|21/06/04||UQ Wire: September 11 – The Big Lie
Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
Sign up for the wire at:
Unanswered Questions : Thinking for ourselves.
www.globalresearch.ca Centre for Research on Globalisation Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
GLOBAL RESEARCH (CANADA) FEATURE ARTICLE
Text of Michel Chossudovsky's keynote presentation at the opening plenary session (27 May 2004) to The International Citizens Inquiry Into 9/11, Toronto, 25-30 May 2004.
www.globalresearch.ca 27 May 2004
This is an abridged email version, which includes the first part of a lengthy review article. To read the complete text go to:
The Bush administration had numerous intelligence warnings. “Revealing the lies” of Bush officials regarding these “intelligence warnings” has served to uphold Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an “outside enemy”, which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus.
America's leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to “safeguarding democratic values”.
9/11 is the justification.
According to Homeland Security “the near-term attacks will either rival or exceed the 9/11 attacks”.
An actual “terrorist attack” on American soil would lead to the suspension of civilian government and the establishment of martial law. In the words of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge: “If we go to Red [code alert]… it basically shuts down the country,”
“You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that unless it's a serious situation.” (Donald Rumsfeld)
The “Criminalization of the State”, is when war criminals legitimately
occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide “who are the criminals”, when in fact they are the criminals.
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of War and Globalization, The Truth behind September 11 at
* * *
Revealing a lie does not necessarily lead to establishing the truth.
In fact the experience of the 9/11 Commission which has a mandate to investigate the September 11 attacks has proved exactly the opposite.
We know that the Bush administration had numerous “intelligence warnings”. We know they had “intelligence” which confirmed that terrorists had the capacity of hijacking aircrafts and using them to target buildings.
Attorney General John Ashcroft had apparently been warned in August 2001 by the FBI to avoid commercial airlines, but this information was not made public. (See Eric Smith at www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html)
The Pentagon had conducted a full fledged exercise on an airplane crashing into the Pentagon. (See globalresearch.ca/articles/RYA404A.html)
We also know that senior Bush officials including Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice lied under oath to the 9/11 commission, when they stated that they had no information or forewarning of impending terrorist attacks.
But we also know, from carefully documented research that:
There was a cover-up of the WTC and Pentagon investigation. The WTC rubble was confiscated. (See Bill Manning at www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html
The plane debris at the Pentagon disappeared. (See Thierry Meyssan,
Massive financial gains were made as a result of 9/11, from insider trading leading up to 9/11 (See Michael Ruppert, www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html.)
There is an ongoing financial scam underlying the 7.1 billion dollar insurance claim by the WTC leaseholder, following the collapse of the twin towers (See Michel Chossudovsky, www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO403B.html).
Mystery surrounds WTC building 7, which collapsed (or was “pulled” down in the afternoon of 9/11 mysteriously (For details see WTC-7: (Scott Loughrey at www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html).
The White House is being accused by the critics of “criminal negligence”, for having casually disregarded the intelligence presented to president Bush and his national security team, and for not having acted to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attack.
The unfolding consensus is: “They knew but failed to act”.
This line of reasoning is appealing to many 9/11 critics and
“Bush bashers” because it clearly places the blame on the Bush administration.
Yet in a bitter irony, the very process of revealing these lies and expressing public outrage has contributed to reinforcing the 9/11 cover-up.
“Revealing the lies” serves to present Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an “outside enemy”, which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus.
The presumption is that these forewarnings and intelligence briefs
emanating from the intelligence establishment constitute a true and unbiased representation of the terrorist threat.
Meanwhile, the history of Al Qaeda and the CIA has been shoved to the background. The fact that successive US governments since the Soviet-Afghan war have supported and abetted the Islamic terror network is no longer mentioned, for obvious reasons. It would break the consensus regarding Al Qaeda as the outside enemy of America, which is a crucial building block of the entire National Security doctrine.
This central proposition that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11 serves to justify everything else including the Patriot Act, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, the spiraling defense and homeland security budgets, the detention of thousands of people of Muslim faith on trumped up charges, the arrest and deportation to Guantanamo of alleged “enemy combatants”, etc.
The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine
Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive
“defensive war” doctrine and the “war on terrorism” against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign.
No Al Qaeda,
No war on terrorism
No rogue States which sponsor Al Qaeda
No pretext for waging war.
No justification for invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq
No justification for sending in US special forces into numerous countries around the World.
No justification for developing tactical nuclear weapons to be used in conventional war theaters against Islamic terrorists, who according to official statements constitute a nuclear threat.
The Administration's post 9/11 nuclear doctrine, points to Al Qaeda as some kind of nuclear power.
“The Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon development programs.” (quoted in William Arkin, Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable, Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002)
Central Role of al Qaeda in US Military Doctrine
The very existence of Al Qaeda constitutes the justification for a pre-emptive war against rogue states and terrorist organizations. It is part of the indoctrination of US troops fighting in the Middle East. It is also being used to justify the so-called “abuse” of POWs.
The objective is to present “preemptive military action” —meaning war as an act of “self-defense” against two categories of enemies, “rogue States” and “Islamic terrorists”:
“The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. ∑America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.
∑Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction (∑)
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (∑). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.” (National Security Strategy, White House,
To justify pre-emptive military actions, including the use of nuclear weapons in conventional war theaters (approved by the Senate in late 2003), the National Security Doctrine requires the “fabrication” of a terrorist threat, —ie. “an outside enemy.” It also needs to link these terrorist threats to “State sponsorship” by the so-called “rogue states.”
But it also means that the various “massive casualty-producing events” allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are also part of the propaganda ploy which consists in upholding the Legend of an outside enemy.
9/11 and War Propaganda
In other words, the forewarnings sustain the Al Qaeda legend, which constitutes the cornerstone of the “war on terrorism”. And the latter serves as a justification for America's “pre-emptive wars” with a view to “protecting the homeland”.
One year before 9/11, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) called for “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor,” which would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda. (See www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html)
The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the use of the September 11 attacks as “a war pretext incident.”
The PNAC's declared objective is “Defend the Homeland'' and “Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars”, perform global constabulary funcitons including punitive military actions around the World, and the so-called “revolution in military affairs”, essentially meaning the development of a new range of sophisticated weaponry including the militarisation of outer space,the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, etc. (on nuclear weapons see globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html, on the PNAC, www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html)
The PNAC's reference to a “catastrophic and catalyzing event” echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:
“We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.
“∑it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter was one of the key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989). (See Brzezinski at www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.print.html)
The “catastrophic and catalyzing event” as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a “massive casualty-producing event” to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html).
Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:
“a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.” (Ibid)
This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the “militarisation of our country” is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader “Washington consensus”. It identifies the Bush administration's “roadmap” of war and “Homeland Defense.” Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.
The “terrorist massive casualty-producing event” is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.
General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as to how events ought to unfold. The “war on terrorism” is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to “preserving civil liberties.”
Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a “trigger mechanism” for a military coup d'état in America. The PNAC's “Pearl Harbor type event” would be used as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military government.
In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.
Actual Terrorist Attacks
To be “effective” the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated “warnings” of future attacks, it also requires “real” terrorist occurrences or “incidents”, which provide credibility to the Washington's war plans. These terrorist events are used to justify the implementation of “emergency measures” as well as “retaliatory military actions”. They are required, in the present context, to create the illusion of “an outside enemy” that is threatening the American Homeland.
The triggering of “war pretext incidents” is part of the Pentagon's
assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US military history.(See
Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).
In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled “Operation Northwoods”, to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:
“We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” “We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington” “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.” (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”16 (See Operation Northwoods at www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html).
There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in recent terrorist attacks, including those in Indonesia (2002), India (2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).
According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations (or cells of these organizations), which operate quite independently, with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the very nature of a covert intelligence operation. The 'intelligence asset” is not in direct contact with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence sponsors.
The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties?
For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged
terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia's military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA and Australian intelligence.
The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament —which contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war— were allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba (”Army of the Pure”) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (”Army of Mohammed”), both of which according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported by Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations at www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html, Washington 2002).
What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between the ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM), while also collaborating with the CIA. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003, www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html)
A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon “calls for the creation of a so-called 'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group' (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at “stimulating reactions” among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction — that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S. forces.” (William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)
The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA has supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This
“prodding of terrorist cells” under covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and training of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.
In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence
apparatus has been channeled to various Islamic terrorist organizations
through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence proxies. (See below in relation to the Balkans)
Foreknowledge is a Red Herring
Foreknowledge implies and requires the existence of this “outside enemy”, who is attacking America. Amply documented, the Islamic brigades and Al Qaeda including the madrassas and the CIA sponsored training camps in Afghanistan are a creation of the CIA. The Taliban were “graduates” of the madrassas, which formed a Us sponsored government in 1996.
During the Cold War, but also in its aftermath, the CIA using Pakistan's Military Intelligence apparatus as a go-between played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam.
Every single US administration since Jimmy Carter has consistently
supported the so-called “Militant Islamic Base”, including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, as part of their foreign policy agenda.
And in this regard, the Democrats and the Republicans have worked hand in glove. In fact, it is the US military and intelligence establishment which has provided continuity in US foreign policy.
Media Reports on Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)
It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist
occurrences, the terrorist organization is reported (by the media and in official statements) as having “ties to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda”. This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports nor is it considered relevant to an understanding of these terrorist occurrences.
The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless to say, this information is crucial in identifying the sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support these terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to the CIA.
In other words, the focus on foreknowledge has served to usefully distract attention from the US government's longstanding relationship to the terror network since the Soviet-Afghan war, which inevitably raises the broader issue of treason and war crimes.
The foreknowledge issue in a sense erases the historical record because it denies a relationship between Al Qaeda and successive US administrations.
The administration is accused of not acting upon these terrorist warnings.
In the words of Richard Clarke:
“we must try to achieve a level of public discourse on these issues that is simultaneously energetic and mutually respectful… We all want to defeat the jihadists. [this is the consensus] To do that, we need to encourage an active, critical and analytical debate in America about how that will best be done. And if there is another major terrorist attack in this country, we must not panic or stifle debate as we did for too long after 9/11.”(New
York Times, 25 April 2004)
Bush and the White House intelligence team are said to have ignored these warnings. Richard Clarke who was in charge of counter terrorism on the National Security Council until February 2003 has “apologized” to the American people and the families of the victims. Had they acted in a responsible fashion, had they taken the intelligence briefings seriously, 3000 lives would have been saved on September 11, 2001. But bear in mind that Richard Clarke was part of an intelligence team which was at the time providing support to Al Qaeda in the Balkans. (See below)
This new anti-Bush consensus concerning the 9/11 attacks has engulfed part of the 9/11 truth movement. The outright lies in sworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission have been denounced in chorus; the families of the victims have expressed their indignation.
The debate centers on whether the administration is responsible for an “intelligence failure” or whether it was the result of “incompetence.”
In both cases, the al Qaeda legend remains unchallenged. The fact that Al Qaeda hijackers were responsible for 9/11 remains unchallenged.
Source of Terrorist Warnings
Beneath the rhetoric, nobody seems to have questioned the source of these warnings emanating from an intelligence apparatus, which is known to have supported Al Qaeda throughout the entire post cold War era.
In other words, are the terrorist warnings emanating out of the CIA a “true” representation of the terrorist threat or are they part of the process of disinformation which seeks precisely to uphold Al Qaeda as an “Enemy of the Homeland”.
Meanwhile, the issues of “cover-up and complicity” at the highest levels of the Bush administration, which were raised in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks have been shoved out.
The role of Bush officials, their documented links to the terror network, the business ties between the Bushes and bin Laden families, the role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) which supported and abetted Al Qaeda while working hand in glove with their US counterparts (CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency), the fact that several Bush officials were the architects of Al Qaeda during the Reagan administration, as revealed by the Iran Contra investigation. (See Michel Chossudovsky, www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html)
“The Saudis Did It”
All of this, which is carefully documented, is no longer relevant. It is no longer an issue for debate and investigation. What the media, as well as some of the key 9/11 investigators are pushing is that “The Saudis did it”. The outside enemy Al Qaeda is said to be supported by the Saudis.
This line of analysis, which characterizes the 1 trillion dollar law suit by the families of the victims led by Lawyer Ted Motley, is evidently flawed. While it highlights the business ties between the Bushes and the bin Ladens, in does not challenge the legend of the outside enemy.
“The Saudis did it” is also part of the US foreign policy agenda, to be eventually used to discredit the Saudi monarchy and destabilize the Saudi financiers, who oversee 25 percent of the World's oil reserves, ten times those of the US. in fact, this process has already begun with the Saudi privatization program, which seeks to transfer Saudi wealth and assets into foreign (Anglo-American) hands.
The Saudi financiers were never prime movers. They were proxies. They played a subordinate role. They worked closely with US intelligence and their American financial counterparts. They were involved in the laundering of drug money working closely with the CIA. Thew Wahabbi sects from Saudi Arabia were sent to Afghanistan to set up the madrassas. The Saudis channeled covert financing to the various Islamic insurgencies on behalf of the CIA.
In other words, the “Saudis did It” consensus essentially contributes to whitewashing the Bush administration, while also providing pretext to destabilize Saudi Arabia.
“The Bush Lied” Consensus upholds “The Big Lie”
This emerging 9/11 consensus (”Outside enemy”, intelligence failures,
criminal negligence, “the Saudis did it”, etc.) which is making its way into American history books, is “they knew, but failed to act”.
It was incompetence or criminal negligence but it was not treason. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were “just wars”, they were undertaken in accordance with the National Security doctrine, which views Al Qaeda as the outside enemy. It is worth noting that at the outset of the war on Afghanistan, a number of prominent Western intellectuals, trade union and civil society leaders supported the “Just War” concept.
While the Bush administration takes the blame, the “war on terrorism”
and its humanitarian mandate remain functionally intact.
Meanwhile, everybody has their eyes riveted on the fact that Bush officials lied under oath regarding the terrorist warnings.
Yet nobody seems to have begged the key question:
What is the significance of these warnings emanating from the intelligence apparatus, knowing that the CIA is the creator of Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda is an “intelligence asset”.
In other words, the CIA is the sponsor of Al Qaeda and at the same time it controls the warnings on impending terrorist attacks.
In other words, are Bush officials in sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission lying under oath on something which is true, or are they lying on something which is an even bigger lie?
* * *
This is an abridged email version, which includes the first part of a lengthy review article. To read the complete text go to:
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca.
For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed.
© Copyright MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY 2004. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
www.globalresearch.ca Centre for Research on Globalisation Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.
The Scoop website is at www.scoop.co.nz/
This Story is at www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0406/S00173.htm