How the Whitehouse allowed 9/11 to occur to act as a justification for attacking Iraq
According to former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill’s revelations, it is now known that the Bush whitehouse had unilaterally planned to depose Saddam ten days after presidential inauguration. Completely in contravention of the U.N principle of military preemption to which the U.S. is legally obligated to.
According to former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill’s revelations, it is now known that the Bush whitehouse had unilaterally planned to depose Saddam ten days after presidential inauguration. Completely in contravention of the U.N principle of military preemption to which the U.S. is legally obligated to.
According to the Project for a New American Century’s report written by Paul Wolfowitz in September 2000 entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, a “new Pearl Harbour” had to occur to justify the invasion:
“…These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence…
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation.” (page 51).
We know that the Whitehouse received warnings of some “very big” terrorist activity was going to happen. The title of the August 6th Presidential daily briefing, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States”, even if it was, as Rice claims, a “historical” document, by it’s very presentation it indicates this was clearly an issue significant enough to warrant a review of intelligence and an ongoing concern. Bush in his April 13th press conference indicated the PDB was produced on his demand.
Yet Attorney-General Ashcroft as overseer of the F.B.I either knowingly or unknowingly ensured he was not informed and therefore did not “shake the tree” in the F.B.I which would have raised the concerns and had the hard drive of Zacarias Mousouie’s computer searched in August 2001, exposing the impending attack:
“While insisting that he was not speaking personally for Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Corallo said he was offended by Ms. Gorelick’s remarks in particular. Offering a detailed preview of Mr. Ashcroft’s testimony next week, he said the attorney general was briefed repeatedly by the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. on threats posed by Al Qaeda and was told that the threats were directed at targets overseas. “He was not briefed that there was any threat to the United States,” Mr. Corallo said. “He kept asking if there was any action he needed to take, and he was constantly told no, you’re doing everything you need to do.”
Bush was warned of possible attack in U.S., official says, (Eric Lichtblau and David E. Sanger, New York Times, April 10, 2004).
The question that then needs to be asked of Mr. Corallo and the New York Times: who told Ashcroft, “no you do not need to take any action”?
Is this an admission that someone (the National Security Advisor?) ensured the knowledge did not get distributed? If so, this is the manipulation laid out, that the White house knew of an impending terrorist attack (of some undefined form) and either deliberately or incompentently did not inform the F.B.I to take a higher level state of alert, thus ensuring the terrorists (with the odds on their side) would succeed in a hi-jacking or a detonation. As testified by Rice, no-one foresaw the extent or exact nature of the attack.
The White house allowed the attack to occur because it wanted a “Pearl Harbour” (in keeping with the Wolfowitz policy) to push a war against Iraq because the provision of support contracts and oil reconstruction projects would be ensured to be passed to Halliburton, Bechtel and other connected patrons of the Republican party, because of an ideological philosophy that the U.S. must exercise the role of world policeman, because many White house officials (most notably Cheney) had profitted handsomely from the previous Gulf War and Iran-Contra conflicts and because of a fear of a “domino-effect” of OPEC changing oil currency from US dollars to Euros.
A couple of points to note include that the 9/11 commission has finally been granted a $15m budget. This is compared to the $40-$50m budget spent on the non-event “white water” investigation of the Clintons. Also, Philip D. Zelikow, the 9/11 commission Executive Director, co-authored a book with Condolezza Rice! At least he is not Henry Kissinger, the lead exponent of the secret government, Bush’s initial choice to run the first set of 9/11 investigations…