--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
None Dare Call it Treason!
---------------------------------------
Secret Hearings Conceal 9/11 Terrorist
Links to Congress & White House
by Tom Flocco
August 7, 2002
Something strange has been occurring on the fourth
floor under the dome of the U.S. Capitol. The
security is so strict that even the representatives
and senators from the joint-intelligence committee
investigating the September 11 attacks must check
their cell phones and pagers at the door of the
sound-proof room -- a meeting place regularly swept
for listening devices.
These and other indications reveal that no chances are
being taken which might result in having words spoken
in confidence leak out of that room. And there are no
reports regarding whether legislators are more worried
about U.S. citizens getting wind of the contents of
their discussions than the terrorists.
Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, said it was the first time in
the history of the Congress that two standing
committees have held joint hearings. Moreover, some
might question such extreme measures and whether
crucial truth is being held in the hands of too few --
given unspoken congressional and administration links
to terrorism.
Wide reports last week revealed that an enraged White
House had called joint-committee chairmen Graham and
Represenative Porter Goss (R-FL) about classified
leaks from the members, which resulted in their
requesting the FBI to ask members and staff to undergo
polygraph tests which clearly intrude upon the
separation of powers between the legislative and
executive branches. This, as the surreptitious
hearings have been postponed till late September.
Genesis of a Cover Up
One reason for the furtive activity may have a lot to
do with why both the White House and CNN altered the
transcript of a 4 pm, May 16, 2002 press conference by
National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice in the
James Brady Briefing Room.
The machinations had their genesis later in the day
that Thursday, after the New York Post hit the streets
with its huge “Bush Knew” banner, adding “Prez Was
Warned of Possible Hijacking Before Terror Attacks” as
a subheading. Shortly thereafter, other papers began
to reveal the contents of a Presidential FBI briefing
from August 6 -- just 36 days prior to the September
11 attacks.
The top-secret briefing said that Osama bin Laden and
Al Qaeda were going to “bring the fight to America,”
according to the Toronto Star, for past attacks upon
its training camps in Afghanistan. So the wheels of
presidential damage control started turning, even as
the New York Times was putting finishing touches on an
explosive May 19 story for the next day, reporting
that President Bush had also been briefed before
September 11 regarding:
“A 1999 report for the National Intelligence Council,
which oversees government intelligence analysis,
saying ‘Suicide bomber (s) belonging to Al Qaeda’s
martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft
packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the
headquarters of the [CIA] or the White House.’ ”
Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-SD), said he
was “gravely concerned about the information provided
us just yesterday that the president received a
warning in August about the threat of hijackers...,”
adding “Why did it take eight months for us to receive
this information," -- but failing at the same time to
use his senatorial power to subpoena the documents.
Then House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO)
stepped up to the plate and called for a congressional
investigation into “what the president and what the
White House knew about the events leading up to 9/11.”
But Gephardt has also been convinced not to make waves
-- grieving victim families who are depending on him
to fight for truth notwithstanding.
Sleeping With the Enemy?
While researching various sections of a related story
surrounding growing evidence that the FBI and other
government entities are more closely linked to
pre-9/11 insider trading than previously was thought,
it was found that the Secretary of State and two other
State Department officials, the Central Intelligence
Administration (CIA) Director, three senators, and a
congressman actually met with Pakistan’s
Inter-Services Security Agency (ISI) chief, who had
wired $100,000 to fund the operations of terrorist
hijacker leader Mohammed Atta just prior to the
attacks.
But worse, actual evidence is available that the White
House and CNN doctored the transcript of National
Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice’s damage control
press conference, held at 4 pm that afternoon on May
18, 2001.
In an updated, scholarly, and thorough report (
“Political Deception: The Missing Link Behind 9-11,”
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), 6-20-2002 ),
by Michel Chossudovsky, University of Ottawa Professor
of Economics, these and a number of other critical
revelations are brought to the fore while other media
have ignored them -- not connecting the dots.
Noticing that a couple words were deleted from the CNN
transcript of Dr. Rice’s May 16 remarks -- when
compared to the transcript from the Federal News
Service which had the words "ISI Chief" included in
its transcript, we placed a call to the public
information office at CNN in Atlanta yesterday. The
story was too compelling; it had to find more daylight.
After talking with a woman named Devon, we were told,
“After checking the transcript for Dr. Rice's May 16
press conference, you are correct that the words ‘ISI
Chief ’ are missing from our transcript." Devon
emailed us a CNN office printout copy, and the word
“inaudible” was indeed found in parentheses. Then we
printed out the actual White House website transcript
of the event; and at that same place in the transcript,
we found that "ISI Chief" was also missing:
Q: Dr. Rice? Dr. Rice? Ms. RICE: Yes? Q: Are you aware
of the reports at the time that ----- was in
Washington on September 11th; and on September 10th,
$100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups in
this area? And why was he here? Was he meeting with
you or anybody in the administration? Ms. RICE: I have
not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting
with me. The Washington Post (5-16-2002) reported that
“Officials familiar with the White House’s strategy
[during damage control], said senior aides were
anxious to dispel the notion of a cover up and said
they wanted to avoid appearing defensive, either in
front of cameras or behind the scenes.”
Terrorist Hijacker’s Financial Benefactor
According to the Times of India (10-9-2001), Mohammed
Atta’s financial bagman, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad had
been fired as head of Pakistan’s ISI, as “U.S.
authorities [FBI] sought his removal after confirming
that $100,000 had been wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed
Atta from Pakistan through Ahmad Sheikh at the
instance (sic) of General Mahmoud."
Times of India then reported that “Senior [U.S.]
government sources have confirmed that India
contributed significantly to establishing the link
between the money transfer and the role played by the
dismissed ISI chief.” But ABC investigative reporter
Brian Ross had beaten them on the story, reporting to
Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts on September 30, 2001:
“As to September 11, federal authorities have told ABC
News they’ve now tracked more than $100,000 from banks
in Pakistan to two banks in Florida to accounts held
by suspected hijack ringleader Mohammed Atta. As well
this morning [Sunday’s “This Week” Show], ‘Time’
magazine is reporting that some of that money came in
the days just before the attack and can be traced
directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden.”
But Roberts and Donaldson kept adding fuel to the fire,
when about one month later, on October 28 during "This
Week," Ms. Roberts asked Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld: “You’ve heard Brian Ross’s report, the
confirmation that Mohammed Ata met with an Iraqi
intelligence official....Do you think it was -- the
meeting with Mohammed Atta was significant, in terms
of September 11?
Rumsfeld responded cryptically, “We will know that
only after the proper law enforcement people
investigate that. Clearly, the meeting is not nothing.
It is something notable.”
Atta’s Money-man Meets With 9/11 Investigation
Chairmen on Morning of Attacks
Three days after the attacks on September 14, the New
York Times reported that important members of the Bush
Administration met with the terrorist financier and
ISI Chief, General Ahmad: CIA Director George Tenet,
Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Secretary of
State Richard Armitage, Under-Secretary of State Marc
Grossman, and Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) -- Chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
However, the Times also revealed that on September 11
-- while the attacks were in progress -- the two
current Co-Chairmen of the Joint-Intelligence
Committee investigating the 9/11 attacks, Senator Bob
Graham (D-FL) and Representative Porter Goss (R-FL),
met for breakfast with the ISI Chief who had ordered
$100,000 wired from Pakistan to terrorist leader
Mohammed Atta in the days immediately preceeding the
attacks.
All this, while General Ahmad was in the United States
meeting with multiple Bush Administration officials
and members of Congress:
"When the news came, the two Florida lawmakers who
lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were
having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani
intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, Sen. Bob
Graham, and other members of the House Intelligence
Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the
Pakistani official when a member of Goss’ staff handed
a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. ‘We were
talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism
generated from Afghanistan,’ Graham said."
[presciently]
In a skilled analysis of the neglected yet important
story, Professor Chossudovsky literally dug deep to
verify the participation of Bush Administration
officials in the meetings with the hijacker financier
behind the September 11 attacks.
News Pakistan (9-10-2001) reported that ISI Chief Lt.
General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in the U.S. on September
4, adding that
“Mahmoud’s week-long presence in Washington has
triggered speculation about the agenda of his
mysterious meeting at the Pentagon and National
Security Council....Official sources confirm that he
met with [George] Tenet this week. He also held long
parleys with unspecified officials at the White House
and the Pentagon. But the most important meeting was
with Marc Grossman, U.S. Under-Secretary of State for
Political Affairs. One can safely guess that the
discussions must have centered around
Afghanistan....and Osama bin Laden.”
But this news report was written on September 10 --
the day before the attacks.
According to the Miami Herald (9-16-2001), “Graham
said the Pakistani intelligence official with whom he
met....was forced to stay all week in Washington
because of the shutdown of air traffic. ‘He was
marooned here, and I think that gave Secretary of
State Powell and others in the administration a chance
to really talk with him.’ ”
Perhaps Chossudovsky’s most telling analysis comes in
just one short sentence from congressional
intelligence investigation Co-Chairman Porter Goss:
“None of this is news, but it’s all part of the
finger-pointing,” Goss declared yesterday in a rare
display of pique. “It’s foolishness.” (Washington Post,
9-18-2002)
Then the Ottawa professor added: “This statement comes
from the man who was having breakfast with the alleged
‘money-man’ behind 9/11 -- on the morning of September
11.”
The Post topped off the story, adding that “[General]
Ahmad ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin
Laden and the Taliban.” But Chossudovsky unearthed
another telling Goss statement from a White House
bulletin: “Chairman Porter Goss said an existing
congressional inquiry has so far found ‘no smoking
gun’ that would warrant another inquiry.” (5-17-2002)
Moreover, Chossudovsky reminds that CIA Director
George Tenet also met with ISI Chief Ahmad just prior
to the 9/11 attacks, and that Tenet had regularly met
with President Bush nearly every morning at 8 am sharp
for about a half hour.
But most curiously, a document known as the
President’s Daily Briefing, OPDB, “is prepared at
Langley by the CIA’s analytical directorate, and a
draft goes home with Tenet each night. Tenet edits it
personally and delivers it orally during his early
morning meeting with Bush.” (Washington Post,
5-17-2002) But there are no reports as to why the
President prefers not to keep written records of
important CIA briefings.
The Ottawa professor added that “this practice of
‘oral intelligence briefings’ is unprecedented. Bush’s
predecessors at the White House, received a written
briefing:”
“With Bush, who liked oral briefings and the CIA
director in attendance, a strong relationship had
developed. Tenet could be direct, even irreverent and
earthy.” (Washington Post, 1-29-2002) Investigating
the Investigators?
A critical component of the Joint-Intelligence
Committee's investigation is the first part of what
Co-Chairman Bob Graham calls “a three-act play.” The
first act, according to CNN.com “will focus on
establishing a factual timeline as it relates to what
was known before September 11.”
Questions remain whether Graham's timeline document
will ultimately become required reading for every
member of Congress, along with the early July FBI
briefing and the August 6 presidential briefing --
given the above evidence, multiple indications of a
cover up, links to Congress and the White House, and
additional unanswered questions of 9/11.
Another key Intelligence Committee member, Richard
Shelby (R-AL), was widely quoted in reference to
Co-Chairman Goss. Chiding his fellow Republican, “You
know, [House committee chairman Goss] is a former CIA
employee, and I know he’s close to a lot of people
over there,” Shelby told Roll Call (October, 2001). “I
don’t think we should be too close to anybody we have
oversight of because you can’t do your job. You become
subverted by the process.”
As to other investigative options, James Ridgeway
added that “[An Independent Commission] could cause a
dreadful scene, with senior lawmakers and their staffs
in the spotlight along with the intelligence chiefs.
After all, what did the members of Congress know
before September 11? Might they have forewarned us?”
(Orange County Weekly, June 7-13, 2002)
Courageous members of Congress may also have interest
in Graham’s “notebooks filled with jotted records of
every meeting and phone call.” (Associated Press,
5-30-2002) And Knight Ridder (6-4-2002) added that the
relatively tight time frame [Goss wants the 9/11
investigation report finished by January, 2003] may
encourage some [Administration agencies] to “run out
the clock” and hold back potentially embarrassing
information.
The evidence of White House and media cover up of that
important visit just prior to the attacks by the
individual supplying the money to finance the
terrorists is only made more crucial when one
considers that so many high government officials met
with this person -- some while the attacks were in
progress. However, Americans are being denied an
explanation and a carefully thorough public
investigation of this evidence.
Further completing the circle, a Times of India report
(3-7-2001) reveals that “The CIA worked in tandem with
Pakistan to create the ‘monster’ that is today
Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban,” a leading U.S. expert
on South Asia had said months prior to the attacks.
Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International
Centre for Scholars added, “The CIA made a historic
mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over
the world to come to Afghanistan.” But more
importantly, Harrison reveals that “the old
associations between the intelligence agencies
continue....The CIA still has close links with the
ISI.”
Americans may now wonder what terrorist money man and
ISI Chief Ahmad was discussing with George Tenet,
Colin Powell, and members of Congress during those
long meetings prior to the worst attacks on American
soil in our history.
And after all this, some U.S. citizens may even
question whether there is anyone left to depose Bush
Administration officials and Members of Congress under
oath who would never subpoena themselves to offer
explanations for demonstrated conflicts of interest --
or worse.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Flocco is an independent American investigative
journalist.
*****************************************
Forwarded by
La Voz de Aztlan
http://www.aztlan.net
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
