"If this were a corporate media site (thank goodness it's not), this would definitely be enough information to turn some heads and get some sort of investigation going."

Mr President,

The arguable likelihood (or rather near-certainty, after Robert Stinnett's 'Day of Deceit', The Free Press, 2000) that FDR had learned of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor, but didn't tell to whip Americans up into a war frenzy, prompts me to ask a few analogical questions about September 11:

1 - According to the International Herald Tribune, Dec. 20, 2001, p.4, CIA and NSA operatives slipped into Afghanistan in 1999 to place listening devices within range of Al Qaida's tactical radios. Now, pray tell: just what have Clinton and you heard ever since?

2 - How could Mohammed Atta (or whatever his real name was), now thought to have been the ringleader of the Sept.11 attackers, possibly go undetected after:

a) leaving his stalled private plane on a runway of the Miami International Airport on December 26, 2000 and walking off (it is very uncommon for a novice pilot to fly into the ninth-busiest U.S. passenger airport on such a busy day; after the incident Atta didn't radio the tower as he was supposed to do; instead, he flipped off the lights and walked off, hardly contributing to airport safety; the Federal Aviation Agency launched an investigation at Atta's flight school, but has so far refused to comment on whether only the plane maintenance record was investigated, or Atta as well. Source: International Herald Tribune, Oct.17, 2001, p.9);

b) reentering the U.S. in January 2001 despite overstaying his previous visa (a feat he was to repeat several times in 2001, with round trips to Spain, the Philippines, Prague);

c) meeting an Iraqi diplomat, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir Ani, identified as an intelligence officer, in Prague, monitored by Czech counterintelligence, on April 8, 2001 (International Herald Tribune, Nov 13, 2001; the possibility that the CIA didn't co-monitor this or wasn't told is scant, the Czechs being allies and given the very old familiarity between Havel and the Bushes). Said meeting between Atta and Ani, and Ani's identification as a high-rank Iraqi intelligence operative, are called "undisputed fact" by William Safire in my above-quoted source article (The Prague connection: Saddam and Bin Laden", reprinted by the IHT from the New York Times). In the same, Safire quotes Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman as confirming "Atta contacted some Iraqi agent".

No source so far, to my knowledge, has cast any doubt whatsoever upon the meeting actually having occurred and/or upon Ani's identification. Therefore, anyone wishing to make contrary statements had better source them precisely and verifiably, lest such statements should appear to be outright lies/fabrications;

d) being ticketed for driving without a license in April 2001, failing to show up for court - and after a bench warrant was issued for his arrest?

3 - Is it true that the local CIA station chief met Osama Bin Laden at the American hospital in Dubai in July 2001, as reported by Le Figaro on Oct. 31, 2001?

If it isn't true, then why wouldn't Doctor Terry Callaway, reported to have treated Bin Laden, comment on the reports? And why did you reportedly recall the CIA station chief on July 15, the day after the reported departure of Bin Laden from Dubai? Why wouldn't Dubai authorities comment on the story? It's hard to escape the impression that you have been using Bin Laden in your Great Game of creating conditions in which you can exploit terrorist violence to expand U.S. military presence in Central Asia.

Is Bin Laden a pawn in your (Great) Game?

4 - Is it true that by mid-July 2001 you had already planned the war on Afghanistan and its October timing, and that you had already stationed military advisers in Tajikistan, and that senior US officials told Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, in mid-July (BBC World News, September 18, 2001,11:27 GMT 12:27 UK)?

The BBC story did indeed describe an already planned war, as anyone can verify in my above source (on net:

Here are some excerpts: "Pakistani official claims US planned invasion of Afghanistan prior to WTC events...Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October... Mr Naik told the BBC that...the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden...and Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taliban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place...Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place. He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation... Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place...by the middle of October at the latest...And he said he was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered...by the Taliban".

Quite an accurate prophecy isn't it. Were all his dead-on-target details of the future revealed to Naik in a dream? How could he possibly have known everything on Sept.18, well in advance of events, had nobody told him?

Furthermore, Mr President, you knew all too well, just like FDR back then, that your planned war would never have been supported by enough Americans without a collective shock of Sept.-11 (Pearl-Harbor) magnitude. Neither would most of the rest of the world have green lighted your war so easily, without Sept.11. That's why you badly needed Sept.11, right? That's why you may have let it happen, thus co-mass murdering so many of your fellow citizens.

Given the plausibility of Naik's story, it would at this point make perfect sense if, around the same time (mid-July 2001), you, Mr President, had both geared up for your Afghan war and treated Osama at the American hospital in Dubai: Osama had to live - until Sept.11. Had Osama died of kidney failure, there would have been no September 11 - no mass consensus for war in the U.S. - no war - no U.S. military/business expansion in Central Asia. Bin Laden, unwittingly or not, has been your and your oil regime's best friend - thus far.

5 - Is it true that after the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui (now suspected to have been the 20th planned hijacker) on August 17, 2001 in Minnesota, FBI headquarters in Washington twice rejected requests from agents in Minneapolis for a wider investigation (International Herald Tribune, Oct 17, 2001, p.9), which could have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks? If so, why?

What reasons had prompted Minneapolis agents to request a wider investigation?

How could such a request just possibly be rejected, after French officials reportedly alerted Washington twice, in the first week of September, to Moussaoui's suspected links to Al Qaida (IHT, Dec.12, 2001, p.3, based on Le Monde)?

6 - Only a public opinion revolt led by journalist William Safire prevented you (as administration officials admitted upon announcing the civilian indictment) from suppressing debate by having Moussaoui tried by your stalinist secret military courts: for evidence of this, see a New York Time Service article of Dec.13, 2001 ("Compromise..."):

"Against a backdrop of criticism over the use of [secret military] tribunals, the Bush administration reached a compromise that would permit the trial of the terror suspect [Moussaoui] to be held in an open court, but in a jurisdiction with a strong record of imposing the death penalty [Alexandria, Virginia, which has nothing to do with Sept.11 except providing better chance to have Moussaoui executed. Logically, the trial ought to have been held in New York City where 90% of the deaths happened, but New Yorkers have more problems with the hangman's noose]... The debate played out over the last month as the administration's plan to use secret military commissions was met by criticism from lawmakers and civil libertarians. That criticism helped shape the Bush administration's decision, official said..."

7 - Just out of curiosity: on September 11, 8:48 am you famously happened (?) to be in Florida - safely out of harm's way. But - it escapes me - where was Colin Powell? Rice? Norton? Where exactly was Rudy the Hero? Tenet, Mueller?

It is known that:

a) renewable energy lobbies don't have the kind of soft money the oil industry has;

b) U.S. oil reserves are dwindling fast;

c) the U.S. can't depend on Gulf oil alone - it's too dangerous;

d) Caspian oil seems at present the most significant alternative;

e) radical, anti-american Islam has been threatening to seize power in the Caspian area;

f) the best (for the U.S.) Caspian oil- and gas-pipeline route would have to cross Afghanistan and Pakistan, to avoid Russia and Iran;

g) Russia needs the Taliban to go or be curbed because they are the rear base of Chechen rebels; therefore weak Russia must come to terms with U.S. military presence in central Asia, and give up a chunk of oil/gas business to U.S. companies;

h) Chinese influence in Central Asia is contrary to American interests;

i) colonial wars are best served in 'self-defense' sauce.

To sum it all up: you are not yet another U.S. President who will live in infamy - or are you, Mr Bush?

Methodic Doubts/September 11.
By Adrian More

Posted on the Independent Newswire on 26 December 2001
Ref: www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=110792

To next article for Declaring Independence and A State of Global Rebellion

Phase 1 “Know” Menu
Looking for Justice in All the Wrong Places Menu
Insights-Reflections-Analysis Menu
Covering Up the Cover Up Menu
The Reality of Israeli Zionist Infiltration Menu
Are We On the Path of Expanding Liberty or Tyranny?
Declaring Independence and A State of Global Rebellion Menu
A Picture of the Stars and A Voice from the Ethers Menu
Interim Addendums During Phase 1