Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 3 Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (5 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   3 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

NYT: White House Didn't Stop 9/11 Because It Thought "Bin Laden Was Merely Pretending To Be Planning An Attack"

By       Message Washington's Blog     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 3   Well Said 1   Funny 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 9/11/12

- Advertisement -



Neoconservatives Ignored CIA Because They Had Other Priorities

It has been thoroughly documented that 9/11 was entirely foreseeable ... including Al Qaeda's plans to fly planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

It has been extensively documented that the White House decided to invade Iraq before 9/11:

(Indeed, neoconservatives planned regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 years ago; sorry, Obama fans, the neoliberals are not very different).

Right after 9/11, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld accused Iraq of having a hand in the attacks. People may not remember now, but -- at the time -- the supposed Saddam-9/11 link was at least as important a justification for the Iraq war as the alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Bush and Cheney then launched a systematic program of torture in an attempt to create false evidence -- through false confessions -- of a link between Iraq and 9/11. The torture techniques used were Communist techniques specifically designed to produce false confessions.

- Advertisement -

This claim that Iraq is linked to 9/11 has since been debunked by the 9/11 Commission, top government officials, and even -- long after they alleged such a link -- Bush and Cheney themselves.

The 9/11 Commission found that the White House and its Defense Department obstructed justice in numerous ways to deflect blame for 9/11.

Today, the New York Times adds a bizarre new wrinkle to this story:

"I have read excerpts from many of [the still-classified Presidential Daily Briefs] ... and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration's reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it. The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1,  the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that 'a group presently in the United States' was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be 'imminent,' although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

"But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives' suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

- Advertisement -

"In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

"'The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,' the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government's transliteration of Bin Laden's first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence ".

"And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed.

***

"Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else."

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/

Washington's Blog strives to provide real-time, well-researched and actionable information. We have an insatiable curiosity for new discoveries, new information and new insights. Despite our passion for what's new, there are themes that we keep (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -
Google Content Matches:

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Guess Where These Beautiful Pictures Were Taken "

Roundup In 75% of Air and Water Sampled -- Causes Kidney Failure

The REAL Reason U.S. Targets Whistleblowers

NSA Spokesman Accidentally Admits that the Government Is Spying On Virtually All Americans

Clinton Supported and Enabled Tax Evasion Revealed By the "Panama Papers" ... Sanders OPPOSED It

Will the Peasants Go Medieval On Bankers?