There appears to be plenty of "circumstantial evidence" to convict the Bush administration of foreknowledge and complicity in 9/11. Anybody travelling internationally among the "traveller" circuit in 2001 would have heard warnings like "don't fly in the US in september." Multiple international intelligence agencies provided corroboration, including Mossad. Meanwhile, back at the ranch... Colin Powell, asked in August 2001 on CNN where the next theater of action would be in the world, answers "Afghanistan."
WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001 — (CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney
General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday
afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.
In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was
traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial
airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat
assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel
only by private jet for the remainder of his term.
C.I.A. Chief Warned Rice on Al Qaeda
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came
late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security -
- a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks --
advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel.
The mayor, who was booked to fly to New York yesterday morning from San
Francisco International Airport, said the call "didn't come in any alarming
fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement."
JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 2 — A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.
The account by the spokesman,
Sean McCormack, came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told
reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall the specific
meeting on July 10, noting that she had met repeatedly with Mr. Tenet
that summer about terrorist threats. Ms. Rice, the national security
adviser at the time, said it was “incomprehensible” to suggest she had
ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks.
McCormack also said records showed that the Sept. 11 commission had
been informed about the meeting, a fact that former intelligence
officials and members of the commission confirmed on Monday. [...]
McCormack said the records showed that far from ignoring Mr. Tenet’s
warnings, Ms. Rice acted on the intelligence and requested that Mr.
Tenet make the same presentation to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft, then the attorney general.
But Mr. Ashcroft said by telephone on Monday evening that he never received a briefing that summer from Mr. Tenet.
I’m disappointed that I didn’t get that kind of briefing,” he said.
“I’m surprised he didn’t think it was important enough to come by and
Government investigations have shown that Mr. Ashcroft
was briefed by other C.I.A. officials in the weeks before the Sept. 11
And finally, consider the 2001 Anthrax mailings that turned out to be an "inside job" from Ft. Detrick army biodefense labs. The Bruce Ivins anthrax case along with the convenient death of the prime suspect creates a "lone gunman"-style coverup to questions about why the Whitehouse went on Cipro a month before Bruce Ivins began mailing his anthrax letters. Out of the many Biological Weapons the US provided to Saddam Hussein, how did the Whitehouse know to take Cipro against Anthrax. Or did they already know that Dr. Bruce Ivins Anthrax vaccine was associated with Gulf War Syndrome?
Jun 7, 2002
Contact: Press Office
FBI & BUSH ADMINISTRATION SUED OVER ANTHRAX DOCUMENTS
Judicial Watch Wants to Know Why White House Went on Cipro Beginning September 11th
What Was Known and When?
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and
prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that it has
filed lawsuits against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the
Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), the Center for Disease
Control (“CDC”), the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious
Diseases (“USAMRIID”) and the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for those
agencies’ failures to produce documents concerning the terrorist
anthrax attacks of October 2001, under the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”).
Judicial Watch has additional
anthrax-related FOIA requests pending with the White House and other
government agencies that will see legal action in the next two weeks.
Watch represents hundreds of postal workers from the Brentwood Postal
Facility in Washington, DC. Until the Brentwood facility was finally
condemned by the CDC, Brentwood postal workers handled all of the mail
for Washington, DC, including the “official mail” that contained the
anthrax-laden envelopes addressed to Senators Daschle and Leahy. While
Capitol Hill workers received prompt medical care, Brentwood postal
workers were ordered by USPS officials to continue working in the
contaminated facility. Two Brentwood workers died from inhalation
anthrax, and dozens more are suffering from a variety of ailments
related to the anthrax attacks. A variety of legal actions are being
planned for the disparate treatment and reckless endangerment the
Brentwood postal workers faced.
In October 2001, press reports
revealed that White House staff had been on a regimen of the powerful
antibiotic Cipro since the September 11th terrorist attacks. Judicial
Watch is aggressively pursuing the disclosure of the facts and the
decision for White House staff, and President Bush as well, to begin
taking Cipro nearly a month before anthrax was detected on Capitol Hill.
American people deserve a full accounting from the Bush administration,
the FBI , and other agencies concerning the anthrax attacks. The FBI’s
investigation seems to have dead-ended, and frankly, that is not very
reassuring given their performance with the September 11th hijackers,”
stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman. “One
doesn’t simply start taking a powerful antibiotic for no good reason.
The American people are entitled to know what the White House staffers
knew nine months ago, “ he added.
Fortunately, beginning in 2006, people started asking the obvious questions in public that they were afraid to ask previously — as they'd be beaten down for "not supporting the troops" or "being unamerican" in prior years when people became blindly fascistic
Maybe it's dawning on people that we've been living under a fascist administratiion that is lying about everything...
As to the reasons why all these big lies... you have to go back to the lies-of-the-father HW Bush. We have to get the real scoop on what the USA has been doing in Iraq since HW Bush was CIA chief. At the recent Republican National Convention, Bush Sr. was the visibly-proud-parent, fulfilling father Prescott Bush's wishes -- a famous WWII "nazi appeaser" who long supported Hitler's anti-communist and eugenic viewpoints. The
recent RNC convention was like watching fascism on parade -- the
"country before self" "nation above all" imagery and rhetoric are truly
frightening if you look at the human toll on the Iraqi population and
US population (read below).
The recent Republican National Convention included propaganda on the HW Bush legacy from the Gulf War: "He built one of the largest coalitions in history to rebut the aggression of Saddam in Operation Desert Storm. And in doing so, he erased all ghosts of Vietnam." Of this same war effort http://libcom.org/history/
despite it's Vietnam-ghostbusting hopes, has become, Vietnam II:
postcolonial French issues replaced by the postcolonial British; the
threat of pan-communism
replaced with the potential for Iraqi US oil interests to be
nationalized-away by a government it doesn't control.
The aforementioned article begins:
The Gulf War was not ended by the military victory of America and the Allies. It was ended by the mass desertion and mutiny of thousands of Iraqi soldiers. So overwhelming was the refusal to fight for the Iraqi state on the part of its conscripted army that, contrary to all predictions, not one Allied soldier was killed by hostile fire in the final ground offensive to recapture Kuwait. Indeed the sheer scale of this mutiny is perhaps unprecedented in modern military history.I wish the democrats would figure out a way to play out the reality
But these mutinous troops did not simply flee back to Iraq. On their return many of them turned their guns against the Iraqi state, sparking a simultaneous uprising in both Southern Iraq and in Kurdistan to the North. Only the central region of Iraq surrounding Baghdad remained firmly in the state's hands in the weeks following the end of the war.
From the very start the Western media has grossly misrepresented these uprisings. The uprising in the South, centred on Basra, was portrayed as a Shia Muslim revolt. The insurrection in the North was reported as an exclusively Kurdish Nationalist uprising which demanded little more than an autonomous Kurdish region within Iraq.
The truth is that the uprisings in both the North and South of Iraq were working class insurrections.
of what *actually* happened in Iraq against the caricature of fascism
that the republican party has become, partly as a way of perpetuating
the lies of warmongers that have brought the USA to it's knees militarily, financially, and as a nation. Because below, as far as I can tell, is "the real deal" as to what we've done in Iraq. Continuing the above article:
Faced with these workers' uprisings the various capitalist interests in the region had to suspend hostilities and unite to suppress them. It is well known that the West, led by the USA, have long backed Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. They supported him in the war against Iran.
In supporting Saddam the Western ruling class also recognised that the Ba'athist Party, as a mass-based quasi-fascist party, was the onlyforce in Iraq capable and ruthless enough to repress the oil producing proletariat.
However, Saddam's ultimate strategy for maintaining social peace in Iraq was for a permanent war drive and militarisation of society. But such a strategy could only lead to further economic ruin and the intensification of class antagonisms. In the Spring of 1990 this contradiction was becoming blatant. The Iraqi economy was shattered after eight years of war with Iran. Oil production, the main source of hard currency, was restricted while oil prices were relatively low. The only options for redeeming wartime promises of prosperity in peace were a rise in the price of oil or more war. The former choice was blocked by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Saddam's bold leap to resolve this impasse was to annex Kuwait and its rich oil fields.
This gave America the opportunity to reassert its political hegemony, not only in the Middle East, but also in the world as a whole. With the hope of exorcising the spectre of Vietnam, the Bush regime prepared for all-out war. The Bush administration hoped for a quick and decisive victory that would evict Iraq from Kuwait but at the same time leave the Iraqi regime intact. However, to mobilise the home front for war, Bush had to equate Saddam with Hitler and so became increasingly committed publicly to toppling the Iraqi leader.
With this commitment the American government now sought to impose such a military defeat on the Ba'athist Party would be obliged to replace Saddam with someone else. Indeed the Bush regime openly invited the ruling circles in Iraq to replace Saddam Hussein with the approach of the ground war in March. However, the mass desertion of Iraqi conscripts and the subsequent uprisings in Iraq robbed the American government of such a convenient victory. Instead they faced the prospect of the uprising turning into a full scale proletarian revolution, with all the dire consequences this would have for the accumulation of capital in the Middle East.
The last thing the American government wanted was to be drawn into a prolonged military occupation of Iraq in order to suppress the uprisings. It was far more efficient to back the existing state. But there was no time to insist on the removal of Saddam Hussein. They could ill afford the disruption this would cause. Hence, almost overnight, Bush's hostility to the butcher of Baghdad evaporated. The two rival butchers went into partnership.
Their first task was to crush the uprising in the South which was being swelled by the huge columns of deserters streaming north from Kuwait. Even though these fleeing Iraqi conscripts posed no military threat to Allied troops, or to the objective of "liberating" Kuwait, the war was prolonged long enough for them to be carpet bombed on the road to Basra by the RAF and the USAF. This cold blooded massacre served no other purpose than to preserve the Iraqi state from mutinous armed deserters.
Following this massacre the Allied ground forces, having swept through southern Iraq to encircle Kuwait, stopped short of Basra and gave free rein to the Republican Guards - the elite troops loyal to the Iraqi regime - to crush the insurgents (see mass graves of Shiite rebels, right). All proposals to inflict a decisive defeat on the Republican Guards or to proceed towards Baghdad to topple Saddam were quickly forgotten. In the ceasefire negotiations the Allied forces insisted on the grounding of all fixed wing aircraft but the use of helicopters vital for counter-insurgency was permitted for "administrative purposes". This "concession" proved important once the uprising in the South was put down and the Iraqi state's attention turned to the advancing insurrection in the North.
Whereas the uprising in the Basra region was crushed almost as it began, the Northern uprising had more time to develop. It began in Raniah and spread to Sulaimania and Kut and at its height threatened to spread beyond Kurdistan to the capital. The original aim of the uprising was expressed in the slogan: "We will celebrate our New Year with the Arabs in Baghdad!" The defeat of this rebellion owed as much to the Kurdish nationalists as to the Western powers and the Iraqi state.
The war in the Gulf was brought to an end by the refusal of the Iraqi working class to fight and by the subsequent uprisings in Iraq. But such proletarian actions were crushed by the combined efforts of the various international and national capitalist forces. Once again, nationalism has served as the stumbling block for working class insurrection. While it is important to stress that Middle East politics is not dominated by Islamic fundamentalism and Arab Nationalism, as it is usually portrayed in the mainstream press, but rests on class conflict, it must be said that the immediate prospects for the development of working class struggle in Iraq are now bleak.
The war not only resulted in the defeat of the Iraqi working class but also revealed the state of defeat of the working class in the USA, and, to a lesser degree, Europe. The western anti-war movement never developed into a mass working class opposition to the war. It remained dominated by a pacifist orientation that "opposed" the war in terms of an alternative national interest: "Peace is Patriotic". While it expressed abhorrence of the Allies' mass murder it opposed doing anything to stop it that might bring it into confrontation with the state. Instead it concentrated on futile symbolic protest that simply fostered the sense of helplessness in the face of the state's war machine.
The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death"
by Joyce Chediac
I want to give testimony on what are called the "highways of death." These are the two Kuwaiti roadways, littered with remains of 2,000 mangled Iraqi military vehicles, and the charred and dismembered bodies of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, who were withdrawing from Kuwait on February 26th and 27th 1991 in compliance with UN resolutions.
U.S. planes trapped the long convoys by disabling vehicles in the front, and at the rear, and then pounded the resulting traffic jams for hours. "It was like shooting fish in a barrel," said one U.S. pilot. The horror is still there to see.
On the inland highway to Basra is mile after mile of burned, smashed, shattered vehicles of every description - tanks, armored cars, trucks, autos, fire trucks, according to the March 18, 1991, Time magazine. On the sixty miles of coastal highway, Iraqi military units sit in gruesome repose, scorched skeletons of vehicles and men alike, black and awful under the sun, says the Los Angeles Times of March 11, 1991. While 450 people survived the inland road bombing to surrender, this was not the case with the 60 miles of the coastal road. There for 60 miles every vehicle was strafed or bombed, every windshield is shattered, every tank is burned, every truck is riddled with shell fragments. No survivors are known or likely. The cabs of trucks were bombed so much that they were pushed into the ground, and it's impossible to see if they contain drivers or not. Windshields were melted away, and huge tanks were reduced to shrapnel.
"Even in Vietnam I didn't see anything like this. It's pathetic," said Major Bob Nugent, an Army intelligence officer. This one-sided carnage, this racist mass murder of Arab people, occurred while White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater promised that the U.S. and its coalition partners would not attack Iraqi forces leaving Kuwait. This is surely one of the most heinous war crimes in contemporary history.
The Iraqi troops were not being driven out of Kuwait by U.S. troops as the Bush administration maintains. They were not retreating in order to regroup and fight again. In fact, they were withdrawing, they were going home, responding to orders issued by Baghdad, announcing that it was complying with Resolution 660 and leaving Kuwait. At 5:35 p.m. (Eastern standard Time) Baghdad radio announced that Iraq's Foreign Minister had accepted the Soviet cease-fire proposal and had issued the order for all Iraqi troops to withdraw to postions held before August 2, 1990 in compliance with UN Resolution 660. President Bush responded immediately from the White House saying (through spokesman Marlin Fitzwater) that "there was no evidence to suggest the Iraqi army is withdrawing. In fact, Iraqi units are continuing to fight. . . We continue to prosecute the war." On the next day, February 26, 1991, Saddam Hussein announced on Baghdad radio that Iraqi troops had, indeed, begun to withdraw from Kuwait and that the withdrawal would be complete that day. Again, Bush reacted, calling Hussein's announcement "an outrage" and "a cruel hoax."
Eyewitness Kuwaitis attest that the withdrawal began the afternoon of February 26, 1991 and Baghdad radio announced at 2:00 AM (local time) that morning that the government had ordered all troops to withdraw.
The massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article III, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who are out of combat. The point of contention involves theBush administration's claim that the Iraqi troops were retreating to regroup and fight again. Such a claim is the only way that the massacre which occurred could be considered legal under international law. But in fact the claim is false and obviously so. The troops were withdrawing and removing themselves from combat under direct orders from Baghdad that the war was over and that Iraq had quit and would fully comply with UN resolutions. To attack the soldiers returning home under these circumstances is a war crime.
Iraq accepted UN Resolution 660 and offered to withdraw from Kuwait through Soviet mediation on February 21, 1991. A statement made by George Bush on February 27, 1991, that no quarter would be given to remaining Iraqi soldiers violates even the U.S. Field Manual of 1956. The 1907 Hague Convention governing land warfare also makes it illegal to declare that no quarter will be given to withdrawing soldiers. On February 26,199 I, the following dispatch was filed from the deck of the U.S.S. Ranger, under the byline of Randall Richard of the Providence Journal:
Air strikes against Iraqi troops retreating from Kuwait were being launched so feverishly from this carrier today that pilots said they took whatever bombs happened to be closest to the flight deck. The crews, working to the strains of the Lone Ranger theme, often passed up the projectile of choice . . . because it took too long to load.
New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd wrote, "With the Iraqi leader facing military defeat, Mr. Bush decided that he would rather gamble on a violent and potentially unpopular ground war than risk the alternative: an imperfect settlement hammered out by the Soviets and Iraqis that world opinion might accept as tolerable." In short, rather than accept the offer of Iraq to surrender and leave the field of battle, Bush and the U.S. military strategists decided simply to kill as many Iraqis as they possibly could while the chance lasted. A Newsweek article on Norman Schwarzkopt, titled "A Soldier of Conscience" (March 11,1991), remarked that before the ground war the general was only worried about "How long the world would stand by and watch the United States pound the living hell out of Iraq without saying, 'Wait a minute - enough is enough.' He [Schwarzkopf] itched to send ground troops to finish the job." The pretext for massive extermination of Iraqi soldiers was the desire of the U.S. to destroy Iraqi equipment. But in reality the plan was to prevent Iraqi soldiers from retreating at all. Powell remarked even before the start of the war that Iraqi soldiers knew that they had been sent to Kuwait to die. Rick Atkinson of the Washington Post reasoned that "the noose has been tightened" around Iraqi forces so effectively that "escape is impossible" (February 27, 1991). What all of this amounts to is not a war but a massacre.
There are also indications that some of those bombed during the withdrawl were Palestinians and Iraqi civilians. According to Time magazine of March 18, 1991, not just military vehicles, but cars, buses and trucks were also hit. In many cases, cars were loaded with Palestinian families and all their possessions. U.S. press accounts tried to make the discovery of burned and bombed household goods appear as if Iraqi troops were even at this late moment looting Kuwait. Attacks on civilians are specifically prohibited by the Geneva Accords and the 1977 Conventions.
How did it really happen? On February 26, 1991 Iraq had announced it was complying with the Soviet proposal, and its troops would withdraw from Kuwait. According to Kuwaiti eyewitnesses, quoted in the March 11, 1991 Washington Post, the withdrawal began on the two highways, and was in full swing by evening. Near midnight, the first U.S. bombing started. Hundreds of Iraqis jumped from their cars and their trucks, looking for shelter. U.S. pilots took whatever bombs happened to be close to the flight deck, from cluster bombs to 500 pound bombs. Can you imagine that on a car or truck? U.S. forces continued to drop bombs on the convoys until all humans were killed. So many jets swarmed over the inland road that it created an aerial traffic jam, and combat air controllers feared midair collisions.
The victims were not offering resistance. They weren't being driven back in fierce battle, or trying to regroup to join another battle. They were just sitting ducks, according to Commander Frank Swiggert, the Ranger Bomb Squadron leader. According to an article in the March 11, 1991 Washington Post, headlined "U.S. Scrambles to Shape View of Highway of Death," the U.S. government then conspired and in fact did all it could to hide this war crime from the people of this country and the world. What the U.S. government did became the focus of the public relations campaign managed by the U.S. Central Command in Riyad, according to that same issue of the Washington Post. The typical line has been that the convoys were engaged in "classic tank battles," as if to suggest that Iraqi troops tried to fight back or even had a chance of fighting back. The truth is that it was simply a one-sided massacre of tens of thousands of people who had no ability to fight back or defend themselves.
The Washington Post says that senior officers with the U.S. Central Command in Riyad became worried that what they saw was a growing public perception that Iraqi forces were leaving Kuwait voluntarily, and that the U.S. pilots were bombing them mercilessly, which was the truth. So the U.S. government, says the Post, played down the evidence that Iraqi troops were actually leaving Kuwait.
U.S. field commanders gave the media a carefully drawn and inaccurate picture of the fast-changing events. The idea was to portray Iraq's claimed withdrawal as a fighting retreat made necessary by heavy allied military pressure. Remember when Bush came to the Rose Garden and said that he would not accept Saddam Hussein's withdrawal? That was part of it, too, and Bush was involved in this cover up. Bush's statement was followed quickly by a televised military briefing from Saudi Arabia to explain that Iraqi forces were not withdrawing but were being pushed from the battlefield. In fact, tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers around Kuwait had begun to pull away more than thirty-six hours before allied forces reached the capital, Kuwait City. They did not move under any immediate pressure from allied tanks and infantry, which were still miles from Kuwait City.
This deliberate campaign of disinformation regarding this military action and the war crime that it really was, this manipulation of press briefings to deceive the public and keep the massacre from the world is also a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the right of the people to know.
Joyce Chediac is a Lebanese-American journalist who has traveled in the Middle East and writes on Middle East issues. Her report was presented at the New York Commission hearing, May 11, 1991.
Posted by Niels P. Mayer in Politics at 20080908 Comments
Search This Site
- anti-fascist bailout proposal
- creative destruction at work: is recent US economic collapse final stage of fascist coup?
- bottom line regarding "war on terror"
- agrobacterium peptides cause "mad cow disease" and morgellons (was Re: gulf war syndrome, lyme, morgellons and autoimmune diseases VS peptide amino-acid therapy)
- What does MySpace have to do with selling an interesting Linux-based Mini-PC?
- WPAFB develops Morgellons and Gay Bomb!
- chromeless player test via SWFAddress
- testing youtube chromeless player API
- OMG regarding burningman 2008
- testing embedding JW FLV player
- Dr. Harvey's Latest Statements Re Morgellons and Mutant Worms
- what exactly are statins anyways?
- Family Car Featured in Jalopnik Goes Car Hunting
- Wankerati vs Digerati
- which tick bit you and what did it give you?
- Mechanism of Action Unknown and Chemical Imbalance
- Morgellons epidemiology, California
- New Heart Device Allows Cheney To Experience Love
- Thousand-Hand Guanyin
- Morgellons discovery & cure ?!?