July 3, 2002

The Big Brother Files #41: 9-11: The Missing Link

Hello everyone

Here is some material I've compiled for you starting a couple weeks ago. Worth a good look when/if you have some time on your hands.

I have several other compilations being readied for you.

Take care!

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

"A British doctor says 'Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man put it in another and have him looking for work in six weeks.'

A German doctor says, 'That's nothing, we can take a lung out of one person put it in another and have him looking for work in four weeks.'

A Russian doctor says, 'In my country medicine is so advanced we can take half a heart out of one person put it in another and have them both looking for work in two weeks.'

An American doctor, not to be outdone, says, 'You guys are way behind, we just took a man with no brain out of Texas, put him in the White House now half the country is looking for work, and the other half is preparing for war."

- Sent by Liz Daly <dalyreiki@earthlink.net>



See also:

Bush Dictates 'Democracy' To The Palestinians - An Overdetermined Version Of Self-Determination
You can't call for new elections and use the word 'democracy' six times in an 1,860-word speech and in the same breath tell the Palestinians who their leaders can and cannot be.

Bush Doctrine 2.0
This week's New York Times headline about Bush's new "defense policy of hitting first" (see at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/17/international/17POLI.html) raised more than a few eyebrows. How can a pre-emptive action be considered "defense"? This recent example of Orwellian doublespeak can be understood as the Bush administration's attempt to clear the way for bombing Iraq, without revisiting the pesky War Powers Act or allowing for Congressional debate. But a nagging question remains -- what if other, more corrupt regimes, adopted the same principle? Envision North Korea or Pakistan using Bush's statement to justify enacting their own nuclear fantasies. In fact, thanks to our favorite Flash5 cartoonist Mark Fiore, the hypothetical situation is made remarkably -- and hilariously -- clear. Check It Out! Bush Doctrine 2.0 at http://www.markfiore.com/animation/doctrine.html

Bush to issue 'strike first' strategy
Doctrine of attacking enemies pre-emptively marks major policy shift

Washington’s phony pretext for Iraqi invasion (29 June 2002)
Speaking before a Republican audience in Portland, Oregon June 24, Vice President Richard Cheney reiterated the Bush administration’s intention to carry out a preemptive strike against Iraq under the pretext of preventing the use of “weapons of mass destruction.” (...) Some administration officials have confided that the “covert” war would likely serve merely as a prelude to a US invasion involving some quarter of a million troops. The aim of any attack on Iraq will be not the elimination of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons programs, but the furtherance of Washington’s hegemonic control over the oilfields of the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration is well aware that whatever weapons development programs Iraq was running before the Persian Gulf War in 1991 were abandoned after the country’s infrastructure was devastated by the extensive bombing campaign. Destruction extended not merely to military targets, but to electricity, water purification and health care facilities, resulting in an appalling loss of life. According to some estimates, the death toll from disease and malnutrition directly attributable to the US war—most of it consisting of young Iraqi children—stands at over 1.5 million. CLIP

Israeli Military Advances Into More of the West Bank
An Israeli defense official said the military was preparing a "decisive and crushing" response to Palestinian attacks that have killed 33 Israelis in the past week.

Israel dismembers Palestinian Authority - Pledges “crushing and decisive” military offensive

Alert: From ISM (http://www.palsolidarity.org): "Call To Action: Come To Palestine"
Check also: IMC-Palestine: http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/
UPDATE: Ramallah - June 24, 2002: Israeli forces have moved into the city center imposing curfew. This intrepid IMC reporter ventured out into the empty streets, narrowly avoiding run ins with tanks and APC's, trying to ascertain locations of troops. They have surrounded the Presidential Compound which still contains a large number of international civilians. (...) June 23, 2002: Naema says that "we live in a big, crowded prison" while an independent journalist from Jerusalem says that Gaza residents live in the "world's largest jail." Israeli General Doron Almog echoes such thoughts, as he describes the people that live in the area he serves in as being "imprisoned." A little boy draws pictures not of flowers and white picket fenced houses, but of military tanks, fighter jets and bulldozers. What region of the world are these people referring to and are from? They are from and are talking about the most densely populated territory in the world: the Gaza strip.

Excerpt from an interview at http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/06/52280.php
Where and what is the Gaza strip? The Gaza strip is a small piece of land that is 360 square kilometers in area and is no longer than 70 kilometers at any one point (its coastline is only 40 kilometers long). The strip is southeast of Israel and has been under Israeli occupation since 1967 in what is perhaps the longest running military occupation in history and is at least the longest one in existence now. Some 1.2 million Palestinians live in the Gaza strip, three-fourths of whom are refugees from the war of 1948 that led to an Israeli State in what was Palestinian territory. Despite the overwhelming majority of Gaza's residents being Palestinian, 42% of the Gaza strip is under Israeli military control and is reserved for 6,000 Israeli settlers. Settlers and Israeli soldiers, however, only account for 0.5% of the population and are thus at the center of the conflict in the Gaza strip, with their disproportionate land holdings and brutal occupying military tactics. In addition to disproportionate land holdings, Israeli soldiers and settlers enjoy a number of economic advantages and freedoms that Palestinians are not entitled to. For example, water, a precious resource in the largely desert climate of the region, is largely diverted from Palestinian territories by Israel for its own use (88% of it). Digging wells is also illegal for Palestinians, but completely legal for Israeli settlers. As a result, settlers have consume 1000 times as much water as Palestinians in Gaza and pay one-fourth the price. Settlers also enjoy highly subsidized housing and social services. But this is the catch: many, if not most settlers came for economic incentives and not so much for ideological reasons. Omar, a refusenik who is in the midst of a speaking tour in the U.S. explains that: "most settlers came from poor backgrounds in Israel, they may have even been immigrants, and came to the occupied territories to get a house and raise a family." While some settlers, to be sure, came simply because they believe in the "Greater Israel" vision that advocates annexing all of the Palestinian territories into Israel. "They are simply not the majority and are a significant, but distinct minority." Omar continued, explaining that since the start of the intifada, "even if settlers wanted to sell their houses, they couldn't, because nobody will buy them at this point." CLIP

Afghanistan's loya jirga fails to provide even the illusion of democracy (June 24)

Bush claims right to jail US citizens indefinitely, without charges or hearing (June 24)
In a legal argument that could as easily be used to justify a declaration of martial law, the Justice Department last week asserted the right of the president and the military to indefinitely hold US citizens deemed “enemy combatants” incommunicado, without formal charges, the right to a hearing or legal counsel. (...) Quoting the government’s argument that the courts have no business questioning the military’s designation of a detained US citizen as an “enemy combatant,” the Washington Post editorialized: “These words were not written by some petty dictator whose kangaroo courts rubber-stamp his every whim and whose whims may include locking up citizens he regards as enemies. They were filed yesterday by the U.S. Department of Justice ...” The editorial, entitled “The I-said-so test,” goes on to warn: “If this is correct, any American could be locked up indefinitely, without a lawyer, on the president’s say-so. You don’t have to believe that Mr. Hamdi is innocent to see grave peril in this.” What the Washington Post and others within the political establishment who have voiced muted protests over the Bush administration’s assumption of dictatorial powers deliberately obscure, however, is the connection between this “grave peril” to democratic rights at home and the eruption of US militarism abroad. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for example, issued a condemnation of the military detention of Jose Padilla, criticizing it from the standpoint of weakening the “war on terrorism.” “For the United States to maintain its moral authority in the fight against terrorism,” declared Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director, “its actions must be implemented in accordance with core American legal and social values.” In reality, the “moral authority” of the Bush administration’s military campaigns is entirely consistent with its adoption of forms of police-state rule. Both are the expression of an increasingly desperate and disoriented ruling elite that has determined to defend its wealth and interests by means of naked force.

New Jersey appeals court upholds secret detentions (June 17)

Another step towards presidential dictatorship: Bush orders US citizen held indefinitely by military (June 12)

FOIA Bushwacked
Here's a not-so-minor detail you may have missed in the reporting on the new Department of Homeland Security: the entire department, and all information generated by or through it, will be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This is the latest in a long line of attacks on the FOIA by Republican administrations. The bill was originally vetoed by President Gerald Ford, at the urging of his chief of staff, Donald Rumsfield, and his young deputy chief of staff, Dick Cheney, who argued that the bill would take too much power out of the hands of the president. The bill was only passed into law when Congress overrode Ford's veto. Not incidentally, it was also Dick Cheney who so infamously outlined options for punishing journalist Seymour Hersh after Hersh cited the Freedom of Information Act in his investigation of covert operations by the CIA. Among the options were ordering an FBI investigation of Hersh and The New York Times and getting a search warrant to rummage through Hersh's private papers in his apartment. The White House never actually followed through with the plans. Cheney was also instrumental in drafting the Reagan administration's policies towards the FOIA. Reagan, who hid his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal by citing the "matters of national security" exemption, said the government should withhold information from any FOIA requester whenever there was a "substantial legal basis" for withholding. Bill Clinton rescinded Reagan's 1981 policy in 1992. Clinton said information should be withheld from citizens "only when an agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would be harmful." With Cheney, Rumsfield, and the rest of those good old boys back in power, it's hardly surprising that we're returning to the days when high-level government official can operate in the shadows. Maybe Seymour Hersh should start watching his back again. Check It Out! Attack On The FOIA from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press at http://www.rcfp.org/news/2002/0619homela.html


Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002
From: Michel Chossudovsky <chossudovsky@videotron.ca>

Was it an intelligence failure to give red carpet treatment to the 'money man' behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply 'routine”?


by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Outlook, No. 2. Summer 2002 at http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/orderformI2.html

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), http://www.globalresearch.ca, 20 June 2002

The URL of this article is http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

The foreknowledge issue is a Red Herring: "A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."

ON May 16th The New York Post dropped what appeared to be a bombshell: "Bush Knew..." Hoping to score politically, the Democrats jumped on the bandwagon, pressuring the White House to come clean on two "top-secret documents" made available to President Bush prior to September 11, concerning "advance knowledge" of Al Qaeda attacks. Meanwhile, the U.S. media had already coined a new set of buzzwords: "Yes, there were warnings" and "clues" of possible terrorist attacks, but "there was no way President Bush could have known" what was going to happen. The Democrats agreed to "keep the cat inside the bag" by saying: "Osama is at war with the U.S." and the FBI and the CIA knew something was cooking but "failed to connect the dots." In the words of House Minority Leader, Richard Gephardt:

"This is not blame-placing. . . . We support the President on the war against terrorism have and will. But we've got to do better in preventing terrorist attacks." 1

The media's spotlight on ‘foreknowledge' and so-called "FBI lapses" served to distract public attention from the broader issue of political deception. Not a word was mentioned concerning the role of the CIA, which throughout the entire post-Cold War era, has aided and abetted Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, as part of its covert operations.

Of course they knew! The foreknowledge issue is a red herring. The "Islamic Brigades" are a creation of the CIA. In standard CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an "intelligence asset". Support to terrorist organizations is an integral part of U.S. foreign policy. Al Qaeda continues to this date (2002) to participate in CIA covert operations in different parts of the World.2 These "CIA-Osama links" do not belong to a bygone era, as suggested by the mainstream media.

The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al Qaeda to agencies of the U.S. government during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in Kosovo.3 More recently in Macedonia, barely a few months before September 11, U.S. military advisers were mingling with Mujahideen mercenaries financed by Al Qaeda. Both groups were fighting under the auspices of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), within the same terrorist paramilitary formation.4

The CIA keeps track of its "intelligence assets". Amply documented, Osama bin Laden's whereabouts were always known.5 Al Qaeda is infiltrated by the CIA.6 In other words, there were no "intelligence failures"! In the nature of a well-led intelligence operation, the "intelligence asset" operates (wittingly or unwittingly) with some degree of autonomy, in relation to its U.S. government sponsors, but ultimately it acts consistently, in the interests of Uncle Sam.

While individual FBI agents are often unaware of the CIA's role, the relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda is known at the top levels of the FBI. Members of the Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress are fully cognizant of these links.

The foreknowledge issue focussing on "FBI lapses" is an obvious smokescreen. While the whistleblowers serve to underscore the weaknesses of the FBI, the role of successive U.S. administrations (since the presidency of Jimmy Carter) in support of the "Islamic Militant Base", is simply not mentioned.


The Bush Administration through the personal initiative of Vice President Dick Cheney chose not only to foreclose the possibility of a public inquiry, but also to trigger a fear and disinformation campaign:

"I think that the prospects of a future attack on the U.S. are almost a certainty. . . . It could happen tomorrow, it could happen next week, it could happen next year, but they will keep trying. And we have to be prepared." 7

What Cheney is really telling us is that our "intelligence asset", which we created, is going to strike again. Now, if this "CIA creature" was planning new terrorist attacks, you would expect that the CIA would be first to know about it. In all likelihood, the CIA also controls the so-called 'warnings' emanating from CIA sources on "future terrorist attacks" on American soil.


The 9-11 terrorists did not act on their own volition. The suicide hijackers were instruments in a carefully planned intelligence operation. The evidence confirms that Al Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's military intelligence, the Inter-services Intelligence (ISI). Amply documented, the ISI owes its existence to the CIA:

"With CIA backing and the funnelling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the ISI developed [since the early 1980s] into a parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government....The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers estimated at 150,000."8

The ISI actively collaborates with the CIA. It continues to perform the role of a 'go-between' in numerous intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA. The ISI directly supports and finances a number of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.


The FBI confirmed in late September, in an interview with ABC News (which went virtually unnoticed) that the 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from unnamed sources in Pakistan:

"As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now tracked more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts held by suspected hijack ring leader, Mohammed Atta. As well . . . "Time Magazine" is reporting that some of that money came in the days just before the attack and can be traced directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden. It's all part of what has been a successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijacker's high commander, the money men, the planners and the mastermind."9

The FBI had information on the money trail. They knew exactly who was financing the terrorists. Less than two weeks later, the findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP) and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). According to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9-11 attacks had allegedly been "wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad]." 10 According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source):

"The evidence we have supplied to the U.S. is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism." 11


Now, it just so happens that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money man" behind 9-11, was in the U.S. when the attacks occurred. He arrived on the 4th of September, one week before 9-11, on what was described as a routine visit of consultations with his U.S. counterparts. According to Pakistani journalist, Amir Mateen (in a prophetic article published on the September 10):

"ISI Chief Lt-Gen. Mahmoud's week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, he is on a routine visit in return to CIA Director George Tenet's earlier visit to Islamabad. Official sources confirm that he met Tenet this week. He also held long parleys with unspecified officials at the White House and the Pentagon. But the most important meeting was with Marc Grossman, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. One can safely guess that the discussions must have centred around Afghanistan . . . and Osama bin Laden. What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmoud's predecessor, was here, during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days." 12

Nawaz Sharif was overthrown by General Pervez Musharaf. General Mahmoud Ahmad, who became the head of the ISI, played a key role in the military coup.


In the course of Condoleezza Rice's May 16 press conference (which took place barely a few hours after the publication of the "Bush Knew" headlines in The New York Post), an accredited Indian journalist asked a question on the role of General Mahmoud Ahmad:

Q: Dr. Rice?

Ms RICE: Yes?

Q: Are you aware of the reports at the time that the ISI chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And why was he here? Was he meeting with you or anybody in the Administration?

Ms RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.13

Although there is no official confirmation that General Mahmoud Ahmad met Dr. Rice, she must have been fully aware of the $100,000 transfer to Mohammed Atta, which had been confirmed by the FBI. Lost in the barrage of media reports on 'foreknowledge', this crucial piece of information, on the ISI's role in 9-11, implicates key members of the Bush Administration including: CIA Director George Tenet, Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, Under-Secretary, Marc Grossman, as well as Senator Sam Biden, Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee (who met General Ahmad on the 13th of September).14

The Bush Administration had not only provided red carpet treatment to the alleged "money man" behind the 9-11 attacks, it also had sought his 'cooperation' in the "war on terrorism". The precise terms of this 'cooperation' were agreed upon between General Mahmoud Ahmad, representing the Pakistani government and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, in meetings at the State Department on September 12 and 13. In other words, the Administration decided in the immediate wake of 9-11, to seek the 'cooperation' of Pakistan's ISI in "going after Osama", despite the fact (documented by the FBI) that the ISI was financing and abetting the 9-11 terrorists. Contradictory? One might say that it's like "asking the Devil to go after Dracula."


Dr. Rice's statement regarding the ISI chief at her May 16 press conference, is an obvious cover-up. While General Ahmad was talking to U.S. officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, he had allegedly also been in contact (through a third party) with the September 11 terrorists. What this suggests is that key individuals within the U.S. military-intelligence establishment knew about these ISI contacts with the September 11 terrorist 'ring leader', Mohammed Atta, and failed to act. But this conclusion is, in fact, an understatement. Everything indicates that CIA Director George Tenet and ISI Chief General Mahmoud Ahmad, had established a close working relationship. General Mahmoud had arrived a week prior to September 11 for consultations with George Tenet. Bear in mind that the CIA's George Tenet, also has a close personal relationship with President Bush. Prior to September 11, Tenet would meet the President nearly every morning at 8:00 a.m. sharp, for about half an hour. 15 A document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, or PDB, "is prepared at Langley by the CIA's analytical directorate, and a draft goes home with Tenet each night. Tenet edits it personally and delivers it orally during his early morning meeting with Bush." 16 This practice of "oral intelligence briefings" is unprecedented. Bush's predecessors at the White House, received a written briefing:

"With Bush, who liked oral briefings and the CIA director in attendance, a strong relationship had developed. Tenet could be direct, even irreverent and earthy."17


Was it an 'intelligence failure' to give red carpet treatment to the 'money man' behind the 9-11 terrorists, or was it simply 'routine'? At meetings of the National Security Council and in the so-called "War Cabinet", on September 11, 12 and 13, CIA Director George Tenet played a central role in gaining the Commander-in-Chief's approval to the launching of the "war on terrorism."

George W. Bush's Timeline September 11 (from 9.45am in the wake of the WTC-Pentagon Attacks to midnight) Circa 9:45 a.m.: Bush's motorcade leaves the Booker Elementary School, Sarasota, Florida.

9:55 a.m: President Bush boards "Air Force One" bound for Washington.18 Following what was as a "false report" that Air Force One would be attacked, Vice-President Dick Cheney had urged Bush (10:32 a.m.) by telephone not to land in Washington. Following this conversation, the plane was diverted (10:41 a.m.) (on orders emanating from Washington) to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. A couple of hours later (1:30 p.m.), after a brief TV appearance, the President was transported to Offut Air Force base in Nebraska at U.S. Strategic Command Headquarters.

3:30 p.m.: A key meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) was convened, with members of the NSC communicating with the President from Washington by secure video.19 In the course of this NSC video-conference, CIA Director George Tenet fed unconfirmed information to the President. Tenet stated that "he was virtually certain that bin Laden and his network were behind the attacks."20

The President responded to these statements, quite spontaneously, off the cuff, with little or no discussion and with an apparent misunderstanding of their implications. In the course of this video-conference (which lasted for less than an hour), the NSC was given the mandate by the Commander-in-Chief to prepare for the "war on terrorism". Very much on the spur of the moment, the "green light" was given by video conference from Nebraska. In the words of President Bush: "We will find these people. They will pay. And I don't want you to have any doubt about it." 21

4:36 p.m.: (One hour and six minutes later...) Air Force One departed for Washington. Back in the White House, that same evening (9:00 p.m.) a second meeting of the full NSC took place, together with Secretary of State Colin Powell who had returned to Washington from Peru. The NSC meeting (which lasted for half an hour) was followed by the first meeting of the so-called "war cabinet". The latter was made up of a smaller group of top officials and key advisers.

9:30 p.m.: At the war cabinet: "Discussion turned around whether bin Laden's Al Qaeda and the Taliban were one and the same thing. Tenet said they were." 22 By the end of that historic meeting of the war cabinet (11:00 p.m.), the Bush Administration had decided to embark upon a military adventure which now threatens the collective future of humanity, our civilization.


Did Bush, with his minimal understanding of foreign policy issues, know all the details regarding General Mahmoud and the "ISI connection"? Did Tenet and Cheney distort the facts, so as to get the Commander-in-Chief's "thumbs up" for a military operation which was already in the pipeline? In a bitter irony, a meeting between Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and General Mahmoud, the 9-11 "money man", was scheduled at the State Department for the morning after September 11 to discuss their strategy.


1. Quoted in AFP, 18 May 2002.

2. There are numerous documents, which prove beyond doubt the links between Al Qaeda and successive U.S. administrations. See Centre for Research on Globalisation, Foreknowledge of 9-11: Compilation of key articles and documents, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.html May 2002, section 3.

3. U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Republican Party Committee, Congressional Press Release, Congress, 16 January 1997, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html See also Michel Chossudovsky, 'Osamagate', Centre for Research on Globalisation, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html , 9 October 2001.

4. See Centre for Research on Globalisation, Foreknowledge of 9-11: Compilation of key articles and documents, op. cit. section 3. See articles by Isabel Vincent, George Szamuely, Scott Taylor, Marina Domazetovska, Michel Chossudovsky, Umberto Pascali, Lara Marlowe and Macedonian dailies.

5. See Bin Laden Whereabouts Before 9-11, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather; CBS, 28 January 2002, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html Alexandra Richard, The CIA met bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai, Le Figaro. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html

6. The Boston Globe, 5 June 2002.

7. Fox News, 18 May 2002.

8. Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999. See also Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Global Outlook, No. 1, 2002.

9. Statement of Brian Ross reporting on information conveyed to him by the FBI, ABC News, This Week, September 30, 2001.

10. The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001. 11. AFP, 10 October 2001.

12. Amir Mateen, ISI Chief's Parleys continue in Washington, News Pakistan, 10 September 2001.

13. Federal News Service, 16 May 2002. Note that in the White House and CNN transcripts of Dr. Rice's press conference, the words "ISI chief" were transcribed respectively by a blank "--" and "(inaudible)" . Federal News Service Inc. which is transcription Service of official documents provided a correct transcription, with a minor error in punctua6tion, which we corrected. The White House transcript is at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html All three transcripts were verified by the author and are available on Nexus. Federal News Service documents are also available for a fee at http://www.fnsg.com/

CLIP - Read the rest at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

Copyright © Michel Chossudovsky and Global Outlook 2002. Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the original source and the URL are indicated, the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms, including commercial internet sites and excerpts, contact Global Outlook , at editor@globalresearch.ca

This article was published in Global Outlook , Issue No 2 9-11: Foreknowledge or Deception? Stop the Nuclear Threat. Now available. Details at http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/orderformI2.html


See also:



It looks like we've struck a nerve. Last night we posted an article entitled, "POWERFUL EVIDENCE THAT AIR FORCE WAS MADE TO STAND DOWN ON 9-11. We emailed it to 20,000 Emperor's Clothes list members. In that article we gave step-by step instructions for accessing the DC AIR NATIONAL GUARD Website as it appeared April 19, 2001, including the then Mission Statement: "To Provide Combat Units in the Highest Possible State of Readiness." It worked fine last night. But this morning, when I and others tried to access the DC ANG archive pages at archive.org we got sent to a porno Website.