What a real conspiracy looks like. Real conspiracies
have very few players and even then, they are
usually exposed. Enron, Watergate, Iran/Contra and
the rest have few people involved and someone always
comes out to blow the whistle.
The evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade
Iraq is significant. While there is not one shred
of evidence the government blew up the World Trade
Center, there is evidence that they used the tragedy
to remove Saddam Hussein using poor WMD evidence.
Updated:
One
conspiracy theorist said "What about the Contras?
Aren't they a large organization?" As if ALL the
groups which made up the Contras had to know the
whole plan. That's like including the troops in an
investigation into the manipulation of intelligence
before the war. It makes little sense and only hurts
their argument. Because Iran/Contra was exposed
making the point that large conspiracies are
uncovered. It seems the irony from the truth
movement continues unabated. This conspiracy
investigator can't even investigate a well known
conspiracy which happened decades ago.
This
site has been attacked for not having any info
on the administrations possible crimes, having too
little info (Which I agreed with and corrected) and
now for having any info. It seems one of the
arguments for controlled demolition is that I
created this page for credibility. Let me repeat, if
you think the columns weren't pulled in over time
because I have or don't have a page on Bush's
possible manipulation of intel then you are no
different than a Bush supporter who denies the
evidence below.
Below is a short list of people who blew the whistle
on the misuse of pre-war intelligence and pre-9/11
incompetence.
Thomas Packard, acting FBI director:
Summer before 9/11, Ashcroft told him he didn’t
want to hear anything more about terrorist threats.
Yet,
Pickard testified to the 9/11 commission that
when he tried to brief Ashcroft just a week
later, on July 12, about the terror threat
inside the United States, he got the brush-off.
"Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to
hear about this anymore," Democratic commission
member Richard Ben-Veniste asked on April 13.
"Is that correct?"
"That is correct," Pickard replied.
Testifying under oath the same day, Ashcroft
categorically denied the allegation, saying, "I
did never speak to him saying that I didn't want
to hear about terrorism."
However, another senior FBI official tells NBC
News he vividly recalls Pickard returning from
the meeting that day furious that Ashcroft had
cut short the terrorism briefing. This
official, now retired, has talked to the 9/11
commission.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5271234
Ashcroft's
actions corroborate the FBI version...
"In
addition, FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson
"told us that he almost fell out of his chair"
when Ashcroft outlined his budget priorities in
May 2001, because the list made no mention of
counterterrorism, the commission reported
earlier Tuesday,"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/13/911.commission/
The above has
been used by conspiracy theorists to say "Why else
would Ashcroft not want to to hear about terrorism.
Because he's in on it!" But there is a more logical
reason which there is evidence for. The
administration may not have wanted to spend time or
money on things like terrorism. We know they wanted
to give tax cuts and big money to defense
contractors for Star Wars technology. Remember that?
The major point is that is negligence no matter what
the reason. This is also lying to congress. Someone
lied, be it Ashcroft or the 3 FBI agents. This is
worthy of an investigation.
Larry Johnson, former counter terrorism agent with
the CIA:
Rumsfeld set up a special office to link Iraq and
Al Qaeda cherry picking Intel; evidence is sent
back saying, “That’s garbage, that’s misleading,
that misrepresents,” then they would take the same
brief to the vice president or one even worse.
"LARRY
JOHNSON: They would brief their findings to the
community and the community would come back and
say, wait a second, you don't know what you're
talking about, that's garbage, that's
misleading, that misrepresents."
"ENSOR:
The spies call it cherry picking. Choosing
scraps of intelligence to prove a worst-case
scenario. July 23rd, a senior British
intelligence official briefs Prime Minister Tony
Blair on his recent discussions in Washington.
According to notes of the Downing Street
briefing, the mi6 chief reported that President
Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military
action. The intelligence and facts, he said,
were being fixed around the policy. The White
House declined interview requests for this
report. President Bush addressed the memo at a
news conference with Blair."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/25/cp.01.html
"Pillar's
critique is one of the most severe indictments
of White House actions by a former Bush official
since Richard C. Clarke, a former National
Security Council staff member, went public with
his criticism of the administration's handling
of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its failure
to deal with the terrorist threat beforehand.
It is also the first time that such a senior
intelligence officer has so directly and
publicly condemned the administration's handling
of intelligence.
Pillar, retired after 28 years at the CIA, was
an influential behind-the-scenes player and was
considered the agency's leading counterterrorism
analyst. By the end of his career, he was
responsible for coordinating assessments on Iraq
from all 15 agencies in the intelligence
community. He is now a professor in security
studies at Georgetown University.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html
Rand Baers, National Security Council:
Resigns White House post and works against Bush. He
said Cheney pushed CIA "Cheney said, “Everybody
knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, tell
us what you know, what’s your best stuff?..”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/25/cp.01.html
Downing Street Memo
says Bush wanted to remove Saddam though military
action. “Evidence fixed around the policy”
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
Rice, Rove, Karen Hughes, Cheney have weekly closed
door meetings on how to convince the American
people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Iraq_Group
John McLaughlin, CIA deputy director:
“We did not clear that particular [Niger] speech”…
Tenet’s “slam dunk” does not mean what the media
thinks it means.
Tenet:
'Slam Dunk' Misused
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/25/cp.01.html
George Tenet- At The Center Of The Storm, Former
CIA Director
Michael Scheuer:
Intel did not matter. We were going to war / Tenet
researched 10 years worth of documents and found no
connection to Al Qaeda. Tenet tells Bush /
Administration yet administration continues to
suggest connection.
SCHEUER: Mr. Tenet
to his credit had us go back through CIA files
and we went back for almost ten years, reviewed
nearly 20,000 documents, which came to 65,000
pages or more. It could find no connection in
the terms of a state sponsor relationship with
Iraq.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/25/cp.01.html
Who is ‘Joe T’
and why was he the point man for analyzing nuclear
weapon intel?
Some of the CIA's
briefings on Iraq begin to rely on one analyst,
an engineer with limited nuclear weapons
experience known only as Joe T. He believed he
found the smoking gun. Saddam was buying high
strength aluminum tubes that Joe T. insists are
meant for centrifuges to enrich uranium.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/25/cp.01.html
Gregory Thielmann,
State Dept intelligence:
More and more people said intel on tubes was that
they were no good for a nuclear weapon. Official
leak saying “Mushroom Cloud” misrepresents the
intelligence community disagreement. Administration
continues “No doubt” he has WMD. Tenet defends
erroneous evidence while others in the CIA voice
doubts. State department issues strong and lengthy
dissent. Niger uranium purchase “Highly Dubious.”
"Intelligence agencies, get your talking points”
CIA intel notes critical gaps in the evidence
because of questionable reliability of many sources,
For the first time before a modern war, Bush did not
ask for National Intelligence Estimate. Congress
demands it. N.I.E. said Saddam not a threat.
White House Iraq group gives only evidence which
supports policy while down playing dissent.
Last minute dispute over Niger speech.
Tenet and Powell argue about intel.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/25/cp.01.html
Carl Ford, Asst Sec of State, Intelligence:
“This is all we got? And we’re making these firm
judgments?
Powell not told about Curveball. Curveball was never
debriefed by the CIA.
Curveball
was the designation for a claimed "Iraqi
chemical engineer" who the
United States claimed had served as an
informant. Curveball would be the attributed
source of pivotal information concerning
weapons of mass destruction leading up to
the
2003 Invasion of Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
Col. Laurence Wilkerson:
Evidence brought to the UN “It was anything but an
intelligence document. It was a Chinese menu where
you can pick and choose what you want”
A day before Powell’s UN speech, a CIA skeptic had
warned Curveball is a lair. A superior sends an
E-mail reply saying “This war’s going to happen
regardless, the powers that be probably aren’t
interested whether Curve ball knows what he’s
talking about.”
Powell’s speech riddled with misleading allegations.
Not outright lies but worded in such a way as to
mislead.
The CIA had evidence
that Curveball was a shameless fabricator months
before Secretary of State Colin Powell cited the
Iraqi's reports before the United Nations. But
in the Feb. 4, 2003, e-mail—written a day before
Powell's U.N. appearance—the senior CIA official
sharply rebuked one of those skeptical analysts.
"Keep in mind the fact that this war's going to
happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or
didn't say and that the Powers That Be probably
aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball
knows what he's talking about," the CIA official
wrote.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7369843/site/newsweek/
Scott Ritter, ex UNSCUM weapon inspector: The
evidence for war is not there. He goes on just about
every TV station trying to stop the war.
'No threat'
Mr Ritter accused the US Government of
deliberately setting new standards of
disarmament criteria to maintain UN sanctions
and justify continued bombing raids.
He also said Iraq "did co-operate to a very
significant degree with the UN inspection
process" and blamed the US and the UK for the
breakdown.
Mr Ritter essentially repeated those views
during his trip to Baghdad last year.
He said the US seemed "on the verge of an
historic mistake".
"My government is making a case for war
against Iraq that is built upon fear and
ignorance," he added.
"The truth of the matter is that Iraq today
is not a threat to its neighbours and is not
acting in a manner which threatens anyone
outside of its own borders."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2247600.stm
Richard Clarke:
Bush wanted to connect Iraq and 9/11. Invading Iraq
for 9/11 is like China attacking us and we invade
Mexico.
RICHARD CLARKE:
It would have been irresponsible for the
president not to come in and say, "Dick, I don't
want you to assume it was al-Qaida. I'd like you
to look at every possibility, and I'd like you
to look at every possibility to see if maybe it
was al-Qaida with somebody else," in a very calm
way, with all possibilities open. That's not
what happened.
What happened was
the president, with his finger in my face,
saying, "Iraq, a memo on Iraq and al-Qaida, a
memo on Iraq and the attacks." Very vigorous,
very intimidating, and in a way that left all of
us with the same impression, that he wanted that
answer. Well, we couldn't give him that answer
because it wasn't true.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june04/clarke_03-22.html
General Wesley
Clark:
People in the Pentagon told him Bush was going to
war no matter what.
"As I went back
through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of
the senior military staff officers had time for
a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going
against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This
was being discussed as part of a five-year
campaign plan, he said, and there were a total
of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and
Sudan." Clark adds, "I left the Pentagon that
afternoon deeply concerned."
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0340,schanberg,47436,1.html
New Memo
said Bush was going to war no matter what.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
Those are just
some of the people who have come out saying there
was incompetence before 9/11 and a rush to war
regardless of what the Intel said.
Many republicans
view this evidence (Not all but too many. Liberals
do it too but for other issues) and make
rationalizations. They cherry pick quotes just as
conspiracy theorists do in order to dismiss this
evidence. They will character assassinate the people
on this list one by one like conspiracy theorists
attack the NIST and Popular Mechanics. "The NIST is
paid by the government!" "Popular Mechanics is a
shill rag!" "Clarke was selling a book!" "General
Clark was running for president!" so on... The
evidence is often taken apart and viewed separately.
"No steel building has ever collapsed by fire
before!", not taking into account the airliner
impact or the removed fireproofing. "Clarke was
selling a book!" not taking into account all the
other people in the pentagon, FBI and others who
said the same thing Clarke did. And just as the
conspiracy theorists rely almost exclusively on what
the conspiracy talking points are, the republicans
almost exclusively rely on what the party talking
points are.
I want to make
this clear... I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE if the
administration cherry picked intel to go to war. But
I know for sure it deserves an investigation because
evidence points to them cherry picking intel to rush
to war. I also can conclude from evidence that
Ashcroft lied to congress about his incompetence on
counter terrorism before 9/11. Not having any money
in the budget for it is evidence I can't ignore.
More evidence below...
We know the PNAC wanted to
invade Iraq before 911.
Was 9/11 the perfect excuse?
Some PNAC members
Conspiracy theorists say this is proof that the
administration needed to create a "Pearl Harbor".
But if they did blow up the towers, why would they
go to such great lengths to point to Bin Laden? Why
not fix evidence to point to Saddam? Conspiracy
theorists say they needed terrorism to perpetuate an
endless war. To take away our freedoms to fight this
war. But Bin Laden wasn't the only way to do it.
"They" could have planted evidence suggesting Bin
Laden was working for Saddam. Why not? Remember, if
they are setting up Bin Laden then why not set up
Saddam at the same time? He wasn't "a few Arabs in
the desert." He had an army and millions from oil
profits. Why allow people to say "Saddam wasn't the
one to attack us"? There would have been far fewer
players if they placed a nuclear device in the
towers’ basements and took out lower Manhattan. The
government could have blamed Saddam's fictitious WMD
for the device and Bin Laden for the delivery. We
would have reason to invade Iraq the next day.
Conspiracy theorists would have us believe they
chose a plan which involves thousands over smaller,
more controllable plans.
From a
reader:
WHY would the
government do it? I don’t mean Iraq , oil etc I
mean why would they do it in this way ? just to
help a pal with his insurance?
Why use a plane at all . Why crash your own
airline industry and every other countries {
Swissair etc}, damage your financial markets {
just when you are going to need some war funds}
destroy very very
valuable property, panic the WORLD, kill your
own citizens etc. Could all this not be achieved
by a ‘foiled’ plot. Terrorists were 15 minutes
from the murder of thousands… a president would
certainly come out better
having stopped an attack than permitted one.
Or if you needed a big attack why not just the
anthrax that came after. Everyone panicking over
any white powder. Far far easier to plant
Anthrax or similar in the towers or Disneyland,
have a panic, then capture your suspects who
blow themselves up or whatever you want.
If you were going to do this, would you do it
this way?’ There are cheaper, better, easier and
safer ways to get into a war.. Also why pick
Osama as the fall guy if the target is Hussein.
Why not just pick Saddam and ‘plant’ evidence to
show it was him all along, thereby never needing
to go to Afghanistan at all .After all if you
can plan the attack why not the culprit.. no
need to go scratching for evidence of a link to
Iraq AFTER the attack , set it up before.
Funny how the authorities are both all powerful,
all seeing, all knowing, and completely
incompetent at the same time...
The good old Pearl Harbor theory always struck
me the same way . Why destroy your fleet just as
you are planning war. Discover the jap carriers
500 miles out while on manouevers’ and the
impact on public opinion would be similar to a
attack.
Why sink your whole fleet ? Especially if
you could sink theirs .. take a few years off
the war if they lost 6 carriers day 1 !!
