This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
New York Times: White House Didn’t Stop 9/11 Because It Thought “Bin Laden Was Merely PRETENDING To Be Planning An Attack ...
It has been thoroughly documented that 9/11 was entirely foreseeable … including Al Qaeda’s plans to fly planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
It has been extensively documented that the White House decided to invade Iraq before 9/11:
- The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. Top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change even before Bush took office. And in 2000, Cheney said a Bush administration might “have to take military action to forcibly remove Saddam from power.” And see this.
- Cheney made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And the Sunday Herald reported: “Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq … to secure control of its oil.” (remember that Alan Greenspan, John McCain, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, a high-level National Security Council officer and others all say that the Iraq war was really about oil.)
(Indeed, neoconservatives planned regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 years ago; and the neoliberals are no different)
Right after 9/11, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld accused Iraq of having a hand in the attacks. People may not remember now, but – at the time – the supposed Saddam-9/11 link was at least as important a justification for the Iraq war as the alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Bush and Cheney then launched a systematic program of torture in an attempt to create false evidence – through false confessions – of a link between Iraq and 9/11. The torture techniques used were Communist techniques specifically designed to produce false confessions.
This claim that Iraq is linked to 9/11 has since been debunked by the 9/11 Commission, top government officials, and even – long after they alleged such a link – Bush and Cheney themselves.
The 9/11 Commission found that the White House and its Defense Department obstructed justice in numerous ways to deflect blame for 9/11.
Today, the New York Times adds a bizarre new wrinkle to this story:
I have read excerpts from many of [the still-classified Presidential Daily Briefs] … and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it. The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence ….
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed.
***
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
»
- advertisements -
I don't wish to impugn your sense of judgement, or yur motivation, but it's deucedly hard to answer a question such as yurs when the answer is contained in the very title to this piece
New York Times: White House Didn’t Stop 9/11 Because It Thought “Bin Laden Was Merely PRETENDING To Be Planning An Attack ...
to quote anything from the [well known to be] sionist mouthpiece NYT on this site is a travesty in the first place...to impute that the guvernment of the day was anything but complicit in the planning, execution, and benefits from the act of mass terror upon the west which happened 9-11-01 is not just a lie - it's a blatant attempt to coverup for said complicity(by means of the negligence excuse) that should be excoriated by every thinking person on this site.
I'm sorry if yu missed that...but if yu really think that statement highlighted above is anything but a lie, then I will indeed be forced to question both yur judgement and motives. All the best!
Funny, I didn't read it as a lie. The point of the piece, as I read it, is that the NYT says this, which they do.
The NYT is a mouthpiece for the federal government, often at least.
I try to read between the lines and to look at GW's participation on the thread and what he says here, too. It's pretty clear to me, as a careful reader, that GW is projecting a healthy degree of skepticism regarding the official story.
Sorry, appreciate your concern (sincerely), but I have to disagree. I've been down that road w/GW before, and while I would like for him to state things more directly, I am satisfied that he's got some kind of grip on the truth and is doing this thing his way. I would do it differently, surely. I'm Clashfan. I prefer to lay it out much more directly.
But while I may not admire his methodology, I don't see lies here. Sorry.
You might check his comments on the thread, read and think carefully, and then re-consider. Or not.
Thanks for the response, though. I do appreciate it.
George, you mention BUSH 10 time in your article.
clearly it was his fault
perhaps you should redact your earlier articles
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/02/government-infiltrates-terror-cel...
though I see you have deleted some of them http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2008/04/was-911-unforeseeable.html
(I hear Henry Husein Bullodget is hiring. or perhaps you can go Leo )
Fucking Jews trying to deflect attention away from something, probably the connection between Saudi funding of al Qaeda and the blowback from it that benefited the Jews and Israel by taking Saddam out.
Anyone notice how that war in Iraq was won when the incompetent Meyers was show the door and Petraeus replaced him? Just think if McNamara was show the fucking door we would have won Vietnam.
The fucking attacks were funded by Saudi Arabia and ….I wonder what happens to Israel when the fiat dies…
This shit is old, I am fucking out of here.
Oy! Yu've been around here long enuff to get up to speed...
Da Joos(TM) is a smokescreen the kryptos use to hide behind...leave the straw men and go right to the main enemy -Khazarian Sabatteans who hide behind anything konvenient...
dress up as rag-tops when they want to make a new OSAMA SPEAKS video, or pull another false flag stunt.
dress up as "JEWS" when they want to get sympathy(& kash!)
dress up real seductive-like when they wanna 'kapture DNA' so as to be able to look even more like us, whilst invisibly chewing off the foundations of our culture...
got the picture now? Leave da Joos outta this~! Go for the Jooglar!