Two Long-Ignored Smoking Guns of 9/11

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Attention
Deficit Disorder (ADD) is used to justify the drugging of millions
of young children in America’s public schools. But where did this
affliction come from? Why has it become an epidemic in the public
schools since about 1980?

A recent
medical report says that too much television viewed from ages
1 to 3 help to create this affliction. Children’s TV shows keep
switching images every few seconds. This supposedly undermines
children’s attention spans.

My view is
this aspect of commercial television is a permanent feature. Attention
Deficit Disorder is television’s gift to adults, too. We all suffer
from it.

CLARKE
VS. RICE

Consider
the Clarke-Rice debate over what the President knew before 9/11.
It has degenerated into "he said, she said." Prior to
Clarke’s revelation on 60
Minutes
, I never heard the media refer to Condoleezza
Rice as "Dr. Rice." (She earned a Ph.D. at the obscure
University of Denver, which immediately qualified her for a
professorship at Stanford
. Warning: anyone out there who says
"quota two-fer" — female and black — is a
racist male chauvinist pig, which is why nobody mentions it.)
As soon as Clarke had testified, it was "Dr. Rice."

The media
were ready to make a catfight out of it. There is nothing like
a good fight to raise ratings for TV news shows — not that
TV news shows have high ratings. A fight makes TV news look more
like "reality TV," which does have high ratings. My
view is that both forms of entertainment are equally realistic.
Both are modeled on early American TV’s original audience-grabber:
wrestling.

For the moment,
the suppressed memo that warned the President about Osama bin
Laden is in the news. Under intense pressure, the White House
released the memo. It had taken two
years
to get the White House to turn the memo over to Congress.
Now the pundits are all a-dither. Is this the smoking gun or isn’t
it?

I don’t think
the American news media could spot a smoking gun on the living
room table, even if the victim’s body is lying facedown on the
carpet in front of the table.

NETWORK
NEWS AND ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

When it comes
to TV news, it’s mostly Alzheimer’s. Consider this possibility.
If you were kidnapped by a terrorist group, and your only chance
of going free is your ability to outline the reasons why the United
States invaded Kosovo, would you survive?

It is all
so vague now. That’s because it was all so vague then. There were
Muslims and Kosovo Serbs. But weren’t there Albanians, too? And
what about the Croats? Didn’t Croats invade? But which country
did they invade? Milosevic was in charge in Serbia. Now he isn’t.
He committed atrocities of some kind, didn’t he? Was it against
the Croats or Muslims? What, exactly, is the evidence of genocide?
Or did the Croats commit atrocities? No, it must have been Serbia.
The United States did not invade Croatia, so it must have been
Serbia. Isn’t that why Milosevic is being tried by the World Court,
or is it the International Court of Justice? Anyway, somebody
is trying him. Somewhere.

The American
media have not reported on this trial for at least two years.
It was front-page, prime-time news in February, 2002. Milosevic
refused to respond obediently to the judges. He told them that
he would defend himself. He did not need a court-appointed lawyer.
They had no lawful jurisdiction, he said. Then . . . nothing.
No more news reports. No more explanations.

No results.
Silence.

Milosevic
faded from public view almost as fast as the supposed al-Qaeda
unit that was surrounded by the Pakistani Army last month. Overnight,
that skirmish disappeared from public view. No answer as to who
the mysterious high-level terrorist was, or even if he was. Just
silence. It became, as
William Lind says, the battle that wasn’t
. Lind, an expert
in modern guerilla warfare, thinks that the outcome of that non-battle
will lead to the overthrow of the present government of Pakistan.
But no one in the conventional media even remembers the non-battle.
Why, it was weeks ago! Ancient history.

Then there
is Saddam Hussein. We watched him get a dental inspection. Over
and over, we saw that inspection: an endless loop at the dentist’s
office. Then . . . nothing. He has now been brought to justice.
Whose justice? Will there be a trial? Who will conduct it? Where?
When?

Meanwhile,
Iraq is turning into a graveyard for Americans.

Saddam is
in jail, yet the death rate for U.S. troops is rising. The Shi’ites
are sending Care packages to Sunnis. "Joy to the world, the
war has come!" The old rule of Islam is taking over events
in Iraq: "My brother and I against our cousin. My cousin,
my brother, and I against the world."

This war
is costing the U.S. at least a billion dollars a week. That’s
a low-ball estimate. But where’s the Iraqi oil? Where is our exit
strategy? Who will be in charge after June 30?

Nobody says.
I don’t think anyone knows.

Oh, yes,
one more thing: Where’s Osama?

SMOKING
GUN #1

The burning
media question of the day is this: What did President Bush know
about al-Qaeda’s threat to the United States, and when did he
know it? Why did the Administration refuse to put Osama bin Laden’s
possible plans at the top of its list of priorities?

The loyalists’
answer these days is a question: "How was the President to
know that al-Qaeda would launch a strike of that magnitude against
the U.S. in the late summer of 2001?" I have a possible answer.

"Because
the Bush administration had been planning a pre-emptive military
strike against Afghanistan and the Taliban, who provided bin
Laden with his base of operations. He wanted to get credit for
a pre-emptive attack against Bush rather than allowing Bush
to get all the credit. In his view, it was better for Islam
to appear as the initiator of the war against the infidels rather
than the other way around."

What if the
now-famous White House memo had mentioned plans for a pre-emptive
strike by the United States, plans which were in place no later
than June 2001? Wouldn’t the media today be in a feeding frenzy?
Wouldn’t that fact be the mother of all smoking guns? What if
Osama knew all about the looming pre-emptive attack against Afghanistan,
and decided to launch his first? Shouldn’t the President have
expected this?

Loyalists
might reply, "That’s all well and good, but where is the
proof that such a U.S. attack was being planned in the summer
of 2001? And how would bin Laden have known about it?"

My answer
is this: "One of his associates had access to the Internet.
He used Google to search for u2018Afghanistan’ and u2018United States’
on a regular basis. He came across the following document in late
June 2001."

India
in anti-Taliban military plan

India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned
U.S.-Russian hostilities against the Taliban.

By
Our Correspondent

26 June
2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" U.S. and Russian
plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban
if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend
Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime.

The Taliban
controls 90 per cent of Afghanistan and is advancing northward
along the Salang highway and preparing for a rear attack on
the opposition Northern Alliance from Tajikistan-Afghanistan
border positions.

Indian
foreign secretary Chokila Iyer attended a crucial session of
the second Indo-Russian joint working group on Afghanistan in
Moscow amidst increase of Taliban’s military activity near the
Tajikistan border. And, Russia’s Federal Security Bureau (the
former KGB) chief Nicolai Patroshev is visiting Teheran this
week in connection with Taliban’s military build-up.

Indian
officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of
"facilitator" while the United States and Russia will
combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central
Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban
lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief
city in northern Afghanistan.

Military
action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely
avoidable with the United Nations banned from Taliban-controlled
areas. The United Nations, which adopted various means in the
last four years to resolve the Afghan problem, is now being
suspected by the Taliban and refused entry into Taliban areas
of the war-ravaged nation through a decree issued by Taliban
chief Mullah Mohammad Omar last month.

Diplomats
say that the anti-Taliban move followed a meeting between U.S.
Secretary of State Collin Powel and Russian Foreign Minister
Igor Ivanov and later between Powell and Indian foreign minister
Jaswant Singh in Washington. Russia, Iran and India have also
held a series of discussions and more diplomatic activity is
expected. . . .

Go
ahead. Click it.

I
first reported on this document on October 11, 2001
, one month
after the attack. My report went to 35,000 subscribers. It was
immediately posted on this site.

On April
2, 2003, I wrote a follow-up that cited this document: "Osama,
Stingers, and Spam
." In it, I cited Osama bin Laden’s
writings on the need to create a conflict between the U.S. and
the Islamic world. It was also posted on this site.

Not one reporter
ever contacted me about this document. I have never seen any conventional
media outlet refer to it. There it sits, in plain site, but no
one notices. That gun has been smoking ever since June 26, 2001.
No one notices.

I am not
saying that al-Qaeda planned the attack in a mere two months.
I am saying that the threat of a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan
speeded up al-Qaeda’s timetable. Bin Laden beat Bush to the punch.
He pre-empted the proposed pre-emption.

The Administration
was asleep at the wheel in September, 2001. It was planning a
Constitutionally illegal invasion of a foreign country. The Bush
doctrine of the legitimate pre-emptive strike was already operating.
It had just not been deployed yet. Osama bin Laden took action
first. He understood Saul Alinsky’s principle: "The action
is the reaction." He made it appear as though he, not President
Bush, is the true man of action. He made it appear that militant
Islam, not the West, is the initiator.

The Administration
did not understand that it was dealing with a determined enemy.
The Administration misjudged Osama bin Laden as a strategist.
Whoever was advising the President did not recognize this fact:
When it comes to pre-emptive military strikes, two can play that
game.

The media
are also asleep at the wheel. They refuse to report on the obvious.
They get in a dither over an unspecific memo, when they should
be in a dither about the absence of more specific memos related
to the possibility that al-Qaeda might strike the United States
before the United States struck Afghanistan.

Here is what
I wrote on Oct. 11, 2001:

In the
previous two issues of this newsletter, I explored the topic of
"news stories not worth pursuing." I believe that this
story will also be ignored. If some enterprising reporter works
on it on his own authority, the story will be spiked by his editor.
The only way that this story will ever get out to the American
public is through the "Forward" button on e-mail programs.

Hooray
for the "Forward" button!

Nevertheless,
let’s assume hypothetically that some reporter, anxious to become
the next Woodward/Bernstein, were to present the following proposal
on his editor’s desk. "Sir . . . I want to pursue the matter.
I want to get the following questions answered."

  • How
    long before June 26 did top-level strategists for Russia and
    the United States come to agreement regarding a joint anti-Taliban
    military alliance?
  • Why
    was this information made available through an obscure Web
    publication in India, but not through the news media in the
    United States?
  • What
    were the underlying strategic motivations on both sides of
    this alliance prior to September 11?
  • When
    did the high-level strategists on both sides plan to reveal
    the existence of this alliance to the legislatures of both
    nations?

Then
there is the question that an experienced reporter would not dare
place in front of his editor:

  • What
    kind of public event was deemed necessary by the strategists
    on both sides of this alliance to justify it to the legislatures
    of both nations?

I predict
that no one in the news media will pursue this story. It will
be dismissed as not being newsworthy.

In the
good old days, it might have been possible for a reporter at
a presidential press conference to ask a question about this.
But when was the last time any President held a press conference?

The reason
why I came across this story is because of a tip from a reader.
Because of the World Wide Web, and because of search engines
such as Google, inquiring people can find information like this.
Because of Websites like freerepublic.com
and lewrockwell.com, stories like these can get in front of
a limited number of people. Finally, because of the "Forward"
button, these stories also get out. But they never get out to
the general public.

There are
perhaps a few hundred thousand Americans who would regard this
story as newsworthy. But I suspect that most Americans, now
caught up in the war against terrorism, would shrug it off.
That’s why it is possible for the government and the media to
bury stories like this one.

I did not
think the media would pick up this story. My assessment then has
proven to be 100% accurate.

When the
media decide not to pursue a story, there is nothing on Earth,
short of the story’s appearance in The New York Times,
to force their hand. Until the Times decides that a seemingly
far-fetched story is newsworthy, it isn’t newsworthy. It’s the
three monkeys: Hear no story, see no story, repeat no story.

The story
of the government’s plans to invade Afghanistan was only one smoking
gun in the summer of 2001. The hotter story was this one. It received
a brief flurry on the Internet, but it did not get into The
New York Times, so it became a non-event, a smoking non-gun.

SMOKING
GUN #2

On Nov. 5,
2001, I reported the following. For those of you who recall my
report, think back: Did any major news media outlet in the United
States follow through? For those of you who did not read my report,
have you ever heard about this before? If so, where?

In July,
2001, Osama bin Laden spent at least one week in an American-run
hospital in Dubai. He suffers from kidney disease. The U.S. government
knew about this visit. It even sent a CIA officer to interview
him. I wrote:

The story
of bin Laden’s hospital stay was reported last week in Le
Figaro. I cannot imagine a hotter story, yet U.S. newspapers
are pretending that it’s not newsworthy — "not worth
pursuing." An Israeli Website has translated the full article
from Le Figaro (Oct. 31). This should have been front-page
news in every newspaper in America, the lead story on every
network. But it doesn’t fit the official government version.
The people therefore don’t have a right to know. Or, as we might
put it, "All the news that fits."

Arriving
from the airport of Quetta, Pakistan, Osama bin laden was transferred
upon arrival at Dubai airport. Accompanied by his personal doctor
and faithful lieutenant, the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahari (though
on this latter, the testimony of the eyewitness was not formal),
as well as by four body guards and an Algerian nurse, bin Laden
was admitted to the American Hospital, a building of glass and
marble situated between al-Garhoud Bridge and al-Maktoum bridge.

Each story
of the hospital has two VIP suites and around 15 rooms. The
millionaire Saudi was admitted to the renowned department of
urology headed by Dr. Terry Callaway, an expert on kidney stones
and male infertility. In the course of several telephone calls,
Callaway did not wish to respond to our questions.

In March
2000 the weekly journal, Asia Week, published in Hong
Kong, raised questions about bin Laden’s health, stating that
he suffered from a serious physical problem and more precisely
that he was in danger due to a kidney infection that had spread
to the liver and required the care of a specialist. According
to legitimate sources, bin Laden had delivered to a post in
Kandahar a mobile dialysis machine sometime in the first part
of 2000. According to our sources, "this trip for reasons
of Bin Laden’s health" was not the first. Between 1996
and 1998, Osama bin Laden went to Dubai several times for health
purposes. . . .

Throughout
his stay in the hospital, Osama bin Laden received visits from
many family members and Saudi Arabian and emirate personalities
of status. During this time, the local representative of the
CIA was seen by many people taking the elevator and going to
bin Laden’s room. . . .

In my report,
I provided a link to an Israeli Web site that posted this direct
translation from Le Figaro. That
site is now gone.

Fortunately,
the Global Research site has
also translated the article and keeps it online
.

United
Press International picked up the story for a day
, but nothing
came of it.

Yahoo ran
a brief account. That story is long gone on Yahoo, but
Infowars.com has reproduced an image of it
.

There was
a brief report on the story in the British newspaper, The Guardian
(Nov. 1, 2001). That article
is still on-line.

You can find
lots of references to this event on Web sites, but most of these
sites are of the "alternative news" variety. They are
not the journalistic equivalent of The New York Times.
As far as the conventional media were concerned, this story was
dropped down the memory hole.

I continued
my report.

The
CIA has responded to this story. Here is the official explanation.

"Complete
and utter nonsense," said Anya Guilsher, a spokeswoman for
the Central Intelligence Agency. "It’s false, and I told
Le Figaro that, too."

That’s
it? That’s it.

This
article, from NewsMax, is still online
.

CONCLUSION

The media
whoop up a story for a few days, then let it drop.

There is
rarely any follow-through. The media suffer from ADD.

Wise citizens
try to make decisions about their futures. They would like to
be told the truth by their government, so that they can base their
decisions on accurate information. But there is a combination
of government-created noise and deliberate deception that keeps
citizens from making appropriate decisions.

I find it
ironic that the administration’s answer to Richard Clarke’s accusations
is this: "There was too much unspecific information. Bin
Laden is a schemer. He concealed his organization’s actions too
well. There was no way we could have responded in advance of the
9/11 attack."

It is not
only private terrorists who are successful in such planning against
their enemies.

April
14, 2004

Gary
North [send him mail]
is the author of Mises
on Money
. Visit http://www.freebooks.com.
For a free subscription to Gary North’s newsletter on gold, click
here
.

Gary
North Archives

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare