Welcome Guest!
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
 Jan 03, 2002 20:27 PST 
- The Inside Source for News

Joyce Lynn, Editor

Issue #5
December, 2001

A newsletter about the truth-telling power of dreams—how dreams can
report the news, help readers make informed choices, and bring healing
and peace.


While writing the feature article for the POLITICAL DIARY Issue #4, PIPE
DREAMS: How Oil Fuels the Bush Administration War on Terrorism, I dreamt
a clue for this issue. The dream: the letters “CIA.”

I expected to write a story detailing the role the Central Intelligence
Agency played in Afghanistan since 1979: how this shadow government
operating at the behest of elected presidents implemented U.S.
geo-political interests—training rebels, nurturing Islamic
fundamentalists notably Osama bin Laden, and creating the Taliban to do
the bidding for UNOCAL so the U.S. oil company could build a $2-billion
dollar pipeline through Afghanistan to the huge markets of Asia.

But my research took another direction. I began to investigate the role
of the CIA—U.S. foreign intelligence services—in the events leading to
the September 11 attacks on the United States. To remint the phrase
popular during the Watergate investigation, I wanted to know: What did
the CIA know and when did it know it.

This angle emerged September 24 when I met with Don Paul, a columnist
for the San Francisco Bay View. Sitting at an outdoor table at the Cigar
Store, a café in San Francisco’s North Beach, we wondered why four
planes were hijacked and an hour and twenty minutes passed without the
U.S. military taking any defensive action.

How was it possible, we wondered, that the Bush Administration knew with
such certain swiftness Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks
but refused to release its “evidence.” How did they so quickly seize the
opportunity to wrangle unprecedented war powers from a pliant Congress?
Why were so few executives killed in the World Trade Towers attack? What
about the options purchased on American and United Airlines the week
before the attack, Don asked.

We felt with certainty the Bush war on terrorism was a battle for
Central Asian oil riches. The long list of Bush family and
Administration appointees with ties to the oil and automobile industries
reinforced our suspicions. We knew Bush
wanted to crank up the U.S. military-industrial complex.

I remembered an eerily prophetic comment a participate in an on-line
chat room made during the 2000 election: Within the first six months of
hisAdministration, Bush 2 would precipitate a war just as his father did
in the Gulf.

We decided to investigate. However, I admit I thought it preposterous
the U.S.—the Bush Administration and/or the CIA—had foreknowledge of or
involvement in the events of September 11. I would look into the oil
connections and Bush family and associate financial dealings. I would, I
thought to myself, sidestep the Complicity Connection and let Don
investigate that piece of the pie.

However, after completing POLITICAL DIARY #4, I reread my stored
“September 11” clippings and emails. Several foreign press reports stood

First, in a September 20 article, Yoichi Clark Shimatsu, former general
editor of The Japan Times Weekly and now a journalism professor at the
University of Hong Kong wrote, “Bush’s current State Department
officials were CIA experts who funded and trained bin Laden under the
Reagan-and Bush Administrations.

Second, The (London) Guardian reported that in July, 2001, three former
U.S. State Department officials told a Pakistani representative in
Berlin at a brainstorming session sponsored by the U.N. that the Bush
Administration was formulating military action against Afghanistan if
the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden.

More outrageous, the French newspaper, Le Figaro, in its lead story
October 31, reported that in July bin Laden met with a CIA official in
his hospital room in the American hospital Dubai where he was receiving
treatment for a severe kidney problem.

Prompted by these reports and the CIA dream clue, I had to explore the
complicity angle.

I asked people I met on a cross-country trip. Some had past or present
associations with the government. Some just had ideas.

How is it possible the CIA missed what was going down, I asked a woman
on an Amtrak train enroute to Washington, D.C. in late October. She
happened to work for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Well, we were
just caught unaware,” she maintained.

“Their hands were tied,” a CIA operative in Saudi Arabia in the early
1980s told me over dinner on the return trip.

Their points of view reflected the defensive rationale promulgated in
the U.S. media, which touted the intelligence communities’ “admission”
they were handicapped, surprised, clueless.

Like the mainstream media, Congress also seems content to sidestep the
CIA’s role. In an aborted attempt to investigate, Rep. Nancy Pelosi
(D-Ca) proposed a commission to look at what the federal government knew
about Osama bin Laden’s alleged terrorist network before the September
11 attacks.

Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill) called Pelosi’s amendment to the Intelligence
Appropriations bill, which was defeated on a voice vote on October 5, a
“slap in the face at the intelligence community.”

Thousands of people burned to death or were buried alive in flaming and
crumbling buildings and in hijacked airliners, and it might be
embarrassing to find out why U.S. intelligence agencies, which have a
$30 billion a year budget, failed to detect the unprecedented attack.

Thousands of people died, part of a city lies in ruins, and the U.S.
economy is devastated, and the FBI blames the security lapse on a
shortage of Arab translators.

I continued to ask: What did the CIA know and when did it know it.

I posed the question in late October to a project officer for a European
non-governmental organization. She sat at a table next to me at the
World Wrap at Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C. She relayed the buzz in
the NGO community: The U.S. knew something was going to happen.

I read reports from European media unencumbered by nationalism or
patriotism; I scoured stories by independent, on-line reporters
unencumbered by corporate restrictions or the need to romance Bush
Administration sources.

Some of their conclusions are frightening: those in high echelons of
government were complicit in the events of September 11 and are guilty
of war crimes for which the U.S. is pursuing Osama bin Laden.

However, one of the government’s severest critics believes complicity is
unlikely. “There is less than a one percent chance they knew
specifically about this,” legal activist Daniel Sheehan said when asked
if the Administration were involved in the events of September 11.
Sheehan investigated the Iran-Contra case during the Reagan-Bush

So what is the truth?

The FBI blamed a lack of Arabic translators on its failure to intercept
the terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The POLITICAL DIARY discovered
reading Arabic is not a necessary research tool. However, reading
English—especially English language newspapers—does help in piecing
together who knew what when about September 11.

Using sources who have covered the CIA and Central Asia for years, the
work of other independent reporters who are painstakingly piecing
together events, and its own investigation, the POLITICAL DIARY details
its “evidence” of what the U.S. knew.

Sources used in compiling this report that would make useful internet
bookmarks include: Michael Ruppert’s The Wilderness Publications at
www.copvcia.com; Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University
of Ottawa and the Centre for Research on Globalisation at
globalresearch.ca; The Emperor’s New Clothes at www.tenc.net, The
(London) Guardian, the Times of India, and the BBC. These
investigators and publications offer information and points of view
rarely heard in the U.S. corporate-owned media.

PD’s “THE COMPLICITY CONNECTION: What did the CIA know and when did it
know it?”
should dissuade anyone who thinks Osama bin Laden just appeared on the
CIA’s radar screen in September, 2001. The items demolish the argument,
“Who would have ever thought such a thing could happen. “

The POLITICAL DIARY’s account raises enough serious questions about the
role of the CIA in the events leading up to September 11 to warrant an
independent investigation into what the CIA knew and when it knew it.

May peace erupt in 2002.

Dream On,

Joyce Lynn



What did the CIA know and when did it know it?

What did the CIA know and when did it know it?

Former president George H. W. Bush on December 7 told a ceremony marking
the 60th anniversary of Pearl Harbor: “On September 11, our nation
suffered another surprise attack....”

After six decades, there is evidence the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
was hardly a surprise. Now, three months after September 11, questions
are surfacing whether the terrorists’ attack on the United States was a

“Intelligence officials stunned by al Qaeda’s global grasp,” roared the
headline of a New York Times story carried in the San Francisco
Chronicle October 14. The subhead: “Drastic shift in goals of Islamic
extremists went undetected.”

In another story about the bumbling intelligence agencies, reporter
Michael Isikoff writes in the November 19 issue of his magazine,
“Sources tell Newsweek that in the year prior to September 11, the FBI
allowed some counterintelligence wiretaps of suspected terrorists in the
New York area to lapse. In addition, some tapes of terrorists suspects
were never transcribed for a lack of Arabic translators.”

An examination of events during the past three years shows quite the
opposite of the intelligence communities’ denials. U.S. intelligence
agencies—foreign intelligence under the rubric of the CIA and domestic
surveillance agencies like the FBI, which have a $30 billion annual
budget—knew a staggering amount about “September 11” before it happened.
These events mixed with the official denials raise the question of a
cover-up or complicity in the events now known as
September 11.

(A plethora of theories that someone other than bin Laden was
responsible for the September 11 attacks abound. For example, blame goes
to the Israeli Mossad and a segment of the U.S. Air Force, according to
Gen. Hameed Gul, former ISI head or to the United Arab Emirates and
Saudi Arabia, says journalist Yoichi Clark Shimatsu. Israel has denied
any involvement in the attacks. For the sake
of argument, this article assumes the Bush Administration's position
that the mastermind was Osama bin Laden.)

Three weeks after the attacks, a member of the audience of a forum
broadcast October 1 on MS-NBC challenged the “surprise” attack defense.
“The public does not believe the CIA did not know. We’ve tracked (bin
Laden) for years,” he said. “The American public doesn’t buy it was a
screw-up. We knew.”

Here is some of what “we knew.”

Immediate Official Warnings

In June, the BND, the German intelligence service, warned the CIA and
Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were “planning to hijack
commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of
American and Israeli culture,” according to a story in Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung on September 14 as reported by www.copvcia.com. An
Iranian detained by Hamburg police gave them this information.

Russian President Vladimir Putin in August ordered his intelligence
service to warn the U.S. government “in the strongest possible terms” of
imminent attacks on airports and government buildings. Putin made his
comments in an interview on MS-NBC on September 15.

(The Jerusalem Post on September 18 and the Los Angeles Times on
September 20 carried accounts originally reported in the September 17
Sunday (London) Telegraph that in August, Mossad, the Israeli
intelligence service, warned the CIA and FBI that “large-scale terrorist
attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland are
imminent.” The CIA, FBI, and Mossad have denied the story.)

Twelve days before the attacks, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned
the U.S. that “something (will) happen.“
In an Associated Press interview published in the Lebanese newspaper
As-Safir December 7, he said he had no idea of the enormity of the
attack or the targets.

In the week before the attacks, India’s intelligence mechanism
intercepted communication from bin Laden referring to the September 11
attack, according to the San Francisco Chronicle which obtained a
confidential law enforcement memo.

In August in Boston, the FBI arrested an Islamic militant who possessed
manuals. A September 13 Reuters news story reported that French
intelligence sources confirmed he was a key member of bin Laden’s

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca), who sits on the Senate Intelligence
Committee,told the San Francisco Chronicle on September 13 that “bin
Laden’s people had made statements (in mid-to-late August) carried in
the Arab press in Great Britain that they were preparing to carry out
unprecedented attacks in the United States.”

Closer to home, in August, the U.S. flight school where one hijacker and
one alleged potential hijacker trained repeatedly warned the FBI of the
exact nature of a terrorist attack. An instructor at a Minnesota flight
school warned the FBI one student might be planning “to use a commercial
plane loaded with fuel as a weapon,” according to a December 22 New York
Times story. This student, Zacaria Moussaoui, is accused of conspiracy
in the hijacking events of September 11.

In addition, the Arizona branch of the school told the FAA earlier this
year that a student who spoke little English was at their school.
Officials say this Saudi student crashed the plane into the Pentagon.

In addition to the warnings from foreign governments, the U.S. State
Department issued a world-wide alert in May: “American citizens may be
the target of a terrorist threat from extreme groups with links to Osama
bin Laden’s al Qaeda organization.”

The bulletin also said, “Such individuals have not distinguished between
official and civilian targets.” The report continued, “As always, we
take this information seriously. U.S. Government facilities worldwide
remain on heightened alert.

A September 7 State Department memorandum updated the warning to include
threats to U.S. military bases in Japan and Korea.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher mentioned the bulletin at a
routine media briefing September 7. Boucher said the State Department
wanted “to ensure that the general American public is aware of this
potential danger to their safety.”

Few media outlets reported the State Department warning. At the time,
the cable stations were using Rep. Gary Condit (D-Ca) as a punching bag.
They were pontificating around the clock whether he should keep his seat
on the House Intelligence Committee since he might be a“security
threat.” The reason: his affair with a missing woman who had worked at
the Justice Department.

On September 10, the night before the attacks, San Francisco
International airport “security” warned Mayor Willie Brown, who was
scheduled to fly from San Francisco to New York the next morning, about
a potential hijacking threat.

More Official Warnings

Three executive and legislative branch-mandated reports issued between
June, 2000 and January, 2001, warned the U.S. faced terrorist threats on
its own soil.

In June, 2000, the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorism in a
44-page report was clear: Terrorists today ‘seek to inflict mass
casualties’ in the United States and overseas. The report warned the
Department of Defense should have detailed plans to respond to a
catastrophic terrorist attack that could kill “tens of thousands” of
people in the U.S.

“...Today’s terrorists seek to inflict mass casualties and they are
attempting to do so both overseas and on American soil. They are less
dependent on state sponsorship and are, instead, forming loose,
transnational affiliations based on religious or ideological affinity
and a common hatred of the U.S.”

Six months later on December 14, the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic
Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass
Destruction chaired by Virginia Gov. James Gilmore issued its
Congressionally-mandated report which came to similar conclusions.

In January, 2001, a third panel chaired by former senators Warren Rudman
and Gary Hart predicted a “catastrophic attack” on the U.S. (The panel
hedged its bets saying an attack was likely within “the next 25 years.”)
The Defense Department commissioned the National Security in the 21st
Century Report. CNNfyi.com reported this story February 1. Interviewed
after September 11, Rudman said his commission predicted almost
precisely the cataclysmic event which occurred.

What the Clinton Administration Knew and Did

More than three years ago, bin Laden ordered his followers to attack
U.S. and British worldwide interests. Attacks on U.S. embassies in
Africa in 1998 and on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 followed.

In the wake military action against Afghanistan, Clinton Administration
officials seeking on and off the record to counter claims they gave bin
Laden a free ride say they were keenly aware of the threat he posed and
attempted to track him down.

In 1998, the CIA secretly sent American officers to northern Afghanistan
to convince Ahmed Shah Massood, then leader of the anti-Taliban forces,
to capture and possibly kill bin Laden.

According to a September 30, 2001, New York Times article based on
interviews with current and former American officials, Clinton
Administration lawyers had determined that the U.S. could “legitimately”
seek to kill bin Laden and his lieutenants despite the presidential ban
on assassinations. They had concluded such efforts were either acts of
war or national self-defense and therefore legitimate under both
American and international law, the story reported. This report
decimates the argument that the CIA’s hands were legally tied in
eliminating bin Laden.

During 1999, the CIA secretly “prepared” dozens of commandos from the
Pakistani intelligence agency to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in
Afghanistan, according to an October 3 Washington Post story. The plan
was abandoned when a military coup ousted then Pakistani Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharif. The new leader, General Pervez Musharraf, refused to carry
out the operation.

In 2000, President Clinton issued an intelligence finding for the
extradition of bin Laden because of his indictment in the 1993 Twin
Towers attack.

What the Clinton Administration Knew

In the mid-1990s, firefighters found a laptop belonging to the
mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing after his apartment
caught fire. The laptop contained plans to hijack a dozen U.S.
airplanes—all on the same day.

Since 1998, federal prosecutors and investigators have known that two
members of Osama bin Laden’s cadre trained in the United States as
airplane pilots. They presented the information in early, 2001 at the
trial of four men accused of the embassy bombings.

Bin Laden could strike ‘at any time’ against symbols of American power,
CIA Director George Tenet told Congress in February, 1999, more than two
years before the attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon.

The same month, Robert Oakley, a former American ambassador in Pakistan
and a former State Department counter terrorism expert, gave what could
be the answer to the “why do they hate us” question that surfaced after
September 11: “In Pakistan,” he said, ‘the principal reasons for bin
Laden’s popular appeal are growing. People feel they have no voice. They
look at a people with great wealth while they live in deep poverty. They
resent the personal corruption of the Saudis’ and the power of the
United States.’”

What (else) the Bush 2 Administration Knew

“The threat from terrorism is real. It is immediate, and it is
evolving,” Tenet said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence February 7. Tenet said terrorists were
seeking out ‘softer’ targets that provide opportunities for mass

Tenet called bin Laden and his “global network of lieutenants and
associates” the “most immediate and serious threat.” He said since 1998,
bin Laden has “declared all U.S. citizens are legitimate targets of

Tenet, who became director in July, 1997, is the first CIA director in
three decades to stay in office after a change of Administrations.

U.S. Contacts with “The Enemy”

The most curious contact is capsulated in this banner headline in the
French newspaper Le Figaro: “Bin Laden meets the CIA in Dubai.” The
kicker headline:
“Gravely ill, enemy number one stayed in an American hospital in the
{United Arab} Emirates at the beginning of the summer.”

In its October 31 editions, Le Figaro reported bin Laden, who suffers
from a severe chronic kidney disorder, stayed at the American hospital
in Dubai from July 4-14. There, he reportedly met with an official of
the CIA. According to the paper, a professional partner of the
hospital’s Administration saw the local CIA representative, who is
well-known in the area, go to bin Laden’s hospital suite.

The CIA representative, who bragged to his friends about visiting bin
Laden, was at CIA headquarters on July 15, the day after bin Laden left
the hospital.

Then this blockbuster: “According to various Arab diplomatic sources and
French intelligence itself, precise information was communicated to the
CIA concerning terrorist attacks aimed at American interests in the
world, including its own territory.”

The story explains, “The contacts between the CIA and bin Laden date
back to 1979, when representing the family firm in Istanbul, he (bin
Laden) began to recruit volunteers from the Arab-Islamic world to the
Afghan resistance against
the Red Army.

“Following their investigations (of the August, 1998 attacks on the U.S.
embassies in Africa), the FBI discovered ‘structures’ that the CIA had
developed with its ‘Islamic friends’ for years. The meeting in Dubai,
therefore, is nothing but the logical follow-up of a ‘certain American

Scoop at www.scoop.co.nz translated the French story using a computer

Another translation of the story used the phrase “financing agreements”
instead of “structures.”

This story would certainly explain the fissures between the CIA and FBI.

Michael Ruppert of www.copvcia.com reports that in stories published on
November 1 in Le Figaro the hospital staff deny reports of a meeting
between the CIA and bin Laden. Also, according to Ruppert, on November
1, the Ananova press agency reported the CIA denied any meeting between
the CIA and bin Laden at any time.

Also in July, according to an investigation conducted by The (London)
Guardian, three U.S. state department officials from the Clinton
Administration “indicated” to former Pakistani foreign minister Niaz
Naik that the Bush Administration was planning to launch military action
against Afghanistan unless the Taliban turned over bin Laden. Pakistan
was to help influence the Taliban. The Pakistan government passed this
information on to the Taliban.

The Guardian’s interpretation in its September 22 story: “The serious
nature of what they (the Taliban) were told raises the possibility that
bin Laden, far from launching the attacks on the World Trade Center in
New York and the Pentagon out of the blue 10 days ago, was launching a
pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as U.S. threats.”

The Guardian says the exchange took place at a UN-convened meeting of
senior American, Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani officials in Berlin.
The purpose of the meeting, the third in a series of brainstorming
sessions, was to find a negotiated solution to the civil war in
Afghanistan, end terrorism and heroin trafficking, and discuss
humanitarian aid.

One of the U.S. officials, Lee Coldren, former head of the State
Department’s Office of Pakistan, Afghan and Bangladesh Affairs,
confirmed a discussion about the “broad outline” of the American
position. He told the Guardian the U.S. officials mentioned the plan “in
passing” based on “hearsay from US officials.” He recalled some
discussion that the US was “so disgusted with the Taliban that
they might be considering some military action.” The two other U.S.
officials denied the conversation.

However, the BBC on September 18 reported the details of what the U.S.
officials told him. Naik told the BBC that the officials said military
action against Afghanistan would start by the middle of October. They
said unless bin Laden were turned over soon the U.S. would take military
action to kill or capture bin Laden and the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar.
He said the overall objective would be to topple the Taliban and install
a moderate transitional government. He was
told the U.S. would launch its attacks from bases in Tajikistan, that
Uzbekistan would participate, and 17,000 Russian troops were on

Naik said it was unlikely the U.S. government would drop its plan even
if the Taliban surrendered bin Laden immediately.

Strange Goings-On

In May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave $43 million to the
Taliban because under its regime poppy-growing was drastically reduced.
Despite its human rights abuses, the “gift,” in addition to other aid,
made the U.S. the “main sponsor of the Taliban” at the time, according
to a column by Robert Scheer in the Los Angeles Times May 22.

Last summer, then Pakistani ISI Chief General Mahmound Ahmad through an
aide wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, according to a Times of India
report. The FBI named Atta, who died in one of the hijacked planes, as
the ringleader of the September 11 attacks.

On September 4, General Ahmad, the ISI chief, arrived in Washington for
meetings with high level State Department officials and presumably with
his CIA counterparts, reports Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for
Research on Globalisation.

Five days later, Ahmad Shah Masood, leader of the Northern Alliance, was
attacked. He died September 13. The Northern Alliance blamed the
Pakistani ISI.

On October 7, Pakistan’s government dismissed Ahmad after the Indian
government informed the U.S. about the wire transfer, and the U.S.
requested his removal, according to the Times of India.

It appears either Ahmad was acting as a rogue state of one or the
Pakistani intelligence service was involved in the September 11 attacks.

Key members of the U.S. State Department’s Asia team made both
clandestine and public trips to Pakistan and India last summer. These
officials, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, were
CIA operatives in the Reagan and Bush Administrations. CIA Director
George Tenet visited Pakistan and met with Pakistani president General
Pervez Musharraf.

In addition, in September, three members of the Senate Intelligence
Subcommittee also visited Pakistan with an entourage of espionage

“It is a mystery how bin Laden could have planned the U.S. attacks
without the knowledge of the U.S. since the entire State Department team
for South Asia visited or were stationed in the capitals of Pakistan and
India during the past summer,” maintains Yoichi Clark Shimatsu, former
general editor of The Japan Times Weekly and now a journalism professor
at the University of Hong Kong in a September 20 article.

Airline Stock Trading

Unusual trading in put options on American and United Airlines occurred
in the week before September 11. According to investigator Michael
Ruppert, the CIA and other intelligence services monitor trading in real
time using Promis software to “detect potential warnings of terrorist
attacks and other economic moves contrary to U.S. interests.”

Ruppert’s website, www.copvcia, reports on the effects of illegal covert
operations on society. The following is excerpted from his report.
Ruppert relied on the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute
for Counterterrorism’s September 21 article, “Black Tuesday: The World’s
Largest Insider Trading Scam,” as well as business stories in The New
York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and San Francisco Chronicle for his
information and data.

September 6-7, 2001 - 744 put options (offers stock will decline in
value) are purchased on United Air Lines. Only 396 call options (offers
stock will increase in value) are purchased. This is an unusual increase
in put options.

A large number of the UAL put options are purchased through Deutsche
Bank/AB Brown.

September 10, 2001 - 4,516 put options are purchased on American
Airlines compared to 748 call options.

The put options on United and America airlines were 600% above normal.
They were the only airlines with such trading patterns the week of
September 6-11.

On September 29, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that investors
left more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the
stock of United Airlines before the September 11 terrorist attacks
uncollected. “The uncollected money raises suspicions that the
investors-whose identities and nationalities have not been made
public-had advance knowledge of the strikes...

“....The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank
Alex Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche
Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these
options . . .”

The current CIA Executive Director is A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard. He became
CEO of A. B. Brown Inc. in 1991 and Chairman in 1994. When A.B. Brown
merged with Bankers Trust Corp. in September, 1997, Krongard became Vice
Chairman of Bankers Trust until he became Counselor to the CIA Director
in March 1998. Deutsche Bank acquired Bankers Trust in 1999, making it
the largest bank in Europe.

David Doherty, Vice President for Enforcement of the New York Stock, was
formerly General Counsel of the CIA.

War Games

The United States and an unusual number of countries in Europe and
Central Asia were preparing for war with the magic commence date of or
around October 7, the date the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan.

A June 26 story on www.indiareacts.com reported that U.S. and Russia
were planning “limited military action” against the Taliban if economic
sanctions failed. According to the article, the Taliban was advancing
near the Tajik-Afghan border to attack the Northern Alliance and take
the 10 percent of the country outside the Taliban’s control.

By July, according to a PD source, a U.S. plan was in place for war in
Afghanistan; the former Russian state of Georgia gave the U.S. the OK to
use its state.

Military war games—all planned before September 11—brought more than
60,000 U.S., British, and NATO troops to the Middle East. Most were in
place by September 10, the rest by October 7.

Operation Bright Star, a joint training exercise in Egypt between the
Egyptian military and the U.S. Army. Military forces from France,
Germany, Greece, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Spain, and the United Kingdom
also participated. The 11th in a series, Operation Bright Star was
scheduled to take place October 8 through November 1.

Operation Swift Sword, six-week exercises involving the armed forces of
Oman and 25,000 British Army, Navy and Air Force personnel. The
operation was intended to demonstrate the British forces’ ability to
deploy over long distances. One press release called Swift Sword 2 war
games the “biggest deployment of British troops since the Falklands war
in the South Atlantic 20 years ago.” Oman in the Gulf of Arabia is close
to Pakistan. Swift Sword was scheduled for September 15 to
October 2001.

U.S. Evidence

The week of September 4, bin Laden indicated he was “about to launch a
major attack on America. Associates of bin Laden named the action date
‘on or around 11 September.’ Others were warned to return to Afghanistan
before their plot unfolded,” according to an October 7 New York Times
story. The Times based its account on a document the British government
released and posted on its website, www.fco.gov.uk.

This 18-page document apparently is the “evidence” of bin Laden’s guilt
that Bush said was too sensitive to release to the American people.
According to the story, some of the statements came from intercepted
telephone conversations and others from interrogation sessions in Europe
since September 11. Therefore, it is difficult to know which accusations
were known when.

The Line-up at the State Department

Colin Powell may be Secretary of State, but at least a half dozen top
CIA operatives from the Reagan-Bush and Bush 1 Administrations hold key
State Department posts for Central Asia in the current Bush

Bush’s team in the State Department are “the very same individuals who
indoctrinated Osama bin Laden under the Administration of his father,”
according to journalist Yoichi Clark Shimatsu.

The line-up:

* Richard Armitage: Deputy Secretary of State and point man on South

Armitage has a long CIA career: He had four tours of duty in covert
operations in Vietnam. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security in the Reagan-Bush Administration. As an advisor
on the Afghan war, he organized the covert flow of weapons to the Afghan
guerrillas—the Mujaheddin—and the militant Islamic base during the

Then, with Oliver North, he was involved in Iran-Contra arms smuggling.
His nomination for a position in the Bush 1 Administration was withdrawn
before the hearings because of his role in Iran-Contra.

Shimatsu calls bin Laden “an Armitage protégé.”

* Christina Rocco, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia. As such,
she handles U.S. foreign policy with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan,
India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

A CIA career officer since 1982, Rocco is a former CIA Directorate of
Operations official. The Directorate deals with clandestine operations
including assassinations. After the Afghan-Soviet war, Rocco was
responsible for buying back U.S. supplied anti-aircraft Stinger missiles
that were given to the Afghan Mujaheddin through the Pakistani ISI.

* Wendy Chamberlain, Ambassador to Pakistan. A former CIA operative,
Chamberlain was Ambassador to Laos. Critics have condemned her human
rights record there.

* Robert D. Blackwell, ambassador to New Delhi, India. An intelligence
veteran, he was an assistant in the National Security Agency from
1989-90 in the Bush 1 Administration.

In a September 20 article, Shimatsu, wrote, “Bush’s current State
Department officials were CIA experts who funded and trained bin Laden
under the Reagan-and Bush Administrations.”

The CIA has determined the power structure in Afghanistan since 1979 by
funding and supporting the chosen regime via the ISI. Saudi Arabia has
been the U.S. companion in this operation. As reported in PD #4, the
Reagan and Bush Administrations funneled more than $3 billion to the
Mujaheddin to fight the Soviets. Bin Laden emerged from these factions
along the mountainous camps in Afghanistan. In 1994, Pakistan and Saudi
Arabia buoyed by the U.S. supported the Taliban because they would
protect the U.S.-led pipeline slated to go through
Afghanistan to Pakistan.

The Events of September 11, 2001

(All times are EDT; departure times vary depending on the media source;
all sources are consistent on the crash times)

American Airlines flight #11 leaves Boston for Los Angeles at 7:45 a.m.

United Airlines flight #175 leaves Boston for Los Angeles at 7:58 a.m.

United Airlines flight #93 leaves Newark, N.J. for San Francisco at 8:01

American Airlines flight #77 departs Washington, D.C.’s Dulles
International Airport in suburban Maryland for Los Angeles at 8:10 a.m.

Around 8:30 a.m., a flight attendant onboard flight #11 calls the
reservations desk at Boston’s Logan International airport and reports a
hijacking is in process. The pilot turns on the microphone so ground
controllers can hear the cabin noise.

Flight #11 slams into the World Trade Center North tower at 8:45 a.m.

Air traffic controllers lose contact with flight #77 at 8:55 a.m.

Flight #175 crashes into the World Trade Center South tower at 9:05
a.m., 20 minutes after flight #11 hits the first WTC tower.

At 9:06 a.m. the New York Police broadcast, “This is a terrorist attack.
Notify the Pentagon,” the New York Daily News reported on September 12,

At 9:30 a.m., Bush in Sarasota, Florida, for an education event, calls
the WTC hits an “apparent terrorist attack.” Bush was notified after
the first WTC was hit and later said he thought that was “one bad
pilot.” He continued with this classroom event.

Then, at 9:40 a.m., flight #77, hits the Pentagon.

At 10:00 a.m., a passenger aboard United Airlines flight #93 places a
911 call. That plane had been hijacked over Cleveland and reversed
direction heading back toward the east coast. Minutes later at 10:10
a.m., the plane goes down in a field in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania—one and a half hours after the first plane hit the World
Trade Center.

This timeline, based on published accounts of the September 11 attacks,
shows that nearly one hour elapsed between the first World Trade Center
crash and the Pentagon crash.

Once the FAA requests help, prior to September 11, planes could be in
the air in 10 minutes to scramble, intercept, or guide another plane;
since September 11 that time has been reduced to 6 minutes, Nora
O’Donnell reported on MS-NBC December 23.

By 8:30 a.m., officials knew a hijacking was in progress. At 8:45, it
was clear to these officials the first World Trade Center crash was a
hijacking, not an accident.

Only after flight #77 slammed into the Pentagon-55 minutes after the
first tower is hit and nearly 80 minutes from the initial hijacking—are
fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, 10 minutes from
Washington, D.C., sent to fly over the nation’s capital, according to a
September 12 story in the San Diego Tribune.

Reports put the departure time of American flight #77 from Dulles at
8:10 or 8:21 a.m. At 9:25 a.m., Barbara Olson calls her husband
Solicitor General Ted Olson from flight #77 to say the plane has been
hijacked. He tells her of the other hijackings. It crashed at 9:45.
Dulles is in suburban Maryland outside D.C. Where was this plane for one
hour? Did it also make a dramatic turn and head back toward the capital?

Air Force and others officials have tried to explain the failure to
respond by blaming the lack of available planes or faulting air
safety/defense systems. In doing so, they have changed their public

The Emperor’s New Clothes at www.tenc.net in a November 14 article,
contradicts these contentions. “The FAA, NORAD, and the military have
cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept
commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were
not followed on September 11.

“Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 minutes
from the Pentagon. On September 11, there were two entire squadron of
combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies
over Washington, D.C.”

It is possible that the U.S. could have prevented the crash of flight
#77 into the Pentagon and could have saved flight #93 if normal
procedures were instituted. Why did 60 minutes pass after a hijacked
plane destroyed a symbol of U.S. financial power and another hijacked
plane ripped a gapping hole in the symbol of U.S. military power without
the U.S. taking defensive, protective action?

The Emperor’s New Clothes contends, “U.S. air safety and air defense
emergency systems are activated in response to problems every day. On
September 11, they failed despite, not because of, the extreme nature of
the emergency.”

Black Gold

The Administration says its war on terrorism is intended to root out the
perpetuators the September 11 attacks on the United States. Some experts
believe finding those responsible for the attacks and hastening the
demise of the Taliban could have been accomplished without turning
Afghanistan to rubble, killing thousands of Afghanis, enhancing bin
Laden’s image, and provoking future violence.

What does the Bush Administration gain by the war in the Caspian Sea

For starters—the opportunity to extend the U.S. military presence in
Central Asia to achieve political and economic goals. The Gulf War in
1990 gave the U.S. a military presence in the oil rich Gulf States.

Ten years later, the U.S. war in Afghanistan is laying the foundation
for a U.S. military presence in the Caspian Sea arena and its estimated
$3 trillion in oil reserves.

On September 3, only a week before the attacks, Pakistan launched the
independent Interstate Gas Company Limited to secure regional pipeline
options for gas imports, according to a report on the website

One of the pipelines in the works, the UNOCAL-led Centgas consortium
pipeline from the oil-rich fields of Turkmanistan through Afghanistan to
Pakistani ports and then possibly onto the huge markets of India and
China, has been on hold since November, 1998, when UNOCAL pulled out
saying the civil war in Afghanistan precluded financing.

Lobbying the U.S. State Department in the mid-1990’s, UNOCAL fostered
the Taliban’s emergence because the company considered the Taliban the
most likely of the rival Afghanistan factions to guard the pipeline and
keep it secure. Then, when the Taliban lost favor, UNOCAL pulled out of
the Consortium.

John J. Maresca, UNOCAL’s vice president of international relations,
told Congress February 12, 1998: “Construction of a pipeline across
Afghanistan cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that
has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.” At the
time only three countries recognized the Taliban, which controlled 80
percent of Afghanistan. Banks such as J.P. Morgan refused to finance the
project. UNOCAL insisted a stable U.S./U.N.-approved government must be
in place in Afghanistan to proceed with the project.

Suddenly, in October, shortly after the launch of the Centgas
Consortium, only three weeks after the attacks on the United States, and
as the U.S. was beginning the air assault on Afghanistan, U.S.
Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain met with the Pakistani oil minister.
Afterwards, according to an October 10 story in the Pakistani newspaper
The Frontier Post, the UNOCAL pipeline was now “back in play in view of
recent geo-political developments.”

The POLITICAL DIARY purported in its October issue that oil is at the
heart of the Bush Administration's so-called war on terrorism. If one
were wondering what the U.S. could offer Pakistan to abandon its
six-year support of the Taliban—in addition to the billions in aid and
weapons it has promised—a secure pipeline might seal the deal.

In its June 26 story on what it calls a “U.S.-Russian plan” for an
October attack on the Taliban, the website www.indiareacts.com explained
what is at stake: “Such Central Asian countries as Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan are threatened by the Taliban
that is aiming to control their vast oil, gas and other resources by
bringing Islamic fundamentalism into power.”

The article in the public affairs magazine reports that India and Iran
will “facilitate” the planned U.S.-Russia hostilities and gives this
broader context: “Iran is also worried over the unending war effort of
the Taliban to get supremacy in Afghanistan that is harming Iran’s
economic interests. India, Iran, and Russia, for example, are working on
a broad plan to supply oil and gas to south Asia and Southeast Asian
nations through India but instability in Afghanistan is posing a great
threat to this effort.”

Le Figaro’s headline October 31 tagged bin Laden as “gravely ill.” He
had treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai several times between
1996-1998. According to Le Figaro, a March, 2000 story in Asia Week said
bin Laden had a serious physical problem and “his days were in danger”
because a kidney infection was spreading to his liver. He reportedly had
a mobile dialysis machine sent to him in Kandahar during the first half
of 2000. These reports, if true, may influence bin Laden’s activities.

History Lessons

Is it outrageous to consider that the CIA might have had a role in the
September 11 tragedy? U.S. history in the 20th century is replete with
instances of the U.S. government allowing, provoking, creating, or lying
so the U.S. could retaliate or expand its war effort, often to serve the
needs of those in power.

Several examples:

1. Pearl Harbor - For years, it was whispered President Franklin D.
Roosevelt knew the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor. Robert
Stinnett, a former Oakland Tribune journalist, in his 1999 book, Day of
Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, claims documents
declassified after 50 years show Roosevelt knew the Japanese attack was
going to happen and allowed it.

“Far more than merely knowing of the Japanese plan to bomb Pearl Harbor,
Roosevelt deliberately steered the Japanese into war with America.
Roosevelt knowingly sacrificed American lives in order to enter the war
on the side of England,” says Amazon.com in its review.

Roosevelt provoked the war with Japan to overcome U.S. isolationism and
enter the war against Germany. Stinnett said Roosevelt contemplated 900
as the number of service people he would willingly lose in a “surprise”
attack. When Japanese planes dropped bombs on U.S. ships anchored in
Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1942, more than 1,000 soldiers and sailors
were wounded and 2,300 killed.

2. Operations Northwoods - In 1962, the U.S. military wanted to provoke
a war with Cuba. The Pentagon and CIA planned Operation Northwoods. The
Chiefs of Staff-approved plan would have terrorized U.S. cities to
provoke war with Cuba. The civilian leadership eventually rejected it.
Author James Bamford tells about the plan in his book, Body of Secrets,
and in an abcnews.com interview May 1.

3. Vietnam War - The U.S. both provoked an attack on a U.S. ship in the
Gulf of Tonkin and then lied that another attack occurred. As a result,
Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf resolution that gave President Lyndon
Johnson war powers leading to full-fledged war in Vietnam.

”Working Class War” by Christian Appy, which is used in a history class
at Georgetown University, put it this way: “Though most of the fighting
on the ground took place within South Vietnam, U.S. and South Vietnamese
forces conducted hundreds of small clandestine, across the border
operations in Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam.

“Indeed, raids against the North were the provocation that led North
Vietnamese patrol boats to fire at an American destroyer on 2 August

“President Johnson claimed this attack and another on August 4 (which
did not, in fact, take place) were unprovoked acts of aggression, and he
ordered air strikes on North Vietnam in response. More importantly, he
used the incident to win congressional approval of the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution, a resolution drafted months earlier giving (LBJ) the power
to ‘take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the
forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.’”

Johnson used the resolution as Congressional authorization to escalate
the war in 1965.

More than 50,000 Americans and two million Vietnamese and Laotians lost
their lives in the Vietnam War.

The U.S. ostensibly waged the Vietnam War to stop the spread of
communism. Johnson kept the fighting going even when it was clear the
U.S. could not win because he did not want to be the first U.S.
president to lose a war.

4. Gulf War - Bush One instituted a war plan that encouraged Saddam
Hussein to invade Kuwait so the U.S. would have grounds to retaliate.
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq gave the green light, leading Saddam Hussein
to believe the U.S. would overlook his invasion of Kuwait.

The New York Times on September 22, 1990, published a transcript of a
conversation between U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein
that took place on July 25, 8 days before fighting broke out in the
Gulf. In the conversation, she suggests the Bush (1) Administration's
neutrality in the Arab dispute:

“. . .we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border
disagreement with Kuwait .. . we see the Iraqi point of view that the
measures taken by the United Arab Emeritus and Kuwait is, in the final
analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq.

More than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the Gulf War. Two
hundred U.S. military personnel lost their lives in the Gulf War. UNICEF
estimates 500,000 Iraqi children have died since 1981 as a result of
U.S. sanctions against Iraq.

What Now?

We must find the truth so that we can hold accountable and bring to
justice any one, including those in the U.S. government, who might have
covertly or overtly participated in the tragedy now known as September

The mainstream media have abrogated their responsibility to the public’s
right to know. The House brushed aside an attempt by Rep. Nancy Pelosi
(D-Ca) to investigate the events leading to September 11. Now, several
Senators favor investigations. Sen. Bob Graham, (D-Fl), chair of the
Intelligence Committee, is planning hearings. Senators John McCain
(D-Az) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) are calling for a Commission to

It is likely these investigations will focus on how the intelligence
agencies dropped the ball. The agencies have already promulgated this
line of defense in the media. For example, unidentified sources quoted
in a New York Times story published a month after the attacks:

“Clearly, the officials agree, the United States failed to grasp the
organization’s transformation from an obscure group of Islamic
extremists into the world’s most dangerous terrorists.”

A truly independent commission should be established to determine what
the CIA/U.S. knew and when it knew it.

Such a commission could be composed of those directly touched by the
events of September 11. The Citizens Panel could consist of police and
fire department representatives; family, friends, and colleagues of
those killed in the Pentagon and WTC; laid-off airline workers, pilots,
and airline stewards, and independent journalists. Public access
television stations, C-Span, listener-sponsored radio, and on-line sites
could carry the hearings.

In this way, the world might determine who knew what when about the
tragedy that has become known as September 11.



Explanations about how the nation’s 13 intelligence agencies failed to
detect and prevent the 911 attacks continue to appear in the media. Here
are a few more:

Intelligence operations depend too much on high-tech surveillance and
not enough on recruiting “unsavory” informants inside foreign terrorist
organizations. - Former president and former CIA director George Bush, a
public forum in Boston, September 13.

The Bush Administration received a “lot of signs” that terrorists were
planning attacks, but extensive efforts by intelligence agencies failed
to pick up enough information to stop the attacks-Secretary of State
Colin Powell, October 3.

Osama bin laden and his forces kept intelligence agencies off-guard for
months before the September 11 attacks by feeding disinformation over
intelligence agency-monitored communications systems. - Los Angeles
Times, September 21.

There were plenty of warnings, but U.S. officials did not conceive the
terrorists could pull off such a coordinated attack on U.S. soil. -
MS-NBC Special Report, December 29.


Referring to PD #4, Pipe Dreams: How Oil Fuels the Bush War on
Terrorism, Ted Virdone, a coordinator of the Campaign Against Racism and
War at Oberlin College, wrote November 9: “You present it as if this war
is all about the oil pipeline. This isn’t true. It is possible that the
U.S. would have gone to war with Afghanistan any way in order to make
this pipeline, but there is now an issue even more important for the
U.S., its shattered prestige.

“Even if there (were) no pipeline and no oil, the U.S. would still be
bombing now. On September 11, the illusion of untouchability that the
U.S. flaunts was shattered. This illusion is what allows the U.S. to buy
oil from around the world cheaply. It is what allows the U.S. to exploit
the labor of South American and Indonesia, etc. The U.S. has to create
an incredible showing of brutality to prove that the world still has to
follow orders.

“So, this was isn’t just about the oil that can be transported through
Afghanistan. It is about the oil and other resources of the entire


“What we do know is how to make peace.” —A Nobel Peace Laureate, The
Prize for Peace, hosted by Jonathan Mann, CNN, from Oslo, Norway,

Afghanistan has more than 2,000 years of history. Before Russia, the
United States, and civil war destroyed the culture-rich country for
their own political and economic ends, Kabul, the capital, vibrated with
art, music, and literature.

Now, Farhad Azad, publisher of afghanmagazine.com, a leading on-line
source of Afghan culture, focuses on revitalizing the Afghan heritage.
In 1975, as a boy, he fled Kabul with his family to the United States.
December 5, at a benefit for Art in Exile, an exhibit featuring the work
of San Francisco Bay Area Afghan artists he assembled, Azad shared his
vision: “The humanities,” he said, “are a bridge to our common

The Pentagon on December 13 released a tape it says is of Osama bin
Laden and others discussing pre-cognitive dreams and visions that
foreshadow the events of September 11. The Pentagon says the tape may
have been made in mid-November in a guesthouse in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
PD wants to investigate the tape further before it comments on the
dreams and on other aspects of the tape.



Amy D. of Fairfax, California, during the 2000 election debates dreamt:
“I look out the window, and I see something hovering in mid-air outside
the window. I hear a scratching noise, the kind that sends shivers up my
spine. I realize whatever it is wants to come in the window.

“I . . . realize it is George W. Bush. He is greenish with demonic eyes
and a pale face. He hovers there, scratching to enter. I am terrified
and try to escape, but I feel I cannot escape.

“He is finding a way to break in through the window.

“I wake up.”

In PD #3, PD commented that the dream indicated Bush would do whatever
necessary to win the election.

Now, a consortium of newspapers including the New York Times has studied
the disputed ballots examining 175,000 over and under votes. Their
results were released in mid-November. The bottom line: the election was
“too close to call.”

However, different vote tallies reveal different victories.

The Chicago Tribune on November 12 ran this ironic perspective: If the
count had been allowed to continue and the Gore measure were used, Bush
would have won; if the vote count had continued and used the Bush
measure, Gore would have won.

The New York Times reported on the issue of overseas absentee ballots
that arrived after Election Day: If all the counties had followed state
law in reviewing these ballots, Gore would have picked up at least 290
additional votes and won in some vote count scenarios.

After all the time and recounts, PD believes Amy’s dream gives an
insightful portrait of Election 2000.


JOYCE LYNN is a journalist including eight years as a political reporter
in Washington, D.C. After she moved to San Francisco, she turned from
writing about the politics of social welfare issues to matters of the
mind. Her articles have appeared in numerous national publications such
as Ms. Magazine, Washington Journalism Review, and Intuition Magazine.

She initiated the POLITICAL DIARY in the aftermath of the 2000 election
when she recognized dreams predicted with 100% accuracy its outcome and
told the story behind the story. She teaches INNER JOURNALISM: Writing,
Dreams, and Telling the Truth through Writers on the Net
(www.writers.com). She can be reached at Politic-@hotmail.com or


The POLITICAL DIARY encourages readers to reprint and repost PD
articles. Such use is granted without permission unless for commercial
use. In reproduction, please include the name of the editor, Joyce Lynn;
the title of the publication, POLITICAL DIARY, and email address,
politic-@hotmail.com or politic-@topica.com


Past issues of the POLITICAL DIARY can be found at
http://www.topica.com/lists/politicaldiary. Go to “Read this List.”

c Joyce Lynn 2001
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
  Check It Out!

  Topica Channels
 Best of Topica
 Art & Design
 Books, Movies & TV
 Food & Drink
 Health & Fitness
 News & Information
 Personal Finance
 Personal Technology
 Small Business
 Travel & Leisure
 Women & Family

  Start Your Own List!
Email lists are great for debating issues or publishing your views.
Start a List Today!

© 2001 Topica Inc. TFMB
Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.