|
WAS SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, ANOTHER PEARL HARBOR? IN WHAT SENSE?
We all know the first "official" story about the events of September 11, 2001. We were told that it was a sneak attack almost exactly like the one on Pearl Harbor more than sixty years ago. We were also told that despite the fact that U. S. intelligence had collected thousands, perhaps millions, of different bits and pieces of information, they had simply failed to put it all together in one coherent package. All of the terrible scenes of the destruction of the World Trade Center and people fleeing across Manhattan's bridges were brought to us in an unparalleled mainstream media event of round-the-clock reporting. I know that I personally will never forget that morning, nor the many weeks and months that followed.
Even before the first tower of the World Trade Center had fallen, the mainstream media began to openly speculate on who or what had done this to America. The names immediately pushed to the top of the list were Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, names with which most Americans had already become very familiar. We knew from what we had been told that they had the means, the motive, and the willingness to do this terrible act, and had actually planned and executed other terrorist attacks against Americans and American assets. All across the U. S., grief and shock turned to anger...and a very strong national desire to strike back at those that had done this awful thing.
Flash forward to the first couple of weeks of May 2002, and we’re starting to see a very different picture. We now know that Bush and his supporters knew that the terrorist attack was coming, and we’re learning more every day about just how much they really knew. Bush’s people are now spending quite a bit of time trying to blame the FBI, CIA, and others for either massive intelligence failures, or a failure to more fully inform Bush, or both. Additionally, Cheney is not only advising Bush not to hand over any of the intelligence briefings prior to September 11, 2001, he is also refusing to cooperate with the idea of convening an independent commission to investigate those terrible events.
Why? What are they hiding? What is it they don’t want us, the American people, to know?
Now, having said all of the above, consider for a moment the idea that the events of September 11, 2001, were ALLOWED to happen. Think about that concept for a moment.
One of the easiest ways to accomplish an objective is to allow some other event to happen that will set certain events into motion, or to have key security/military units stand down at a critical point in time, or both. Sometimes an objective can be accomplished by leaving a known spy in place and feeding that individual real data to find out where it goes, or false data to see if the opponent changes an operation that will allow you better access to data that you want. The variations are endless.
Think about the billions upon billions of dollars spent every year by U. S. civilian and military intelligence agencies gathering data in this country and overseas. Is it really believable that no one at the top of U. S. intelligence understood the true implications of the data that was being collected in advance of September 11, 2001? If your answer is “No”, then is it really believable that those same intelligence organizations would have failed to brief those in political control?
Once we are willing to at least consider the concept that September 11, 2001 was allowed to happen, then we have to ask why would it be allowed to happen? I think we know that the motive involved the further enrichment of the oil, energy, and defense industries. Major corporations like Enron, Unocal, and the Carlyle Group stood to gain enormous profits over the next fifty years if they could devise the means to gain control of the vast oil reserves of the Caspian Sea area.
But how would such a plan be enacted? Here is a possible seven-step process:
FIRST: Remove really smart and aggressive senior people from positions that may allow them to discover the plan, or failing that, bring them into the plan if no other option exists.
SECOND: Create bureaucratic roadblocks in the path of others that pass important information up the chain.
THIRD: Create cover stories gaining plausible deniability for key figures in the plan.
FOURTH: As the events unfold, orders customarily given under certain circumstances are not issued. Still other orders are given that send units in directions that are planned to be unfruitful. On September 11, 2001, jet interceptors failed to leave the ground for at least 26 minutes...long enough for at least two of the first three airliners to have hit their intended targets.
FIFTH: Have plans in place to create heroes of the victims, and to build public opinion in support of the goals of the plan.
SIXTH: Quickly push legislation through Congress that will protect the gains of the plan, and further the interests of the planners.
SEVENTH: Create an atmosphere of fear among the general populace and offer solutions to protect them at the same time.
Having read the seven points noted above, is the concept of allowing such a terrible event to take place really that far-fetched? Consider the following historical items of interest about which the history books don't bother to tell you very much:
1. The Mexican War, 1846-1848 was in my opinion the culmination of the unofficial policy of "Manifest Destiny", and the official 1822 Monroe Doctrine that loudly proclaimed that European interference in the Western Hemisphere would not be tolerated. Major business interests in the U. S. wanted control of all of the land from "sea to shining sea" to include all of the natural resources, and were willing to do whatever was necessary to get it. The Texas War for Independence from Mexico, 1835-1836, along with the annexation of Texas in March of 1845, was one of the two major provocations leading to the Mexican War because we knew that Mexico would never recognize the independence of Texas nor its annexation. The second major provocation took place in January of 1846 when Polk sent Gen. Zachery Taylor's newly raised military force at Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande. In April of 1846, Mexican cavalry crossed the Rio Grande and killed some members of an American scouting expedition, and the U. S. had the major event necessary to create the rationale for going to war with Mexico. With the signing of the July 1848 peace treaty with Mexico, the U. S. had acquired huge tracts of land north of the current border with Mexico. In 1853, the Gadsden Purchase acquired some additional territory that is now in Arizona.
2. The Spanish-American War of 1898 took place as a direct result of the sinking of the USS Maine in Cuba's Havana Harbor, and the efforts by the so-called "yellow press" of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer to whip up anti-Spanish sentiment. As originally written by the Hearst and Pulitzer newspapers, a mine attached to the hull by Spanish and/or Cuban saboteurs had sunk the USS Maine. Again, U. S. business interests achieved their desired results with the elimination of all Spanish military interests in the Western Hemisphere to include the Philippines. It was only much later that it became known that the hull-plates of the Maine had been blown outward, not inward as would have been expected from the explosive blast of an externally-placed mine. What caused the explosion on the Maine? Or rather, what caused the TWO explosions that were described in detail by the ship's captain in his log? We are now expected to believe the last "official" theory that coal dust in one of the ship's coal bins exploded, causing the Maine to sink.
3. U. S. military involvement in World War I lasted from 1916 to 1918, and was a direct result of the anti-German feeling that grew out of the sinking of the RMS Lusitania in 1915 off the southern coast of Ireland with the loss of 124 American lives. The fact that the Lusitania was sunk by a German U-boat is incontestable...however, there has been considerable controversy surrounding whether or not the Germans were tipped-off to the route of the Lusitania, and why the captain chose to sail in waters that he supposedly had been warned to avoid. Was it a British conspiracy to get the Americans into the war, or was it a joint U. S.-British conspiracy that got the U. S. into the war to achieve certain U. S. business objectives?
4. Much has been written about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the event that galvanized the previously isolationist American public to enter World War II. WWII Pacific Theater veteran Robert B. Stinnett has recently written "Day of Deceit", published by Touchstone Books, 2000, in which he details from previously unreleased military and government documents that we had broken the Japanese codes in early 1940. FDR had tried desperately to get the U. S. into the war in Europe without success...the American people were once again taking an isolationist view, and nothing short of a major event would cause them to consider fighting in another World War. FDR used an eight-point plan developed by Lt. Cdr. Arthur McCollum to provoke the Japanese into attacking our assets in the Pacific, assets that were moved into place from 1940 to just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Using the information supplied from the broken codes, FDR was able to anticipate the Japanese moves in the Pacific, and was fully aware of the plans to attack the U. S. fleet at Pearl Harbor. This fleet had originally been based on the U. S. West Coast and was moved to Pearl Harbor over the objections of Admiral Richardson, the commander of that fleet. Because Japan was allied with Germany and Italy, any attack by Japan on U. S. assets in the Pacific would warrant a declaration of war against Japan, one that would also involve us in the war in Europe, which had been FDR's primary objective all along. It was also well-known among the leaders of major U. S. business interests that getting into another war would be good for those U. S. business interests, during and after the completion of the war...FDR knew that he could count on their support. The Bush, Walker, and Harriman families were among those that profited, along with Ford, General Motors, and IBM to name but a very few major U. S. corporations that did quite well financially.
5. The Korean War, 1950-1953 was fought primarily to stem the flow of Communism in the Far East, at least that's what we've been told. It was really all about protecting U. S. business interests in the Far East, and creating a permanent base in South Korea that would require constant funding.
6. The events surrounding the creation of what we know to be modern-day Cuba are still shrouded in partial secrecy. From Fidel Castro's seizure of power in 1959, with CIA assistance, until 1963, we have seen the Bay of Pigs fiasco (April 1961), the attempt to activate Operation Northwoods (March 1962), the Cuban Missile Crises (October 1962), and the JFK Assassination (November 1963). What, besides Cuba itself, was the common thread in all of these events? The common thread was the attempt by U. S. business, intelligence, military and criminal interests to regain what they had lost when Castro's men took control of the government of Cuba.
6.A. The Bay of Pigs was meant to be the spark that would cause the anti-Castro Cubans to revolt. Like L. Fletcher Prouty, I find it very interesting that two of the transport ships associated with this operation were named the "Barbara J." and the "Houston" after they were acquired by L. Fletcher Prouty (then military liaison in the Pentagon to the CIA) from the Navy and repainted. Another interesting fact about the Bay of Pigs is that it was code-named "Operation Zapata"...which just happens to be the name of George H. W. Bush's first company...the Zapata Offshore Oil Drilling Company. Is it possible that that George Bush I played some part in the Bay of Pigs operation, or could all of this be chalked up to a mere coincidence?
6.B. I also find it interesting that among the contemporaries of George H. W. Bush during the boom of the Cuban Task Force based in Miami, Florida, were Vice President Richard Nixon, CIA agents E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis (Fiorini), and Bernard Barker, and CIA contract agent George DeMohrenschildt. Richard Nixon was intimately involved in the planning of the covert and overt operations against Cuba, as he was with all active and planned intelligence operations at that time. Hunt was known in Miami as “The Bagman” because he controlled large sums of money used to pay for some of the Miami-based anti-Castro Cuban operations, Sturgis is believed to have assisted Castro’s forces during Castro’s rise to power, and Barker was involved in the Bay of Pigs Operation. Hunt, Sturgis and Barker became famous, or infamous, for their work as White House Plumbers during the Watergate Scandal. DeMohrenschildt is an interesting historical figure that I will discuss a greater length below.
6.C. Operation Northwoods was a plan drafted by the JCS and forwarded for approval to McNamara...a plan that called for the U. S. military to carry out domestic acts of terrorism against U. S. cities to build public opinion for an invasion of Cuba. Does this plan sound similar to anything that has happened recently?
6.D. The Cuban Missile Crisis during the month of October 1962 was an attempt by U. S. hardliners to up the ante, so to speak...to enable the U. S. military to have the excuse necessary to attack the old Soviet Union and to re-take Cuba.
6.E. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was the last attempt to create the "war fever" necessary to support a war against the Soviet Union. As soon as the last gunshot echo died in Dealey Plaza, the media was inundated with information about Lee Harvey Oswald. What better person to blame for the killing of JFK than a "deserter" who had lived in the Soviet Union and had been documented handing out leaflets in New Orleans supportive of Fidel Castro? But how does that square with the fact that while in the Marines he was a radar operator involved with tracking U-2 flights in and out of the Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan? And how exactly did Oswald end up with a 201 personnel file in CIA records? It's interesting to me that the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) documented the fact that George DeMohrenschildt, a Russian who, oil geologist, and the man who had befriended Oswald and Marina in Fort Worth, Texas, had the name of George H. W. Bush listed in his address book. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that he was a contract agent for the CIA. It's also interesting that the HSCA makes note of the fact that "George Bush of the CIA" was briefed by an FBI man in Houston following the JFK assassination. And finally, why did Nixon say to the CIA that they didn't want the subject of the "Bay of Pigs" brought up? Why did he say, in recently revealed audiotapes, that the Warren Commission was the "biggest hoax"? Why was he in Dallas prior to November 22, 1963, and only flew out of Dallas 30 minutes before the assassination took place...and then later denied three different times that he had even been there?
7. The Tonkin Gulf Incident in August 1964 off the coast of Vietnam was used as an excuse by LBJ to escalate the war in Vietnam, a war that was to drag on for ten long years from 1963 to 1973. JFK had signed NSAM (National Security Action Memorandum) 263 on October 11, 1963 that called for the beginning of the removal of U. S. troops from Vietnam. Less than a month and a half later, JFK was lying dead in a Dallas hospital. On November 26, 1964, four days after the death of JFK, President Johnson signed NSAM 273 calling for the renewed support of South Vietnam and doing whatever it took to help the South Vietnamese. But, the American public had to be convinced that fighting in Vietnam was "justified", and the Tonkin Gulf Incident supplied that motive. What exactly was the Tonkin Gulf Incident? The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on August 2, 1964 -- and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later. Rather than being on a routine patrol August 2, the U.S. destroyer USS Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers -- in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force. On the night of August 4, 1964, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had taken place earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf -- a report cited by LBJ as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam. Prior to the U.S. air strikes, top officials in Washington had reason to doubt that any August 4 attack by North Vietnam had occurred. Cables from the U.S. task force commander in the Tonkin Gulf, Captain John J. Herrick, referred to "freak weather effects", "almost total darkness", and an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing ship's own propeller beat." One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who gained fame later as a POW and then Ross Perot's vice presidential candidate. "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event," recalled Stockdale a few years ago, "and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets -- there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power." In 1965, Lyndon Johnson commented: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there." But Johnson's deceitful speech of August 4, 1964, won accolades from editorial writers. The president, proclaimed the New York Times, "went to the American people last night with the somber facts." The Los Angeles Times urged Americans to "face the fact that the Communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities."
8. The 1991 Desert Storm Campaign raises a number of issues, primarily what were the events leading up to the War with Iraq, and what role did the U. S. play in creating the conditions that allowed the war to take place? Did a U. S. Ambassador tell an Iraqi senior functionary that the U. S. would do nothing if Iraq invaded Kuwait? Was the young woman who tearfully testified to a Congressional Committee that Iraqi soldiers had taken Kuwaiti babies off respirators in a Kuwaiti hospital really the daughter of a senior Kuwaiti ambassador and not a nurse as she had claimed, and that she had lied about those events to Congress? The answer to both of those questions is "Yes", and they were used to bolster the case for war against Iraq following their invasion of Kuwait. Iraq was the only country at that time militarily capable of hindering the continued acquisition of Middle Eastern oil, and our country's business interests required that Iraq be dealt with in a way that would convince other countries around the world via the American mainstream media that the U. S. was the only Superpower in the world.
It is all too clear that the U. S. has used fabricated means in the past to achieve political, economic and military objectives. It is also becoming very clear that Bush and his supporters launched the "war against terror" by seizing on the overwhelming national sense of fear and hate toward an enemy the average American knew very little about.
Was September 11, 2001, another Pearl Harbor that was allowed to happen? You be the judge.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
