This diary is about the conspiracy behind the terrorist attack against the United States which took place 11 September 2001. It is a condensed version of a
diary I posted this past weekend about the need to create a unified narrative about BushCo's handling of al Qaeda, Iraq and Katrina. I think such a narrative could - and should - be applied to all of the actions of the right wing authoritarian movement. I'm am posting this because I was disturbed by the response I received in the comments to my other diary by someone who believes 9-11 was an "inside job" wherein he "welcomed me to the party". 9-11 was definitely not the work of the neo-cons. That statement is absurd. It's past time that people acknowledge the truth.
Let me begin by stating that, with regard to 9-11, I reject the idea that BushCo either "Made It Happen On Purpose" (MIHOP) or "Let It Happen On Purpose" (LIHOP). No credible corrabation for any of that exists. No one who knows anything about the events leading up to 9-11 believes that. Also, there is the matter that that is a batshit crazy insane idea. I can only go on what makes sense, I have to base what I write by applying reason and logic to the available evidence. That's the way I operate. I have to go with information from reputable organizations. I know that's not fullproof, The NY Times is a very reputable organization, yet they printed Judith Miller's garbage. I never claimed my methods are infallible, but they have a much better batting average than CT advocates and neo-con propagandists. Besides, for every Judy Miller there is a Keith Olberman.
All the available evidence points to 9-11 being planned and executed entirely by Islamic extremists with the direct support of people within Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Furthermore, all evidence suggests that the FBI, CIA and other US agencies - which are staffed by men who are both decent and patriotic - tried to stop them. However their efforts were stymied by an incompetent Bush Administration simply because the threat of ISI sponsered terrorism didn't conforn with their worldveiw. Much of what follows is simply the Cliff Notes version of what I posted Saturday. It's all completely legitimate stuff. But just so you know, I rely primarily upon Janes Information Group for this post. I would also like to disclose that I worked for NSA in the 90's. We considered Janes to be a reliable resource. I don't want to go into too much detail about what exactly I did back then, but I did do some work on matters related to couter-terrorism, and although I was really low on the totum pole and spent the vast majority of my time working on other issues, I (along with others who I worked with) did get a nifty medal from the Director of NSA for that work. We also got an "attaboy" memo from some big shots in the Clinton Administration. That was really cool. This I know for a fact, the Clinton Administration took couter-terrorism very seriously.
So let's start with the big question, who did it? Who was responsible for 9-11? Well, it wasn't just a bunch of guys in Afghan caves. To understand the roots of 9-11, you need to know the history of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And that leads us to our great ally in the War on Terror... Pakistan. You can get a great rundown on this stuff from Juan Cole. Basically it went like this. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan the CIA and Saudi Arabia funneled money through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to rebels in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was there, but he was never a CIA asset. The sole purpose of the CIA's mission in Afghanistan was to kill communists. Once the Soviets left, the CIA closed up shop. ISI, however, continued to have an interest in Afghan affairs. ISI propped up the Taliban, and with the benefit of direct Pakistani military assistance, they quickly seized control of Afghanistan. From Janes.
After the ignominious Soviet withdrawal from Kabul in 1989 the ISI, determined to achieve its aim of extending Pakistan's `strategic depth' and creating an Islamic Caliphate by controlling Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republics, began sponsoring a little-known Pathan student movement in Kandhar that emerged as the Taliban. The ISI used funds from Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's federal government and from overseas Islamic remittances to enrol graduates from thousands of madrassahs (Muslim seminaries) across Pakistan to bolster the Taliban (Islamic students), who were led by the reclusive Mullah Muhammad Omar. Thereafter, through a ruthless combination of bribing Afghanistan's ruling tribal coalition (which was riven with internecine rivalry), guerrilla tactics and military support the ISI installed the Taliban regime in Kabul in 1996. It then helped to extend its control over 95 per cent of the war-torn country and bolster its military capabilities. The ISI is believed to have posted additional operatives in Afghanistan just before the 11 September attacks in the US.
But it doesn't stop there.
Along with Osama bin Laden, intelligence sources say a number of other infamous names emerged from the 1980s ISI-CIA collaboration in Afghanistan. These included Mir Aimal Kansi, who assassinated two CIA officers outside their office in Langley, Virginia, in 1993, Ramzi Yousef and his accomplices involved in the New York World Trade Center bombing five years later as well as a host of powerful international narcotics smugglers.
Well. That's fun. But what caught my eye was that last bit. Remember all those commercials about how if kids smoke pot they're helping the terrorists?
Opium cultivation and heroin production in Pakistan's northern tribal belt and neighbouring Afghanistan was also a vital offshoot of the ISI-CIA co-operation. It succeeded not only in turning Soviet troops into addicts, but also in boosting heroin sales in Europe and the US through an elaborate web of well-documented deceptions, transport networks, couriers and payoffs. This, in turn, offset the cost of the decade-long anti-Soviet `unholy war' in Afghanistan. "The heroin dollars contributed largely to bolstering the Pakistani economy, its nuclear programme and enabled the ISI to sponsor its covert operations in Afghanistan and northern India's disputed Kashmir state," according to an Indian intelligence officer. In the 1970s, the ISI had established a division to procure military nuclear and missile technology from abroad, particularly from China and North Korea. They also smuggled in critical nuclear components and know-how from Europe - activities known to the US but ones it chose to turn a blind eye to as Washington's objective of `humiliating' the Soviet bear remained incomplete.
Wow. Now look, I'm no hippy and I'm no fan of communism, but I'd have to say this whole ISI thing got pretty seriously out of hand. I'm thinking that, in this case, Reagan and his pals may have thrown water onto a greasefire. Funny thing, our watchdog Press never seems to mention this stuff. But lets see if anybody in the International Press has dug up anything. How about, say, the Times of India.
While the Pakistani Inter Services public relations claimed that former ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on monday, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahumd.
What. The. Fuck.
...a direct link between the ISI and the WTC attack could have enormous repercussions. The US cannot but suspect whether or not there were other senior Pakistani army commanders who were in the know of things. Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake US confidence in Pakistan's ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition.
No shit. Really? You mean maybe these guys are unreliable because THEY FINANCED THE FUCKING ATTACKS THAT BLEW THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TO FUCKING HELL IN THE FIRST GODDAMNED PLACE!!! You know what Times of India dude, you've got a point there. You know what else, I'm beginning to think all those disagreements between the Bush Adminstration and the Joint Chiefs about how best to proceed in Afghanistan after 9-11 weren't so minor after all. I'm beginning to think there were serious disagreements in terms of tactics and strategy. I'm thinking Bush received the best possible advice and promptly chose to go with the worst possible advice instead. In fact, at this point I'm quite positive he fucked up Afghanistan as badly as he fucked up Iraq, we just don't yet know how badly he fucked it up because we haven't been told (you're doing a heckava job US Press/Democratic Party) the whole story, something I intend to do further down. Which takes me back to Janes.
The concern now for General Musharraf is whether the ISI will remain loyal to him and provide the US with credible information or continue to pursue its aims of ensuing the Taliban's continuance in Kabul," said one intelligence officer. The US, he added, will pull out of the region once its objectives have been achieved, but Afghanistan, with its incessant and seemingly irresolute turmoil, will remain Pakistan's neighbour for good.
I'm quite sure that General Musharraf has complete confidence in the ability of Bush and his authoritarian groupies to skillfully execute a massive counter-terrorism campaign and that Bush will be careful to ensure that Musharraf survives the dark forces which plague his country and which have long been deeply entrenched in the ISI. Is that treaty with al-Qaeda beginning to make sense kids?
The first thing that people must understand is that Bush is not Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He just isn't. Neither Bush nor Cheney nor any of the other numbnuts in this Administration is a supervillian and they damn sure aren't SPECTRE. Did any of these guys pull off the 9-11 attacks? THERE. IS. NO. FUCKING. WAY. Did they know it was coming and make preparations for whenever it hit? The furthest I would go is that it occured to some of them, maybe Ashcroft, that a terrorist incident of some kind was possible. That would explain why he seemed to have the Patriot Act ready so quickly. The FBI believed an attack was coming. They must've told Ashcroft as much, so he knew there was a possibility of some kind of terrorist attack happening. But it doesn't matter what Ashcroft knew if he couldn't persuade Bush to listen to him. Much has been made of Ashcroft being advised by the FBI to stop flying commercial airlines in the summer of 2001, but to me it just means that the FBI was doing their job. When it became clear to them that Bush wouldn't listen, they figured they should at least warn their boss. The fact that he didn't or couldn't get Bush to take seriously a threat that he and his agency clearly did speaks volumes.
Of course, CTers always scream "What about the cover up!". Well, yeah there was a cover up. Of course there was a cover up. If you and your buddies had excercised extremely poor judgement over a period of 20-25 years which then led to the creation of a sinister organization backed by a massive international movement which included a hard line Islamic State armed with nuclear weapons... If you had all kinds of business ties (with some of those ties involving serious criminal activity) to those that directly and indirectly funded and supported this organization... you'd want to keep a lid on it too. So sure, there was plenty for Bush to hide here.
Given the shady nature of the ISI. Given their involvement in WMD, given the drugs, the money laundering, and of course, the oil... it makes all kinds of sense that Bush didn't want the 9-11 Commission sticking their noses too deep into the goings on in South-Central Asia. Some people make a big deal about the fact that two of Bush's relatives were involved with the company that provided security for the World Trade Center. That in and of itself doesn't surprise me, the Bush Clan have their fingers in alot of pies. But the fact that Bush doesn't want people to scrutinize their role there is quite telling. It's more than a little nuts to say that these guys were involved with al-Qaeda or even ISI, but maybe they were involved in other things that aren't quite legal. Remember how Bin Laden's relatives were hustled out of the country? What was up with that? It's silly to think they knew anything about Mohammed Atta. But what else might they have known. Remember how the UN Oil for Food scandal wound up tracing back to Houston oil companies? Do you recall how the front company which Valerie Plame worked for was supposed to discover links between shady oil companies and black market nuclear proliferation? Do you see where I'm going with this? From Enron to the Taliban, there's nothing these guys won't do for a buck. And they aren't bashful about breaking the law to do it. Oh, they had shit to hide after 9-11, they had plenty to hide. But that doesn't mean they were in cahoots to do with al-Qaeda - they didn't think al Qaeda was even real- it had to do with their association with the guys who were behind al Qaeda. One last thing, and it may be nothing, but remember how crazy Bush got when the NY Times reported on the SWIFT program? That was weird.
But the primary purpose for the coverup was to sheild BushCo from responsibility for their own fuckups. Now I know this is hardly breaking news, but it's never a bad thing to recap "what really happened" for those who either haven't seen all of the evidence or may have forgotten. The available data clearly showed that Bush ignored al Qaeda. And this denial of reality is very much consistent with the in which he ignores Global Warming or denies Evolution. It didn't fit his worldview, which at the time was that Iraq was the Center Of All Evil In The World, so he blew al Qaeda off, in spite of the growing evidence that there was a bad moon rising. Take, for instance, the Genoa Conference. In July of 2001, Bush attended the G-8 conference in Genoa, Italy. The LA Times reported on 27 September 2001 that security officials in the Italian Government were concerned that terrorists would hijack planes and crash them into targets on the ground. Among the extraordinary precautions taken to prevent this, the conference was held on a large ship as it was believed that a waterborne target would be difficult to hit from the air. Also, Surface to Air Missile (SAM) batteries were deployed to protect the conference.
U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials said Wednesday.
The Genoa warning was disclosed last week by Italian Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini. In remarks on a television talk show reported by the Italian news agency ANSA, Fini said: "Many people were ironic about the Italian secret services. But in fact they got the information that there was the possibility of an attack against the U.S. president using an airliner. That's why we closed the airspace and installed the missiles. Those who made cracks should now think a little."
Then of course, there was the infamous 06 August 01 PDB.
On August 6, when Bush received the briefing entitled, "Bin Laden to Strike in US," he apparently "broke off from work early and spent most of the day fishing." [New York Times, 5/25/02]
He went fishing.
Fast forward to 10 September 2001. Bush is in Florida (he just loves those battleground states) and getting ready for a photo op at a local school. The Secret Service, apparently, were doing their job.
...when Bush spent the night in Sarasota, Florida, the night before the 9/11 attacks, surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort where he was staying. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02]
Again, a SAM Battery is deployed to protect the POTUS from an airborne threat. Do you suppose the Secret Service had a word with their Italian counterparts? It's likely they did just that, as did many other agencies within our government. The FBI, CIA, NSA and other agencies charged with protecting the security of the American people are filled with capable patriots. They didn't stop doing their job when Bush was inaugurated. When the question is raised by CTers as to whether the US Government had advance knowledge of 9-11, my response is that of course they knew! It's their fucking job to know. That's what they do all day. But you have to be careful about exactly who "they" are. "They" might refer to the head of a powerful agency, or someone in a sensitive position in the Pentagon, or some agent in the field. But none of that counts for shit if "The Decider" doesn't want to hear about it.
There is an excellent rundown of the failure of BushCo to prevent 9-11 can be found at this post entitled 2+2=9-11. I strongly urge that you go and read it. Many others have documented this stuff as well. But why I wrote this, why I guess I wrote the first diary, was to get a common narrative going about 9-11. It can applied to all of BushCo's fuckups, and indeed to the entire authortarian conservative movement. Kieth Olberman hit it out of the park tonight with his special comment, no more free pass for Bush. But if your going to do that, you have show just how incompetent... no incompetent isn't the right word... you have to talk about how delusional BushCo is. You have to talk about Team B. You have to talk about how Reagan and the neo-cons reaked havoc in South Central Asia in the 80's. You have to talk about the fact the these guys are dangerously and hopelessly irrational, unreasonable and delusional. Start using that word, it's past time. I think the neo-cons have once again miscalculated. By trashing Bill Clinton, thay have awaken a sleeping giant. This desperate attempt to gin the mid-term elections could shift the natioanl conversation to finally address the Criminal Negligence of this administration and, indeed, the entire neo-con movement. In order to do that, we need to get over talking about 9-11. Of course, thanks to the MIHOP/LIHOP hordes out there, that isn't easy to do.
To all the pancake heads out there. What is your fucking problem?!? Why do you people cling to this absurd notion that 9-11 was an "inside job". That this is the work of skillful machiavellian manipulators in the White House. Are you fucking kidding me? If these guys were so slick, if the US Government was so corrupt, why couldn't the neo-cons get their handpicked team of Iraq WMD inspectors to lie about what they found in Iraq? People sometimes ask me why Bush didn't just plant WMD in Iraq. They didn't do it because they couldn't. No decent person, and there are plenty of decent conservatives, would go along with that. Many other shady activities this administration has attempted to conduct in secret have been exposed, from the NSA illegal wiretaps to torture in Eastern Europe. People in the US Government have leaked all kinds of shit. Why would they then keep quiet about a 9-11 conspiracy? What you are saying makes no sense, and is completely contradicted by the available evidence, that's why people get pissed when you go there. The reason the neo-cons have been shifty about this shit is that they made the mess in Pakistan, they let them get the bomb. Since when do these guys admit their mistakes? The idea that they refused (and still refuse) to acknowledge the threat and do what is necessary to deal with it is consistent with what is known of their actions on other matters. This pattern of behavior is consistent with how they have bungled Iraq, Tax Policy, Global Warming and any other issue you can think of. It's their MO. Why is it so hard for you to see that? Why do you insist on believing this bizarre fantasy that the US Government caused 9-11? If there was complicity, why haven't people come forward? Why won't the press report on it? The only complicity of Republicans and Conservatives in the US with the neo-cons is that they refuse to see them for what they are... delusional, irrational, authoritarian freaks. There's your right wing conspiracy. I say it's time to change that. But for starters, let me make this clear. I want the pancake heads to shut the fuck up. And, as it happens, so does the owner of this site. So if you intend to advocate that crap, your comments are NOT welcome in my diary. Let me be clear. DONT. GO. THERE.
If you would like more background on the truth about al Qaeda, 9-11 and the War on Terror, I strongly recommend the following links.
Power of Nightmares
It's an excellent BBC documentary. Be sure to watch all three episodes. It's long, but well worth it.
9/11 Press for Truth
This one I'm more wary of. It's based entirely on reporting from reputable news organizations, but unfortunately it does discuss the "unusual circumstances" surrounding the collapse of the WTC Towers. Yeah, jackass. Having 757s crash into two of the worlds tallest and most unique structures with tremendous force, sparking a massive fire which led to the collapse of said structures which resulted in another building catching fire and sustaining all kinds of damage from the enormous amount of debris... that's unusual. But since they stick to verifiable evidence, they didn't go any further, which is their saving grace. It's got great footage of the neo-cons trying to squirm their way out of accountability after 9-11. Watch it just for that.
UPDATE: Goodness, we've got some sensitive folks out there. For the record, I have never actually killed any communists. I despise Communism, but I prefer cold wars to hot ones. Also, I have offended some CTers. Tough. It's because people push improbable scenarios which no reputable news organization would touch with a ten foot pole that it's so dificult to get them to bring up more likely scenarios, scenarios for which there is evidence. Like the scenario in which ISI played a significant role in the planning and execution of the 9-11 attacks. If you stuck to evidence, I'd have no problem with it. Few would. Suspicion doesn't equal proof. And sources matter.