Author's Note
The following article, first published in May 2004, was part of my keynote presentation at the opening plenary session to the International Citizens Inquiry into 9/11. Toronto, 25-30 March 2004.
The main thrust of this 2004 analysis was that the issue of "foreknowledge of the attacks" was a "red herring" which has contributed to sustaining the "Big Lie".
"Foreknowledge of the attacks" and "failure to act" uphold the notion that the terrorist attack ("act of war") "waged by Muslims against America" are real, when all the facts and findings ultimately pointed towards coverup and complicity at the highest levels of the US government.
Richard Clarke who at the time was in charge of counter-terrorism on the White House National Security Council "apologized" to the American people and the families of the victims.
Clarke hinted to "intelligence failures" in the months leading up to 9/11: Had the White House acted in a responsible fashion, had they taken the intelligence briefings seriously, 3000 lives could have been saved on September 11, 2001.
According to Richard Clarke, Bush and the White House intelligence team ignored these warnings.
In a recent statement on PBS (August 2011), Clarke accused former CIA Director George Tenet and two other CIA officials, Cofer Black and Richard Blee of "deliberately withholding critical intelligence" concerning the 9/11 attacks. The latter pertained to information regarding two of the alleged hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, Al-Hazmi and Al-Mihdhar.
Compare Richard Clarke's recent statements with regard to foreknowledge and "intelligence failures" to those of 2004. Déjà Vu? Red Herring?
What this recent August 2011 statement suggests is that the Bush administration was responsible for "intelligence failures" rather than coverup and treason.
Clarke's statements sustain the "Al Qaeda Legend", namely that Muslim hijackers were behind the attacks and that the information withheld by CIA Director George Tenet was not made available to the White House and the US Congress.
Clarke hints that if this information had been made available, the attacks might have been prevented.
Clarke's statements both then and now are supportive of the "Global War on Terrorism" Consensus.
Bear in mind that Richard Clarke was part of an intelligence team which covertly supported Al Qaeda operatives in the Balkans throughout the 1990s. Moreover, amply documented, the Islamic brigades and Al Qaeda including the madrassahs and the CIA sponsored training camps in Afghanistan are a creation of the CIA. The Taliban were "graduates" of the madrassahs, which formed a US sponsored government in 1996.
Clarke's statements while challenging the role of the CIA, tends to sustain the Big Lie.
The official narrative remains intact. It assumes an Al Qaeda sponsored attack on America rather than a controlled demolition, as documented by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
The debate launched by Clarke is a subtle form of propaganda. It blames the CIA, which had "foreknowledge" of the attacks.
It centers on whether the Bush administration and the CIA were responsible for an "intelligence failure", a "dereliction of duty" or sheer "incompetence."
In all three cases, the Al Qaeda Legend and "the threat of Islamic terrorists" remains unchallenged. The main thrust of this 2004 analysis was that the issue of "foreknowledge of the attacks" was a "red herring" which has contributed to sustaining the "Big Lie".
"Foreknowledge of the attacks" and "failure to act" uphold the notion that the terrorist attack ("act of war") "waged by Muslims against America" are real, when all the facts and findings ultimately pointed towards coverup and complicity at the highest levels of the US government.
Richard Clarke who at the time was in charge of counter-terrorism on the White House National Security Council "apologized" to the American people and the families of the victims.
Clarke hinted to "intelligence failures" in the months leading up to 9/11: Had the White House acted in a responsible fashion, had they taken the intelligence briefings seriously, 3000 lives could have been saved on September 11, 2001.
According to Richard Clarke, Bush and the White House intelligence team ignored these warnings.
In a recent statement on PBS (August 2011), Clarke accused former CIA Director George Tenet and two other CIA officials, Cofer Black and Richard Blee of "deliberately withholding critical intelligence" concerning the 9/11 attacks. The latter pertained to information regarding two of the alleged hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, Al-Hazmi and Al-Mihdhar.
Compare Richard Clarke's recent statements with regard to foreknowledge and "intelligence failures" to those of 2004. Déjà Vu? Red Herring?
What this recent August 2011 statement suggests is that the Bush administration was responsible for "intelligence failures" rather than coverup and treason.
Clarke's statements sustain the "Al Qaeda Legend", namely that Muslim hijackers were behind the attacks and that the information withheld by CIA Director George Tenet was not made available to the White House and the US Congress.
Clarke hints that if this information had been made available, the attacks might have been prevented.
Clarke's statements both then and now are supportive of the "Global War on Terrorism" Consensus.
Bear in mind that Richard Clarke was part of an intelligence team which covertly supported Al Qaeda operatives in the Balkans throughout the 1990s. Moreover, amply documented, the Islamic brigades and Al Qaeda including the madrassahs and the CIA sponsored training camps in Afghanistan are a creation of the CIA. The Taliban were "graduates" of the madrassahs, which formed a US sponsored government in 1996.
Clarke's statements while challenging the role of the CIA, tends to sustain the Big Lie.
The official narrative remains intact. It assumes an Al Qaeda sponsored attack on America rather than a controlled demolition, as documented by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
The debate launched by Clarke is a subtle form of propaganda. It blames the CIA, which had "foreknowledge" of the attacks.
It centers on whether the Bush administration and the CIA were responsible for an "intelligence failure", a "dereliction of duty" or sheer "incompetence."
The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) remains functionally intact.
The foreknowledge debate cum "intelligence failure" debate sustains the "Big Lie"....
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 11, 2011
_____________________
9/11 Foreknowledge and "Intelligence Failures": "Revealing the Lies" on 9/11 Perpetuates the "Big Lie"
by Michel Chossudovsky May 27, 2004 Global Research
The Bush administration had numerous intelligence warnings. "Revealing the lies" of Bush officials regarding these "intelligence warnings" has served to uphold Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy", which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus.
The Bush administration had numerous intelligence warnings. "Revealing the lies" of Bush officials regarding these "intelligence warnings" has served to uphold Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy", which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus.
America’s leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to "safeguarding democratic values".
9/11 is the justification.
According to Homeland Security "the near-term attacks will either rival or exceed the 9/11 attacks".
An actual "terrorist attack" on American soil would lead to the suspension of civilian government and the establishment of martial law. In the words of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge: "If we go to Red [code alert]... it basically shuts down the country,"
"You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that unless it's a serious situation." (Donald Rumsfeld)
The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are the criminals.
Revealing a lie does not necessarily lead to establishing the truth.
In fact the experience of the 9/11 Commission, which has a mandate to investigate the September 11 attacks, has proved exactly the opposite.
We know that the Bush administration had numerous "intelligence warnings". We know they had "intelligence" which confirmed that terrorists had the capacity of hijacking aircrafts and using them to target buildings.
Attorney General John Ashcroft had apparently been warned in August 2001 by the FBI to avoid commercial airlines, but this information was not made public.
(See Eric Smith at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html )
The Pentagon had conducted a full fledged exercise on an airplane crashing into the Pentagon.
(See http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RYA404A.html )
We also know that senior Bush officials including Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice lied under oath to the 9/11 commission, when they stated that they had no information or forewarning of impending terrorist attacks.
"Revealing the lies" serves to present Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy", which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. The presumption is that these forewarnings and intelligence briefs emanating from the intelligence establishment constitute a true and unbiased representation of the terrorist threat. Meanwhile, the history of Al Qaeda and the CIA has been shoved to the background. The fact that successive US governments since the Soviet-Afghan war have supported and abetted the Islamic terror network is no longer mentioned, for obvious reasons. It would break the consensus regarding Al Qaeda as the outside enemy of America, which is a crucial building block of the entire National Security doctrine.
This central proposition that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11 serves to justify everything else including the Patriot Act, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, the spiraling defense and homeland security budgets, the detention of thousands of people of Muslim faith on trumped up charges, the arrest and deportation to Guantanamo of alleged "enemy combatants", etc.
In fact the experience of the 9/11 Commission, which has a mandate to investigate the September 11 attacks, has proved exactly the opposite.
We know that the Bush administration had numerous "intelligence warnings". We know they had "intelligence" which confirmed that terrorists had the capacity of hijacking aircrafts and using them to target buildings.
Attorney General John Ashcroft had apparently been warned in August 2001 by the FBI to avoid commercial airlines, but this information was not made public.
(See Eric Smith at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html )
The Pentagon had conducted a full fledged exercise on an airplane crashing into the Pentagon.
(See http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RYA404A.html )
We also know that senior Bush officials including Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice lied under oath to the 9/11 commission, when they stated that they had no information or forewarning of impending terrorist attacks.
But we also know, from carefully documented research that:
- There were stand-down orders on 9/11. The US Air force did not intervene.
- There was a cover-up of the WTC and Pentagon investigation. The WTC rubble was confiscated.(See Bill Manning at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html
- The plane debris at the Pentagon disappeared.
(See Thierry Meyssan, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MEY204C.html ) - Massive financial gains were made as a result of 9/11, from insider trading leading up to 9/11(See Michael Ruppert, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html .)
- There is an ongoing financial scam underlying the 7.1 billion dollar insurance claim by the WTC leaseholder, following the collapse of the twin towers (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO403B.html
- Mystery surrounds WTC building 7, which collapsed (or was "pulled" down in the afternoon of 9/11 mysteriously (For details see WTC-7: Scott Loughrey at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html).
"Revealing the lies" serves to present Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy", which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. The presumption is that these forewarnings and intelligence briefs emanating from the intelligence establishment constitute a true and unbiased representation of the terrorist threat. Meanwhile, the history of Al Qaeda and the CIA has been shoved to the background. The fact that successive US governments since the Soviet-Afghan war have supported and abetted the Islamic terror network is no longer mentioned, for obvious reasons. It would break the consensus regarding Al Qaeda as the outside enemy of America, which is a crucial building block of the entire National Security doctrine.
This central proposition that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11 serves to justify everything else including the Patriot Act, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, the spiraling defense and homeland security budgets, the detention of thousands of people of Muslim faith on trumped up charges, the arrest and deportation to Guantanamo of alleged "enemy combatants", etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment