by Tess Ellis, Unknown News
April 19, 2004
Watching the 9/11 commission ask repetitive, lame questions of each "guest" while everybody pretends to pursue and/or speak the truth is maddening. Then enduring the "analysis" of the lameness afterward by all the talking heads on TV is excruciating.
|
Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent in a public search for someone (anyone) to blame for not preventing the tragedy that occurred on 9/11. The number one question seems to be "Why didn't you know this was going to happen and why didn't you stop it?"
|
|
Ladies and Gentlemen of the 9/11 commission, of the Congress, of the media, of the United States ... Take a serious look at the ACTUAL events leading up to 9/11.
In 1997 a group composed largely of Republican hawks from previous administrations formed the Project for a New American Century. If you look at their "Statement of Principles", scroll to the bottom and check out the names of those signing the document. Members of the PNAC include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and I Lewis (Scooter) Libby -- almost a preview of the current administration. The whole purpose of the PNAC is to promote "American Global leadership" especially as it pertained to Arab countries and to "transform" the military with increased defense spending.
|
|
In 1998 the group sent President Clinton a letter encouraging him to take military action against Iraq. The Clinton letter was also signed by Richard Armitage, who was recently so charming to the 9/11 commission.
|
In Sept of 2000 the Project for a New American Century put out a position paper entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses." In their opinion, according to that Sept 2000 document, "A NEW PEARL HARBOR" was needed to persuade the American people to divert funds badly needed for Social programs like Medicare and Social Security to Defense spending for programs like testing and building new more lethal bombs (Including nuclear weapons, thereby ignoring treaties our country signed to ban said weapons). And of course fancier high tech planes and tanks so America could assert its dominance in the Middle East, not to mention throughout the rest of the world.
Around February 2001 the Bush administration revived old negotiations with the Taliban to build a pipeline for transporting oil across Afghanistan. Said pipeline would benefit the original investors (a group headed by UNOCAL), and would supply cheaper oil to help bail out a failing Enron which had an energy plant losing money in Dabhol, India. The Enron problem was so important to this administration, the National Security Council had a "Dabhol working group" trying to come up with solutions.
In the spring of 2001 the Bush administration gave the Taliban millions ostensibly for helping in the "war on drugs" by banning the growth of opium poppies (which, now that we're in charge, have returned as Afghanistan's number one crop and export). As negotiations intensified in early summer 2001 Enron also poured millions into the Taliban coffers.
|
One of the main sticking points being that the U.S. wanted the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden, whose organization was the beneficiary of much of the money we supplied. When the Taliban continued to refuse in August 2001 our so-called negotiator threatened them with military action if they didn't acquiesce. This occurred about the same time our intelligence people were warning that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack within the U.S.
|
|
Has ANYONE on the 9/11 commission or in the mainstream media questioned whether an administration that openly NEEDED (in their own words) a "Pearl Harbor" to carry out their agenda might have conveniently provoked the group that our intelligence said was planning an attack on this country?
A threat that was credible enough for the attorney general to quit flying on commercial airlines in July 2001? A threat attributed to Al Qaeda, based in the country we were showering with money at that time? A country our representative warned of impending military action if they didn't do what we wanted?
If 9/11 was such a shock to this administration, why didn't the president react immediately when told of the attack on the World Trade Center? Why weren't fighter jets scrambled to protect Washington, DC until it was too late?
|
Where has our media been?
The neo-cons that run this administration have been advocating a war against Iraq for years. The information is available in graphic detail to anybody who bothers to check out the PNAC website.
But Paul O'Neill saying that they were focusing on attacking Iraq in the first days of the administration was big news -- to the TV and print media at least. I know it was old news on the Internet.
Richard Clarke saying they were ignoring intelligence info and warnings ... of course they were! They were in direct negotiations with the same people. But Richard Clarke's accusations were big news, just like Paul O'Neill. The mainstream media has talked it to death. They've dissected the two gentlemen's motives, obediently reported all the dirt and slander the administration issued on the subject.
|
|
WHY hasn't our media reported that the war in Iraq WAS being planned early on? Like two or three years before Bush even got "elected" (or appointed, depending on your point of view).
|
This isn't left-wing propaganda. ANYONE can go the PNAC website, and read about these plans in their own words. You can scroll to the bottom of every document and read the names of those who are behind these position papers.
Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer, any of you who consider yourselves serious reporters: Why haven't you asked about the neo-cons' letter to Clinton in '98? Why haven't you asked about the money and negotiations involving the Taliban before 9/11? Why haven't you investigated how heavily invested in military contractors the members of the administration, and their "friends" are?
Iraqis, Afghans, and Americans (on 9/11 and in the military), not to mention poor souls from the countries dragged into the "coalition of the willing" -- are all of us "unfortunate casualties" that nobody really cares about in their pursuit of an agenda?
Not this administration.
Not our Congress.
Not the media (unless they think it'll boost their ratings).
Are we all simply "collateral damage"?
© 2004, by the author.
|
|
From the archives, July 26, 2001:
"Threat assessment" keeps
Ashcroft off commercial air flights
From the archives, Sept. 11, 2001:
German intelligence says U.S. knew
in advance about today's attacks
From the archives, Sept. 12, 2001:
Bipartisan Committee's recommendations on terror
were disregarded
by Bush Administration
From the archives, Sept. 12, 2001:
San Francisco Mayor says he
was warned not to fly yesterday
From the archives, Sept. 21, 2001:
U.S. rejects Taliban's requests
for bin Laden evidence
From the archives, Sept. 24, 2001:
Pentagon officials canceled
travel plans on Sept. 10
due to "security concerns"
From the archives, Sept. 28, 2001:
White House lied about
threat to Air Force One
From the archives, Oct. 3, 2001:
Taliban Ambassador asks for evidence against bin Laden
From the archives, Nov. 7, 2001:
Officials were told to 'back off' on Saudis before September 11
From the archives, Jan. 29, 2002:
Bush and Cheney ask Daschle
to limit Sept. 11 investigation
From the archives, May 19, 2002:
Britain warned U.S. to expect
Sept. 11 al-Qaeda hijackings
From the archives, Sept. 4, 2002:
Plans for Iraq attack
began on Sept. 11, 2001
From the archives, Oct. 12, 2002:
Lawmakers say Bush is
blocking Sept. 11 investigation
From the archives, Oct. 21, 2002:
Cheney instrumental in blocking independent Sept. 11 commission
From the archives, March 29, 2003:
Increased funding brings investigation's budget to $12-million
# with comments by H&HH
From the archives, March 31, 2003:
Sept. 11 victim's wife asks uncomfortable questions
From the archives, May 9, 2003:
"An interesting day:"
Bush's movements and actions
on Sept. 11, 2001
From the archives, June 18, 2003:
"Fighting the White House" to get at the truth about Sept. 11
From the archives, July 1, 2003:
60 days prior to Sept. 11, 2001|
|
"The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning." --CIA Intelligence Report for President Bush, July 2001
|
From the archives, July 24, 2003:
9/11 families say: Tell us the full story
From the archives, Aug. 9, 2003:
White House ordered EPA to
lie about 9/11 pollution danger
From the archives, Aug. 13, 2003:
Germany warned CIA about
Sept. 11 terror pilot, Stern says
From the archives, Sept 4, 2003:
While all other planes were
grounded across the U.S. ...
White House OK'd flight home
for Bin Ladens in Sept. 11 aftermath
From the archives, Sept 10, 2003:
Hijacked 9/11 jets flew past
several U.S. military bases
From the archives, Sept 17, 2003:
Two years of lies about Sept. 11
The new Warren Commission
by Helen & Harry Highwater, Unknown News
From the archives, Oct. 26, 2003:
Bush administration obstructs investigation into Sept. 11
From the archives, Nov. 13, 2003:
Victims' families rip 9/11 secrecy deal
# with comments by H&HH
From the archives, Jan 31, 2004:
White House seizes notes
from 9/11 investigators
# with comments by H&HH
From the archives, Feb. 10, 2004:
Daschle still says Bush & Cheney asked for no 9/11 investigation at all
From the archives, March 4, 2004:
U.S. stonewalling may let another terror suspect off the hook
German prosecutor calls
U.S. conduct "incomprehensible"
# with comments by
John C. and H&HH
From the archives, March 22, 2004:
After 2 ½ years asleep,
Wall Street Journal notices
a few oddities about Sept. 11
# with comments by H&HH
From the archives, April 2, 2004:
FBI whistleblower says Rice is lying; Bush knew al-Qaida was planning attack
|
|
|
