When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad
David Corn, AlterNet
March 1, 2002
Viewed on June 27, 2003

Please stop sending me those emails. You know who are. And you know what emails I mean ... Okay, I'll spell it out -- those forwarded emails suggesting, or flat-out stating, the CIA and the U.S. government were somehow involved in the horrific September 11 attacks.


There are emails about a fellow imprisoned in Canada who claims to be a former U.S. intelligence office and who supposedly passed advance warning of the attack to jail guards in mid-August. There are emails, citing an Italian newspaper, reporting that last July Osama bin Laden was treated for kidney disease at the American hospital in Dubai and met with a CIA official. There are the emails, referring to a book published in France, that note the attacks came a month after Bush Administration officials, who were negotiating an oil deal with the Taliban, told the Afghans "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."


Get the hint? Washington either did nothing to stop the September 11 attacks or plotted the assaults so a justifiable war could then be waged against Afghanistan to benefit Big Oil.


One email I keep receiving is a timeline of so-called suspicious events that "establishes CIA foreknowledge of [the September 11 attacks] and strongly suggests that there was criminal complicity on the part of the U.S. government in their execution."


I won't argue that the U.S. government does not engage in brutal, murderous skulduggery from time to time. But the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd. Still, each week emails passing on such tripe arrive. This crap is probably not worth a rational rebuttal, but I'm irritated enough to try.


It's a mug's game to refute individual pieces of conspiracy theories. Who can really know if anything that bizarre happened at a Dubai hospital? As for the man jailed in Canada, he was being held on a credit card fraud charge, and the only source for the story about his warning was his own word. The judge in his case said, "There is no independent evidence to support his colossal allegations." But a conspiracy-monges can reply, wouldn't you expect the government and its friends in Canada to say that?


So let's start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed? Capable -- as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation. That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years spent covering national security matters. (For a book I wrote on the CIA, I interviewed over 100 CIA officials and employees.)


Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.).


Yet anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions (or does not function) realizes that the various bureaucracies of Washington -- particularly those of the national security "community" -- do not work well together. Even covering up advance knowledge would require an extensive plot. If there truly had been intelligence reports predicting the 9/11 attacks, these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policymaking circles before the folks at the top decided to smother them for geopolitical gain. That would make for a unwieldy conspiracy of silence. And in either scenario -- planning the attacks or permitting them to occur -- everyone who participated in the conspiracy would have to be freakin' sure that all the other plotters would stay quiet.


Not evil enough. This is as foul as it gets -- to kill thousands of Americans, including Pentagon employees, to help out oil companies. (The sacrificial lambs could have included White House staff or members of Congress, had the fourth plane not crashed in Pennsylvania.) This is a Hollywood-level of dastardliness, James Bond (or Dr. Evil) material.


Are there enough people of such a bent in all those agencies? That's doubtful. CIA officers and American officials have been evildoers. They have supported death squads and made use of drug dealers overseas. They have assisted torturers, disseminated assassination manuals, sold weapons to terrorist-friendly governments, undermined democratically-elected governments, and aided dictators who murder and maim. They have covered up reports of massacres and human rights abuses. They have plotted to kill foreign leaders.


These were horrendous activities, but, in most instances, the perps justified these deeds with Cold War imperatives (perverted as they were). And to make the justification easier, the victims were people overseas. Justifying the murder of thousands of Americans to help ExxonMobil would require U.S. officials to engage in a different kind of detachment and an even more profound break with decency and moral norms.


I recall interviewing one former CIA official who helped manage a division that ran the sort of actions listed above, and I asked him whether the CIA had considered "permanently neutralizing" a former CIA man who had revealed operations and the identities of CIA officers. Kill an American citizen? he replied, as if I were crazy to ask. No, no, he added, we could never do that. Yes, in the spy-world some things were beyond the pale. And, he explained, it would be far too perilous, for getting caught in that type of nasty business could threaten your career. Which brings us to....


Not gutsy enough. Think of the danger -- the potential danger to the plotters. What if their plan were uncovered before or, worse, after the fact? Who's going to risk being associated with the most infamous crime in U.S. history? At the start of such a conspiracy, no one could be certain it would work and remain a secret. CIA people -- and those in other government agencies -- do care about their careers.


Would George W. Bush take the chance of being branded the most evil president of all time by countenancing such wrongdoing? Oil may be in his blood, but would he place the oil industry's interests ahead of his own? (He sure said sayonara to Kenneth Lay and Enron pretty darn fast.) And Bush and everyone else in government know that plans leak. Disinformation specialists at the Pentagon could not keep their office off the front page of The New York Times. In the aftermath of September 11, there has been much handwringing over the supposed fact that U.S. intelligence has been too risk-averse. But, thankfully, some inhibitions -- P.R. concerns, career concerns -- do provide brakes on the spy-crowd.


By now, you're probably wondering why I have bothered to go through this exercise. Aren't these conspiracy theories too silly to address? That should be the case. But, sadly, they do attract people.


A fellow named Michael Ruppert, who compiled that timeline mentioned above, has drawn large crowds to his lectures. He has offered $1000 to anyone who can "disprove the authenticity of any of his source material." Well, his timeline includes that Canadian prisoner's claim and cites the Toronto Star as the source. But Ruppert fails to note that the Star did not confirm the man's account, that the paper reported some observers "wonder if it isn't just the ravings of a lunatic," and that the Star subsequently reported the judge said the tale had "no air of reality." Does that disprove anything? Not 100 percent. There's still a chance that man is telling the truth, right? So I'm not expecting a check.


Conspiracy theories may seem more nuisance than problem. But they do compete with reality for attention. There is plenty to be outraged over without becoming obsessed with X Files-like nonsense. Examples? There's the intelligence services's failure to protect Americans and the lack of criticism of the CIA from elected officials. Or, General Tommy Franks, the commander of military operations in Afghanistan, declaring the commando mis-assault at Hazar Qadam, which resulted in the deaths of fifteen to twenty local Afghans loyal to the pro-U.S. government, was not an intelligence failure. (How can U.S. Special Forces fire at targets they wrongly believe to be Taliban or al Qaeda fighters, end up killing people they did not intend to kill, and the operation not be considered an intelligence failure?) More outrage material? A few months ago, forensic researchers found the remains of people tortured and killed at a base the CIA had established in the 1980s as a training center for the contras. The U.S. ambassador to Honduras at the time is now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte.


There are always national security misdeeds to be mad about. They may not be as cinematic in nature as a plot in which shady, unidentified U.S. officials scheme to blow up the World Trade Towers to gain control of an oil pipeline in Central Asia. But dozens of dead Hondurans or twenty or so Afghans wrongly killed ought to provoke anger and protest. In fact, out-there conspiracy theorizing serves the interests of the powers-that-be by making their real transgressions seem tame in comparison. (What's a few dead in Central America, compared to thousands in New York City? Why worry about Negroponte, when unidentified U.S. officials are slaughtering American civilians to trigger war?)


Perhaps there's a Pentagon or CIA office that churns out this material. Its mission: distract people from the real wrongdoing. Now there's a conspiracy theory worth exploring. Doesn't it make sense? Doesn't it all fit together? I challenge anyone to disprove it.


David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation.

Gee, trying to push down the recall notice, I see. Just like Art on MSNBC.

More to follow.

That's the first reasonable thing I've ever read that was written by David Corn.

..I was amazed.

Now bring on the accusations that David Corn is a paid shill.

Come on, Dio...don't let me down!

Isn't he the one who got into a hissy fit with Micheal
Rupert on KPFK? That was a funny little skit. He was
almost ready to start crying when he couldn't get Rupert
to directly claim that Bush did it. He did say that Bush knew about the attacks which has been proven since.

Dont you see? everyone is part of the conspiricy. only Dio and his immediate comrades are innocent.

...provided it's backed up by evidence/sources?

unfortunately,the govt's 911 conspiracy theory does not meet the above criteria.

You need to enroll in a remedial grammar course. Or do you like looking like a fool?

Er that was the point of the last post.
You need to drink more coffee in the morning.

The Phony Left Media: http://www.questionsquestions.net/gatekeepers.html

Great Chart showing links and interconnections. Scroll down to see it. A must read if you don't like being manipulated.

If you like being manipulated you can skip it.

That is rather generous of big business to support liberal media....... and you said they were all bad!
Surprising that Gnome chomski is a CIA pawn though I didn't know the CIA had gone that far left.

Do you people get paid to come up with this shite?

Or is this stuff you do to pass the time at the asylum?

What do YOU do to pass the time at the asylum? Oh, wait, I already know the answer: acting like a buffoon.

That wasn't me

I did not submit the above comment.

from the corn post:

>>But the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd<<

unsubstantiated allegation.

try reading Logic for Dummies.mr corn.

D. Corn admitted that he was close with his
friends in the CIA. Probaly gets a paycheck from them.

I have been reading Indymedia this past week and now realize what plagues our country.

We have some incredibly intelligent and observant people in this country. And most seem to contribute to Indymedia. These people have been able to see through the deception and uncover numerous government conspiracies. Even foreign intelligence agencies (friends and foe) have not been able to put together enough brain power to accomplish these mind-boggling tasks. This genius-class is able to identify and solve all problems of government -- even though they have no education or experience in public policy or economics.

Where is the problem facing our country?

The US has a corrupt and unfair political/economic system that relegates these great minds to menial jobs (piano movers, coffee pourers, and bicycle messengers).

The US citizenry should wake up and allow this genius-class to run the country. We must figure out a way to promote these people, our nation's greatest asset, to positions of power and influence.

have you noticed how corn refuses throughout the post to address but 1 of the main bush-did-911 points

(airforcestanddown by Ilaryon Bykov and Israel,AA77 never hit the pentagon by Meyssan; insider trading on AA etc by Flocco/Ruppert) ??

could it be that he can't?

what an asshole.

The notion that ordinary people are somehow incapable of reasoning things through for them selves is really what Mr. Concerned Schmuck is attacking.

The undelying implicit message is: Who are you to question our great leaders and DARE, I say Dare, to think for yourself.

Now shut up and take your Soma, go watch some TV, have another Beer, go back to sleep.

Ordinary people should not question the "wisdom" of the government.

Ordinary people should not think of calling the government to account for criminal activity.

This is of course a truly Anti-American point of view.

IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE DISSENT YOUR'RE LIVING IN THE WRONG COUNTRY.

May I suggest a move to some nice Totalitarian State where the Sheeple ALL conform to your wishes.

BUSH LIED, AND PEOPLE DIED. It really is that simple.

CORN IS A SHILL, AND DEFENDS THOSE LIES. This makes him a supporter of the Junta's Crimes.

My point is not to follow the government like sheep. Not at all. My point is that, using only published stories on the Internet, you are able to uncover conspiracies that other nation's best and brightest, using electronic eavesdropping and all sorts of intelligence (and the Internet) can't seem to uncover. Makes you wonder.

The lunatic is in your head.

refusing to address any of the real bush-did-911 oints.

The lunatic is in MY head.

since he refuses to address any of the chief bush-did-911 points,corn is irrelevant.

...of the Internet is that it is one of the last relatively unfettered sources of Raw Data left. Oh, yes there are others, Book Shops and what have you. Except the cost of Publishing on the internet is a fraction of what it costs to publish a book. The information is freely and nearly instantly available.

Is all of that Raw Data Valid?

Of course not - your post proves it.

However, because an opinion or conclusion is not one spoken of in the Controlled Media does not make it invalid. It just means that the controlled organs are unwilling even to consider it. In many cases I believe they are actively prevented from doing so. Thanks to the Internet we have learned about a few of those cases. For example:

The Phoenix Program - censored from the Mainstream Press.

Operation Mockingbird: Censored.

MK Ultra: Censored.

Project Northwoods: Censored.

The Waco Massarcre: Heavily Censored and Disinformation planted.

Charlotte Iserbyt: Kicked out of the Reagan Education Department for revealing some of the truth of the actual agenda at play in Federal Education "Programs".

Threats and Probably Murder used by the Clinton Cabal to silence Whistleblowers and other inconvient stories.


One could go on for quite a while on Government Misdeeds and outright Criminal Activity. Much of it pretty well documented from source documents.

One could go on at length on how the International Banking Cartels manipulate and buy government policy to benefit their interests. Not as well documented but if one starts digging there is definitely some there there.

What does the available evidence tell you, not what is the current Spin (lies).

Throughout history there have always been Cabals, and Criminals in places of power. To think that in our time we have escaped such requires mustering a kind of Doe-eyed Credulousity which I am unwilling to summon.

You are welcome to believe the Fairy Tales told in the Media and in Textbooks written for Government Schools. I will continue to look for, and examine, all of the available evidence.

I am not afraid to go where the evidence leads - however disturbing it might be to "settled" thought patterns. You may label it anything you wish. I cannot, and will, not try to force my viewpoint on eveyone. Neither am I willing to scrunch my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears to avoid learning that there is evil in the World. Not everyone is willing to look the truth squarely in the eyes. Not everyone has the will to state that the "Emperor has no Clothes".

You are welcome to be a Sheep if you wish, but include me out.


BUSH LIED, AND CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple.

"I am not afraid to go where the evidence leads - however disturbing it might be to "settled" thought patterns."


...it continues to verify the "settled" truths.

ROFL.

...even you will be able to acknowledge a fact when it slaps you in the face, or kicks you in the teeth.

Never forget - Hiltler "LIQUIDATED" the Brown Shirts when they were no longer useful.

Perhaps someday lightening will strike and you will present something useful and do something other than make cheap smartass taunts of no value.

Naw. Ain't gonna happen.

BUSH LIED, AND PEOPLE DIED, AND CONTINUE TO DIE. IF HE HAS HIS WAY EVEN MORE WILL DIE.

It really is that EVIL.

Resist or prepare to wear your collar.

Resistance is futile, you are just making it more painful for yourself.
Better just to put your head down and pretend you never found out about it.

As to the brownshirts issue... I think your position is more analigous to the intelectually handicaped people since that is basically how you are percieved.

the first gas chambers were installed in mental institutions.

KPFK morning show 6-13-02: David Corn ambushes Mike Ruppert Length: 29:00
Subtitle:	KPFK morning show 6-13-02
Featuring:	Mike Ruppert, David Corn, Sonali
Type:	Unspecified
Uploaded On:	06/26/2002
Keywords:	"Mike Ruppert" KPFK
Restrictions:	For non-profit use only.
Notes:	Ruppert baited to comment on Corn, Corn ambushes after rare morning musicc break, it walks like a duck.
\;
David Corn ambushes Mike Ruppert Language: English   Seg Title Length File Info Download Play 1 Ruppert ambushed by Corn 29:00 24 kbps MP3 (4.98 MB) FTP HTTP Play

...it is always the correct choice. Regardless of the short term outcome.

To not oppose evil is itself evil. I will never assent to the kind of evil you and your ilk make apologias for.

You are right about one thing although you did not complete the point:

The Racial Hygiene theory of Eugenics, Death Camps, and rationale for the Holocaust were the Product of Psychiatrists working for the NAZI Regime.

A good book that is available as a free download, formerly 25 Bucks in Hard Cover, is "The Men Behind Hitler". The Author, a German, who delved into the background of the NAZI Death Machine was startled to discover that much of the "Philosophy" justifying the heinous acts of the NAZIs was the Product of supposedly highly educated men - Doctors - Psychiatrists. You can find it quickly with Google - I don't have the link anymore or I would post it.

May look it up and do it anyway now that you mention it.

P.S. How's the Weather in Langely?

BUSH LIED, AND PEOPLE DIED. It really is that Evil.

P.S. Margaret Sanger the Founder of Planned Parenthood went to NAZI Germany to study what they were doing to see if it could be used here. Read her book. It is an eye opener. Hint: she thought the NAZIs were on the right track. It is available at Gutenberg.Org - another free download.

PPS: Corn is a Shill and just another disinfo artist.

"Perhaps someday lightening will strike and you will present something useful and do something other than make cheap smartass taunts of no value. "

Classic dio response when he's been trounced.

ROFL!! LOve it.

"Never forget - Hiltler "LIQUIDATED" the Brown Shirts when they were no longer useful."

A phrase activists quote, but can't seem to grap how it would ever effect them.

Should the activists ever come to realize the world they envision, they will quickly learn that the first ones which will be sent to the gulog will be the activists.

...yip, yip, yip, yip,yip, yip, yip, yip,yip, yip, yip, yip,yip, yip, yip, yip.

Where did that Ankle Biter come from?

Nasty little varmint. Not really threatening though. It can't even bark very loud.

BUSH LIED, AND CHILDREN DIED, AND ARE STILL DYING.

frescaw has promoted and defended those lies.

It really is that simple, and that evil.

"BUSH LIED, AND CHILDREN DIED, AND ARE STILL DYING."

We're not getting anywhere! Peddle harder!

circle going nowhere

...but the Dam is breaking. Try as you clowns might the real News of Bush's LIES is getting out.

The bloodsoaked Moonopooly Media is being forced to acknowledge the reality.

BUSH LIED.

Whine as you will that remains a constant.

BUSH LIED, AND CHILDREN DIED. And the word is beginning to get out.

I would laugh at you but this is just too evil to laugh about.

I love it when dio starts getting all flustered.

Take a breath dio and resume apologizing for the bad guys.

By the way,


Jerk off to any pictures of all the dead children you've help murder while defending Sadam and hamas?

no dam is breaking
there are no lies by Bush

circle going nowhere
circle
circle stuck in neutral

The WHO had it down. "...and the shotgun sings its song"
which is what a violent revolution is all about. No law
except the noose and the gun. We know that history in its
raw truth is a process of social evolution. Do we want to change the order? Some individuals wish to continue the path towards the three levels of order; the rulers ( always fighting with the flesh and blood of others to gain over their peers), the enforcement arm and the serfs who provide
the labor and wealth to support the other two classes. In this scenario, the king of the hill is usually standing upon the
mounds of their victims as they enjoy what the rule terror
has secured for them. They cannot rest. Always the specter of overthrow or betrayal will plague them as they
build ever higher walls and more lethal instrumentalities to insure their position. Eventually they are eaten by a
force they cannot fathom. Human endeavor towards a just and
peaceful life, free of the whip or gun or torture rack. The tighter the lid on this natural force, the more violent the release and the more bitter the vengeance.
The other path is towards self denial and mutual assistance.
Which path will lead to annihilation and which path will insure human survival on this treasure, this garden in the
external void of space we call earth?
At some point in the VERY near future we will decide out of cowardess or courage.

Carta de un antiterrorista a John Ashcroft.
by Percy Francisco Alvarado Godoy • Saturday June 28, 2003 09:40 PM
percyag@cimex.com.cu 537- 204-9453 82-B nro 728, Playa

Denuncia los tratos crueles que sufren cinco héroes cubanos presos injustamente en cárceles de EE UU

CARTA ABIERTA DE UN ANTITERRORISTA AL SEÑOR JOHN ASHCROFT, SECRETARIO DE JUSTICIA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA.


Señor John Ashcroft
U.S. Departament of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.Y.
Room 440
Washington DC 20530-000.
USA.


Señor Secretario de Justicia:

Una mancha oscura amenaza con ensuciar los valores humanos y éticos, inculcados al pueblo norteamericano por los Padres Fundadores de esa gran nación. Su administración es la responsable directa de una flagrante violación de los derechos de dos de los cinco cubanos detenidos —de por sí injustamente— en prisiones norteamericanas. Me refiero a Gerardo Hernández Nordelo y a René González Sehwerert.

Haciendo caso omiso a lo refrendado en la VIII Enmienda de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos de América, parte integrante del Bill of Right, se ejercen sobre estos prisioneros crueles e inusuales castigos al prohibírseles ser visitados por sus esposas e hijas. Ni Olga Salanueva ni sus hijas, familiares de René González, ni Adriana Pérez O´Connor, esposa de Gerardo Hernández, pueden tener el necesario encuentro entre sí.

¿Qué clase de mente puede instrumentar medidas de tamaña crueldad que violan lo estipulado en varios instrumentos legales internacionales como lo son la Declaración sobre la Protección de todas las personas contra la tortura y otros malos tratos o penas crueles, inhumanos o degradantes, (Ver Resolución 3452/1975 de la Asamblea General de la ONU), así como la Declaración y la Convención Universal de los Derechos del Niño, entre otros?

¿Cree usted, señor, que tamaño escarnio engrandece en algo a la justicia norteamericana?

Me resulta difícil imaginar como bondadosos padres y abuelos a aquellos que hoy someten a seres humanos a tan cruel castigo. ¿Es que la pequeña Ivette acaso no siente la necesidad de ser abrazada por su padre como lo sienten sus propios hijos y nietos? Usted, que representa a la justicia norteamericana, no puede aceptar o confabularse con la injusticia si ama a los niños con sinceridad.

Jamás un hombre noble maltrata al enemigo de esa forma. Hacerlo, más que engrandecerlo, lo demerita. Ese riesgo lo corre usted hoy al aceptar tal injusticia.

Lo doloroso de esta situación es que estos hombres, al igual que yo, luchamos en su territorio por defender a nuestro pueblo del terrorismo que usted dice combatir. Mil veces me he preguntado sobre qué diferencia hay entre los muertos del 11 de septiembre y los miles de muertos que han provocado, durante 40 años, los terroristas cubanos que deambulan libremente en Miami y otras ciudades norteamericanas. Muchos de ellos, señor, tienen hojas criminales aún mayores que cualquier líder de Al Qaeda. Muchos de ellos cargan sobre sus conciencias crímenes aún mayores. Sin embargo, nunca se les ha condenado.

El castigo para estos hombres, y me refiero ahora a mis cinco hermanos, llega incluso a atentar contra su propia condición de hombres y amantísimos esposos. Ellos aman a sus esposas con amor y ternura y, sin embargo, ni siquiera se les ha permitido el elemental derecho a amarse cuando se han encontrado en prisión. Siempre ha existido entre ellos una barrera de custodios y de obstáculos. Si usted se dignara a leer alguna de las cartas que escriben a las mujeres a las que han unido sus vidas, podría comprender lo doloroso que les resulta el no tener un breve momento a solas.

Cuando se intenta aprisionar al amor, a la ternura y a la familia, señor Ashcroft, se arremete al alma del hombre y eso, quiera reconocerse o no, quiera soslayarse o no, hace más grande y reprobable el castigo, a la vez que hace más indigno al verdugo.

Acudo pues a su conciencia humana y al compromiso que tiene con aquellos que respetan al amor y a la familia, pilares claves de la ética de su pueblo, para que cese esta injusticia. Lo que usted haga por estos hombres y sus familiares aliviara las cargas que llevará sobre su conciencia.

Se lo reclama un hombre que ha dedicado toda su vida a luchar contra el terrorismo y que lloró de rabia e impotencia el 11 de septiembre, como lo hizo ante sus propios muertos, ante el crimen ocurrido en Nueva York. Hombres como ellos, mis cinco hermanos de combate, lucharon para evitar tales crímenes y es injusto que el heroísmo se castigue con infamia y crueldades.

Atentamente,

Percy Francisco Alvarado Godoy
Escritor guatemalteco.
Miembro del Comité Internacional Justicia y Libertad para los Cinco.


CC: Señor Raadí Azarakhaki (División de Procedimientos Especiales)
Ginebra, Suiza.
Señor Theo C. Van Voben (Relator Especial sobre la Tortura y otras penas y tratamientos crueles, inhumanos o degradantes).
Señora Radica Coomaraswamy (Relatora Especial de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos sobre violencia contra la mujer)
Señor Louis Joinet (Presidente del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Detención Arbitraria de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de Ginebra).



add your comments



In English, Ricky
by Fred Mertz • Saturday June 28, 2003 10:54 PM



Hey, buddy, this ain't Guadalajara. In Ingles, por favor.


add your comments



Percy
by KOBE SBM • Sunday June 29, 2003 11:32 AM
kobehq@yahoo.com


Speak English, you damn wetback! Do you see me going to whatever turd world nation that you come from speaking English? No!!!!

http://www.kobehq.com


add your comments



poor little anglo
by Gaspadean Flonchner • Sunday June 29, 2003 11:37 AM



He doesn't understand the language of the majority of this hemisphere. Das Svidonya.


add your comments



Gaspadean
by KOBE SBM • Sunday June 29, 2003 12:34 PM
kobehq@yahoo.com


Bend over, you little spic cum dumpster.

http://www.kobehq.com


add your comments

Dear David Corn,

--"So let's start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed? Capable -- as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation. That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years spent covering national security matters. (For a book I wrote on the CIA, I interviewed over 100 CIA officials and employees.)


Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.). "-- Your words.

No, I don't think the Bush administration helped plan the horrors of 9/11. I doubt they knew the exact date of any terrorist attack. BUT WHAT THEY DID DO was to enable the terrorists to proceed unhindered in their plans.

Despite explicit warnings from the out-going Clinton administration that bin Laden and his organization presented a huge threat and needed to be carefully watched, they reduced the surveilance of bin Laden; they told the FBI and CIA to back off from investigating important Saudis who might be illegally funding bin Laden and Al Quaeda; they pulled the best FBI terrorism expert, John O'Neill, from Yemen, and did everything in their power to downplay the threat.

Mr. Corn, haven't you ever wondered why U.S. Intercept planes weren't up in the air within minutes of Logan air traffic controllers saying they had two passenger jets suddenly uncommunicado and off course?

Norad planes have gone up in minutes after less serious warnings from air traffic controllers in the past--and here we had two passenger jets off the radar for a good hour before Norad responded?

Something is very wrong in the equation here--something that needs serious investigation, if there ARE any INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS left in the media right now.

No more excuses. You journalists have a lot to answer for to the American public.

"Despite explicit warnings from the out-going Clinton administration that bin Laden and his organization presented a huge threat and needed to be carefully watched, ..."

Was this the same Klinton who had several opportunities to have bin Laden handed over to the US?

Yeah. I thought so.

...it would not take "hundreds of people" working in knowing collaboration.

It would take inside information and complicity from SOME high level people.

With compartmentalization, and most of the people used never knowing why they have been ordered to do something, with it then under high levels of Classification, it would take a bare handful of high level people pulling the strings to make it happen. How many, hard to say but probably in the range of 25 to 50 with only the very top having the complete picture.

With Mockingbird implanted Reporters writing the Spin they're told, you could haze the trail very easily.

Remember the Air Traffic Controllers have NEVER been allowed to speak about what they saw or heard.

Remember NORAD did not respond until the damage was done.

Remember FEMA was already in town the night BEFORE the attack. (That is in the Public Record as the Official let the "cat out of the bag" with a slip during a Radio Interview in New York.)

Fear is sufficient to keep most Military, and Bureaucrats, in line. Will there be leaks?

Maybe we have already had them. A Mockingbird Reporter just might turn a Source in to be Whacked to shut them up.

With Compartmentalization and intimidation it would be possible to keep it under wraps for quite some time.

Only now are we finding out, 50+ years after the fact, that FDR knew when and where the Japanese Fleet was going to attack, and let it happen.

911 - What Really Happened?

"911 - What Really Happened?"

circle
circle going nowhere
circle stuck in neutral

...you would like to send me into a spin.

How special.

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!


911 - What Really Happened?

--How delightfully amusing you would like to send me into a spin.--

Not necessary.

circle
circle going nowhere
circle stuck in neutral

The "Circle" Posts are intended to frustrate and demoralize.

Recognize them as what they are: An indicator of effectiveness. Otherwise they would ignore us.

Well Done Gang!

Keep up the good work.

BUSH LIED, and Women and Children Died - needlessly. It really is that simple.

This is all I have:

circle
circle going nowhere
circle stuck in neutral

I'm a conservative.

"Otherwise they would ignore us."

then again if we were ignoring you, you would claim you got us on the run

circle
circle going nowhere
circle stuck in neutral

This is all I have:

circle
circle going nowhere
circle stuck in neutral

I'm a conservative.

"then again if we were ignoring you, you would claim you got us on the run"

Unsubstanitated Allegation
For more on logic at your level, try reading "Logic for Dummies."

--This is all I have:--

in this case its all i need

circle
circle going nowhere
circle stuck in neutral

"in this case its all i need"

Unsubstanitated Allegation
For more on logic at your level, try reading "Logic for Dummies."

This is all I have:

circle
circle going nowhere
circle stuck in neutral

I'm a conservative.

The nation publishes five letters to the Editor and David Corn responds.

Debating September 11



David Corn's May 30, 2002, "Capital Games" article, "The 9/11 X-Files," debunking what he saw as the numerous conspiracy theories that have sprung up purporting to explain what happened on September 11, generated numerous letters. We've printed five of them below along with a response from Corn.




Paris

David Corn alleges that our book makes a "theory" of the events leading up to the September 11 attacks, distorts reality and shows little or no evidence to confirm our assertions.

For the author, the world seems divided between those gallant fellows pursuing the truth (David Corn, I guess) and those running conspiracy theories. This simplistic and Manichean view does not reflect the nature of our work and would usually deserve no comment from me, except when such an irrelevant article emanates from such a well-known organization.

I don't know the author, nor his credentials to write on these issues. The fact is that most of the issues he raises are currently under scrutiny of the Special Investigation Committee of the US Congress and they've been investigated by the United Nations several weeks ago. I have too much respect for the work of these authorities to think they may investigate "conspiracy theories."

Regarding the handling of investigations involving Saudi Arabian individuals and entities, I spent five years working on these networks and tracking Al Qaeda assets. I was the first to write an extensive report on Al Qaeda financial networks for the intelligence community. This study was given by the French President Jacques Chirac to President George W. Bush in September 2001 and has been responsible for the closing of several so-called Islamic charities that happened to financially support Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. My experience and the high level contacts I had with the FBI disqualifies the doubts and snide comments made by a nonprofessional on these issues.

For your information, I'll try to establish the reality of what we wrote.

Since 1996, and despite the Taliban's murderous regime and its obscene abuse of human rights, several US oil companies including Unocal have been pushing for a political stabilization in Afghanistan in order to implement an oil/gas pipeline from the Caspian Sea region to Pakistan and the Persian Gulf through Afghanistan. For that purpose, a memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan was signed in March 1995 and a consortium of international companies was formed in October 1997.

Their officials had publicly stated that to achieve this goal was in both the interest of the United States and the Afghan people. In 1996, Chris Taggart, vice president of Unocal Corporation, described the Taliban takeover of Kabul as a "very positive step" and urged the United States to extend recognition to the new rulers in Kabul and thus "lead the way to international lending agencies coming in."

Just ten days after the Taliban seized power in Kabul in 1996 Zalmay Khalilzad, former National Security Council official, Unocal consultant and current US special envoy to Afghanistan, argued in a Washington Post opinion article that the United States should try to work with the mullahs and form a broad-based government that included other factions, adding that "the Taliban does not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran--it is closer to the Saudi model...." And his conclusion was that "we should use as a positive incentive the benefits that will accrue to Afghanistan from the construction of oil and gas pipelines across its territory." He added, "These projects will only go forward if Afghanistan has a single authoritative government."

Soon after, the State Department spokesman said the United States wanted "to send diplomats to Afghanistan to meet with the Taliban and held out the possibility of re-establishing full diplomatic ties with the country."

During a House of Representatives meeting, John J. Maresca, vice president of international relations for Unocal Corporation, stated that "the pipeline would benefit Afghanistan, which would receive revenues from transport tariffs, and would promote stability and encourage trade and economic development." Emphasizing that "the proposed Central Asia Oil Pipeline (CentGas) cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place," he urged the Administration and the Congress "to give strong support to the United Nations-led peace process in Afghanistan."

In November 1997 Unocal invited a Taliban delegation to the United States in Texas, and in early December the company opened a training center at the University of Omaha, Nebraska, to instruct 137 Afghans in pipeline construction technology. The company also donated $900,000 to the Center for Afghanistan Studies of the University of Omaha, Nebraska, for a humanitarian project controlled by the Taliban. As recalled John Imle, CEO of Unocal, the company spent between $15 million and $20 million to make the CentGas Project go through to promote the project and finance the regime.

After the African embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, the US Administration engaged in talks with Taliban representatives to obtain the extradition of Osama bin Laden in exchange for international recognition of the Taliban regime. At the international level, pressure was building up through a forum known as the "6 + 2" initiative (six regional states plus the United States and Russia). A United Nations resolution called for international sanctions against the Taliban regime. In parallel, secret negotiations were held in Rome, Cyprus and Berlin under the authority of Kofi Annan's personal representative and head of the Special Mission to Afghanistan, Francesc Vendrell.

From February to August 2001, the US Administration accelerated the negotiations by reactivating the idea of an economic bargain with the Taliban regime. In March 2001, several Taliban officials, including Sayed Rahmattulah Hashimi, Mullah Omar's personal adviser, were invited to Washington, DC, by their representative in the United States, former CIA Director Richard Helms's niece, Leila Helms, to discuss extradition of bin Laden and access to oil reserves in Central Asia. The delegation met with representatives of the Directorate of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the State Department (including Marvin Weinbaum).

This visit provoked "extreme puzzlement" over how Hashimi obtained a visa, a plane ticket, security and access to American institutions, and to the State Department and the National Security Council, despite the severe travel restrictions based on sanctions imposed by UN Resolution 1333; after all, the Taliban offices in New York were closed down by the US State Department. (The official version was that Hashimi was a low-level official.)

During informal talks that took place in Berlin between July 17 and July 20, 2001, with representatives from the United States, Pakistan (who were relaying messages back to the Taliban, who were not in attendance), Russia and Iran, the Taliban were invited to extradite Osama bin Laden and form a broad-based national government in exchange for economic subsidies from the construction of a pipeline.

The delegates included Robert Oakley, former US ambassador and Unocal lobbyist; Niaz Naik, former foreign minister of Pakistan; Tom Simons, former US ambassador to Pakistan; a former Russian special envoy to Afghanistan, Nikolai Kozyrev; and Saeed Rajai Khorassani, formerly the Iranian representative to the UN.

The US delegation at the Berlin meeting also included Karl "Rick" Inderfurth, former assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, and Lee Coldren, head of the Office of Pakistan, Afghan and Bangladesh Affairs in the State Department until 1997.

According to Niaz Naik, the idea was that "we would try to convey to them that if they did certain things, then, gradually, they could win the jackpot, get something in return from the international community." It might, he said, "be possible to persuade the Taliban that once a broader-based government was in place and the oil pipeline under way, there would be billions of dollars in commission, and the Taliban would have their own resources." The fact is, the United States approached the former king in February 2001 in order to form a broad-based government.

According to Naik, at this point US ambassador Tom Simons referred to an open-ended military option against Afghanistan from bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. "Ambassador Simons stated that if the Taliban wouldn't agree with the plan, and if Pakistan was unable to persuade them, the United States might use an overt action against Afghanistan. The words used were 'a military operation.'"

Asked by the French daily newspaper Le Monde to comment on the allegations contained in the French edition of our book, Ben Laden: La vérité interdite ("Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth"), Ambassador Simons answered, "It is true that it was requested from the Taliban to deliver bin Laden and to form a government of union."

About the threat itself, he recognized that "we said in July to the [Pakistanis, who passed on messages to the Taliban] delegates that we were investigating the attack against the USS Cole on October 12, 2000, in Yemen, and that if there was solid evidence of bin Laden's involvement, one had to expect a military answer. Now, one can always inflate such a declaration to see this as a global threat against the Taliban. But the American declaration related only to the USS Cole investigation. As for carpets of gold and carpet bombs, we actually discussed the need for a plan to rebuild Afghanistan, which would follow a political agreement." Simons added: "It is possible that an American participant, acting mischievously, after some glasses, evoked the gold carpets and the carpet bombs. Even Americans don't avoid the temptation to act mischievously."

Whether we rely on Niaz Naik's testimony or on the US ambassador's comments, which don't contradict or deny the former, one has to focus on the Pakistani and Taliban representatives' knowledge regarding that statement. It is clear that at the beginning of July 2001, a US representative, speaking at an informal meeting, but mandated by his government to do so, did, in specific or general terms, whether mischievously or not, whether drunk or not, evoke the option of a military operation against Afghanistan. And I would rather rely on Simons's version in Le Monde than on the paraphrased one Simons offers to David Corn.

Lee Coldren, a member of the US delegation, also confirmed the broad outline of the American position at the Berlin meeting. "I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action."

I wouldn't speculate on whether the Taliban regime and its Al Qaeda supporter may have tried to anticipate a military action against them by launching a devastating attack on US soil on September 11, 2001. Neither would I suggest a gross miscalculation from Ambassador Simons by making such hazardous statements. However, the US representative's statement is acknowledged by several reliable sources and participants at the Berlin negotiations at the end of July 2001. For this reason, and because it may have been interpreted as a tug of war, this threat is an important aspect for our understanding of the months leading to September 11, which may have had a significant if not essential impact on the intelligence analysis process prior to that date.

One may ask the simple question, Would the US intelligence agencies have evaluated the fragmented raw intelligence and signals differently if the US government had informed them that the United States had threatened military action if the Taliban were to refuse US diplomatic and business concessions five weeks before the attacks?

As a drunk diplomat makes bad diplomacy, political editors make bad international affairs analysts when they simply ignore the facts and try to view the world through their Manichean eyes.

I hope, at least, to have repaired this.

JEAN-CHARLES BRISARD




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Los Angeles

I am truly honored to join the ranks of Peter Dale Scott, PhD, Alfred McCoy, PhD and Pulitzer Prize-winner Gary Webb as someone who has been attacked by The Nation.

Your latest missive is surprising for its weakness. It deserves only the briefest of responses because, as an avalanche of information continues to demonstrate, the US government did have foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks and there was an orchestrated effort to allow the attacks to occur. FBI Special Agent Robert Wright's recent press conference is but another brick in a wall that grows sturdier by the day. Time is on my side here.

I'll quickly pass over many of the erroneous points in your story to get to just a couple that warrant two or three sentences. Allen Dulles's old quip that "the American people don't read" has changed with the Internet and it will afford you no cover.

It's OK that you misrepresented my LAPD record by taking items completely out of context. My full LAPD record has been on my website for months at www.fromthewilderness.com for the world to look at and see what you have done. I expect that from you.

It's OK that you misrepresent and state that I have hung the entirety of my credibility on the Delmart "Mike" Vreeland case. I have published fifty-six stories since September 11, 2001, and only six of them have been about Mike Vreeland. I expect that as well.

It's OK that you state that I am not a reporter when you fail to mention stories like my investigative report of horrendous conflicts of interest regarding Attorney General John Ashcroft and two sitting federal grand juries where I conducted many interviews. It's OK also that you ignore all of the other reportage I have done since September 11. I expect that too.

It's really not OK, however, that you state that I have misrepresented stories like a February 13, 2001, story by UPI correspondent Richard Sale, wherein I reported that court records indicated that the National Security Agency had broken Osama bin Laden's secure encrypted communications. You wrote, "But in several instances, he [Ruppert] misrepresents his source material.... [T]he actual story noted not that the US government had gained the capacity to eavesdrop on bin Laden at will but that it had 'gone into foreign bank accounts...and deleted or transferred funds, and jammed or blocked the group's cell or satellite phones.' "

Here is a direct quote from Sale's story which proves that your accusation is false: "The US case unfolding against him [bin Laden] in United States District court in Manhattan is based mainly on National Security Agency intercepts of phone calls between bin Laden and his operatives around the world--Afghanistan to London, from Kenya to the United States.... Fawwaz also provided satellite phones for other members of the bin Laden group, 'to facilitate communications,' the indictment said.... On August 11, two days after the bombings were completed, bin Laden's satellite number phone was used to contact network operatives in Yemen, at a number frequently called by perpetrators of the bombing from their safe house in Nairobi. Since 1995, bin Laden has tried to protect his communications with 'a full suite of tools,' according to Ben Venzke, director of intelligence, special projects for iDefense.... Since bin Laden started to encrypt certain calls in 1995, why would they now be part of a court record? 'Codes were broken,' US officials said...."

Is this the best that The Nation can do? With that in mind I'll conclude by saying that it is becoming increasingly clear to news consumers around the world that The Nation is serving and defending the interests of a corrupt and illegitimate government while my publication, "From the Wilderness," is truly concerned with the safety, well-being and empowerment of its growing readership. The marketplace is operating in a healthy capacity. It is also apparent that your actual knowledge of how covert operations work is as limited as your forensic abilities. For more than twenty years I have investigated many intelligence cases and I have dealt directly with principals in cases involving Edwin Wilson, Albert Carone, Dois "Chip" Tatum, William Tyree, "Bo" Gritz, Scott Weekly, Scott Barnes, Al Martin and, yes, even your beloved Ted Shackley.

In the fall of 1999 two investigators from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence traveled to Los Angeles and copied 6,000 pages of my records. In the fall of 2000 two members of the RCMP National Security Staff--Sean McDade and Randy Buffam--came to Los Angeles, visited me and copied several hundred pages of files in my possession regarding Promis software.

If, at any time, you would like instruction on how easy it would have been for the Bush Administration and the intelligence community to have allowed the attacks of September 11 to occur, without involving massive numbers of people being consciously aware of it, I will make the time. That is of course, if it really is your desire to arm the American people with the truth. As to integrity, let's see if The Nation has enough to publish my response. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

MICHAEL C. RUPPERT
Publisher/Editor, "From The Wilderness"
www.copvcia.com
www.fromthewilderness.com




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Portland, Ore.

The Nation's David Corn spends too much time bashing Michael Ruppert in his article "The September 11 X-Files" instead of objectively investigating the content of Ruppert's contentions on www.copvcia.com. We as a nation spent countless hours witnessing analysis and investigation after investigation regarding Clinton and Lewinsky. Now as people raise legitimate questions about pre-September 11 foreknowledge and the potential interests that may have encouraged collusion to do nothing, they are quickly labeled conspiracists, nut cases and the like.

At one time, those who questioned Hoover's FBI's tactics were labeled conspiracists. Post-September 11, we are quickly becoming a highly monitored society with highly controlled information about our own government and with limited civil rights. As a result, we need to be careful not to simply dismiss alternative views, but instead be sure and keep objective criticism

JASON THOME




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Milwaukee

David Corn belittled conspiracy theorists and wondered how such an unwieldy, undisciplined government could get away with encouraging or staging attacks on this country.

Well, for part of the answer, get thee to the George Washington University website and download the file at this address: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf.

It's a National Security Archive document from 1962 describing Operation Northwoods, a Joint Chiefs of Staff proposal to stage phony attacks on US soil and citizens in order to set up a rationale for invading Cuba. Can anyone say "conspiracy"? Can anyone say "at the highest levels of government"? Arguably, men of such ilk whose plans ultimately were shunned by a young, bemused President could also have engaged in other, later plots. Say it with me: Lee Harvey Oswald.

So how can Corn assume that, forty years later, our government is not at least as well equipped to twist facts, finger the wrong people or take advantage of wag-the-dog scenarios? That's what intelligence entities are professionally qualified to do! Is it not understood that this government has in the not-very-distant past sent out agents provocateurs? We know from declassified documents that the FBI used to infiltrate domestic radical groups and encourage violence, not to mention smear the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. Why assume this modus operandi disappeared in the 1970s just because Congress ordered it? Say it with me: Bill Casey.

I'm not saying the US government staged the September 11 attacks. But it strikes me as being within the bounds of rationality to consider such theories with care. After all, our intelligence agencies--not to mention certain political parties--also appear adept at marginalizing presumed nutballs, fringe groups, liberals and, for that matter, anyone who could be called a doubter.

RONALD M. LEGRO




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Paris

I've read Corn's article twice. I still don't understand why he's just dismissing all these analyses that have been made as conspiracy theories. Especially knowing what has happened since all of the information about prior knowledge has been released. People like Mike Ruppert or Representative McKinney have been talking about this long before the mainstream media picked it up. I think that he's acting in the same totalitarian way that he's denouncing. He could have done a better job by exposing his own opinion and trying to give his own interpretation of the numerous and astonishing security failures. A few years ago, there were some terrorist attacks in Russia. It was just before Putin's election. A lot of people, and not only crazy conspiracy theorists, said that it was probably managed by Putin's circle. This idea appeared, for example, in your September 6/13, 1999 issue (selected editorial): "Among the measures widely discussed in Moscow are using the war in Dagestan as a pretext for imposing emergency rule." I wonder if the guy who wrote this was a member of Putin's inner circle or just a conspiracy theorist? By Corn's criteria, he shouldn't have said this. Did he say it because Russia is just a quasi Third World country? In the same way, I'm also wondering if the biggest shortcoming with the actual theories isn't the fact that they're giving a really bad image of the "best democracy in the word," and in this way a negative image of those who have to live there. In other words, these kinds of "this cannot happen in Washington" assertions should only be understood as a patriotic reaction to the tragedy of September 11. God bless America.

JEAN SANTERRE




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



CORN REPLIES

Washington

I. The French Connection

Let's start with Jean-Charles Brisard. I am going to resist the urge to match his ad hominen repartee. The only issue in play is the credibility of Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth, the book he co-wrote with Guillaume Dasquié. When I began work on a piece about September 11 conspiracy theories, an editor at The Nation requested I include in my survey the Brisard/Dasquié book, which was first published in France (in their native French) and which had prompted a rash of have-you-heard-about-this e-mails among Americans and others questioning the official accounts of September 11. From the e-mails and from English-language web accounts of the book--several of which were based on interviews with the authors--it was hard to determine the precise details of their claims regarding the horrific attacks of September 11. Then I discovered that a publishing house in the United States was bringing out an English version of the book, and I was able to obtain a copy of the translated manuscript. That meant I could evaluate the work and not rely on secondhand accounts.

Upon receiving the English translation of the short book, I eagerly began reading. Within a matter of pages, I was stunned. The book was almost entirely unsourced. It contained multiple factual mistakes. (It claimed George Bush was once "in charge" of Harken Energy; he was not. It maintained George Bush I was a "leading investor" in the Carlyle Group, an investment firm. No, he was a paid advisor. It described Tom Simons as US ambassador to Pakistan in 2000. He had left the post two years previously.) More important, it presented suggestive innuendo rather than clear and irrefutable evidence. It referred to "policy-makers" and "officials" without naming them; it depicted policy decisions in vague terms, without supplying specifics. The authors conveyed no sense that they had interviewed any single player in their tale. (There were not even anonymous sources. After a while, I prayed to encounter "a State Department official who asked not to be named" or a "Western diplomat who requested anonymity.") This will sound like hyperbole, but I have rarely seen such shoddy and lazy journalism.

The book sidestepped toward its highly provocative assertion. But here is the essence of their argument about September 11:

"From February 5 to August 2, 2001, the United States engaged in private and risky discussions with the Taliban concerning geostrategic oil interests.... The suicide attacks of September 11 were the outcome of this initiative."

Ponder that statement. The authors are saying that negotiations--which they portray as secret talks between Washington and Kabul--led to the strikes of September 11. That would mean US Administration officials-- mainly from the Bush White House but also, it seems, from the Clinton White House--share blame for the attacks, that the United States, via these talks, needlessly provoked Osama bin Laden and his crew. This is hot stuff: The Bush Administration, driven by its fealty to Big Oil, causing the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Such an unsettling challenge to the traditional view requires a heavy amount of persuasion and proof. But the authors commit two fundamental errors. They make an utterly illogical case and in those few instances when they bother to cite sources, they misrepresent the material. Much of the book cannot be evaluated, because the authors assert, rather than document--and they supply little reason why a reader should trust them. Brisard and Dasquié never establish the foundations of their argument--in particular, that there were secret negotiations between the United States and the Taliban. They refer to various international and bilateral conversations--many of which were public matters--and cast all of that as under-the-table diplomacy. The "secret negotiations" held under the authority of Kofi Annan's representative (that Brisard mentions in his letter above) could be read about in reports found on the United Nations website. And when Brisard darkly refers to conversations between Washington and the Taliban regarding the extradition of bin Laden--conversations that he and his co-author do not fully describe--the question for him is, So what? After the bombing of two US embassies in Africa, shouldn't Washington have pressed the Taliban to turn over bin Laden? After all, in other sections of the book, the authors claim Washington was not sufficiently forceful in its pursuit of bin Laden.

A careful reader might discern that Brisard does not directly confront the case I made against his book. In the translation I read, he and Dasquié claim that the United States and its allies, as part of their secret machinations, plotted to return the exiled king of Afghanistan to power and that the "secret talks" culminated with the United States in July 2001 threatening the Taliban with a military strike. To prove the first of these two points, the authors cite a UN report. But that nonsecret report only says that Annan's special representative on Afghanistan, Francesc Vendrell, met with the former king to discuss bringing together in-country and exiled Afghans for an effort to settle peacefully the political and military strife within Afghanistan. There is no indication that either the UN or the United States were arranging the king's restoration. The authors, with little evidence in hand, defame a laudable UN initiative and grossly misrepresent one of its documents.

By the way, in the same part of the book, the authors report that on June 1, 2001, "a secret meeting took place on the subject of Afghanistan. It was attended by Condoleezza Rice, Christina Rocca [a US State Department official], and Francesc Vendrell, as well as British observers." The source for this? The aforementioned UN report. But if you download this report from the web--as I did--you will find that the document (a routine report submitted by Annan) clearly notes that Vendrell met with Rocca "as well as other senior officials in the State Department and in the National Security Council" on this day. That is, there was nothing "secret" about the session. The authors, though, go out of their way to render a meeting acknowledged by the UN as something clandestine--and without revealing what horrible things were supposedly said during the gathering. This is their MO. Turn public meetings into secret plot-fests. Hint, nod and wink. Assert, rather than confirm. Characterize, instead of quote directly. They weave a web of deceit out of thin (at best) material.

Back to the business of the US threat against the Taliban. The authors claim this threat was issued during what Brisard calls "informal talks" in July 2001. These talks actually were a series of conferences organized by the UN in 2000 and 2001 to bolster its Special Mission to Afghanistan. The UN had asked former officials from the United States, Pakistan, Russia and other nations to gather every few months to discuss what could be done about the troubles in Afghanistan--a situation most of the world was ignoring at that time.

The authors (citing Niaz Naik, a participant from Pakistan) report that at the July meeting, which was held in Berlin, "the small American delegation mentioned using a 'military option' against the Taliban if they did not agree to change their position, especially concerning Osama bin Laden. Naik recounted that a US official had threatened, 'Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.' " But this "American delegation" was made up of past US officials, not present ones. Brisard and Dasquie assume--without proving-- that the ex-officials were speaking for the Bush Administration. But there is no reason to believe that.

Moreover, what was said--and why it was said--is a subject of debate. Tom Simons, a former US ambassador to Pakistan and thirty-five-year career diplomat, was one of three Americans at that meeting. He doesn't recall any threat of the type Naik remembers. Instead, he says, the Americans noted that if the Bush Administration established that bin Laden had masterminded the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, then the Taliban and everyone else could expect a US strike against bin Laden in Afghanistan. In his reply to my article, Brisard kindly quotes Simons on this subject. But he and Dasquié were not so courteous in their book, and Simons says that neither sought to contact him. (That is in keeping with the rest of the book, for in their account of the "secret talks" there is precious little journalism of the we-interview-the-players type--perhaps none.)

Brisard tries to slip by, noting that it does not matter whether Naik or Simons is correct in their recollection. In either event, he says, what is important is that "a US representative...evoked the option of a military operation against Afghanistan." This is ludicrous. The two authors have failed to show that the Americans at this meeting were in league with the Bush Administration. And had the American ex-officials said what Simons claims was stated, this could hardly have come as a shock to bin Laden or the Taliban. Surely, the Taliban and bin Laden realized that if bin Laden was firmly linked to the USS Cole operation, the United States was likely to bomb. This is, after all, how Clinton responded to bin Laden's attacks on the US embassies in Africa.

Brisard disingenuously writes in his letter, "I wouldn't speculate on whether the Taliban regime and its Al Qaeda supporter [bin Laden] may have tried to anticipate a military action against them by launching a devastating attack on US soil on September 11, 2001." But that is indeed what he and his partner suggest in their book. Go back and read the sentence I quoted above in which the authors maintain September 11 was "the outcome of this initiative." And in his letter, Brisard says "this threat is an important aspect for our understanding of the months leading to September 11."

Brisard and Dasquié, though, did not bother to ascertain whether this so-called threat actually affected the actions of the Taliban and bin Laden. They merely maintain that it did. There are so many weak links in their argument. They do not prove there were "secret talks." They do not prove Washington was behind this supposed threat. They do not prove the threat had any impact.

Beyond matters of evidence, their theory makes no sense. Suppose--and it's a large stretch--that their "facts" are true. The "threat" came in July 2001. Would they argue that bin Laden, in response to the threat, quickly began developing the September 11 plan? That would be an absurd assertion. Obviously, bin Laden's scheme was long in the works before July 2001. So what's the other option? That bin Laden, who already was preparing the September 11 strikes, was somehow provoked into greenlighting the attacks by this July 2001 threat? This is equally absurd. Bin Laden had mounted assaults against the USS Cole and the US embassies in Africa; he was connected to the 1993 strike against the World Trade Center. He had declared a holy war against America. He did not require provocation--in the form of a threat from ex-officials--to proceed with his mass murder. Are Brisard and Dasquié claiming that bin Laden was not dedicated to moving ahead with the September 11 mission once planning had begun? This proposition seems indefensible on its face--especially when the authors do not present any evidence as to the thinking and motivations of bin Laden and the Taliban.

To further explore their illogic: In this scenario, what would be the purpose of the September 11 attacks, from the vantage of bin Laden and the Taliban? The operation could not be pre-emptive in the military sense of diminishing the US capacity to hit Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. And if the Taliban and bin Laden were indeed concerned at this point about the threat of US military action, hitting the United States on September 11 would only guarantee that Washington would bomb the hell out of them. It is unbelievable--and unproven in the manuscript--that bin Laden concluded in July 2001 that since the United States was about to attack, he had to strike first with an assault he otherwise would not have launched but that (conveniently) had been in development for a year or two.

As for all the oil business Brisard mentions in the first half of his letter, it is mostly inconsequential. It's no secret that Unocal and other companies were interested in oil and gas in Central Asia and a pipeline in Afghanistan. But note that his examples are pre-1998. That year, Unocal--the company that was pushing the most on this front--gave up on a pipeline in Afghanistan. Were the Clinton and Bush administrations in their "secret talks" with the Taliban pimping for a company no longer looking for a deal? More to the point, at the end of May, the interim government in Kabul announced the revival of the trans-Afghanistan pipeline, but Unocal--the presumed beneficiary of the "secret talks" that supposedly led to September 11--stated it was no longer interested and would not be participating in the project.

There is no denying the Bush crowd wants to help its pals (and contributors) in Big Oil. But did the Bush Administration--and its predecessor--threaten the Taliban and bin Laden on behalf of them and place thousands of Americans at risk? Brisard and Dasquié neither establish their facts nor support their reasoning.

Their book is a crass exploitation of a tragic event. It violates the most modest of journalistic standards. The authors manipulate an awful event into a story to serve a political end--or, perhaps, only to make money for themselves. The book practically justifies the attacks. Which is foul. It says the September 11 assaults were prompted by these "secret negotiations," not bin Laden's jihad or the geopolitical conditions and conflicts that may have fed that jihad. No doubt, anti-Bush partisans and individuals who tend to disbelieve conventional accounts will be drawn to the book. And they will soon have the opportunity to read the English-language version, for it is being published this summer by Thunder's Mouth Press and NationBooks.




II. The World According to Ruppert

What is most notable about Michael Ruppert's response is what he does not address. As Ruppert has asserted that the CIA had "foreknowledge" of the September 11 attacks and that the US government was probably "complicit" in their execution, he has championed the case of Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, an American who was jailed in Canada and who is now fighting extradition to Michigan, where he is wanted on several criminal counts. Vreeland claims he is a US intelligence operative who learned of the attacks months in advance and who, while in prison, wrote a note in mid-August 2001 indicating September 11 was coming. (Actually, Vreeland's tale is far more elaborate and bizarre than this. To get the full flavor, see my original piece.) By combing law enforcement, prison and court records in several states and through interviews with cops across the country and Vreeland's family, I discovered that Vreeland had a long history of con-man activity and had been in and out of jail for years. He was no spy, he was a flim-flammer. Ruppert, tellingly, does not respond to this aspect of the article. I wonder if he still believes Vreeland is a key to solving the September 11 mystery.

Instead of dealing with the revelations about his chief witness, Ruppert refers to my article's "weakness." But he fails to point out specific flaws, except one: my reference to a UPI story written by correspondent Richard Sale. I confess I am slightly baffled by Ruppert's reply. He has drafted a timeline that supposedly proves the CIA knew of September 11 in advance. The chronology is composed of citations to articles written by others. For one item, Ruppert lists a February 13, 2001, UPI article that he says reported "the National Security Agency has broken bin Laden's encrypted communications." My assistant and I searched Lexis-Nexis for this story and found nothing from that date. Instead, we found a February 8 article by Richard Sale reporting that "US hackers have gone into foreign banks accounts and deleted or transferred funds, and jammed or blocked [Al Qaeda's] cell or satellite phones, intelligence officials said." This piece did not seem to indicate that bin Laden's communications had been broken in a manner indicating the United States had been able to gather information about the September 11 plot.

I've looked again--and still cannot find that February 13 article. But, more important, on June 2, 2002, the Washington Post published a piece by James Bamford, a damn-good investigative reporter and author of Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency. Bamford writes, "For about two years, until August 1998, NSA was able to eavesdrop on senior al Qaeda communications by monitoring bin Laden's personal satellite phone." Even so, the NSA and the intelligence community did not collect conversations in which bin Laden "discussed specific terrorist activities." In any event, Bamford says the NSA's ability to intercept bin Laden's communications ceased, sadly, in 1998. If there is a Sale story dated February 13 that claims the NSA had broken bin Laden's encrypted communications--and Ruppert seemingly offers quotes from such an article in his letter--it seems to be referring to the pre-1998 period. What, then, is the relevance of this factoid to understanding September 11? If the NSA had eavesdropped back then--and if, as Bamford reports, it picked up few, if any, details--what does that tell us about US intelligence foreknowledge of September 11? Nothing.

I am not defending the US intelligence community. As I have written several times, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the CIA, the FBI and others missed important indications that bin Laden and Al Qaeda were interested in a September 11-type attack. But this is quite different from claiming US intelligence picked up warnings and purposely ignored them. If Ruppert wants to argue that the CIA and the US government were aware in advance that this particular strike was coming, he needs much better evidence than what he offers in his timeline.

Since Ruppert raised the subject of "integrity," allow me to take this opportunity to note that he has countered my criticism of his work by saying, "I have an opinion that David Corn is one of the establishment CIA/FBI operatives who has long been planted within so-called progressive circles." His proof of this? "The primary argument I use for that," Ruppert said in an interview, "is that he was chosen by one of the most venal characters in American history, Ted Shackley--who ran the CIA station in Laos, who overthrew Salvador Allende--to be his chosen biographer." Such a remark ordinarily would deserve no more than a hearty guffaw. But since Ruppert has his followers on the web and within Pacifica radio circles, it is probably worth addressing it in a direct fashion: This is as nutty a charge as I have ever faced. Anyone who read my 1994 book, Blond Ghost, which was highly critical of Shackley and the CIA, would learn that Shackley did not select me to be his biographer and that, to the contrary, he considered me a hostile biographer and for years refused to cooperate. And since I know how Ruppert and some of his believers operate--hey, they would say, Corn never flat-out denied he was a CIA/FBI plant--I will go through this stupid exercise: I am not now nor have I ever been associated with any intelligence service in any capacity whatsoever. And Shackley is hardly my beloved. Only a fool could suggest otherwise.

Ruppert resorts to a scoundrel's tactic--hurling an outlandish but easy-to-disprove allegation. And here's another indication Ruppert's credibility and judgment deserve to be questioned. On June 1, Ruppert posted an e-mail on a private discussion list in which he reported that Vreeland--the con man claiming to be a US intelligence officer--had been poisoned. Here's what Ruppert wrote:

"Vreeland received two bottles of wine from Allan [sic] Greenspan. Vreeland stated that he had spoken to Greenspan on the phone and knew the wine was coming. I was on the phone with Vreeland yesterday right after he had about two glasses of the wine. Upon answering the phone Vreeland immediately stated that he had been vomiting blood.... I could hear sounds of the toilet flushing and water running. Vreeland was obviously ill.... In a frenzy he went to a stash of previously prepared syringes and took five successive injections of medications. I have a list of what he took but am not disclosing it now. I listened as the caps came off the syringes, hit the floor, and as he injected.... He didn't sound like he was faking at all."

So the Fed chairman sent a fugitive in Canada--who claims to be a supersecret agent with foreknowledge of September 11 but who has a criminal record stretching almost twenty years--two bottles of poisoned wine? Ruppert takes Vreeland's I-was-poisoned-by-Greenspan claim seriously. That says much about Ruppert.




III. The Rest of It

Jason Thorne is right: "We need to be careful not to simply dismiss alternative views." But those who claim they know the alternative truth have an obligation to present a rock-solid case--especially when they accuse people of permitting or planning the mass murder of their fellow citizens. Ruppert is the one who claims he has proven the CIA knew of September 11 in advance and allowed it to happen. He is the one who says it is likely the US government had a hand in executing the attacks. He is not raising questions. He is making explosive accusations. And anyone who casts such allegations should expect scrutiny. A close look at Ruppert's work shows that he does not evaluate evidence but draws connection between selectively chosen pieces of information (which he does not bother to confirm). This is not investigation. This is data manipulation.

Ronald Legro, as a public service, directs my attention to Operation Northwoods, a plan with which I am already familiar. Many Ruppertoids have made a similar argument. Yes, forty years ago, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up an outrageous plan. But, of course, it was not implemented. Lots of crazy schemes in the cold war were drafted and-- thankfully--not implemented, such as a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union. And, yes, in the past decades, the CIA and its clandestine cousins have engaged in horrendous actions--some of which I have chronicled in Blond Ghost and the pages of The Nation. Yet none of this proves anything about September 11. I return to a simple point: Let doubters pursue questions, nothing is wrong with that. In fact, it's healthy. But allegations of this variety demand proof. Skeptics are not free of responsibility.

Totalitarian? Jean Santerre accuses me of that. This e-mailer is in desperate need of perspective. Stalin was a totalitarian. I, on the other hand, am concerned that conspiracy theorizing distracts people from the actual malfeasance, mistakes and misdeeds of the US government and the intelligence community. My criterion is rather basic, and I am sorry it has eluded Santerre: One should assert what one can prove as accurate and truthful.

September 11 was a day of unprecedented horror. It is not surprising that many people seek a deeper understanding of the attack and what led to it. Official answers ought not to be absorbed automatically without questions. But the purveyors of contrary explanations have a high bar to clear--particularly when they claim to possess an unseen truth--for, in the end, the only alternatives that should matter are those that are demonstrably true.

DAVID CORN


thenation.com Web Manager | Subscribe | Subscription Help | Privacy
© 2002 The Nation Company, L.P. Permissions | Letters to the Editor

You can suck up better than Dennis Miller. Congrats.
Also this bit:
- Yes, forty years ago, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up an outrageous plan. But, of course, it was not implemented.-
only because JFK refused to. It was signed off by the entire joint chiefs of staff. Whore.

Corn's an idiot, no doubt. But he's still smarter than anything you got going.

circle
circle going nowhere
circle stuck in neutral

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/56149.php

"...the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours ,crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do. "

Hello FluxRostrum,

I visited your site. It's wonderful to see the capitalist spirit alive and well! Your site has so many items for sale -- videos, books, mens and womens shirts, hats, mousepads, long-sleeve shirts, tanktops, sweatshirts, thongs, mugs, and even golf shirts! I'll have to get myself one of those golfshirts to wear at the country club.

And the way you conduct guerilla marketing by posing as a non-capitalist and posting little tidbits on these non-capitalist websites. Brilliant! You always leave the URL. Sales must be going through the roof!

In this post dotcom bubble environment, it's great to see a website that is merchandising so successfully.

Cheers!
Steve Forbes

Where can I get a Witness Protection Agercy shirt with a cross hair or bull's eye on it?

I'm not a musician. I'm not a singer. This is not a song. It's obviously a well rehearsed response. : ) http://FluxRostrum.com/IsA/CapitalistTool.mov Boxer... if you're serious... make your own, contact me if you need some help.