Picture from: Dumbya Pictures



        American Democracy: R.I.P The Emergence of the Fascist American Theocratic State

         Twenty Things We've Learned Nearly A Year After 911

         An Overview of the War on Terrorism: by JIM MARRS, Author of Rule By Secrecy 

        The Enemy Within by Gore Vidal






by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel


           [Posted 14 November 2001]
           Dedicated to the firemen of New York .

Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon.

On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city.

The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed.

Air Force officials and others have tried to explain away the failures:

"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'"
--'Newsday,' 23 September, 2001

Using information from the mass media and official Websites, we will show that this is lie.

Some of what happened on 9-11, such as planes flying into buildings, is unusual. But most of what happened, such as commercial jets flying off-course, transponder failures and possible hijackings, are common emergencies. We will show that these emergencies are routinely handled with expert efficiency based on clear rules.

The crash of the first hijacked jet into the World Trade Center made it clear the United States was faced with an extraordinary situation. This should have intensified the emergency responses of the air safety and defense systems.

The whole country was aware. For example, at 9:06 AM the NY Police broadcast:

" 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon.'"
--'Daily News' ( New York ) 12 September 2001 (1)

'American Forces Press Service' reported that ordinary people working at the Pentagon worried they could be next:

"'We were watching the World Trade Center on the television,' said a Navy officer. 'When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America . We're sitting in a close second.'"
--'DEFENSELINK News', Sept. 13, 2001 (2)

U.S. air safety and air defense emergency systems are activated in response to problems every day. On 9-11 they failed despite, not because of, the extreme nature of the emergency. This could only happen if individuals in high positions worked in a coordinated way to make them fail.

Such operatives would almost surely have failed if they tried to disrupt and abort routine protection systems without top-level support. The failure of the emergency systems would be noticed immediately. Moreover, given the catastrophic nature of the attacks, the highest military authorities would be alerted. Acting on their own, the operatives could expect that their orders would be countermanded and that they themselves would be arrested.

The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command. This includes at least U.S. President George Bush, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers.

In the following summary of evidence we will demonstrate probable cause for charging the above-named persons with treason for complicity in the murders of thousands of people whom they had sworn to protect.

The summary of evidence covers the following areas:

* Andrews Air Force Base and the myth of 'no available planes;'

* The air safety/air defense systems and the myth that they were not prepared;

* The actions of George Bush on 9-11 that clearly violated his positive legal and constitutional obligations and demonstrated consciousness of guilt;

* The testimony of General Richard B. Myers at Senate hearings on his nomination as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In these hearings, the contents of which were reported accurately by one lone journalist, General Myers attempted to cover up what had happened 9-11 when he was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He offered three mutually contradictory cover stories and demonstrated consciousness of guilt;

* The cover story floated by CBS evening news, September 14th.
Until that time, officials reported that no planes had been 'scrambled' to intercept the hijacked planes. But following Gen. Myers disastrous Senate testimony, CBS broadcast an improved version of 9-11. In the new script, fighter jets from Otis and Langley Air Force Bases did try, but failed, to intercept the hijacked planes. This is now presented as the official NORAD story and has been repeated uncritically by media and government officials alike. We will demonstrate that this cover story is both weak and incriminating.

SECTION ONE: Why did no fighter jets 'scramble' to protect Washington D.C.?


As noted, Andrews Air Force base is 10 miles from the Pentagon. The media has mainly avoided talking about Andrews. An exception is 'USA Today,' the second-highest circulation newspaper in America. On one day it published two contradictory stories to explain the failure to scramble jets from Andrews prior to the Pentagon crash:


"Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed."
--'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001 (3)


"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed."
--'USA TODAY' September 17, 2001 (4)

Both stories are false.

Only one newspaper told the truth. That was the 'San Diego Union-Tribune':

"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.

"But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..."
--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (5)

Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It hosts two 'combat-ready' squadrons:

* the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters;

* the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped F/A-18 fighters.

These squadrons are served by hundreds of full-time personnel.


"…as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Colombia. [They] are full partners with the active Air Force"
--DC Military (6)


"In the best tradition of the Marine Corps, a 'few good men and women' support two combat-ready reserve units at Andrews AFB.

"Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 321, a Marine Corps Reserve squadron, flies the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet. Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 49, Detachment A, provides maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness. "
--DC Military (6)

So Andrews AFB had at least two 'combat-ready' squadrons.

The above quotes are from, a private Website authorized by the military to provide information for members of the armed forces. We discovered it 24 September. A month later we found that the address had been changed and the Andrews information posted in the smallest type size. Similarly, the official Andrews AFB Website has been 'down' since mid-September. Fortunately, it can be accessed by going to and entering .

On the Andrews main page, front and center there is a direct link to DC Military. The information on the Andrews Website confirms the information on DC military. We urge everyone to check these links and download the pages as soon as possible because they may be moved or removed yet again. For Andrews, go to and then enter

Our research has been carried out mainly by volunteers. Newspapers and TV news departments have full-time research staffs. The important media have bureaus in Washington DC, just a few miles from the Andrews airbase. Why haven't newspapers and TV news programs reported the truth: that Andrews job was to protect DC?

This failure is especially striking because some media did report that fighters scrambled from Andrews, but only after the Pentagon was hit. Thus they were aware that Andrews was supposed to defend D.C.:

For example:

" Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."
--'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 16 September 2001 (7)


"WASHINGTON - …an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon. Terrorism suddenly was at the doorstep and clearly visible through the big glass windows overlooking the Potomac River. Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and cross-crossed the skies…

"A thick plume of smoke was climbing out of the hollow center of the Pentagon. Everyone on the train understood what had happened moments before."
--'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001 (8) 


"It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC."
--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001 (9)

The media should have demanded to know the truth about why fighter jets assigned to protect Washington didn't scramble an hour BEFORE the Pentagon was hit.

Besides fighters, tanker planes and AWACS were also readily available.(An AWACS is a flying communication center equipped with radar which can scan at least 250 miles. This is almost the full distance from the West-Virginia/Ohio/Kentucky border, where American Air Flight 77 turned around before flying back to DC.) Both General Myers and Vice President Cheney admit that these planes did not go into the air over Washington until after the Pentagon was hit.

Here is General Myers, testifying 13th September:

"When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked."
--Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation hearing 13 September 2001 (10)

And Richard Cheney on 'Meet the Press:

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.

"MR. RUSSERT: And you decided?'

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time." --NBC, 'Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) 16 September 2001 (11)

As we shall see, Mr. Cheney's statement that "the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft" is a lie. Publicly available FAA documents prove that fighter jets routinely intercept commercial aircraft under certain designated circumstances without requiring or asking for approval from the White House.

Summary of evidence is CONTINUED IN PART II


(1) 'Daily News' (New York), 12 September 2001, Wednesday,
NEWS SECTION; Pg. 24: 'THE TRAGIC TIMELINE The sad events of the day.'
the full text is available at:

(2) 'DEFENSELINK News,' "It Was Business as Usual,
Then 'Boom'" By Jim Garamone, 'American Forces Press Service,' Sept. 13, 2001
Backup at:

(3) 'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001, Pg. 5A,
"Military now a presence on home front," by Andrea Stone.
Web version is at:
Backup at:

(4) 'USA TODAY,' September 17, 2001 Monday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 5A,
"Shoot-down order issued on morning of chaos," by Jonathan Weisman, WASHINGTON
Web version is at:
Backup at:

(5) 'San Diego Union-Tribune,' 12 September 2001
Homepage at:
Article at:

Backup at:

(6) As of 14 November 2001, the active link is:
Backup at:

(7) 'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 16 September 2001
Article at:

Backup at:

(8) 'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001
To view this article on the Web, search for Article ID: 1075896 on:
Or look at backup at:

(9) 'NBC Nightly News,' "Attack on America," (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001,
"Tuesday President Bush returns to White House on Marine One,"
Anchor: Tom Brokaw, Jim Miklaszewski reporting.
See transcript at:

(10) Gen. Richard B. Myers at Senate confirmation hearing 13 September 2001
Full text at:
This particular quotation was also reprinted by many mainstream media sources.

(11) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001.
Full transcript at:
Backup transcript at:


Part 1, Section 2 of

by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel

[Posted 20 November 2001]

From The Emperor’s New Clothes,

[From The Wilderness encourages you to visit the tenc web site and support this incredible reporting]

Dedicated to the firemen of New York .

In Part 1, Section 1 we demonstrated that Andrews Air Force base, 10 miles from the Pentagon, had combat-ready fighter squadrons on September 11th. Why didn't jets scramble from Andrews until after the Pentagon was hit?


On Sunday, September 16th, Vice-President Richard Cheney was interviewed on NBC TV's 'MEET THE PRESS.' During that interview he made the claim that the military needed authorization from President George W. Bush before scrambling fighter jets to intercept American Airlines Flight 77.

Mr. Cheney did not present this lie in a straightforward manner. He did not say, "A commercial airliner can't be intercepted without presidential approval." Instead, he spoke as if the need for presidential authorization were a commonly accepted fact; and then, based on this false foundation, he emitted a fog of emotional misinformation to confuse the millions of Americans who had asked themselves: why didn't jet fighters intercept Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon? Doesn't the U.S. have radar and an Air Force anymore?

It is common for officials attempting to cover-up a capital crime to put the blame on a subordinate. However Mr. Cheney used a different approach on 'MEET THE PRESS.' Relying on his skills in public deception, Cheney tried to create the impression that nothing improper had occurred. But as soon as one sees through his lies, one realizes Mr. Cheney has placed the responsibility for the failure to intercept on George W. Bush.

Here is the excerpt from 'MEET THE PRESS' where Richard Cheney puts forward his intercept lie:

MR. RUSSERT: "What's the most important decision you think he made during the course of the day?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: “Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.”

MR. RUSSERT: “And you decided?”

VICE PRES. CHENEY: “We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time...

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate.

MR. RUSSERT: “So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airliner was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?”

VICE PRES. CHENEY: “Yes. The president made the decision...that if the plane would not a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?

"...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York."
--NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001 (1)

* * *

Note that Mr. Cheney has performed a sleight of hand here.

First he said, "the toughest decision was...whether we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."

Later he said, "The president made the decision... that if the plane would not divert as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out..." that is, "shoot it down."

But "intercept": and "shoot it down" do not mean the same thing.


·  "in·ter·cept (în´ter-sèpt¹) verb, transitive
in·ter·cept·ed, in·ter·cept·ing, in·ter·cepts

"1. a. To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of"
(From 'American Heritage Dictionary' --AHD)


·  "shoot·down (sh¡t¹doun´) noun

"Destruction of a flying aircraft by a missile attack or gunfire."
(From 'American Heritage Dictionary' --AHD)

Mr. Cheney deliberately confused these terms to stop people from asking: why weren't the hijacked jets intercepted?

Since "stopping, deflecting, or interrupting the progress or intended course of" a hijacked airplane does not necessarily involve violence, there could be no moral obstacle to scrambling fighter jets to intercept Flight 77. Therefore Mr. Cheney shifted quickly to the morally charged question of whether to shoot down "an airplane full of American citizens". By creating this emotional link between interception (not necessarily violent) and shooting down a commercial jet (very violent), Cheney hoped to create sympathy for a President forced to make this "horrendous" choice: to intercept or not to intercept. By confusing the issues of "intercepting" vs. "shooting down" after the Pentagon was hit, Cheney was trying to get his listeners to forget that in fact nothing had been done before the Pentagon was hit.

Mr. Cheney attempted to smooth over the jump from "intercept" to "shoot down" by inserting the following connecting sentence:

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

This is disinformation. Mr. Cheney was treating his viewers like fools.

First, as anyone with a computer and basic knowledge of the Internet can find out, Air Traffic Controllers request military jets to intercept commercial aircraft on a routine basis. Sometimes the purpose is to tell a commercial pilot that his plane has gone off course; other times the interceptor goes up in order to observe the situation directly - for instance, to see who is flying the plane. None of this requires presidential approval.

Second, military interceptors (or 'escorts') already have clear "instructions to act." These instructions can be read online in detailed manuals from the FAA and the Department of Defense. The instructions cover everything from minor emergencies to hijackings. If a problem is serious, high-ranking military officers from the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon (NMCC) can take charge.

Let us consider the procedures used in intercepting commercial aircraft.

An Air Traffic Controller (ATC) may request military jets to intercept (or 'escort') a commercial aircraft in response to any serious problem which the Air Traffic Controller cannot solve through radio contact. Perhaps the most common problem is that a commercial jet has deviated from its authorized flight path.

Every commercial jet is required to follow IFR, or Instrument Flight Rules. IFR requires pilots to file a flight plan with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) before takeoff.
(FAA Order 7400.2E 14-1-2) (2)

"Commercial flights fly according to predefined flight plans. These flight plans are intended to provide quick routes that take advantage of favorable winds while avoiding the routes traveled by other aircraft. The usual flight plan is a series of three connected routes: a standard instrument departure (SID) route, an en route path, and a standard instrument arrival (STAR). Each route consists of a sequence of geographic points, or fixes, which, when connected, form a trajectory from the point of departure to the point of arrival."
--'Direct-To Requirements' by G. Dennis & E. Torlak (3)

If a plane deviates from its flight plan, or makes the wrong turn at one of its 'fixes,' an Air Traffic Controller (ATC) contacts the pilot. If the ATC cannot make contact, he or she will request an escort - that is, a military jet - to scramble and check out the situation. This is called 'interception.'

As you can see, interception is not necessarily an aggressive act. Usually it is requested because routine communication has become impossible.

For example, when the Lear jet chartered by Payne Stewart, the famous golf pro, went off course, and the pilot did not respond by radio, the FAA immediately contacted the military:

"Several Air Force and Air National Guard fighter jets, plus an AWACS radar control plane, helped the Federal Aviation Administration track the runaway Learjet and estimate when it would run out of fuel."
--'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (4)

The FAA online manual describes how an escort (i.e., a fighter jet) might communicate with a commercial airliner which fails to respond to radio contact. The FAA has a chart entitled:

"Signals initiated by intercepting aircraft and responses by intercepted aircraft."

According to the chart, which is available on-line, if a commercial jet is intercepted in daytime, the escort fighter jet may communicate by:

"...Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft..."

This conveys the message, "You have been intercepted." The commercial jet should respond by rocking its wings, indicating it will comply.

The escort then makes a

"slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading [direction]."

The commercial jet is supposed to respond by following the escort.
(FAA 'AIM' 5-6-4) (5)

When a commercial jet deviates from its approved flight path, it creates a potentially deadly hazard: it could collide with another jet. It is therefore reassuring that the FAA has an exacting standard for what constitutes an emergency:

"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)



"If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency."
--FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)

A high-ranking FAA official - called an Air Defense Liaison Officer (ADLO) - is stationed in the headquarters of NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The purpose: to help the FAA and the military work together to handle emergencies as quickly as possible. (8) Escorts are usually scrambled from NORAD bases, such as the Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, or the air base at Langley, Virginia. But not always:

"Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. "
--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2 (9)

Thus when Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off course:

"First, a fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet. Two F-16s from another Florida base then picked up the chase, later handing it over to two Air National Guard F-16s from Oklahoma, which handed it over to two F-16s from Fargo, North Dakota."
--'ABC News,' 25 October 1999 (10)

During a serious emergency, or if there is any possibility that a hijacking has occurred:

"The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC)."
--FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2 (9)

A Defense Department manual makes the same point:

"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
-- CJ CSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001 (11)

Located in the Pentagon, the NMCC can tap into radar stations and thus monitor dangerous emergencies and hijackings. For example, during the Payne Stewart incident:

"...officers on the Joint Chiefs were monitoring the Learjet on radar screens inside the Pentagon's National Military Command Center."
--'CNN,' 26 October 1999 (4)

When dealing with potentially hostile situations, escorts can adopt aggressive behavior:

"Small Private Plane Ordered to Land in Vicinity of Bush Ranch

"A small private plane flying unauthorized in the vicinity of President Bush's ranch near Crawford was ordered by the military to land Thursday, a sheriff's deputy said....

"The Federal Aviation Administration declared that the plane was unauthorized and ordered its occupants detained, Plemons said. At that point military officials, flying in two jets beside the plane, got on the pilot's radio frequency and ordered the Cessna to land...

"The plane landed on a private landing strip near State Highway 6, about eight miles from the Bush ranch near Crawford....

"In [a second incident, in] Wood County, Sheriff's senior Dispatcher Rodney Mize said a private plane was forced down by two military pilots in A-10 Warthog jets about 11:30 a.m. The jets flew one above and one below until the private plane's pilot landed at Wisener Field near Mineola."
--'AP,' 13 September 2001 (12)

The 'Boston Globe' reported that:

"[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.

"When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile."
--'Boston Globe,' 15 September 2001 (13)

Now, let us return to Mr. Cheney and his interview on 'MEET THE PRESS.'

As you will recall, he said:

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

Mr. Cheney is attempting to misinform by pretending that intercept pilots need 'instructions' from the President, when he knows perfectly well that clear instructions and a whole organizational network exist to handle intercept emergencies.

Moreover, Mr. Cheney's implicit argument - that there is no point in sending up an escort unless the pilot has clearance to shoot down a commercial jet - is absurd. Why would such a decision have to be made in advance of scrambling the escort? Even if an airliner has been taken over by a terrorist with a suicide mission, how could Mr. Cheney, Mr. Bush or anyone else other than God Himself possibly predict how the hijacker would respond to an intercept by military jets? Even if a hijacker were ready to die for the glory of crashing into the Pentagon, does that mean he would also be ready to die for the glory of ignoring a military pilot's order to land?

So even if the military had no authority to shoot down Flight 77, why not send up escorts planes? Isn't that in fact how police and the military routinely handle hijack situations - by mobilizing a potentially overwhelming force in the hope of getting the hijacker to surrender?

Why, as Mr. Cheney claims, would there have been "no point" in trying this tactic in the case of Flight 77? Weren't many human lives at stake? Isn't that "a point"?


What about the rest of Mr. Cheney's remarks, his contention that only President Bush could authorize the military to actually shoot down a hijacked plane? In all probability this is true. But as we shall see in a later section, this comment, as well as other things Mr. Cheney said on 'MEET THE PRESS,' will prove damning to George W. Bush when he goes on trial for treason.


For a map of Washington showing the distance from Andrews Air Force base to the Pentagon go to:

(1) 'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001.
Full transcript at:
Backup transcript at:

(2) Regarding rules governing IFR requirements, see FAA Order 7400.2E 'Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,' Effective Date: December 7, 2000 (Includes Change 1, effective July 7, 2001), Chapter 14-1-2.
Full text posted at:

(3) For a clear and detailed description of flight plans, fixes, and Air Traffic Control, see: 'Direct-To Requirements' by Gregory Dennis and Emina Torlak at:

(4) 'CNN,' 26 October 1999 "Pentagon never considered downing Stewart's Learjet," Web posted at: 8:27 p.m. EDT (0027 GMT)
Full text posted at:
Backup at:

(5) FAA 'Aeronautical Information Manual: Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures,' (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12, 2001) Chapter 5-6-4 "Interception Signals"
Full text posted at:

(6) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-2-5 "Emergency Situations"
Full text posted at:

(7) FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-1-1 "Emergency Determinations"
Full text posted at:

(8) FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 4, Section 5, "Air Defense Liaison Officers (ADLO's)"
Full text posted at:

(9) FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 7, Section 1-2, "Escort of Hijacked Aircraft: Requests for Service"
Full text posted at:

(10) 'ABCNews,' 25 October 1999 "Runaway Plane Crashes in S.D.; Golfer, at Least Four Others Killed," by Geraldine Sealey
Full text posted at:

Backup at:

(11) 'Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A,' 1 June 2001, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects," 4.Policy (page 1)
PDF available at:
Backup at:

(12) 'The Associated Press State & Local Wire' 13 September 2001, Thursday, BC cycle, "Small private plane ordered to land in vicinity of Bush ranch"
Full text posted at:

(13) 'The Boston Globe,' Saturday 15 September 2001 Third Edition Page A1, "Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath: Otis Fighter Jets Scrambled Too Late to Halt The Attacks" by Glen Johnson.
Full text posted at:

Emperor's Clothes can use your help.


Guilty for 9-11 Attacks Stories on Andrews AFB

 and Availability of Fighters Produce Controversy

Additional Investigation Corroborates Story, 

Reveals Pentagon Lies

FTW, November 20, 2001 – Shortly after we posted the incredible story by Jared Israel and Illarion Bykov from the Emperor’s New Clothes web site,, we received emails challenging their detailed research. Those messages asserted that because Andrews was listed as an Air National Guard base, rather than a regular Air Force Base that there were no pilots there capable of responding to the 9-11 attacks.

Not only has my research corroborated the original assertions of the story but new developments indicate that the Air Force and the Pentagon may be trying to hide evidence.

 Below, you will see one of the original questions posed about the story. I will follow that with my follow-up investigation. Then you will see some dramatic new developments as posted by the story’s authors.

The story stands, the authors stand by it and I agree. Judge for yourself.

  Mike Ruppert

From:   Mike Ruppert []

Sent:     Friday, November 16, 2001 4:11 PM

To:       Cia-Drugs@Egroups. Com ( )


Question About Guard And Reserve Units At Andrews AFB - An Answer

As you’ll see below, they’re standing by their story completely. I do note in their text that they state clearly that:

“Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It hosts two 'combat-ready' squadrons:”

“These squadrons are served by hundreds of full-time personnel”

I have read the text of the San Diego article they cite and it “implies” or states the same things.

The San Diego story also states: “This failure is especially striking because some media did report that fighters scrambled from Andrews, but only after the Pentagon was hit. Thus they were aware that Andrews was supposed to defend D.C.:”

I must add that in 1994-5, while I lived near DC I sold cars at Ron Bortnick Ford on Hwy 301 in Upper Marlboro while researching CIA activities and freelancing. It was right next to Andrews and I saw fighters taking off all the time, every day of the week, day and night.

I go to the military web site at

And it says:

“Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113th's primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Columbia .”

“Ready Response” clearly implies to me – in conformity with my understanding of military terminology - that these aircraft are ready-to-go. The military web site also states clearly that there are over 700 “full-time” personnel assigned to these operations.

The tenc story also states:

" Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC ."
--'Sunday Telegraph,' ( London ), 16 September 2001 (7)

I have checked the citation and it is accurate.

From reading the military web site I get the impression that ANG personnel are rotated in from all over the country under the command of the DC ANG to provide a full-time ready response cadre. Nonetheless, I can find no fault with the reporting, although I might like to see the two authors clarify this point further in Part II, if for no other reason than to avoid wasting time on a controversy that may be needless. Jared Israel is not a sloppy journalist. Their response to me is attached below…

Dear Mike,

Thanks so much for the dynamite rating.

On your letter, I got nearly the same one.  I didn't see a signature on yours

- is he withholding his name?  

I wasn't going to dignify the one we got with a public answer, since a) it is silly and irrelevant to our point b) the internal evidence of our piece already "answers" it in abundance. I think you'll see that if you read what we've written, again.

Warm regards to all,




[ 18 November 2001 ]

Part 2 of "GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS" will be posted shortly. ("GUILTY" can be read at http://emperors-

Meanwhile, a bit of news: the Andrews Air Force Base Website has gone back online.

A note appearing on the Website says it was last modified September 12th. However it was inaccessible from mid-September until it went back on line one or two days ago.

The website is important because, as we noted in "GUILTY FOR 9-11," it used to link to official US Air Force pages devoted to the 113th Fighter Wing of the Air National Guard. Those pages contradicted media and official claims that there were no combat ready fighter jets at Andrews. One page stated:

"Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113 this primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Columbia ."

The link to this page is broken, and we could not find anything like it on the modified Website. However, you can still access it at Just go to:
and scroll down a bit.

A related page, devoted to the 113th Fighter Wing's parent, the DC Air National Guard (DCANG), also seems to have been modified. We could no longer find the following pre-9-11 mission statement, which also indicates that Andrews had combat-ready airplanes:


To provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness."

This page is still accessible in archive form at:

We also have backup copies of these pages at:







10 February 2002. Thanks to Wayne Madsen.


February 10, 2002

American Democracy: R.I.P

The Emergence of the Fascist American Theocratic State

By John Stanton and Wayne Madsen

John Stanton is a Virginia-based writer on national security affairs and Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist who writes and comments frequently on civil liberties and human rights issues.

Historians will record that between November 2000 and February 2002, democracy—as envisioned by the creators of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution—effectively came to an end. As democracy died, the Fascist American Theocratic State ["The State"] was born. This new fascist era was designed and implemented primarily by Republican organizations and individuals who funded, supported and ultimately inserted George Bush II in office. Equally complicit in this atrocity was the Democratic Party, itself having become corrupt and beholden to its own interests. But the greatest tragedy in this horrific turn of events was that the public and media embraced fascism’s coming. It should be noted that the Green Party’s valiant efforts were too little, too late.

Three events accelerated the demise of American Democracy. The Election of 2000 (the American version of a coup), the 911 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon primarily by terrorists from Saudi Arabia (a vaunted but corrupt U.S. "ally" that funded both the terrorist Al Qaeda network and the Taliban) and the US response to it, and the spate of corporate bankruptcies, most notably Enron, which provided clear evidence—to those who dared look at it—that the American democratic process was a sham. The Bush administration, composed of a number of former Enron officials in its upper ranks, could only describe the worst financial collapse in the world’s history as a "tragedy" as if it were akin to a hurricane or earthquake and not man-made. The administration then proceeded to convince a nation of lemmings that Enron was not a political scandal but merely an unfortunate mistake that must not be repeated. However, other Enron-like collapses began being reported with similar disastrous consequences for pensioners and workers. Indeed, a long train of abuses and usurpations took place at a frightening pace in that short 15-month period.

Prior to 911, proponents of the The State were busy dismantling tried and tested treaties and agreements, such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, painstakingly hammered out by President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev—and panning others such as the Kyoto Agreement on the environment and the Oslo Accord on Israeli-Palestinian peace. It’s worth noting that the US was voted off the UN Human Rights Commission during that timeframe and, in spite of that, appointed three suspected human rights violators (John Negroponte, Otto Reich, and Elliott Abrams) to positions of high office within the US Department of State and National Security Council. Post-911 saw suspension of US constitutional and international law and modifications to suit the needs of The State. Soon thereafter, an inaptly named USA PATRIOT Act and the establishment of US Military Tribunals would be enacted in the same lightning fashion as when Adolph Hitler scrapped the German Constitution in the wake of the 1933 Reichstag fire.

Pentagon spokesman began looking beyond 911. They branded "activists, anarchists, and opportunists" as the terrorists of tomorrow. In fact, the FBI began scanning the Internet for web sites that contained what The State considered seditious and unpatriotic content and, in a few cases, began shutting them down in a sort of cyberspace version of Nazi book burning. With the apprehension of John Walker Lindh in northern Afghanistan, Americans were inundated with the misdeeds of the "American Taliban," the Traitor. Not since the witch hunting days of Joe McCarthy and the execution of the Rosenbergs had the country been swept up in a tempest of quick accusations of traitorous activities. Off the Orwellian telescreens run by the three cable news networks was any mention of the close contacts between American oil companies, like UNOCAL, and the Taliban, and the fact that the firm, unlike Lindh, made cash payments to the regime in return for the much-sought-after trans-Afghan oil and natural gas pipeline. This was done with the active encouragement of key members of both the Clinton and Bush II administrations. U.S. laws prohibiting such influence peddling, like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, were overlooked. This hypocrisy and the overarching influence of oil over The State’s foreign policy is described in a new book by ex-CIA agent Robert Baer, a veteran covert operator in the Islamic world. He states that he found "that the tentacles of big oil stretch from the Caspian Sea to the White House."

Big Oil would convince the Bush administration to turn an ill-advised and ineffective counter-drug war in Colombia into a counter-insurgency operation aimed at protecting the pipelines of US oil companies. Bypassed was a congressional law limiting the number of US private military personnel in Colombia to five hundred. Bush announced that he wanted as many military privateers as it took to "stabilize" the entire Andean region. Meanwhile, Bush’s CIA shock troops began destabilizing the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who began to appear as a candidate for the "Axis of Evil" for his independent views of US foreign policy.

With the statement, "You’re with us or against us," The State signaled to its long term allies that it reserved the right to establish a new world order based on the great Western Way. Dictatorships and totalitarian regimes were now praised by government officials as freedom loving nations. Military dictators became heroes. George Bush II used the opening of the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City to push American nationalism and his stone-faced grimace directed at the passing of the team from Iran – one of Bush’s "Axis of Evil" nations—evoked memories of that other nationalist-based Olympic opening ceremony, that in Berlin in the Summer of 1936, a ceremony that saw Hitler making snide remarks to his Reich lieutenants on the presence of African-American sprinter Jesse Owens on the American team. Under the guise of a war that would never end, The State became brazen in its mission.

On the domestic front, clear distinctions between the government and the corporation, and the government and the military evaporated. Government propagandists, formerly corporate propagandists, proclaimed that The State would be an easy brand to sell to the people. In fact, the State Department appointed a Madison Avenue advertising executive as head of its International Public Diplomacy Bureau to pitch "America" abroad as if it was a brand of running shoe, detergent, or deodorant. Meanwhile, The State gave carte blanche authority to the CIA to assassinate foreign leaders—an edict that abrogated President Gerald Ford’s 1976 Executive Order banning such murders. Responding to the policies of The State, senior military officers began questioning why right-wing Bush political appointees in the Defense Department scrapped the concepts of US military/international coalition peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in favor of "stability operations" and "unilateralism."

The defense budget ballooned to $400 billion while the wealthiest individuals and organizations received tax reductions and bailouts from the government. Those same recipients would fire close to a million people and rape their pension plans conveniently forcing them back into the workplace. The State raided the Social Security and Medicare accounts to transfer billions of dollars to defense contractors and out of the pockets of senior citizens who were promised assistance with prescription drugs by a now utterly exposed ruse—a "Compassionate Conservative Bush administration." In a country gone mad, cattle and crops would be designated matters of "national security" as an un-elected occupant of the White House ineloquently declared, "the nation has to eat". Meanwhile, The State’s media machine would equate the speeches of George Bush II, an individual who relies on cue cards with a short list of antonym pairs like "good man" and "evil doer," to those of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.

Government officials would proclaim on many occasions that any dissent to and from the government’s initiatives would be branded as unpatriotic and terrorist. In that environment thousands of Americans and those of color were pilloried by the government and their fellow citizens for questioning The State’s actions. Demonstrators who opposed the corporate power grab in a world that ignored labor and social protections were described as commercial and economic terrorists. The White House Press Secretary urged Americans to watch what they say and do in response to barbs by a television comedian. What would come next, the creation of an American Stasi? Just so. The State initiated the Citizen Corps, in which local residents were encouraged to form their own councils to, among other things, report suspicious activity and gather intelligence, thus cementing the people’s support for The State.

The State acted swiftly to reprogram American culture. Artwork antithetical to officials in the Department of Justice was hidden from public view by an Attorney General who opposes the same cultural and social pastimes—dance, drinking of alcohol, and viewing of sculptures—that once subjected an Afghan to death by an edict of the Taliban. Flag burning prohibitions were introduced into law. God, whose name was placed on US currency and inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s, became indistinguishable from The State. The State’s sanctioned religion was literal biblical paternalism, militant in its own way. In this environment it was no surprise that women, once again, lost dominion over themselves and their wombs as the state proclaimed the unborn, born, and subject to The State.

Practitioners of The State argued that freedom was to be defined as the ability to wealth maximize. In this form of raw materialism, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…"—those transcendent concepts debated so heartily and openly by the authors of the US Constitution—became desiccated commodities. The State melded God and Country and Business into one credo. With the Supreme Court firmly with The State – having sanctioned the accession to power of a president lacking a plurality in either the contested state of Florida or the United States—it, along with an Executive beholden to religious zealots, planned to strike down other laws, including a woman’s right to choose, over the long term. But 911 appeared. The Federal courts saw their power to sanction government break ins of homes and offices, wiretap telephones and e-mail, and bug premises usurped by a law enforcement and intelligence establishment that instead of being forced to answer for their lack of knowledge about the events of 911, was showered with billions of dollars and new unsupervised powers.

Viewed within the acid bath of wealth maximization, 911 became an unexpected bonus for The State in its mission to build the fascist and theocratic underpinnings of its government. With a frightened Congress, receptive corporate media, and a largely uneducated and nervous public, The State brilliantly orchestrated the destruction of the open society. Prior to 911, The State knew, with the exception of a pitiful few, that Congress could be bought. But it viewed the media and public as a holdout and feared rebellion on editorial pages and at the voting booth. But in the aftermath of 911, with the media now indistinguishable from the "war effort" and the public instructed to fly and buy for patriotism, The State achieved in a mere 15 months, the utter decimation of American democracy.



Twenty Things We've Learned Nearly A Year After 911 

By Bernard Weiner 8-2-2

Dave Letterman and his LIST OF TEN writers would be in awe. The list of ten yields to the list of TWENTY. CURIOUS GEORGE has been BUSY!

As we approach the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it might be useful to see how far an ordinary citizen's knowledge has progressed one year on. So here, in the way of a summing-up, based on journalistic documentation, is a list of things we Americans have learned since last September -- some of which might prove useful in the run-up to the November elections.

1. We've learned that Bush & Co.'s "war on terrorism" has morphed from finding and destroying those responsible for the 9/11 mass-murders (15 SAUDIS) to a worldwide campaign to install a Pax Americana, by force if necessary. In other words, neo-imperialism, reminiscent in many ways of the old Roman Empire or, closer to our own time, the British Empire.

2. We've learned that Bush & Co. has no desire to rethink any of its policies abroad, the same policies that isolate it and that generate hatred, suspicion and terrorism in so many regions of the globe. Rather than reconsider its policies, or try to accomplish its ends through diplomacy and alliances and cultural/economic initiatives, in its arrogance it continues to bully and threaten others, insult its European and other allies, disregard international treaties and courts, engage in unilateral actions without regard to the national interests of others, and, in general, simply throw its massive weight around. The prevailing attitude seems to be: We are the one Superpower, get used to bending to our will.

3. We've learned that Bush's national-security leadership was alerted months ahead of 9/11 (and, it has admitted, no later than August 6) that a major air attack from al-Qaida was in the works, along with the likely targets, but did nothing to try to prevent those attacks or warn anyone about them. Caught in their own lies, they blame "the system," especially elements in the FBI, for "not connecting the dots." More than 3000 Americans died as a result of this malfeasance.

4. We've learned that plans already were in the works prior to 9/11 for the evisceration of Constitutional guarantees of due process of law. The White House hustled the so-called USA PATRIOT Act through a frightened Congress in a patriotic blur, just a few days after the attacks, with few, if any, of the legislators having had time to read the final version.

5. We've learned that prior to September 11, the Bush Administration was negotiating with the Taliban about a pipeline desired by a U.S.-led energy consortium that would cross through Afghanistan. When the Taliban balked, the U.S. negotiators told them they either could accept a "carpet of gold" or face a "carpet of bombs." The Taliban backed away from the deal and refused to hand over Osama bin Laden; shortly after the terror attacks of 9/11, the U.S. began bombing in Afghanistan. The devotion of BUSH to OIL/GAS/ENERGY/ENRON type agendas are not laudible.

6. We've learned that now with the Taliban having been overthrown, and a U.S.-friendly regime installed in Kabul, the pipeline project is back on track, designed to carry energy supplies across Afghanistan from the Caspian Sea area to near India. Hamid Karzai, the new leader of Afghanistan, formerly was a consultant on the payroll of the pipeline folks; likewise, the new U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan.

7. We've learned that Bush & Co.'s Homeland Security Act includes programs that bear an amazing resemblance to totalitarian programs from the fascis/communist end of the spectrum: getting the military (restricted heretofore to activity outside the U.S.) involved in domestic policing, signing up neighborhood and block snoops to work for the central government, investigating what books citizens are checking out and buying, denouncing those deemed insufficiently patriotic or suspicious because of their views, etc. Remind you of Stalin's Russia, Castro's Cuba, Hitler's Third Reich, the Stasi of East Germany? (There also are prototypes of patriotic youth leagues being tried out in cities, which could become a national program.) A kind of martial-law coming to a neighborhood near you. (Not odd as The Gehlen Org spawned Bush way back when, in his early OSS days, that is NAZI spies brought here to work in CIA) Once a Nazi always a Nazi, I guess.

8. We've learned that Ashcroft/Bush are shredding Constitutional due-process guarantees in their move toward total control: already they have compromised attorney-client privilege, removed habeus corpus protections, locked up folks with no charges, secreted citizens at military installations which puts them out of reach of the judicial system, violated privacy in rifling through personal telephone and email communications, etc. etc. When the ambiguously-worded PATRIOT Act was first brought up, Ashcroft and Bush told us not to worry, promising that these rules would affect only non-citizens. Since that time, American citizens have been handled in similar fashion. Coming to a neighborhood near you.

9. We've learned much about the dangers of religious fundamentalism in Islam, but we've also learned about dangers posed by our own religious fundamentalists -- eager for a Christian theocratic society, symbolized most recently by a Secret Service agent scrawling on a Muslim suspect's refrigerator "Islam Is Evil, Christ Is King" -- and the extraordinary power they wield within the Bush Administration, represented most openly by John Ashcroft, who in frame-of-mind resembles a Taliban mullah.

10. We've learned that the FBI, focusing now on foreign terrorists, doesn't seem energized with the same zeal to catch domestic terrorists, such as abortion-clinic arsonists -- and especially the anthrax-dispenser. Though the FBI seems to know that the anthrax villain probably worked at a government bio-lab, nobody has been arrested, or even targeted as a prime suspect. (THEY TELL US that after going thru his trash bin, no powder was found, So all bets AND THE GUY...are off the hook,) It may not be likely, but the unsaid is finally being asked: Could this dangerous terrorist actually be working for the government? HUH? OUR GOV kill a Nat'l Enquirer reporter who'd written up the BUSH gals as doped up trash? NAHHHHHHHHHHHHH. The White house Used as a personal vendetta? C'mon!

11. We've learned that the HardRight of the Republican Party has taken control -- of the House leadership, of the Supreme Court, of the White House, of much of the conglomerate-owned media -- and has demonstrated its willingness to do nearly anything to maintain that power. (Only the courageous defection of Sen. Jim Jeffords from GOP ranks is standing in the way of HardRight total control of all three branches of government.) More and more truly objectionable HardRight judges are being nominated by Bush in an e ffort to stack the judiciary for decades to come. This by a man who lost the election by more than half-a-million votes, coming into his White House residency, with no popular mandate, only because his supporters on the Supreme Court installed him there.

12. We've learned that to break the momentum of the HardRight, all energy for the upcoming November elections (less than 90 days away, let us not forget) must be expended in electing Democrat candidates and defeating Republican ones. The objective conditions are just not ripe yet for anything more than trying to move the country back toward the middle of the political spectrum. We progressives more in tune with the Greens (Green candidates are being supported secretly in many states by the Republicans, to try to defeat Democrats) will have to wait. The difference between Democrats and Republicans may seem small to Greens and others, but, as we've learned in a painful way under Bush&Co., that difference is immense when it comes to foreign and domestic policy and its actual effects on real people, here and abroad.

13. We've learned that Cheney is up to his ears in Halliburton irregularities, and may well be liable for indictment for participating in financial fraud. In addition, we've learned that Cheney, who was the head of the task force that came up with a corporate-friendly rather than a consumer-friendly energy policy, has refused to turn over to Congress the requested documents that will reveal how that policy was arrived at and which industry leaders (other than Enron's Kenny Boy) helped shape it.

14. We've learned that Bush knew in advance, as a member of the Harken Audit Committee, that Harken Oil was going to release negative financial news, and he was a true insider, who knew that his Poppa's war on IRAQ (like the next week), would cancel the Harken Drilling contracts. Curious George and sold his shares before that, reaping a fortune. He may be liable for indictment for insider-trading and other Harken irregularities. (Even if Bush and Cheney are not indicted, they are the last people on earth who should be speaking about corruption in the corporate financial world, as these hypocrites benefitted from that very corrupt system. As did most of Bush's corporate-derived cabinet.)

15. We've learned that Bush & Co. were mightily opposed to any reform of corporate financial reporting, but when more and more companies were caught in such corrupt practices and the mood of the country shifted -- mainly because so many folks, especially seniors, lost huge chunks of their pensions and portfolio holdings when the Stock Market tanked as a result of investors' losing confidence in the numbers provided by corporations -- they jumped on the bandwagon and pretended they were reformers all along. In the background, they are trying to help their corporate supporters water down, and otherwise get around, the new rules. To that end, Bush&Co. have appointed Harvey Pitt and Larry Thompson, two tainted corporate types, to head up the "investigations" of corporate wrongdoing. Break out the whitewash and let the FOXES paint the bloody HENHOUSE!

16. We've learned that Bush & Co., having placed its chips on Ariel Sharon, continues to have no real desire for a just peace in the Middle East. All it wants is for the area to be quiet and controlled (thus giving carte blanche to the Israeli Army's police-state occupation and oppression), so that it can continue its plans for overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Iraq. And, of course, there has been no declaration of a State of War by the Congress, neither against Afghanistan nor against Iraq, and no real debate about the wisdom of a war against Saddam -- even when the top brass at the Pentagon and in Great Britain have expressed their opposition to such military adventurism.

17. We've learned that there will be no peace now in the Middle East because the U.S. is not fully engaged in the peace process, also because neither extreme in the area wants peace: Sharon thrives on war and brutality, Hamas needs Sharon's bloody policies to justify its campaign of terror. There are signs that moderate Palestinians finally are starting to speak out in favor of a peaceful solution, and there are plenty of land-for-peace Israelis (supported by many liberal Jews in the U.S.), so the outlines of a peace are out there. But until the U.S. and U.N. make the commitment to separate the warring extremists and arrange an equitable treaty both Israel and the Palestinians can live with -- secure borders for Israel (and an end to suicide bombing), a viable state for the Palestinians, abandoning of the settlements by Israel, reparations for Palestinians who lost their homes and property -- there will be only more bloodshed. And more fertile ground for new generations of terrorists, in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Islamic world.

18. We've learned that Bush & Co. has been a total disaster for the environment, in every way: from reneging on its campaign promise to cut carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse emissions, to backing away from higher fuel-efficiency in cars (we could cut our dependence on foreign oil 20% just by increasing fuel efficiency by 5%), to giving breaks to corporate polluters all across the country, to permitting increased arsenic levels in the water, thumbing nose at Kyoto conference, etc. etc.

19. We've learned that Secretary of State Colin Powell -- who sees the world in something other than simplistic black-and-white, us-versus-them dichotomies -- is a man imprisoned in the Bush Cabinet, forced to alter his principled opinions in the service of Bush & Co.'s stupidly aggressive and ultimately self-defeating foreign policies. Powell, a moderate conservative, looks like a raving progressive when measured against his masters. He should resign but probably won't. That would take NIXONIAN shame which he has none of, having an IQ of 80

20. We've learned that the tax-cuts provided to the most wealthy are not only payoffs to the corporate sector that provides support for Bush & Co. By locking in those tax cuts for ten years (and with humongous chunks of the budget spent on the "war on terrorism"), Bush & Co. have ensured that innumerable social programs that aid the less well-off will be cut or eliminated. In short, a rollback of New Deal/Great Society programs, so hated by the HardRight. (The HardRight movement to detach prescription drugs for seniors fr om the Medicare program, and, especially, to privatize Social Security -- even in the face of recent stock-market disasters -- is part of this same desire.)

Even after all the above shorthand summaries, no doubt I'm leaving out lots of Bush & Co. dirt, but this list can provide a starting point, and a handy compilation of enough low and high crimes and misdemeanors to warrant their removal from power, either through the ballot box or by resignation or impeachment.

Finally, as we enter August, we know that one of two things will happen in the summer-doldrums, with the Congress on vacation: Either Bush & Co. will start its Iraq war and carry out more under-the-radar attacks on important American social programs, or the media, bereft of their usual Beltway stories, will use the down time to engage in hard-hitting investigative reporting that will reveal in even more stark relief the machinations of Bush & Co. illegalities and other scandalous behavior. But, given the corporate nature of our corporate-owned media, don't count on it. Instead, we'll probably be flooded with this summer's Condit-like sex scandal. ___

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught American politics and international relations at Western Washington University and San Diego State University; he was with the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly 20 years. 

Reproduced gratefully from





An Overview of the War on Terrorism: by JIM MARRS, 

Author of Rule By Secrecy 

August 12, 2002


"Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -- Philosopher George Santayana


"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -- President John F. Kennedy Americans are now beginning to pay the price for sleeping through history classes, ignoring important information in the alternative media and neglecting to participate in their own political process.

They find themselves in a new war --- the War on Terrorism. This is a war they never asked for and never envisioned, anesthetized as we all are by the flickering tube of distraction. It is a war predicated on the premise that a sneak attack was made on the United States September 11, 2001.

Unlike previous wars, there is no Berlin or Tokyo to capture and hence, no victory to be won, except for those who profit from war. The real victims of this war will be the average American citizen, right along with the starving Afghan.

This new war might well be compared to the failed War on Drugs and the nearly forgotten War on Poverty. No clear victory has yet been achieved over the misuse of drugs or the ravages of poverty within our own nation. Our prisons are overflowing with drug offenders with no appreciable lessening of either demand or supply and our basic civil rights have been badly mauled.

Just like those failed campaigns, the War on Terrorism for the foreseeable future will set us all on a costly course of restrictions on individual freedom, ever more centralized authority and omnipresent fear.

And where are the voices of those who would argue the merits of this new war? The airwaves and newspapers only ratchet the fear factor upwards each day with little or no effort to hear the many thoughtful Americans who are asking themselves, "Do I really need to give up my freedoms in order to save them?"

So with flags flying on the antennae of our gas-guzzling vehicles and love of country pulsing in our hearts, we march off to yet another war for oil.


Yes, oil. Petroleum has been behind all recent wars, beginning in the early 1940's, when a mostly rural and isolationist America was suddenly thrown into a world war as a reaction to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans mourned the loss of some 3,000 soldiers and civilians in Hawaii and, in righteous indignation, allowed their country to be turned into a giant military camp.

The federal government, which had consolidated so much power unto itself under the Depression-busting policies of President Franklin Roosevelt, grew even stronger and more centralized under the aegis of "national security". It all seemed quite natural and necessary at the time.

But serious students of history now know that even that "good war" was the result of machinations by a handful of wealthy and powerful men. By closing off Japan's oil supplies in the summer of 1941, Roosevelt, the quintessential Wall Street insider, ensured an eventual attack on the United States.

It has now been well established that Roosevelt and a few close advisers knew full well that Pearl Harbor would be attacked on Dec. 7, 1941, but chose to allow it to happen to further their agenda for launching American into war.

The Vietnam War was prosecuted by men who were close to Roosevelt and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who had long voiced a desire to gain control over Indochina's oil, magnesium and rubber assets. Again a provocation was created.

In August, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson whipped Congress into a frenzy claiming that North Vietnamese gunboats had attacked the US Sixth Fleet in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of Vietnam. "Our boys are floating in the water," he cried. Congress responded by passing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which bypassed the Constitution and gave Johnson the power to wage war to stop attacks on Americans. It was the beginning of the real shooting Vietnam War.

And it was all a lie. No evidence has ever been brought forward that such an attack took place. In fact, editors for US News & World Report (July 23, 1984) called it "The 'Phantom Battle' That Led to War."

While America was waging war against North Vietnam, which we were told was merely a puppet of communist Russia and China, Johnson was encouraged by his CFR advisers to grant the Soviet Union loans at higher levels than offered during World War II when they were our ally.

US-backed loans provided Russia with the means to build facilities which turned out war materials that were then sent to North Vietnam for use against American troops. This was a good example of the duplicity of our modern wars.

The Gulf War was all about oil, from the wells in Kuwait slant drilling into Iraq's southern reserves to the destruction of the oil fields at its finish. Here we found a new Hitler in Saddam Hussein, an enemy armed and financed by the CIA, an agency whose top officials have long been connected to oil men CFR members and other globalists (See Rule by Secrecy).

Saddam Hussein, strapped for cash due to his eight-year war against Iran on behalf of the US, decided to regain Kuwait as a means of increasing his income. Kuwait had been carved out of southern Iraqi by British troops. When asked her thoughts on this move, US Ambassador April Glaspie replied that the US government had "no opinion" on the matter and that the matter of Kuwait was not associated with America. But when he moved his troops into Kuwait, Bush mobilized a United Nations force against him, backed by a $4 billion secret fund provided by his business associates in Saudi Arabia.

Yet, as those patriotic soldiers closed in on Saddam, the whole war stopped and George H. W. Bush's old business partner is still in power. It appears to have been yet another provocation. And as in Vietnam, even as we prepared to fight against Saddam, the American taxpayers backed $500 million in loans that he used to purchase arms for use against our forces.


Today the real issue is the rich oil reserves of the Caspian Sea region, the prize sought by Hitler whose drive to that area was stopped only by the tenacious Russian defense of the Volga River city of Stalingrad.

In the late 1970's, with the Soviet discovery of vast untapped oil in Chechnya, the region was ripe for exploitation but control over Afghanistan was needed to ensure the safety of a pipeline to bring the oil to world markets. But after almost 10 years of brutal, no-quarter fighting against Afghans and Arab mercenaries backed by the United States, including Osama bin Laden, the Soviets were forced to withdraw. The economic stress of this Russo-Afghan War was enough to topple communism in the early 1990's.

Now the international bankers and oilmen have a foothold in cash-strapped Russia and the estimated $40 billion in Caspian Sea oil is again attracting serious attention.

In 1997, six international companies and the Government of Turkmenistan formed Central Asian Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) to build a 790-mile-long pipeline to Pakistan and perhaps on to the New Delhi area of India.

Leading this consortium was Unocal Corporation, whose president, John F. Imle, Jr., said the project would be "the foundation for a new commerce corridor for the region - often referred to as the Silk Road for the 21st Century."

But problems developed with the fundamentalist Muslim government in Afghanistan, not the least of which was the Taliban government's treatment of women which prompted feminist demonstrations against firms seeking to do business there. Additionally, the Taliban regime was creating chaotic conditions by pitting the various Islamic sects against each other in order to maintain control. In the mid-1999, Unocal withdrew from the pipeline consortium, citing the hazardous political situation and the project languished.

Notice that in President Bush's declaration of war on terrorism, he never mentioned terrorists in Northern Ireland or the Palestinian suicide bombers. Attention was only focused on Afghanistan, the one nation necessary to complete the lucrative pipeline. It should also be noted that Vice President Dick Cheney headed Halliburton, a giant oil industry service company and is generally thought to be more powerful than the president.

Today it can be demonstrated that military action against Afghanistan has been in the works long before the Sept. 11 attacks.


As reported by BBC's George Arney, former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik was alerted by American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would be launched by mid-October.

At a UN-sponsored meeting concerning Afghanistan in Berlin, Naik was informed that unless bin Laden was handed over, America would take military action to either kill or capture both him and Taliban leader Mullah Omar as the initial step in installing a new government there.

It should be noted, however, that American intervention in Afghanistan began years ago, at least six months prior to the Soviet invasion in December, 1979.

In a 1998 interview with former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in the French publication Le Nouvel Observateur, the significant portions of which never made it to the United States, he admitted that American activities in Afghanistan actually began six months prior to the Soviet action.

Brzezinski said the Jimmy Carter administration began secretly funding opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul in July of 1979 with the full knowledge such action might provoke a Soviet invasion. Soviet leaders at the time argued the invasion was necessary to thwart American aggression in Afghanistan. The former national security advisor, who helped found the globalist Trilateral Commission, expressed no regret at this provocation, stating, "That secret operation was an excellent idea. It brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire." It also produced the Taliban regime which we are fighting today, as well as Osama bin Laden.

By 1984, with Vice President George H. W. Bush overseeing the Afghan situation, bin Laden was in charge of the Maktab al-Khidamir (MAK) which funneled money, arms and manpower from the outside world into the war against the Soviets. He soon helped form a polyglot formation of Arabic troops from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps, whom the CIA found easier to deal with than the Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan.

There should be considerable soul-searching about America's role in arming and training an international group of Muslim extremists in Afghanistan long after their comrades destroyed the Marine barracks in Beruit and hijacked numerous airliners.

Little noticed in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks were reports that China had signed a pact with the Afghans and was quietly inducted into the controversial World Trade Organization, action which under normal circumstances would have drawn widespread protest. Although such a pact is unconfirmed at this time, Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf, chairman of their joint chiefs and chief of the Pakistani Army Staff, this years visited China at their request and discussed matters of mutual interest.

Although, it is claimed that Pakistan is aiding the US in the current War Against Terrorism, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism, Michael Sheehan, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee that Pakistan supports and trains terrorist groups in Afghanistan

This raises the specter of Chinese intervention should US forces become bogged down in mountainous Afghanistan. This prospect is particularly unsettling as back in 1555, the French prophet Nostradamus, who has been proven correct in so many of his prophecies, predicted that America and Russia would go to war against a coalition made up of Arab nations and China. Until just recently, such a notion seemed absurd.


The WTC/Pentagon attacks provided a convenient excuse to launch the pre-laid plans for military action against Afghanistan. But were they simply allowed to happen or were they contrived?

The question becomes: Would any American allow an attack on fellow Americans just to further his own business or political agenda?

The answer, unfortunately, appears to be "Yes."

Incredibly, 40-year-old government documents thought to have been destroyed long ago recently were made public show the US military in the early 1960's proposed making terrorist attacks in the United States and blaming them on Fidel Castro.

These documents are discussed in a recent book on the National Security Agency (NSA) entitled "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" by James Bamford.

These documents were produced beginning in late 1961 following the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that spring. President John F. Kennedy, angered by the inept actions of the CIA, had shifted responsibility for Cuba from that agency to the Department of Defense. Here, military strategists considered plans to create terrorist actions which would alarm the American population and stampede them into supporting a military attack on Cuba.

Under consideration in "Operation Northwoods" were plans:

* to create "a series of well-coordinated incidents" in or around the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to include inciting riots, blowing up ammunition stores, aircraft and ships.

* to "develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

* to "sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated)..foster attempts on the lives of Cuban refugees in the United States"

* to explode bombs in carefully chosen locations along with the release of "prepared documents" pointing to Cuban complicity.

* to use fake Russian aircraft to harass civilian airliners.

* to make "Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft" even to simulating the shooting down of a civilian airliner.

Kennedy rejected Operation Northwoods and senior military officers ordered the documents destroyed. But someone slipped up and the papers were discovered by the Assassination Records Review Board and recently released by the National Archives.

More recently, according to The New York Times (October 28, 1993), an informant named Emad Salem early in 1993 was involved with Middle Eastern terrorists connected to Osama bin Laden to develop a bomb for use against New York's World Trade Center. Salem, a former Egyptian Army officer, wanted to substitute a harmless powder for the explosive but his plan to thwart the attack was blocked by an FBI official who apparently did not want to expose the inside informant. The attack was allowed to proceed.

The February 26 explosion in the WTC resulted in six deaths, more than 1,000 casualties and damage in excess of half billion dollars.

We now see that creating crises to further political goals is a methodology well understood and utilized in the 20th century. Is this the game today? Let's examine the Sept. 11 attack.


Superficially, it all seemed straightforward enough. According to the official story, about 19 suicidal Middle Eastern terrorists, their hearts full of hatred for American freedom and democracy, hijacked four airliners, crashing two into the twin towers of New York City's World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon. The fourth reportedly crashed in western Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to fight the terrorists.

But a series of disturbing questions have arisen. Among them:

* Why was the US military preparing war plans against Afghanistan months before the Sept. 11 attacks? Were they just looking for some event to propel the normally disinterested American public into a war as in the past?

* How could paper documents incriminating bin Laden be found intact at the WTC but the plane's black recording boxes designed to withstand crashes were damaged beyond use?

* Even days and weeks after the WTC attack, why were news cameramen prevented from photographing the ruins from certain angles, as complained about by CBS Correspondent Lou Young, who asked, "What are they afraid we're going to see?"

* Why has the NYPD liaison to the FBI been sent packing as a "security risk" as reported in the Oct. 16 New York Times? Whose security is at risk? The FBI? What is it that the bureau does not want NYPD to know?

* How could an obviously sophisticated terrorist plan involving perhaps as many as 100 persons and in the works for five years escape the notice of our intelligence services, especially the FBI and CIA? And why, instead of cashiering those responsible for this intelligence failure and totally restructuring these agencies, are we doubling their budgets? Will we now get twice as much failure as before?

* Why did the South Tower collapse first when it was not as extensively damaged as the North Tower which burned for almost an hour and a half before collapsing?

* Why did many witnesses claim to hear further explosions within the buildings? And why did the destruction of the WTC towers appear more like a controlled implosion than a tragic accident?

* Why did FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledge that the list of named hijackers might not contain their real names? Doesn't everyone have to show a photo ID to claim a boarding pass? Where was the normal security?

* Why was there a discrepancy of 35 names between the published passenger lists and the official death toll on all four of the ill-fated flights? Internet Columnist Gary North reported, "the published names in no instance match the total listed for the number of people on board." Why the discrepancy?

* As none of these listed passengers had an Arabic-sounding names, how did the government know which were the hijackers?

* Why did the seat numbers of the hijackers given by a cell phone call from Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic control not match the seats occupied by the men the FBI claimed were responsible?

* Since Saudi Arabia's foreign minister claimed five of the proclaimed hijackers were not aboard the death planes and in fact are still alive and a sixth man on that list was reported to be alive and well in Tunisia, why are these names still on the FBI list?

* Why were none of the named hijacker's names on any of the passenger list? If they all used aliases, how did the FBI identify them so quickly?

* Why did one of the named hijackers take luggage on a suicide flight, then leave it along with an incriminating note in his car at the airport?

* As for the overall investigation into the September attacks, by late October U.S. authorities conceded that most of their promising leads for finding accomplices and some of their long-held suspicions about several suspects have unraveled, according to The New York Times. Since more than 800 people have been arrested and more than 365,000 tips have been received from the public, why has nothing substantial has been forthcoming in the largest U.S. criminal investigation in history?

* Why are none of the nearly 100 people still being sought by the Federal Bureau of Investigation seen as a major suspect?

* Why are we bombing Afghanistan when apparently none of the listed hijackers were Afghans, but instead Arabs from various Middle Eastern nations? Since Iraq was implicated in the 1993 WTC attack, why are we not bombing that "rogue" nation?

* Why does the heavy drinking and searching for hookers by some of the hijackers in Boston, as reported by Reuters New Service, sound more like mercenaries carousing before a mission than pious religious fundamentalists about to meet their maker?

* How did the terrorists obtain top-secret White House and Air Force One codes and signals, the excuse for hustling President Bush all across the country on Sept. 11? Was this evidence of an inside job or was it, as reported by Fox News, evidence that former FBI employee and double agent Robert Hanssen delivered an updated version of the purloined computer software Promis to his Russian handlers who passed it along to bin Laden? Does this software, which was stolen from a US company during the Reagan Administration by Justice Department officials under Attorney General Ed Meese, allow outsiders carte blanch entrée to our top security computers? (Hanssen's last job before being arrested as a spy was to upgrade the FBI's intelligence computer systems.)

* If United Flight 93 crashed as the result of a struggle between heroic passengers and the hijackers, why did witnesses tell of a second plane which followed it down, falling burning debris, no deep crater and crash wreckage spread over a six-mile area indicative of an aerial explosion?

* Why did news outlets describe the throat-cutting and mutilation of passengers on Flight 93 with box cutters when Time magazine on Sept. 24 reported that one of the passengers called home on a cell phone to report, "We have been hijacked. They are being kind."?

As Internet pundit Gary North stated, "We need a theory of the coordinated hijackings that rests on a plausible cause-and-effect sequence that does not assume the complete failure of both check-in procedures and the on-board seating procedures on four separate flights on two separate airlinesI don't see how anyone can make an accurate judgment about who was behind the attacks until he has a plausible explanation of how hijackers got onto the planes and were not removed."

But the federal government aided by a sycophantic mass media did not allow such rational thinking to interfere with a rush to judgment that Osama bin Laden was the culprit behind the attacks.


As in the JFK assassination, authorities had a suspect even before anyone knew for certain what had happened. He was the son of a wealthy Middle Eastern oil family, Osama bin Laden, who during the Russo-Afghan War of the 1980s, received arms and financing from the US Government. Despite the fact that bin Laden has denied any knowledge of the attack, he was presumed guilty by both the government and the press. No other interpretation of the attack was allowed in the corporate mass media.

Bin Laden is a made-to-order enemy, the man reportedly behind the 1993 WTC attack and a fugitive from United States justice for more than a decade.

It has been noted that the government apparently has spent more time and money chasing Microsoft's Bill Gates than in capturing bin Laden.

This may be due to the business connections between our new terrorist enemy and wealthy American companies.

According to several reports, including Jonathan Beaty and S. C. Gwynne's book "The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride into the Secret Heart of the BCCI" (New York: Random House, 1993) and American Free Press (October 15, 2001), the reincarnation of the Washington newspaper The Spotlight, Bush family friend James R. Bath used money from Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem, to open a partnership with George W. Bush in Arbusto Energy, a West Texas drilling company. Bush believed the word "arbusto" to mean Bush in Spanish, although it generally refers to a "shrub".

According to The Houston Chronicle, Salem bin Laden named Bath his business representative in Texas shortly after the senior Bush was named CIA director by appointed President Gerald Ford in 1975. It was the Bush family, particularly Jeb and Neil, who were involved in the savings and loan debacle from 1989 to 1993 that cost taxpayers more than $500 billion.

Through a tangled web of Texas oilmen, wealthy Saudi sheiks and unscrupulous bankers connected to BCCI, the younger Bush eventually gained a sizable interest in a new oil company called Harken Energy. Two months before Saddam Hussein sent Iraqi troops into Kuwait, Bush sold two-thirds of his Harken stock, netting himself nearly a one million dollar profit. The stock dropped when the Iraqi invasion began.

It should be noted that during the Persian Gulf War, it was Binladen Brothers Construction (now the Binladen Group) that helped build airfields for US aircraft. The bin Laden brothers were then described as "a good friend of the US government".

Later the bin Laden firm continued to be hired to construct an American air base in Saudi Arabia despite the fact that Osama had already been blamed for terrorist acts such as the truck bombing of the Khobar Towers at the Dhahran base which killed 19 Americans. A WorldNetDaily writer commented, "So let's get this straight. Osama blows up our facilities, and his family gets the contract for rebuilding them. Do you get the feeling there is more going on than meets the eye?"

Osama's older brother, Salem, was killed in the strange crash of an ultralight aircraft in 1988. The single-passenger craft suddenly and inexplicably veered into high-voltage electric power lines near San Antonio, Texas. The BCCI bank was closed by federal investigators in 1991 after suffering some $10 billion in losses. BCCI was a Pakistani-run institution with front companies in the Cayman Islands that used secret accounts for global money-laundering and was used by U. S. intelligence to funnel money to bin-Laden and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting against the Soviet-backed government.

Another close connection between bin Laden and the Bush family is a $12-billion private international investment firm known as the Carlyle Group. Although it has removed its web site since the Sept. 11 attacks, it is known that Carlyle directors include former Reagan Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, former Bush Secretary of State James Baker and former Reagan aide and GOP operative Richard Darman.

The New York Times reported that former President Bush was allowed to buy into Carlyle's investments which involve at least 164 companies around the world.

According to the Wall Street Journal (Sept. 28, 2001), "George H. W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm."

It has been confirmed by the senior Bush's chief of staff that Bush sent a thank you note to the bin Laden family after a social visit in early 2001.

With such connections and his son as a sitting President of the United States, the senior Bush's Carlyle involvement was questioned by Larry Klayman, chairman and general counsel of Judicial Watch, who said, "Any foreign government or foreign investor trying to curry favor with the current Bush Administration is sure to throw business to the Carlyle Group. And with the former President Bush promoting the firm's investments abroad, foreign nationals could understandably confuse the Carlyle Group's interests with the interests of the United States government."

After detailing some of the Carlyle/bin Laden investments in several businesses, including aerospace industries, writer Michael C. Ruppert commented, "In other words, Osama bin Laden's attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, with the resulting massive increase in the US defense budget, have just made his family a great big pile of money."

What makes these business dealings that entangle former and current American political leaders with Middle Easterners even more suspect was the announcement that several US firms were being investigated for short selling stocks just prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.


Short selling of stocks involves the opportunity to gain large profits by passing shares to a friendly third party, then buying them back when the price falls. Historically, if this precedes a traumatic event, it is an indication of foreknowledge. It is widely known that the CIA uses the Promis software to routinely monitor stock trades as a possible warning sign of a terrorist attack or suspicious economic behavior.

A week after the Sept. 11 attacks, the London Times reported that the CIA had asked regulators for the Financial Services Authority in London to investigate the suspicious sales of millions of shares of stock just prior to the terrorist acts. It was hoped the business paper trail might lead to the terrorists. The Times said market regulators in Germany, Japan and the US all had received information concerning the short selling of insurance, airlines and arms companies stock , all of which fell sharply in the wake of the attacks.

City of London broker and analyst Richard Crossley noted that someone sold shares in unusually large quantities beginning three weeks before the assault on the WTC and Pentagon. He said he took this as evidence that someone had insider foreknowledge of the attacks.

"What is more awful than he should aim a stiletto blow at the heart of Western financial markets?," he added. "But to profit from it. Words fail me."

The US Government also admitted it was investigating short selling, which evinced a foreknowledge of the tragedy. There was unusually heavy trading in airline and insurance stocks several days before Sept. 11 which essentially bet on a drop in the worth of the stocks. It was reported by the Interdisciplinary Center, a counter-terrorism think tank involving former Israeli intelligence officers, that insiders made nearly $16 million profit by short selling shares in American and United Airlines, the two airlines that suffered hijacking, and the investment firm of Morgan Stanley, which occupied 22 floors of the WTC.

Apparently none of the suspicious transactions could be traced to bin Laden because this news item quietly dropped from sight, leaving many people wondering if it tracked back to American firms or intelligence agencies.

According to web writer and former LA policeman Michael C. Ruppert, these transactions were handled primarily by Deutsche Bank-A. B. Brown, a firm which until 1998 was chaired by A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard, who today is executive director of the CIA.

Besides Krongard, other prominent Americans connected to both the CIA and Wall Street power include Clark Clifford (who was a key player in gaining legitimacy for the BCCI), John Foster and Allen Dulles (Allen oversaw the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion and sat on the Warren Commission), Bill Casey, David Doherty, George Herbert Walker Bush, John Deutch, Nora Slatkin and Hank Greenburg.

As detailed in "Rule by Secrecy," the CIA historically has been top heavy with members of the Wall Street elite who desire to advance their globalist agenda. It also operates a number of front companies which themselves deal in stocks and bonds. I am absolutely convinced that the Central Intelligence Agency had complete and perfect foreknowledge of the attacks, down to the date, time, place and location," Ruppert told OnLine Journal on Oct. 12.

There were other indications of foreknowledge. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown stated on that on Sept. 10 he was warned by his personal "airport security" not to fly the next day, according to radio station KSFO.

More ominous was a piece in the Sept. 28 edition of the Washington Post stating that officials with the instant messaging firm of Odigo in New York confirmed that two employees in Israel received text messages warning of an attack on the WTC two hours before the planes crashed into the buildings.

The firm's vice president of sales and marketing, Alex Diamandis said it was possible that the warning was sent to other Odigo members, but they had not received any reports of such.

Military forces had been on a heightened state of alert for several days before the attack and several psychics claimed to have had a premonition that something was afoot.

Even the Russians got in on the act. Dr. Tatyana Koragina, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Macroeconomic Researches which is a part of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, gained credibility due to her July prediction that an unusual catastrophe would strike America in late August ruining the economy.

In a Pravda interview, she stated, "The US has been chosen as the object of financial attack because the financial center of the planet is located there. The effect will be maximal. The strike waves of economic crisis will spread over the planet"

Following the Sept. 11 attacks, Dr. Koragina was reinterviewed and asserted the "powerful group" behind the attacks will make new strikes. "When [Americans] understand after the upcoming, new strikes, that their government can guarantee them nothing, they will panic - causing a collapse of their financial system."

Asked who was really behind this odious plan, she replied it is not the 19 terrorists identified by the FBI but rather a larger group seeking to reshape the world. She said this group of extremely powerful private persons hold total assets of about $300 trillion and intend to legitimize their power under a new global government.

Some took Dr. Koragina's eerily correct predictions as evidence that Russia itself may be behind some of the current events. It is a fact that Russia has backed several state sponsors of terrorists, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea and Cuba.


But let us not forget the indications that someone in Israel had foreknowledge of the attacks. And there were questions concerning the number of Israeli citizens killed in the attacks. The day after, the Jerusalem Post claimed two Israelis died on the hijacked airplanes and that 4,000 were missing at the WTC.

A week later, a Beirut television station reported that 4,000 Israeli employees of the WTC were absent the day of the attack. This information spread across the Internet but was quickly branded a hoax.

On Sept. 19, the Washington Post reported about 113 Israelis were missing at the WTC and the next day, President Bush noted more than 130 Israelis were victims. Finally, on Sept. 22, the New York Times stated "There were, in fact, only three Israelis who had been confirmed as dead: two on the planes and another who had been visiting the towers on business and who was identified and buried."

Of all the nations of the world, Israel probably profited the most from the events of Sept. 11.

A permanent American military force in the Middle East is now assured, offering an umbrella of protection to that small nation despite the anger engendered in Arab states.

After Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the Muslim mosque in Jerusalem resulted in widespread violence by Palestinians, world opinion began to shift away from uncritical support of Israel. It has been reported that the Bush Administration was beginning to seriously consider support for a separate Palestinian state.

Israel's powerful and effective intelligence agency, the Mossad, is not beyond suspicion, according to the US Army's School of Advanced Military Studies. The Washington Times on Sept. 10, just 24 hours before the attacks, ran an article quoting officers of the school as describing the Mossad as "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

It is generally known that the Mossad has penetrated every Arab and Muslim organization and would have had little problem in finding any number of fanatics to carry out a suicide mission in the belief they were serving Allah.

Indeed, recent news reports contended that not all of the hijackers knew their mission would end in death.


Thanks to newly revealed technology, it is now possible to theorize that none of the hijackers intended to die.

Global Hawk is the name of the latest version of a high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned air vehicle (UAV), in other words, a unmanned drone plane that can take off, conduct missions such as photographing battlefields and land by remote electronic control.

This Buck Rogers equipment made its first operational flight Oct. 7 when it was used for reconnaissance over Afghanistan in preparation for US air and missile strikes against the Taliban regime.

But this remote-controlled plane, similar to a Boeing 737 commercial airliner, was successfully tested earlier this year, first at Edwards Air Force Base and later at Edinburgh Air Force Base in southern Australia.

Prior to leaving Australia, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defense Dr. Brendan Nelson said, "Global Hawk will create aviation history again during its return journey to become the first unmanned aircraft to fly non-stop from Australia to the United States west coast."

When news of Global Hawk was first released, there was speculation that the UAV technology might be used to thwart airline hijackings. Once a hijacking took place, the Global Hawk technology would be triggered and the captured plane flown to a landing at a safe location regardless of the actions of the flight crew or the hijackers.

In fact, following the attacks, the New York Times on Sept. 28 in an article on increasing air safety, mentioned "new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control".

This made it seem such technology is not yet available, yet earlier this year, a former chief of British Airways suggested that such technology could be used to commandeer an aircraft from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijacking.

Needless to say, there are those today who question if Global Hawk's true first operational use might have been conducted on Sept. 11. After all, as all experienced aviation and military persons well know, if a technology such as Global Hawk is publicly revealed, it most probably has been in secret use for several years. But regardless of how the planes with the terrorists were controlled, it is clear that their managers had information, if not help, from inside the government.


Early on, the Bush White House issued a statement stating that credible evidence showed that the hijackers had access to the top secret codes of Air Force One, in which the President fled from Florida to Louisiana and on to Nebraska. This statement made the President's zig-zag journey of 9-11 more like that of a careful and prudent commander than a fleeing coward.

White House officials later said this information was untrue, leaving the public with the question of what else has the Bush people told us that is untrue, or that the their first statements were true, raising the possibility that there may have been inside help in obtaining the codes.

It is certainly true that various agencies knew for some time that suspected terrorists were operating in the United States.

As early as 1995, it was known within police and military circles and reported in VFW and American Legion publications that some 5,000 former Iraqi prisoners of war had been allowed in this country by the Clinton Administration beginning in 1993. Most had worked with the CIA at one time or another and were allowed in this country to avoid death at the hands of a vengeful Saddam Hussein.

Many of these men had been with the Iraqi Republican Guard which blew up the Kuwaiti oil fields at the end of the Gulf War, so they obviously were trained in explosives.

They were "resettled" in various US cities and where they formed cells. These cities included New York City, Boston, Washington, D. C., Miami, New Orleans, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Kansas City and more.

These men participated in fundraising activities for the HAMAS and Hezballah terrorist chains. They have been connected to Osama bin Laden through a Cebu City connection in the Philippines, the location that convicted bomber Terry Nichols visited with his Philippine wife. At least 12 of these former POWs are believed to have been involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Although this may seem a strange and unreported connection, there is a wealth of information linking Iraqi operatives to Timothy McVeigh. In fact the Oct. 29 edition of U.S. News & World Report revealed that "top Defense officials" believe McVeigh was acting as an agent for Iraq, an astounding development in light of the extent the government continued to deny any conspiracy other that aid from Terry Nichols.

These same trained soldiers reportedly created a number of clandestine laboratories to produce biological warfare germs, including anthrax, bubonic plague, various hemorrhagic fevers and other deadly combinations.


In 1996, The FBI finally was moved to action concerning the biological threat. Ohio microbiologist Larry Wayne Harris had tried to alert the public to the danger of anthrax being smuggled into the United States by Muslim extremists but was demonized by the mass media as a conspiracy buff. In 1998, Harris, along with Nevada microbiologist William Leavitt, was arrested by the FBI in Las Vegas for possessing anthrax cultures.

The mass media broadcast this news widely, repeating the government's charge that the men were testing the deadly toxins in preparation for an attack on New York. These allegations were quietly dropped only a few days later when it was found that the men possessed a harmless veterinary anti-anthrax vaccine. They were attempting to find their own antidote to anthrax, a dangerous disease the government continued to dismiss in the mid-1990s. (US News & World Report, March 2, 1998 and March 9.)

It is interesting that at that same time, several people were warning that an anthrax vaccine ordered for all US military personnel was actually going to be used to spread the disease and provoke a United Nations takeover once enough US soldiers were incapacitated. It was claimed that this plan would be set in motion by an emergency blamed on foreigners which would hasten the use of the vaccine. Several military persons were brought before a court martial for refusing to take the vaccine.

And what of Osama bin Laden? What did he have to say about all this?

Don't look to the corporate mass media to inform you as they have all agreed not to broadcast anything that might detract from the official government story, even though it is acknowledged that Bush's media denunciations of bin Laden have been more filled with adjectives like "evil" and "evildoer" than specific evidence.

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAR) noted that on Oct. 10, network executives representing ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN were involved in a conference call with National Security Adviser and Council on Foreign Relations heavyweight Condoleeza Rice. The execs apparently agreed to limit how and what they broadcast regarding bin Laden or his Al Qaeda group. Bush people even tried unsuccessfully to have al Jazeera, called the "CNN of the Mideast," broadcasting from Qatar tone down its coverage of bin Laden. They were more successful with members of our Congress, when they threatened to cut off intelligence reports if they spoke offhand to the media.

The next day, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, already on the record saying Americans "need to watch what they say," extended this constraint by contacting major newspapers asking that they not print full transcripts of bin Laden's interviews.

According to a FAR news release, "The point is not that bin Laden or Al Qaeda deserve 'equal time' on US news broadcasts, but that it is troubling for government to shape or influence news content. Withholding information from the public is hardly patriotic. When the White House insists that it's dangerous to report a news event "in its entirety", alarm bells should go off for journalists and the American public alike."


Here's what bin Laden did say in an interview on Sept. 28, according to the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, not do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people"

In this interview, apparently suppressed in the United States, bin Laden unsurprisingly blamed the attacks on Israel, claiming, "All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel.(and) what had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia. (A full text of this interview may be found at

Bin Laden went on to state, "we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [US Government] system which makes other nations slaves to the United States or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom."

One cannot, of course, take bin Laden at face value, but then the same could be said for the US Government which has been caught in so many lies and deceit in the past that it is surprising that anyone pays any attention to official pronouncements.


What should be thoughtfully considered is the dismal record of United States foreign policy since World War II. This policy, as confirmed by the New York Times years ago, has been in the hands of the Council on Foreign Relations elite since at least 1939.

This elite and its associates includes former Presidents Bush and Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon, virtually every CIA director as well as a considerable number of familiar past and present government officials such as Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Wesley Clark, Strobe Talbott, Alexander Haig, Alan Greenspan, Bruce Babbitt, James A. Baker III, Sandy Berger, Colin Powell, Harold Brown, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank C. Carlucci, Richard Darman, John Deutch, Lawrence Eagleburger, Robert McFarlane, Brent Snowcroft, Condoleeza Rice and Casper Weinberger.

This policy has been one of neo-colonialism, that is the subjugation and control of other nations through military dictators or wealthy families supported by, and often placed in power, by the US military or intelligence services.

* The results of this neo-colonial policy has been dismal at best and catastrophic at worst. Never mind the historical aggression displayed by American foreign policy in the Mexican War of 1848 and the Spanish-American War of 1898. Consider this policy since World War II.

* In 1951, when Iran's Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry in that Mideast nation, he was deposed by a coup instigated by the CIA and the Shah came to power, assuming complete control in 1963. Thousands of Iranians, perhaps millions died during the repressive rule of the Shah and his SAVAK secret police. The Shah was finally forced out in 1979 by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who became the US's latest foreign enemy despite the fact that he had been on the CIA payroll while living in Paris. The Shah was granted asylum in the United States.

* In Guatemala in 1954, again the CIA toppled the popularly elected government of Jacobo Arbenz, which had nationalized United Fruit property. Prominent American government officials such as former CIA Director Walter Bedell Smith, then CIA Director Allen Dulles, Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs John Moors Cabot and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles were all closely connected to United Fruit. An estimated 120,000 Guatemalan peasants died in the resulting military dictatorships.

* Fidel Castro, with covert aid from the CIA, overthrew the military dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista and instituted sweeping land, industrial and educational reforms as well as nationalizing American businesses. Swifty labeled a communist, the CIA then organized anti-Castro Cubans resulting in numerous attacks on Cuba and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961. The island nation has been the object of US economic sanctions since that time.

* More than 3,000 persons died in the wake of an invasion of the Dominican Republic by US Marines in 1965. The troops ostensibly were sent to prevent a communist takeover, although later it was admitted that there had been no proof of such a takeover.

* Also in 1965, the US began the bombing of North Vietnam after President Johnson proclaimed the civil war there an "aggression" by the north. Two years later, American troop strength in Vietnam had grown to 380,000. US dead by the end of that Asian war totaled some 58,000 with casualties to the Vietnamese, both north and south, running more into the millions.

* In 1973, the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile was overthrown by a military coup aided by the CIA. Allende was killed and some 30,000 persons died in subsequent violence and repression, including some Americans.

* In 1968, General Sukarno, the dictator of Indonesia, was overthrown by the General Suharto, again with aid from the CIA. Suharto proved even more dictatorial and corrupt than his predecessor. A reported 800,000 people died during his regime.

* Another 250,000 persons died in 1975 during the brutal invasion of East Timor by the Suharto regime aided by the US Government and Henry Kissinger.

* In 1979, the powerful Somoza family, which had ruled Nicaragua since 1937, was finally overthrown and Daniel Ortega was elected president. CIA-backed Contra insurgents operating from Honduras fought a protracted war to oust the Ortega government in which an estimated 30,000 people died. The ensuing struggle came to include such shady dealing in arms and drugs that it created a scandal in the United States called Iran-Contra, which involved selling arms to Iran and using the profits to support the Contras.

* US Marines landed in Lebanon in 1982 in an attempt to preventing further bloodshed between occupying Israeli troops and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Thousands died in the resulting civil war, including several hundred Palestinians massacred in refugee camps by Christian forces. Despite the battleship shelling of Beirut, American forces were withdrawn in 1984 after a series of bloody attacks on them.

* In 1983, US troops invaded the tiny Caribbean island nation of Grenada after a leftist government was installed. The official explanation was to rescue a handful of American students who initially said they didn't need rescuing.

* For nearly 20 years, during the 1970s and 1980s, the US Government gave aid and arms to the right wing government of the Republic of El Salvador for use against it leftist enemies. By 1988, some 70,000 Salvadorans had died.

* More than one million persons died in the 15-year battle in Angola between the Marxist government aided by Cuban troops and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola, supported by South Africa and the US Government.

* When Muammur al-Qaddafi tried to socialize the oil-rich North African nation of Libya beginning with his takeover in 1969, he drew the wrath of the US Government. In 1981, it was claimed that Qaddafi had sent hit teams to the United States to assassinate President Reagan and in 1986, following the withdrawal of U.S. oil companies from Libya, an air attack was launched which missed Qaddafi but killed several people including his infant daughter.

* In 1987, an Iraqi missile attack on the US frigate Stark resulted in 37 deaths. Shortly afterward, the Iraqi president apologized for the incident. In 1988, a US Navy ship shot down an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf resulting in 290 deaths. The Reagan Administration simply called it a mistake.

* Thousands of freedom seeking Chinese were killed in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989 after hardliners conferred with former President Richard Nixon on how to deal with the dissidents. Nixon, of course, was the only US president to resign under threat of criminal indictment.

* About 8,000 Panamanians died over Christmas, 1989, when President George H. W. Bush sent US troops to invade that Central American nation to arrest his former business partner, Manuel Noriega. The excuse was that Noriega was involved in the importation of drugs to the United States. U.S. News & World Report noted that in 1990, the amount of drugs moving through Panama had doubled.

* Iraqi casualties, both military and civilian, totaled more than 300,000 during the short Persian Gulf War of 1991. It has been estimated that more than one million Iraqis, including women and children, have died as a result of the continued missile and air attacks over the past decade as well as economic sanctions against that nation.

* Also in 1991, the United States suspended assistance to Haiti after the election of a liberal priest sparked military action. Eventually, US troops were deployed.

The names of nations that have felt the brunt of US CIA and/or military activity as a result of foreign policy include Somalia, Afghanistan, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Brazil, Chad, Sudan and many others. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated during the Vietnam War, "My government is the world's leading purveyor of violence."

He did not say "my country" or "my people," it is the government, or rather those who control it, that are responsible. Although we the distracted and unaware citizens who claim to live in a democracy must take our fair share of the blame.


Is there precedence in history for what is happening to America today? So much so that there is not enough space to present it all. Nero burned Rome, blamed it on his enemies and took dictatorial power.

But consider what happened just last century. On February 27, 1933, the German Reichstag or Parliament was destroyed by fire. Hitler and his Nazis blamed the destruction on communist terrorists. They even caught one, a retarded Dutch youth named Marinus van der Lubbe who carried a Communist Party card. After some time in custody, the youth confessed to being the arsonist. However, later investigation found that one person could not have started the mammoth blaze and that incendiaries had been carried into the building through a tunnel which led to the offices of Hitler's closest partner, Hermann Goering.

Less than a month later, on March 24, 1933, at Hitler's urging, a panicky German Parliament voted 441 to 94 to pass an "Enabling Act" which was the starting point for Hitler's dictatorship. As a result of this act, Germans soon saw gun confiscation, national identity cards, racial profiling, a national security chief (Heinrich Himmler) and later, mass murders and incarcerations in concentration camps.

One of the western leaders who supported Hitler and his policies was Prescott Bush, grandfather of President George W. Bush. He must have taken notice of Hitler's method for gaining unwarranted power.

Since the Reichstag fire, the Bush family and their associates in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderbergers have often mimicked Hitler's tactics of creating a problem, offering a draconian solution and advancing their agenda through any resulting compromise.

The real enemy is whoever is behind the Sept. 11 terror attack. Osama bin Laden, so closely connected to the financial interests of the Bush family and the CIA, may be the mastermind or he may be a convenient scapegoat, yet another provocation to stampeded Americans into another war for oil.

We must thoughtfully consider where the real source of terror lies ---with one bearded fanatic in an impoverished Middle Eastern country or with those who would profit while shredding the US Constitution in the name of defending freedom.


Jim Marrs is the author of the ground breaking alternative history "Rule by Secrecy" (2000; Harper Collins) His website is 

Written by Jim Marrs, Author of Rule By Secrecy, Posted 8/12/2002

Reproduced gratefully from: Jim Marrs' fascinating conspiracy web-site.





The Enemy Within

Gore Vidal is America's most controversial writer and a ferocious, often isolated, critic of the Bush administration. Here, against a backdrop of spreading unease about America's response to the events of 11 September 2001 and their aftermath, we publish Vidal's remarkable personal polemic urging a shocking new interpretation of who was to blame.

On 24 August, 1814, things looked very dark for freedom's land. That was the day the British captured Washington DC and set fire to the Capitol and the White House. President Madison took refuge in the nearby Virginia woods where he waited patiently for the notoriously short attention span of the Brits to kick in, which it did. They moved on and what might have been a Day of Utter Darkness turned out to be something of a bonanza for the DC building trades and up-market realtors. One year after 9/11, we still don't know by whom we were struck that infamous Tuesday, or for what true purpose. But it is fairly plain to many civil-libertarians that 9/11 put paid not only to much of our fragile Bill of Rights but also to our once-envied system of government which had taken a mortal blow the previous year when the Supreme Court did a little dance in 5/4 time and replaced a popularly elected president with the oil and gas Cheney/Bush junta. Meanwhile, our more and more unaccountable government is pursuing all sorts of games around the world that we the spear carriers (formerly the people) will never learn of. Even so, we have been getting some answers to the question: why weren't we warned in advance of 9/11? Apparently, we were, repeatedly; for the better part of a year, we were told there would be unfriendly visitors to our skies some time in September 2001, but the government neither informed nor protected us despite Mayday warnings from Presidents Putin and Mubarak, from Mossad and even from elements of our own FBI. A joint panel of congressional intelligence committees reported (19 September 2002, New York Times) that as early as 1996, Pakistani terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad confessed to federal agents that he was 'learning to fly in order to crash a plane into CIA HQ'. Only CIA director George Tenet seemed to take the various threats seriously. In December 1998, he wrote to his deputies that 'we are at war' with Osama bin Laden. So impressed was the FBI by his warnings that by 20 September 2001, 'the FBI still had only one analyst assigned full time to al-Qaeda'. From a briefing prepared for Bush at the beginning of July 2001: 'We believe that OBL [Osama bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.' And so it came to pass; yet Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, says she never suspected that this meant anything more than the kidnapping of planes. Happily, somewhere over the Beltway, there is Europe - recently declared anti-Semitic by the US media because most of Europe wants no war with Iraq and the junta does, for reasons we may now begin to understand thanks to European and Asian investigators with their relatively free media. On the subject 'How and Why America was Attacked on 11 September, 2001', the best, most balanced report, thus far, is by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed ... Yes, yes, I know he is one of Them. But they often know things that we don't - particularly about what we are up to. A political scientist, Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development 'a think-tank dedicated to the promotion of human rights, justice and peace' in Brighton. His book, 'The War on Freedom', has just been published in the US by a small but reputable publisher. Ahmed provides a background for our ongoing war against Afghanistan, a view that in no way coincides with what the administration has told us. He has drawn on many sources, most tellingly on American whistleblowers who are beginning to come forth and hear witness - like those FBI agents who warned their supervisors that al-Qaeda was planning a kamikaze strike against New York and Washington only to be told that if they went public with these warnings they would suffer under the National Security Act. Several of these agents have engaged David P. Schippers, chief investigative counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee, to represent them in court. The majestic Schippers managed the successful impeachment of President Clinton in the House of Representatives. He may, if the Iraqi war should go wrong, be obliged to perform the same high service for Bush, who allowed the American people to go unwarned about an imminent attack upon two of our cities as pre-emption of a planned military strike by the US against the Taliban. The Guardian (26 September 2001) reported that in July 2001, a group of interested parties met in a Berlin hotel to listen to a former State Department official, Lee Coldren, as he passed on a message from the Bush administration that 'the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action ... the chilling quality of this private warning was that it came - according to one of those present, the Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik - accompanied by specific details of how Bush would succeed ...' Four days earlier, the Guardian had reported that 'Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military action against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington ... [which] raises the possibility that bin Laden was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats.' A replay of the 'day of infamy' in the Pacific 62 years earlier?

Why the US needed a Eurasian adventure

On 9 September 2001, Bush was presented with a draft of a national security presidential directive outlining a global campaign of military, diplomatic and intelligence action targeting al-Qaeda, buttressed by the threat of war. According to NBC News: 'President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaeda ... but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks ... The directive, as described to NBC News, was essentially the same war plan as the one put into action after 11 September. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly ... because it simply had to pull the plans "off the shelf".' Finally, BBC News, 18 September 2001: 'Niak Naik, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. It was Naik's view that Washington would not drop its war for Afghanistan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.' Was Afghanistan then turned to rubble in order to avenge the 3,000 Americans slaughtered by Osama? Hardly. The administration is convinced that Americans are so simple-minded that they can deal with no scenario more complex than the venerable lone, crazed killer (this time with zombie helpers) who does evil just for the fun of it 'cause he hates us, 'cause we're rich 'n free 'n he's not. Osama was chosen on aesthetic grounds to be the most frightening logo for our long contemplated invasion and conquest of Afghanistan, planning for which had been 'contingency' some years before 9/11 and, again, from 20 December, 2000, when Clinton's out-going team devised a plan to strike at al-Qaeda in retaliation for the assault on the warship Cole. Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, personally briefed his successor on the plan but Rice, still very much in her role as director of Chevron-Texaco, with special duties regarding Pakistan and Uzbekistan, now denies any such briefing. A year and a half later (12 August, 2002), fearless Time magazine reported this odd memory lapse. Osama, if it was he and not a nation, simply provided the necessary shock to put in train a war of conquest. But conquest of what? What is there in dismal dry sandy Afghanistan worth conquering? Zbigniew Brzezinski tells us exactly what in a 1997 Council on Foreign Relations study called 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives'. The Polish-born Brzezinski was the hawkish National Security Advisor to President Carter. In 'The Grand Chessboard', Brzezinski gives a little history lesson. 'Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some 500 years ago, Eurasia has been the centre of world power.' Eurasia is all the territory east of Germany. This means Russia, the Middle East, China and parts of India. Brzezinski acknowledges that Russia and China, bordering oil-rich central Asia, are the two main powers threatening US hegemony in that area. He takes it for granted that the US must exert control over the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, known to those who love them as 'the Stans': Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan and Kyrgyzstan all 'of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and most powerful neighbours - Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China signaling'. Brzezinski notes how the world's energy consumption keeps increasing; hence, who controls Caspian oil/gas will control the world economy. Brzezinski then, reflexively, goes into the standard American rationalization for empire;. We want nothing, ever, for ourselves, only to keep bad people from getting good things with which to hurt good people. 'It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single [other] power comes to control the geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.' Brzezinski is quite aware that American leaders are wonderfully ignorant of history and geography so he really lays it on, stopping just short of invoking politically incorrect 'manifest destiny'. He reminds the Council just how big Eurasia is. Seventy-five percent of the world's population is Eurasian. If I have done the sums right, that means that we've only got control, to date, of a mere 25 percent of the world's folks. More! 'Eurasia accounts for 60-per cent of the world's GNP and three- fourths of the world's known energy resources.' Brzezinski's master plan for 'our' globe has obviously been accepted by the Cheney-Bush junta. Corporate America, long over-excited by Eurasian mineral wealth, has been aboard from the beginning. Ahmed sums up: 'Brzezinski clearly envisaged that the establishment, consolidation and expansion of US military hegemony over Eurasia through Central Asia would require the unprecedented, open- ended militarisation of foreign policy, coupled with an unprecedented manufacture of domestic support and consensus on this militarisation campaign.' Afghanistan is the gateway to all these riches. Will we fight to seize them? It should never be forgotten that the American people did not want to fight in either of the twentieth century's world wars, but President Wilson maneuvered us into the First while President Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into striking the first blow at Pearl Harbor, causing us to enter the Second as the result of a massive external attack. Brzezinski understands all this and, in 1997, he is thinking ahead - as well as backward. 'Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.' Thus was the symbolic gun produced that belched black smoke over Manhattan and the Pentagon. Since the Iran-Iraq wars, Islam has been demonized as a Satanic terrorist cult that encourages suicide attacks - contrary, it should be noted, to the Islamic religion. Osama has been portrayed, accurately, it would seem, as an Islamic zealot. In order to bring this evil-doer to justice ('dead or alive'), Afghanistan, the object of the exercise was made safe not only for democracy but for Union Oil of California whose proposed pipeline from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan to Pakistan and the Indian Ocean port of Karachi, had been abandoned under the Taliban's chaotic regime. Currently, the pipeline is a go-project thanks to the junta's installation of a Unocal employee (John J Maresca) as US envoy to the newly born democracy whose president, Hamid Karzai, is also, according to Le Monde, a former employee of a Unocal subsidiary. Conspiracy? Coincidence! Once Afghanistan looked to be within the fold, the junta, which had managed to pull off a complex diplomatic-military caper, - abruptly replaced Osama, the personification of evil, with Saddam. This has been hard to explain since there is nothing to connect Iraq with 9/11. Happily, 'evidence' is now being invented. But it is uphill work, not helped by stories in the press about the vast oil wealth of Iraq which must - for the sake of the free world - be reassigned to US and European consortiums. As Brzezinski foretold, 'a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat' made it possible for the President to dance a war dance before Congress. 'A long war!' he shouted with glee. Then he named an incoherent Axis of Evil to be fought. Although Congress did not give him the FDR Special - a declaration of war - he did get permission to go after Osama who may now be skulking in Iraq.

Bush and the dog that did not bark

Post-9/11, the American media were filled with pre-emptory denunciations of unpatriotic 'conspiracy theorists', who not only are always with us but are usually easy for the media to discredit since it is an article of faith that there are no conspiracies in American life. Yet, a year or so ago, who would have thought that most of corporate America had been conspiring with accountants to cook their books since - well, at least the bright days of Reagan and deregulation. Ironically, less than a year after the massive danger from without, we were confronted with an even greater enemy from within: Golden Calf capitalism. Transparency? One fears that greater transparency will only reveal armies of maggots at work beneath the skin of a culture that needs a bit of a lie-down in order to collect itself before taking its next giant step which is to conquer Eurasia, a potentially fatal adventure not only for our frazzled institutions but for us the presently living. Complicity. The behavior of President George W. Bush on 11 September certainly gives rise to all sorts of not unnatural suspicions. I can think of no other modern chief of state who would continue to pose for 'warm' pictures of himself listening to a young girl telling stories about her pet goat while hijacked planes were into three buildings. Constitutionally, Bush is not only chief of state, he is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Normally, a commander in such a crisis would go straight to headquarters and direct operations while receiving the latest intelligence. This is what Bush actually did - or did not do - according to Stan Goff, a retired US Army veteran who has taught military science and doctrine at West Point. Goff writes, in 'The So-called Evidence is a Farce': 'I have no idea why people aren't asking some very specific questions about the actions of Bush and company on the day of the attacks. Four planes get hijacked and deviate from their flight plan, all the while on FAA radar.' Goff, incidentally, like the other astonished military experts, cannot fathom why the government's automatic 'standard order of procedure in the event of a hijacking' was not followed. Once a plane has deviated from its flight-plan, fighter planes are sent up to find out why. That is law and does not require presidential approval, which only needs to be given if there is a decision to shoot down a plane. Goff spells it out: 'The planes were hijacked between 7:45 and 8:10am. Who is notified? This is an event already that is unprecedented. But the President is not notified and going to a Florida elementary school to hear children read. 'By around 8:15am it should be very apparent that something is terribly wrong. The President is glad-handling teachers. By 8:45am, when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the North Tower, Bush is settling in with children for his photo op. Four planes have obviously been hijacked simultaneously and one has just dived into the twin towers, and still no one notifies the nominal Commander-in-Chief. 'No one has apparently scrambled [sent aloft] Air Force interceptors either. At 9:03, Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower. At 9:05 Andrew Card, the Chief of Staff whispers to Bush [who] "briefly turns somber" according to reporters. Does he cancel the school visit and convene an emergency meeting? No. He resumes listening to second-graders ... and continues the banality even as American Airlines Flight 77 conducts an unscheduled point turn over Ohio and heads in the direction of Washington DC. 'Has he instructed Card to scramble the Air Force? No. An excruciating 25 minutes later, he finally deigns to give a public statement telling the United States what they have already figured out - that there's been an attack on the World Trade Centre. There's a hijacked plane bee-lining to Washington, but has the Air Force been scrambled to defend anything yet? No. 'At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 [degrees] over the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and the Pentagon is not evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air Force in the sky over Alexandria and DC. Now the real kicker: a pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of the building at 460 knots. 'When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator. This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on the freeway at rush hour by buying her a video driving game ... There is a story being constructed about these events.' There is indeed, and the more it is added to the darker it becomes. The nonchalance of General Richard B. Myers, acting Joint Chief of Staff, is as puzzling as the President's campaigning-as-usual act. Myers was at the Capitol chatting with Senator Max Cleland. A sergeant, writing later in the AFPS (American Forces Press Service) describes Myers at the Capitol. 'While in an outer office, he said, he saw a television report that a plane had hit the World Trade Centre. "They thought it was a small plane or something like that," Myers said. So the two men went ahead with the office call.' Whatever Myers and Cleland had to say to each other (more funds for the military?) must have been riveting because, during their chat, the AFPS reports, 'the second tower was hit by another jet. "Nobody informed us of that," Myers said. "But when we came out, that was obvious. Then, right at that time, somebody said the Pentagon had been hit."' Finally, somebody 'thrust a cellphone in Myers' hand' and, as if by magic, the commanding general of Norad - our Airspace Command - was on the line just as the hijackers mission had been successfully completed except for the failed one in Pennsylvania. In later testimony to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Myers said he thinks that, as of his cellphone talk with Norad, 'the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft'. It was 9:40am. One hour and 20 minutes after air controllers knew that Flight 11 had been hijacked; 50 minutes after the North Tower was struck. This statement would have been quite enough in our old serious army/air force to launch a number of courts martial with an impeachment or two thrown in. First, Myers claims to be uninformed until the third strike. But the Pentagon had been overseeing the hijacked planes from at least the moment of the strike at the first tower: yet not until the third strike, at the Pentagon, was the decision made to get the fighter planes up. Finally, this one is the dog that did not bark. By law, the fighters should have been up at around 8:15. If they had, all the hijacked planes might have been diverted or shot down. I don't think that Goff is being unduly picky when he wonders who and what kept the Air Force from following its normal procedure instead of waiting an hour and 20 minutes until the damage was done and only then launching the fighters. Obviously, somebody had ordered the Air Force to make no move to intercept those hijackings until ... what? On 21 January 2002, the Canadian media analyst Barry Zwicker summed up on CBC-TV: 'That morning no interceptors responded in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which ... are 12 miles from the White House ... Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the "Incompetence Theory". Incompetence usually earns reprimands. This causes me to ask whether there were "stand down" orders.'?? On 29 August 2002, the BBC reports that on 9/11 there were 'only four fighters on ready status in the north-eastern US'. Conspiracy? Coincidence? Error? It is interesting how often in our history, when disaster strikes, incompetence is considered a better alibi than ... well, yes, there are worse things. After Pearl Harbor, Congress moved to find out why Hawaii's two military commanders, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, had not anticipated the Japanese attack. But President Roosevelt pre-empted that investigation with one of his own. Short and Kimmel were broken for incompetence. The 'truth' is still obscure to this day.

The media's weapons of mass distraction

But Pearl Harbor has been much studied. 11 September, it is plain, is never going to be investigated if Bush has anything to say about it. In January 2002, CNN reported that 'Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit the Congressional investigation into the events of 11 September ... The request was made at a private meeting with Congressional leaders ... Sources said Bush initiated the conversation ... He asked that only the House and Senate intelligence committees look into the potential breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry .. Tuesday's discussion followed a rare call from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request ...' The excuse given, according to Daschle, was that 'resources and personnel would be taken' away from the war on terrorism in the event of a wider inquiry. So for reasons that we must never know, those 'breakdowns' are to be the goat. That they were more likely to be not break - but 'stand-downs' is not for us to pry. Certainly the one-hour 20 minute failure to put fighter planes in the air could not have been due to a breakdown throughout the entire Air Force along the East Coast. Mandatory standard operational procedure had been told to cease and desist. Meanwhile, the media were assigned their familiar task of inciting public opinion against bin Laden, still not the proven mastermind. These media blitzes often resemble the magicians classic gesture of distraction: as you watch the rippling bright colours of his silk handkerchief in one hand, he is planting the rabbit in your pocket with the other. We were quickly assured that Osama's enormous family with its enormous wealth had broken with him, as had the royal family of his native Saudi Arabia. The CIA swore, hand on heart, that Osama had not worked for them in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Finally, the rumour that Bush family had in any way profited by its long involvement with the bin Laden family was - what else? - simply partisan bad taste. But Bush Jr's involvement goes back at least to 1979 when his first failed attempt to become a player in the big Texas oil league brought him together with one James Bath of Houston, a family friend, who have Bush Jr. $50,000 for a 5 per cent stake in Bush's firm Arbusto Energy. At this time, according to Wayne Madsen ('In These Times' - Institute for Public Affairs No. 25), Bath was 'the sole US business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden... In a statement issued shortly after the 11 September attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Laden's, in Arbusto. In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests ... after several reincarnations, Arbusto emerged in 1986 as Harken Energy Corporation.' Behind the Junior Bush is the senior Bush, gainfully employed by the Carlyle Group which has ownership in at least 164 companies worldwide, inspiring admiration in that staunch friend to the wealthy, the Wall Street Journal, which noted, as early as 27 September 2001, 'If the US boosts defence spending in its quest to stop Osama bin Laden's alleged terrorist activities, there may be one unexpected beneficiary: bin Laden's family ... is an investor in a fund established by Carlyle Group, a well- connected Washington merchant bank specialising in buyouts of defence and aerospace companies ... Osama is one of more than 50 children of Mohammed bin Laden, who built the family's $5 billion business.' But Bush pere et fils, in pursuit of wealth and office, are beyond shame or, one cannot help but think, good sense. There is a suggestion that they are blocking investigation of the bin Laden connection with terrorism. Agent France Press reported on 4 November 2001: 'FBI agents probing relatives of Saudi-born terror suspect Osama ... were told to back off soon after George W. Bush became president ...' According to BBC TV's Newsnight (6 Nov 2001), '... just days after the hijackers took off from Boston aiming for the Twin Towers, a special charter flight out of the same airport whisked 11 members of Osama's family off to Saudi Arabia. That did not concern the White House, whose official line is that the bin Ladens are above suspicion.' 'Above the Law' (Green Press, 14 February 2002) sums up: 'We had what looked like the biggest failure of the intelligence community since Pearl Harbor but what we are learning now is it wasn't a failure, it was a directive.' True? False? Bush Jr will be under oath during the impeachment interrogation. Will we hear 'What is a directive? What is is?' Although the US had, for some years, fingered Osama as a mastermind terrorist, no serious attempt had been made pre-9/11 to 'bring him to justice dead or alive, innocent or guilty', as Texan law of the jungle requires. Clinton's plan to act was given to Condeleezza Rice by Sandy Berger, you will recall, but she says she does not. As far back as March 1996 when Osama was in Sudan, Major General Elfatih Erwa, Sudanese Minister for Defence, offered to extradite him. According to the Washington Post (3 October 2001), 'Erwa said he would happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over ... [US officials] said, "just ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to Somalia", where he had once been given credit for the successful al-Qaeda attack on American forces that in '93 that killed 18 Rangers.' Erwa said in an interview, 'We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they [US officials] said, "Let him."' In 1996 Sudan expelled Osama and 3,000 of his associates. Two years later the Clinton administration, in the great American tradition of never having to say thank you for Sudan's offer to hand over Osama, proceeded to missile-attack Sudan's al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory on the grounds that Sudan was harboring bin Laden terrorists who were making chemical and biological weapons when the factory was simply making vaccines for the UN. Four years later, John O'Neill, a much admired FBI agent, complained in the Irish Times a month before the attacks, 'The US State Department - and behind it the oil lobby who make up President Bush's entourage - blocked attempts to prove bin Laden's guilt. The US ambassador to Yemen forbade O'Neill (and his FBI team) ... from entering Yemen in August 2001. O'Neill resigned in frustration and took on a new job as head of security at the World Trade Centre. He died in the 11 September attack.' Obviously, Osama has enjoyed bipartisan American support since his enlistment in the CIA's war to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But by 9/11 there was no Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, indeed there was no Soviet Union.

A world made safe for peace and pipelines

I watched Bush and Cheney on CNN when the Axis of Evil speech was given and the 'long war' proclaimed. Iraq, Iran and North Korea were fingered as enemies to be clobbered because they might or might not be harbouring terrorists who might or might not destroy us in the night. So we must strike first whenever it pleases us. Thus, we declared 'war on terrorism' - an abstract noun which cannot be a war at all as you need a country for that. Of course, there was innocent Afghanistan, which was levelled from a great height, but then what's collateral damage - like an entire country - when you're targeting the personification of all evil according to Time and the NY Times and the networks? As it proved, the conquest of Afghanistan had nothing to do with Osama. He was simply a pretext for replacing the Taliban with a relatively stable government that would allow Union Oil of California to lay its pipeline for the profit of, among others, the Cheney-Bush junta. Background? All right. The headquarters of Unocal are, as might be expected, in Texas. In December 1997, Taliban representatives were invited to Sugarland, Texas. At that time, Unocal had already begun training Afghan men in pipeline construction, with US government approval. BBC News, (4 December 1997): 'A spokesman for the company Unocal said the Taliban were expected to spend several days at the company's [Texas] headquarters ... a BBC regional correspondent says the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.' The Inter Press Service (IPS) reported: 'some Western businesses are warming up to the Taliban despite the movement's institutionalisation of terror, massacres, abductions and impoverishment.' CNN (6 October 1996): 'The United States wants good ties [with the Taliban] but can't openly seek them while women are being oppressed.' The Taliban, rather better organised than rumoured, hired for PR one Leila Helms, a niece of Richard Helms, former director of the CIA. In October 1996, the Frankfurter Rundschau reported that Unocal 'has been given the go-ahead from the new holders of power in Kabul to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to Pakistan ..' This was a real coup for Unocal as well as other candidates for pipelines, including Condoleezza's old employer Chevron. Although the Taliban was already notorious for its imaginative crimes against the human race, the Wall Street Journal, scenting big bucks, fearlessly announced: 'Like them or not, the Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history.' The NY Times (26 May 1997) leapt aboard the pipeline juggernaut. 'The Clinton administration has taken the view that a Taliban victory would act as counterweight to Iran ... and would offer the possibility of new trade routes that could weaken Russian and Iranian influence in the region.' But by 1999, it was clear that the Taliban could not provide the security we would need to protect our fragile pipelines. The arrival of Osama as warrior for Allah on the scene refocused, as it were, the bidding. New alliances were now being made. The Bush administration soon buys the idea of an invasion of Afghanistan, Frederick Starr, head of the Central Asia Institute at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in the Washington Post (19 December 2000): 'The US has quietly begun to align itself with those in the Russian government calling for military action against Afghanistan and has toyed with the idea of a new raid to wipe out bin Laden.' Although with much fanfare we went forth to wreak our vengeance on the crazed sadistic religious zealot who slaughtered 3,000 American citizens, once that 'war' was under way, Osama was dropped as irrelevant and so we are back to the Unocal pipeline, now a go-project. In the light of what we know today, it is unlikely that the junta was ever going to capture Osama alive: he has tales to tell. One of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's best numbers now is: 'Where is he? Somewhere? Here? There? Somewhere? Who knows?' And we get his best twinkle. He must also be delighted - and amazed - that the media have bought the absurd story that Osama, if alive, would still be in Afghanistan, underground, waiting to be flushed out instead of in a comfortable mansion in Osama-loving Jakarta, 2,000 miles to the East and easily accessible by Flying Carpet One. Many commentators of a certain age have noted how Hitlerian our junta sounds as it threatens first one country for harbouring terrorists and then another. It is true that Hitler liked to pretend to be the injured - or threatened - party before he struck. But he had many great predecessors not least Imperial Rome. Stephen Gowan's War in Afghanistan: A $28 Billion Racket quotes Joseph Schumpeter who, 'in 1919, described ancient Rome in a way that sounds eerily like the United States in 2001: "There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be invented ... The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbours."' We have only outdone the Romans in turning metaphors such as the war on terrorism, or poverty, or Aids into actual wars on targets we appear, often, to pick at random in order to maintain turbulence in foreign lands. As of 1 August 2002, trial balloons were going up all over Washington DC to get world opinion used to the idea that 'Bush of Afghanistan' had gained a title as mighty as his father's 'Bush of the Persian Gulf' and Junior was now eager to add Iraq-Babylon to his diadem. These various balloons fell upon Europe and the Arab world like so many lead weights. But something new has been added since the classic Roman Hitlerian mantra, 'they are threatening us, we must attack first'. Now everything is more of less out in the open. The International Herald Tribune wrote in August 2002: 'The leaks began in earnest on 5 July, when the New York Times described a tentative Pentagon plan that it said called for an invasion by a US force of up to 250,000 that would attack Iraq from the north, south and west. On 10 July, the Times said that Jordan might be used as a base for the invasion. The Washington Post reported, 28 July, that "many senior US military officers contend that Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat ..."' And the status quo should be maintained. Incidentally, this is the sort of debate that the founding fathers intended the Congress, not military bureaucrats, to conduct in the name of we the people. But that sort of debate has, for a long time, been denied us. One refreshing note is now being struck in a fashion unthinkable in imperial Rome: the cheerful admission that we habitually resort to provocation. The Tribunecontinues: 'Donald Rumsfeld has threatened to jail any one found to have been behind the leaks. But a retired army general, Fred Woerner, tends to see a method behind the leaks. "We may already be executing a plan," he said recently. "Are we involved in a preliminary psychological dimension of causing Iraq to do something to justify a US attack or make concessions? Somebody knows.' That is plain. Elsewhere in this interesting edition of the Herald Tribune wise William Pfaff writes: 'A second Washington debate is whether to make an unprovoked attack on Iran to destroy a nuclear power reactor being built with Russian assistance, under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, within the terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of which Iran is a signatory ... No other government would support such an action, other than Israel's (which) would do so not because it expected to be attacked by Iran but because it, not unjustifiably, opposes any nuclear capacity in the hands of any Islamic government.'

Suspect states and the tom-toms of revenge

'Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it compromises and develops the germ of every other. As the parent of armies, war encourages debts and taxes, the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended ... and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people ...' Thus, James Madison warned us at the dawn of our republic. Post 9/11, thanks to the 'domination of the few', Congress and the media are silent while the executive, through propaganda and skewed polls, seduces the public mind as hitherto unthinkable centers of power like Homeland Defence (a new Cabinet post to be placed on top of the Defence Department) are being constructed and 4 per cent of the country has recently been invited to join Tips, a civilian spy system to report on anyone who looks suspicious or ... who objects to what the executive is doing at home or abroad? Although every nation knows how - if it has the means and the will - to protect itself from thugs of the sort that brought us 9/11, war is not an option. Wars are for nations not root-less gangs. You put a price on their heads and hunt them down. In recent years, Italy has been doing that with the Sicilian Mafia; and no one has yet suggested bombing Palermo. But the Cheney-Bush junta wants a war in order to dominate Afghanistan, build a pipeline, gain control of the oil of Eurasia's Stans for their business associates as well as to do as much damage to Iraq and Iran on the grounds that one day those evil countries may carpet our fields of amber grain with anthrax or something. The media, never much good a analysis, are more and more breathless and incoherent. On CNN, even the stolid Jim Clancy started to hyperventilate when an Indian academic tried to explain how Iraq was once our ally and 'friend' in its war against our Satanic enemy Iran. 'None of that conspiracy stuff,' snuffed Clancy. Apparently, 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth. As of August, at least among economists, a consensus was growing that, considering our vast national debt (we borrow $2 billion a day to keep the government going) and a tax base seriously reduced by the junta in order to benefit the 1 per cent who own most of the national wealth, there is no way that we could ever find the billions needed to destroy Iraq in 'a long war' or even a short one, with most of Europe lined up against us. Germany and Japan paid for the Gulf War, reluctantly - with Japan, at the last moment, irritably quarrelling over the exchange rate at the time of the contract. Now Germany's Schroder has said no. Japan is mute. But the tom-toms keep beating revenge; and the fact that most of the world is opposed to our war seems only to bring hectic roses to the cheeks of the Bush administration (Bush Snr of the Carlyle Group, Bush Jnr formerly of Harken, Cheney, formerly of Halliburton, Rice, formerly of Chevron, Rumsfeld, formerly of Occidental). If ever an administration should recuse itself in matters dealing with energy, it is the current junta. But this is unlike any administration in our history. Their hearts are plainly elsewhere, making money, far from our mock Roman temples, while we, alas, are left only with their heads, dreaming of war, preferably against weak peripheral states. Mohammed Heikal is a brilliant Egyptian journalist-observer, and sometime Foreign Minister. On 10 October 2001, he said to the Guardian: 'Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaeda as if it were Nazi Germany or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaeda has been penetrated by US intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organisation and sophistication. The former president of Germany's domestic intelligence service, Eckehardt Werthebach (American Free Press, 4 December 2001) spells it out. The 9/11 attacks required 'years of planning' while their scale indicates that they were a product of 'state-organised actions'. There it is. Perhaps, after all, Bush Jnr was right to call it a war. But which state attacked us? Will the suspects please line up. Saudi Arabia? 'No, no. Why we are paying you $50 million a year for training the royal bodyguard on our own holy if arid soil. True the kingdom contains many wealthy well- educated enemies but ...' Bush Snr and Jnr exchange a knowing look. Egypt? No way. Dead broke despite US baksheesh. Syria? No funds. Iran? Too proud to bother with a parvenu state like the US. Israel? Sharon is capable of anything. But he lacks the guts and the grace of the true Kamikaze. Anyway, Sharon was not in charge when this operation began with the planting of 'sleepers' around the US flight schools 5 or 6 years ago. The United States? Elements of corporate America would undeniably prosper from a 'massive external attack' that would make it possible for us to go to war whenever the President sees fit while suspending civil liberties. (The 342 pages of the USA Patriot Act were plainly prepared before 9/11.) Bush Snr and Jnr are giggling now. Why? Because Clinton was president back then. As the former president leaves the line of suspects, he says, more in anger than in sorrow: 'When we left the White House we had a plan for an all-out war on al-Qaeda. We turned it over to this administration and they did nothing. Why?' Biting his lip, he goes. The Bushes no longer giggle. Pakistan breaks down: 'I did it! I confess! I couldn't help myself. Save me. I am an evil-doer!' Apparently, Pakistan did do it - or some of it. We must now go back to 1979 when 'the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA' was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Central Asia specialist Ahmed Rashid wrote (Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999): 'With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war, waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals, from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and '92 ... more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghanistan jihad.' The CIA covertly trained and sponsored these warriors. In March 1985, President Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 166, increasing military aid while CIA specialists met with the ISI counterparts near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Jane's Defence Weekly (14 September 2001) gives the best overview: 'The trainers were mainly from Pakistan's ISI agency who learnt their craft from American Green Beret commandos and Navy Seals in various US training establishments.' This explains the reluctance of the administration to explain why so many unqualified persons, over so long a time, got visas to visit our hospitable shores. While in Pakistan, 'mass training of Afghan [zealots] was subsequently conducted by the Pakistan army under the supervision of the elite Special Services ... In 1988, with US knowledge, bin Laden created al-Qaeda (The Base); a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across 26 or so countries. Washington turned a blind eye to al-Qaeda.' When Mohamed Atta's plane struck the World Trade Centre's North Tower, George W. Bush and the child at the Florida elementary school were discussing her goat. By coincidence, our word 'tragedy' comes from the Greek: for 'goat' tragos plus oide for 'song'. 'Goat-song'. It is highly suitable that this lament, sung in ancient satyr plays, should have been heard again at the exact moment when we were struck by fire from heaven, and a tragedy whose end is nowhere in sight began for us.

© Gore Vidal 2002


Return to top of page




















Revised: November 05, 2014 .   Communication:   JerryHaff1963(at)     Go to Home Page     Go to Index of All Articles Pages       
Read the
Last modified: November 05, 2014  Copyright © 1999 - 2008  All rights reserved. [Gnostic Liberation Front].