[IP] more on Bush has misled Americans on Iraq (from the FT)
I have looked at Debka often in the past. Their track record is near
zero in my view. Lots of hype, small facts and very very one sided. But
in the interest of showing all sides I have sent this on.
Dave
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Jack L. Poller" <poller@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 18, 2004 11:08:28 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [IP] [last time I looked the FT was not a notably liberal
newspaper djf] Bush has misled Americans on Iraq (from the FT)
While the FT may or may not be a liberal newspaper, it simply
accepts the 9/11 Commission's conclusions, and uses them
as the basis for its straw-man attack against Bush and the US.
An alternative view of the 9/11 Commission's conclusions
is presented by Debka (www.debka.com). While Debka is
admittedly on the other side of the fence, at least they
have made the effort to analyze the conclusions.
Jack Poller
poller@xxxxxxxxxxx
Bush and 9/11 Report: Into the Frame
DEBKAfile Special Analysis
June 17, 2004, 3:33 PM (GMT+02:00)
The US independent commission’s interim account of the September 11
terror
attacks in the United States is full of holes and inconsistencies,
according
to American and Israeli intelligence experts close to the war against al
Qaeda. One of its least plausible claims is that Osama bin Laden had
pressed
to launch the strikes in the summer of 2000, shortly after Israel’s
soon-to-be prime minister Ariel Sharon made a highly controversial
visit to
a disputed holy site in Jerusalem. Later, he pressured the hijackers to
strike in May 2001 and in June and July when Sharon would be visiting
the
White House. Each time, he was told the commandos were not ready, the
report
said.
A senior expert gave this comment to DEBKAfile: “We see here the
outcome of
a cynical attempt to link Sharon, Israel and the Jews to the September
11
atrocities. Sharon is suddenly being blamed not only for the Palestinian
uprising - which was planned years before he visited Temple Mount - but
is
also being dragged into focus in relation to al Qaeda’s attacks on
America.
This twisted leap is easily traced: the US commission based its
findings on
the testimony of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed now in US custody after being
captured in Karachi.”
Many senior counter-terror officials, some of whom have had access to
Shaikh
Mohammed and other top captured al Qaeda operatives, have long come to
the
conclusion that he and others let themselves be seized for the sake of
advancing a wider al Qaeda disinformation plot. Their mission is to
plant
red herrings in the path of US intelligence and lead its investigators
away
from the organization’s real operations, especially during
reorganizations
of the group’s command structure and terror networks.
This is how it is managed. The designated sacrifice is discovered after
tip-offs lead pursuers to his hideout. Under questioning, he spills the
tales he has been briefed to reveal – usually about past operations -
and
withholds anything of real value about al Qaeda’s current activities.
His
interrogation is meant to divert US intelligence from noticing
preparations
for the terrorist organization’s next moves. Being thrown to the
Americans
for such missions is just as much an honor as dying in combat or a
suicide
terrorist attack.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should have been expected, say the experts, to
throw
sand in American eyes. Instead, he found a way to link Sharon to the
9/11
attacks and get the link accepted in an official report - just as his
masters in their broadcast tapes matter-of-factly tie Iraq, Saudi
Arabia,
Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Spain into a single package. This
tie-in
fits the gospel drummed into every al Qaeda member, from the chiefs to
the
lowliest courier, that the two enemies of Islam are the Crusaders and
the
Jews.
By falling into the Sharon trap, the compilers of the report cast doubt
on
their other conclusions, although their final report due next week may
make
some necessary corrections.
The obvious point here is if the Israeli motivation was so important in
the
chain of events leading up to September 11, why did bin Laden decide to
attack America and not Israel? Or why not both?
DEBKAfile’s experts on terrorism point to some more weak points and
misses
in the independent panel’s interim report.
1. It is claimed that the planning of the 9/11 attacks began in 1996.
This
is factually erroneous. The planning to destroy the World Trade Center
began
in 1991 or 1992 - at latest. Proof of this reposes in the archives of
Manhattan federal court, which tried Ramzi Yousuf for carrying out the
first
attack in February 1993. He admitted that the bomb truck he had set up
on
Osama bin Laden’s instructions was meant to cause one tower to lean
into the
second, bringing both down. Yousuf told the court he was bitterly
disappointed at having killed only six Americans when al Qaeda had
counted
on at least a quarter of a million dead. (Incidentally, Sharon held no
official position in 1993, 1996 – or even in 2000)
Bin Laden and his senior lieutenant Ayman Zuwahiri have been in
operation
long enough for al Qaeda watchers to understand that they never give up
on a
target. If they fail once, they are sure to try again – whatever the
cost in
the lives of their own men. The organization is motivated by religious
and
operational fanaticism alike. Using this dictum as a working
hypothesis, the
heads of the US campaign against the fundamentalist terrorists are sure
they
have not seen the end of al Qaeda’s attacks in America.
2. Another instance of Shaikh Mohammed’s wiles is his claim that he had
initially envisioned hijacking 10 planes to target CIA and FBI
headquarters,
nuclear stations, the World Trade Center, the White House, the Pentagon
and
Capitol Hill, as well as blowing up several aircraft over the Pacific.
He
said bin Laden had scaled the plan down. The commission fell for this
too.
In actual fact, there was a much older plot that never came off to
hijack 10
airliners bound for New York from the Philippines and crash them over
key
targets in the United States. This plot originated in 1994 – not 2001.
Ramzi
Yousuf was to have orchestrated the 10-plane assault from Manila after
he
failed to bring down the Twin Towers. Shaikh Mohammed recycled this
plot and
mixed it up with subsequent plans in order to muddy the trail of al
Qaeda
agents into America and, still more importantly, to cover up a mystery
that
has never been solved and which the report fails to address: How did US
air
control authorities and its air defenses come to be blinded to the
hijackings after they were already in progress?
One answer which has not been considered seriously enough is that the
terrorists or their ground support commanded the electronic
capabilities for
jamming US tracking devices that ought to have picked up – but didn’t -
the
captured airliners as they cut through American air space from airport
to
target.
The videotape the Americans found in 2001 in Afghanistan, showing bin
Laden
and Zuwahiri discussing their 9/11 success and how it was prepared,
contradicts the Shaikh Mohammed account. They made no reference to a big
plan or a small plan. Bin Laden is seen expressing surprise at how well
his
plan worked. He bends his hands together to demonstrate how the towers
tipped towards each other - exactly as he had planned in the early
1990s.
3. The most implausible conclusion that suggests the 9/11 panel is
influenced by a political agenda is its failure to find credible
evidence of
links between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is on record that Musab
Zarqawi, who is at present running al Qaeda’s terror campaign in Iraq,
was
seen in that country in 1996 or 1997. From 1998 to 2000, he set up a
training base in the northern Kurdistan town of Biyara near the Iranian
border, then under the control of Iraqi military intelligence and the
Ansar
al-Islam terrorist group. Iraqi intelligence officers and instructors
helped
Zarqawi set up laboratories in Biyara for testing chemical, biological
and
radiological weapons.
DEBKAfile’s report appeared in September 2000, before the 9/11 attacks
and
well ahead of any US plan to invade Iraq. Indeed the sequence of events
that
blew up in the Bush term of office was busy ticking away when Bill
Clinton
was still president.
Most authorities ignored the deadly Saddam-al Qaeda association for
developing WMD capabilities then. Now too, the independent inquiry in
Washington neglects to address crucial developments from the time they
began
evolving in the early 1990s until 2000. These happenings were pivotal to
subsequent actions and to al Qaeda’s spreading menace.
4. Neither has the panel found evidence that the Saudi government “as an
institution or senior officials within the Saudi government” helped
finance
al Qaeda before September 11. This conclusion makes a careful point of
referring to al Qaeda – not Osama bin Laden, whom Saudi intelligence
most
certainly did supply with funds. The Saudi ambassador to London, Prince
Turki bin Faisal and brother of Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal,
was
until August 9, 2001 the omnipotent chief of Saudi intelligence and
maintained close ties with the CIA. It is common knowledge in Saudi
Arabia
and among Middle East intelligence and political circles that Prince
Turki
lost his job because of his close relations with the bin Laden clan.
Through
them, he stayed in touch with Osama and use roundabout channels to send
him
money.
The interim conclusions reached by the 9/11 commission make sense only
if it
is presumed that the panel was set up to whitewash certain American and
Saudi political and intelligence bodies and pin the entire blame for al
Qaeda’s attacks in America on the Bush administration – incidentally
dragging in the US president’s ally, the Israeli prime minister.
However, as
a state commission charged with an independent inquiry into the causes
that
led up to this cataclysmic disaster, the panel is far from fulfilling
its
mandate. Indeed, its findings are just as misleading as Shaikh Mohammed
must
have intended. The captured terrorist has accomplished his mission
admirably.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----
Copyright 2000-2004 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.
# -----Original Message-----
# From: owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
# [mailto:owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Farber
# Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 6:08 AM
# To: Ip
# Subject: [IP] [last time I looked the FT was not a notably
# liberal newspaper djf] Bush has misled Americans on Iraq (from the FT)
#
#
#
# Begin forwarded message:
#
# From: "Kobrin, Steve" <KobrinS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
# Date: June 18, 2004 8:52:08 AM EDT
# To: "'dave@xxxxxxxxxx'" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
# Subject: Bush has misled Americans on Iraq (from the FT)
#
# This editorial from today's Financial Times is strong and
# worth reading, especially in light of both Bush and Cheney's
# continued assertions that there are long standing and
# meaningful ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda and Cheney's very chilling
#
# assertion that the New York Times coverage of the
# Commission's report was "outrageous." An assertion twice
# repeated, according to the Times' coverage. This
# administrations appears to have learned two lessons that are
# new -- at least in their scope of application -- to American
# politics. 1. You can continue to repeat misleading and
# false statements even after they have been disproved without
# fear of serious contradiction and 2. you do not have to fall
# on your sword after a disaster (the prisoner abuse scandal,
# for example) but can push it aside and soldier on.
#
# Steve
#
#
#
# Bush has misled Americans on Iraq
# Financial Times
# Published: June 18 2004 5:00 | Last Updated: June 18 2004 5:00
# <<...OLE_Obj...>>
# The congressional commission investigating the September 11, 2001
# attacks on the US has concluded that there is no evidence to support
# the Bush administration's thesis that Saddam Hussein helped Osama bin
# Laden's al-Qaeda organisation carry them out. This
# conclusion, emerging
# from a strong tradition of congressional oversight, could be taken
# further.
#
# The evidence the administration produced to demonstrate the link was,
# at best, spurious, at worst, fabricated. This is not a small matter,
# especially in the context of the Bush team's case for its war
# of choice
# against Iraq.
#
# The first public justification for the war was that the Iraqi
# dictator
# possessed weapons of mass destruction with which he could
# dominate his
# neighbours and threaten the west. This was always an exaggeration.
# There was some reason to believe he had residual chemical and
# biological weapons, but none whatsoever to suggest he had
# reconstituted
# a nuclear arms programme. As we now know, no WMD of any description
# have been found; not one US assertion to the United Nations Security
# Council by Colin Powell, secretary of state, in February last
# year, has
# been substantiated.
#
# The second public justification - which was wheeled on stage to
# distract the audience from the embarrassing absence of WMD - was that
# the war was about freeing Iraqis and, indeed, the Middle East from
# tyranny. After Falluja and Abu Ghraib, however, 92 per cent of Iraqis
# regard US troops as occupiers, while 2 per cent see them as
# liberators,
# according to a Coalition Provisional Authority poll.
#
# Yet there was nothing intrinsically absurd about the WMD fears, or
# ignoble about opposition to Saddam's tyranny - however late
# Washington
# developed this. The purported link between Baghdad and al-Qaeda, by
# contrast, was never believed by anyone who knows Iraq and the region.
# It was and is nonsense, the sort of "intelligence" true believers in
# the Bush camp lapped up from clever charlatans they sponsored such as
# the now disgraced Ahmad Chalabi. Yet, even this week, vice-president
# Dick Cheney continues to assert Saddam had "long-established
# ties with
# al-Qaeda".
#
# No wonder that, until recently, polls regularly showed more than half
# of Americans believed Iraq was behind the attack on New York's twin
# towers.
#
# Whether the Osama and Saddam thesis was more the result of
# self-delusion or cynical manipulation, it - along with Washington's
# mismanagement of the whole Iraqi adventure - has been enormously
# damaging.
#
# The Bush administration has misled the American people. It
# has isolated
# the US, as American diplomats and commanders pointed out this
# week. And
# its bungling in Iraq has given new and terrifying life to the cult of
# death sponsored by Osama bin Laden. Above all, it inspires little
# confidence it is capable of defeating the spreading al-Qaeda
# franchise,
# which always was the clear and present danger.
# <<...OLE_Obj...>>
# <<...OLE_Obj...>>
#
# -------------------------------------
# You are subscribed as poller@xxxxxxxxxxx
# To manage your subscription, go to
# http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
#
# Archives at:
# http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
#
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose
use
has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The
'IP' Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding
of
literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes
a
'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of
the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for
purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain
permission
from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/