

Eight months later on the 18th of May, two days after the "BUSH KNEW"
headline hit the tabloids, the Washington Post published an article on
Porter Goss, entitled: "A Cloak But No Dagger; An Ex-Spy Says He Seeks
Solutions, Not Scapegoats for 9/11". Focusing on his career as a CIA
agent, the article largely served to underscore the integrity and
commitment of Porter Goss to waging a "war on terrorism". Yet in an
isolated paragraph, the article acknowledges the mysterious 9/11
breakfast meeting with ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, while also confirming
that "Ahmad :ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and
the Taliban":

While the Washington Post scores in on the "notoriously close" links
between General Ahmad and Osama bin Laden, it fails to dwell on the
more important question: what were Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob
Graham and other members of the Senate and House intelligence
committees doing together with the alleged 9/11 "money-man" at
breakfast on the morning of 9/11. In other words, the Washington Post
report does not go one inch further in begging the real question: Was
this mysterious breakfast venue a "political lapse", an intelligence
failure or something far more serious? How come the very same
individuals (Goss and Graham) who had developed a personal rapport with
General Ahmad, had been entrusted under the joint committee inquiry "to
reveal the truth on 9-11."

The media trivialises the breakfast meeting, it presents it as a simple
fait divers and fails to "put two and two together". Neither does it
acknowledge the fact, amply documented, that "the money-man" behind the
hijackers had been entrusted by the Pakistani government to discuss the
precise terms of Pakistan's "collaboration" in the "war on terrorism"
in meetings held behind closed doors at the State department on the
12th and 13th of September. 11 7(See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit)

9/12-9/13 THE AFTERMATH, THE ALLEGED MONEYMAN MEETS COLIN POWELL AND
RICHARD ARMITAGE

Bear in mind that the purpose of his meeting at the State Department on
the 13th was only made public after the September 11 terrorist attacks
when the Bush administration took the decision to formally seek the
cooperation of Pakistan in its "campaign against international
terrorism." despite the links of Pakistan's ISI to Osama bin Laden and
the Taliban and its alleged role in the assassination of Commander
Massoud. 2 days before 9/11.

Meanwhile, the Western media in the face of mounting evidence had
remained silent on the insidious role of Pakistan's Military
Intelligence agency (ISI). The assassination of Massoud was mentioned,
but its political significance in relation to September 11 and the
subsequent decision to go to war against Afghanistan was barely touched
upon. Without discussion or debate, Pakistan was heralded as a friend
and an ally of America. In an utterly twisted logic, the U.S. media
concluded in chorus that:

U.S. officials had sought cooperation from Pakistan [precisely] because
it is the original backer of the Taliban, the hard-line Islamic
leadership of Afghanistan accused by Washington of harboring bin Laden.
9

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 Al Capone to help in going after organized
crime"

9/11 Timeline

1. AL QAEDA IS BORN, THE COLD WAR ERA

1979 ,  LARGEST COVERT OPERATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE CIA LAUNCHED IN
AFGHANISTAN, CREATING THE ISLAMIC BRIGADES TO FIGHT IN THE SOVIET
AFGHAN-WAR. AL QAEDA IS BORN

1985, PRESIDENT REAGAN SIGNED NATIONAL SECURITY DECISION DIRECTIVE 166
AUTHORIZING STEPPED UP COVERT MILITARY AID TO THE MUJAHIDEEN

1989- END OF THE SOVIET-AFGHAN WAR, END OF THE COLD WAR, STEPPED UP
COVERT OPERATIONS IN THE (FORMER) SOVIET UNION AND THE BALKANS

1996 THE TALIBAN FORM A GOVERNMENT WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE US

2. POST COLD WAR SUPPORT TO AL QAEDA IN THE BALKANS

1991 BEGINNING OF CIVIL WAR IN YUGOSLAVIA

1993-1994 CLINTON ADMINISTRATION COLLABORATES WITH AL QAEDA IN BOSNIA

1995-1999. NATO AND THE US MILITARY COLLABORATE WITH AL QAEDA IN KOSOVO

2000-2001. THE ISLAMIC MILITANT NETWORK, NATO, THE US MILITARY AND THE
UNITED NATIONS MISSION IN KOSOVO JOIN HANDS IN MACEDONIA IN SUPPORTING
THE NLA

3. SHORT TIMELINE (JULY- SEPTEMBER 2001

7/01 JULY 2001: OSAMA BIN LADEN IN THE AMERICAN HOSPITAL IN DUBAI, UAE

8/06 THE AUGUST 6, 2001 THE PRESIDENTIAL INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING (PDB)

8/27-8/30 2001 AUGUST 27-30 MISSION OF SENATOR BOB GRAHAM AND REP
PORTER GOSS TO ISLAMABAD AND RAWALPINDI FOR INTELLIGENCE CONSULTATIONS
WITH PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF AND ISI CHIEF GENERAL MAHMOUD AHMAD

9/ 4- 9/13: HEAD OF PAKISTAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE (ISI) ARRIVES IN
WASHINGTON ON AN OFFICIAL VISIT. ARRIVES ON SEPTEMBER 4, DEPARTS ON
SEPTEMBER 13

9/9: THE ASSASSINATION OF THE LEADER OF THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE AHMAD
SHAH MASSOOD

9/10 OSAMA IN HOSPITAL ON 9/10, ONE DAY BEFORE THE ATTACKS ON THE WTC

9/11. 11 SEPTEMBER: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON WTC AND PENTAGON. FOLLOW-UP
BREAKFAST MEETING ON CAPITOL HILL WITH GENERAL MAHMOUD AHMAD HOSTED BY
SENATOR BOB GRAHAM AND REP PORTER GOSS. THE "WAR ON TERRORISM" IS
OFFICIALLY LAUNCHED

9/12-9/13 THE AFTERMATH, THE ALLEGED "MONEYMAN" GENERAL MAHMOUD AHMAD
MEETS COLIN POWELL & RICHARD ARMITAGE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO
DISUCSS TERMS OF PAKISTAN’S COOPERATION IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM .

Who in the Bush Administration has Links to Al Qaeda?

The Bush administration accuses people of having links to al Qaeda.
This is the doctrine behind the anti-terrorist legislation and homeland
Security.  

This relationship of the Bush Administration to international
terrorism, which is a matter of public record, indelibly points to the
criminalization of the upper echelons of US State apparatus.

Colin Powell's Role: From Iran-Contra to September 11

Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who casually accused
Baghdad and other foreign governments of "harboring" Al Qaeda, played a
direct role, at different points in their careers, in supporting
terrorist organizations.

Both men were implicated --operating behind the scenes-- in the
Irangate Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, which
involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan
Contra paramilitary army. 

[Coronel Oliver] North set up a team including [Richard] Secord; Noel
Koch [Armitage's deputy] , then assistant secretary at the Pentagon
responsible for special operations; George Cave, a former CIA station
chief in Tehran, and Colin Powell, military assistant to U.S. Defense
Secretary Caspar Weinberger.. .(The Guardian, December 10, 1986)

Although Colin Powell was not directly involved in the arms' transfer
negotiations, which had been entrusted to Oliver North, he was among
"at least five men within the Pentagon who knew arms were being
transferred to the CIA." (The Record, 29 December 1986). Lieutenant
General Powell was directly instrumental in giving the "green light" to
lower-level Irangate officials in blatant violation of Congressional
procedures. According to the New York Times, Colin Powell took the
decision (at the level of military procurement), to allow the delivery
of weapons to Iran:

Hurriedly, one of the men closest to Secretary of Defense Weinberger,
Maj. Gen. Colin Powell, bypassed the written ''focal point system''
procedures and ordered the Defense Logistics Agency [responsible for
procurement] to turn over the first of 2,008 TOW missiles to the
C.I.A., which acted as cutout for delivery to Iran" ( New York Times ,
16 February 1987)

Richard Armitage

Richard Armitage held the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense in
the Reagan Administration. He was in charge of coordinating covert
military operations including the Iran-Contra operation. He was in
close liaison with Coronel Oliver North. His deputy and chief
anti-terrorist official .Noel Koch was part of the team set up by
Oliver North. Following the delivery of the TOW anti-tank missiles to
Iran, the proceeds of these sales were deposited in numbered bank
accounts and the money was used to finance the Nicaraguan Contras.
(UPI. 27 November 1987). A  classified Israeli report provided to the
Iran- contra panels of the Congressional enquiry confirms that Armitage
''was in the picture on the Iranian issue.'' ( New York Times , 26 May
1989):

"With a Pentagon position that placed him over the military's covert
operations branch, Armitage was a party to the secret arms dealing from
the outset. He also was associated with former national security aide
Oliver L. North in a White House counterterrorism group, another area
that would also have been a likely focus of congressional inquiry" (
Washington Post , 26 May 1989)

CIA Director William Casey with the collaboration of Richard Armitage
in the Pentagon "ran the Mujahideen covert war against the Soviet
Union…" (quoted in Domestic Terrorism: The Big Lie The "War")
"Contragate was also an off-the-shelf drug-financed operation run by
Casey." ( Ibid ).

Financing the Islamic Brigades

The Iran Contra procedure was similar to that used in Afghanistan,
where secret aid was channeled to the militant Islamic brigade ( US
News and World Repor t, 15 December 1986). In fact part of the proceeds
of the weapons sales to Iran had been channeled to finance the
Mujahideen. :

":The Washington Post reported that profits from the Iran arms sales
were deposited in one CIA-managed account into which the U.S. and Saudi
Arabia had placed $250 million apiece. That money was disbursed not
only to the contras in Central America but to the rebels fighting
Soviet troops in Afghanistan."(U.S. News & World Report , 15 December
1986)

The Irangate Cover-up

Reagan's National Security Adviser Rear Admiral John Pointdexter, who
was later indicted on conspiracy charges and lying to Congress was
replaced by Frank Carlucci as National Security Adviser. And Maj.
General Colin Powell was appointed deputy to Frank Carlucci, namely
"'number two"  on the National Security team.

"Both came to the White House after the Iran contra revelations and the
NSC housecleaning [i.e. coverup] that followed [the Irangate scandal]"
(The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, 16 June 1987).

Needless to say, this housecleaning was a cover-up: Colin Powell was in
on the Irangate affair

While several Irangate officials including John Pointdexter and Oliver
North were accused of criminal wrongdoing, the main actors in the CIA
and the Pentagon, namely Armitage and Casey, were never indicted,
neither was Lieutenant General Colin Powell who authorized the
procurement of TOW missiles from the Defense Logistics Agency .

Moreover, while weapons were being sold covertly to Iran,  Washington
was also supplying weapons through official channels to Baghdad. In
other words, Washington was arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. And
who was in charge of negotiating those weapons sales to Baghdad? Donald
Rumsfeld

How to Reverse the Tide

September 11 has been used profusely by the Bush administration as a
justification for waging a preemptive war without borders.

It is part of the Administration’s doctrine of "self-defense". But that
justification is based on a lie: that America is under attack by an
outside enemy.

The so-called "War on Terrorism" is a lie.

Realities have been turned upside down.

Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards
restoring democracy.

Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as
"peace-keeping operations."

The derogation of civil liberties by imposing the so-called
anti-terrorist legislation is portrayed as a means to providing
domestic security and upholding civil liberties.

This system relies on the manipulation of public opinion.

The fabricated realities of the Bush administration must become
indelible truths, which form part of a broad political and media
consensus. In this regard, the corporate media is an instrument of a de
facto police state, which has carefully excluded, from the outset, any
real understanding of the September 11 crisis.

Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and
consequences of September 11.

When people across the US and around the World find out that Al Qaeda
is not an outside enemy but a creation of US foreign policy and the
CIA, the legitimacy of the Bush Administration will tumble like a deck
of cards.

In  other words, when the lies emanating from the seat of political
authority are fully revealed, the perceived enemy will no longer be Al
Qaeda but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, et al.

Bear in mind that the Democrats are also complicit. Democratic
administrations have also supported Al Qaeda.

This relationship of successive US Administrations to international
terrorism, which is a matter of public record, indelibly points to the
criminalization of the upper echelons of US State apparatus.

Let's use this information to dismantle the Bush Administration's war
plans. Sensitize our fellow citizens. Expose the "dubious links."

Because when the truth trickles down, the leaders' war and homeland
security plans will not have a shred of legitimacy in the eyes of
millions of Americans who believe that Al Qaeda is "A Threat to
America" and that their president is committed to their security.

At this crucial juncture in our history, we must understand that
antiwar sentiment in itself does not undermine the war agenda.

The only way to reverse the tide is to unseat the rulers, who are war
criminals.

And the way to unseat the rulers is to break their legitimacy in the
eyes of the people.

In other words, it is necessary to fully reveal the lies concerning the
so-called "war on terrorism" to our fellow citizens, which were used to
justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and impose the police
State in the US

A precondition for breaking the legitimacy of the Bush Administration
is to fully reveal its links to international terrorism and its
complicity in the tragic event of 9/11.

This objective can only be achieved by effectively curbing its
propaganda campaign and spreading the truth through a grassroots
citizen's information campaign.

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.ca .  For
cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the
original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed.

© Copyright MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY 2004. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED