Trinidad and Tobago News
Online Forums
  Welcome, Guest. Please Login International Forum
Arrogance, or something darker? (Read 29 times)


Posts: 14
Arrogance, or something darker?
Aug 1st, 2003 at 10:18pm
By John David Rose
Carolina Morning News

If you want to know why 9/11 was allowed to happen you may not have to look any further than the Oval Office.

A little more than a month before the attack, in his Aug. 6 daily intelligence briefing, Bush was "told that morning of the al-Qaida terror network's interest in conducting a strike within the U.S., and that it might involve highjacked airplanes," reports the Wall Street Journal (7/24/03.)

Why didn't he order airlines to be alerted, inform the Federal Aviation Administration of the threat, put the military air commands on a high level of readiness and tell the FBI, CIA and INS to be super vigilant?

He brushed the warning aside.

"Nine months before 9/11 the Clinton administration had a bold plan to attack al-Qaida," wrote Time magazine (8/12/02) before it could attack us. Weakened by the impeachment battle, Clinton put the plan on hold as a courtesy to the incoming Bush. In January 2001, the Clinton security team attempted to brief incoming Bush officials of the al-Qaida threat and the plan. Again they were given the brushoff.

"By last summer (of 2001)," Time related, "many of those in the know - the spooks, the buttoned-down bureaucrats, the law enforcement professionals in a dozen countries - were almost frantic with worry that a major attack against American interests was imminent."

Then came that fateful August intelligence briefing noted above, the full report of which was excised from the recently issued Congressional report on the 9/11 tragedy for "national security" reasons.

National security my foot. That information was blacked out to protect the arrogant bunch in the White House that ignored warnings that might have prevented the attacks.

But perhaps the Bushies had a reason for ignoring the warnings. Something brushed over in the Congressional 9/11 report suggests the possibility of one of the worst conspiracies of American history.

PNAC, Project for the New American Century, was organized in 1997 by Zionist neo-cons Robert Kagen and William Kristol. It is funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and the weapons and defense industries.

Members of PNAC included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and Paul Wolfowitz, a director of the organization.

All signed a statement of principles, one of which was to promote "American global leadership" with special emphasis on Arab countries. Another was to "transform" the U.S. military with huge increases in defense spending.

Here's the chilling kicker: To convince the American people to spend extra billions for defense instead of on Social Security, Medicare, etc., PNAC suggested it would take a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC's exact words.)

One bit of confirmation: Former Gen. Wesley Clark told Tim Russert (Meet the Press) that "There was a concerted effort to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein. I was on CNN (on 9/11) and got a call at my home (from people around the White House) saying 'you got to say this is connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

Perhaps it wasn't arrogance that made the PNAC-influenced administration dismiss multiple warnings of a terrorist attack using highjacked airliners. The truth may be far darker.

John David Rose is a long-time Hilton Head Islander and political observer.
Back to top
IP Logged