Stacking The Patsies of 9/11
Saudis, Pakistanis, Israelis, and Neocons
[Editor's Note: ( I posted this article before I read it carefully,
so these comments are coming to you post-postum :-). This article is far
too lengthy for my blood and opens up too many cans of worms. If you're
fascinated by tales of intrigue, then this piece might be just the ticket
for you, but I want to gain some useful insights when I read an article
about the 9/11 cover-up and not take on another truckload of fascinating,
but largely useless mush. People who go for this stuff eat up all of their
time playing Inspector Clousseau, while doing nothing to stop the
march of fascism and totalitarian government in this country. It's more
important to realize that this country is being wrecked by weakened by internal
traitors who are moving towards a one world, satanic-inspired, feudal control
system. You stop the takeover and internal dismemberment of the United States
by not cooperating with the incremental fascist dictums of the
traitors, and convince your neighbors to do the same. While you're at it,
you should also convince them that 9/11 was an orchestrated event
that could only have occurred with the full complicity and cooperation
of the U.S. government, along with its military, intelligence, and security
link will provide you with some of the best web sites that lay out the
I much prefer the lucid insights and plain talk that I get
Kaminski's articles. No seventeen page printouts like this elephant,
but rather 2 or 3 pages of hard facts with clear insights. While I did glean
a few morsels of info from this mini-magazine that filled in a few blanks
for me, I'm not impressed by the legions of ex-CIA employees cited here
as sources of either solid disinformation, or bifurcated, or multi-tiered
cover-up stories. Who cares! You need to know the story, but you don't need
to get buried with so much fine detail that your mind goes numb and you're
left in a stupor. Action is what counts in these perilous days...Ken
Bby Chaim Kupferberg <www.globalresearch.ca>
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Dec. 22, 2003
In perhaps the most controversial segment of his
landmark article, Chaim Kupferberg argues that, in addition to the "Official"
9/11 Legend, a number of counter-legends were built in so as to generate
false leads and to take the emphasis away from the most likely instigators.
Plus: An all-new section on former CIA agent Robert Baer and Daniel Pearl.
The events of September 11 gave birth to three parallel threads - or counter-legends
- pointing the way to the culpability of three possible foreign suspects,
or patsies - namely, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Israel. Of the three, the
Saudis were the patsies of choice for the mainstream "critics",
who were a motley assortment of neo-cons, FBI investigators, or "retired"
national security types opposed to the war in Iraq. The Pakistan/ISI thread
to 9/11 flared up most noticeably in the events surrounding the death of
Daniel Pearl and the alleged involvement of Omar Saeed Sheikh - events which
were used, in fact, to smother the Pakistani/ISI connection to the 9/11
money trail. As regards Israel, the most radical opponents of the War On
Terror were nursed on the twin threads of an Israeli spy ring and a neo-con
cabal supposedly at the helm of the Bush Administration.
It was not by accident that these three countries were chosen
to play the role of second-tier patsies - for each of them contained insular
cliques of operatives which had played seminal roles in the covert arms
and drug trade - in cahoots with their more senior Anglo-American handlers
- throughout the Reagan-Bush years. Moreover, these countries would make
useful patsies for the very reason that they were essentially outside the
"established" - i.e. Euro-American - ring of nations. In other
words, if insular cliques of criminal operatives were to be ferreted out
of Germany, France, or Italy, no one would think to brand these nations
wholesale with the mark of Cain. The same could not be said of Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, and Israel, whose very security - physical, political, and economic
- would be staked to the publicized activities of their own respective political/criminal
Moreover, much of the political and corporate elites within
these countries were integrally networked with their American counterparts
- indeed, largely subservient to them - to such a degree that they would
also serve as useful proxies in building their own counter-legends under
Anglo-Euro-American supervision. In the early stages of the 9/11 Legend,
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were employed as the central bases for building
up a terrorist home front within the borders of Afghanistan. As for Israel
- despite its aforementioned spy ring and its supposedly allied neo-con
"cabal" - its most direct and public contribution to the 9/11
Legend in fact occurred after 9/11, with the November 2002 coordinated attack
on an Israeli-owned hotel and airliner in Kenya - an attack for which Israeli
investigators now marshaled evidence as proof of Osama bin Laden's opening
shot against the State of Israel (which was more likely Israel's "buy-in"
in return for a promised attack on the Saddam Hussein regime).
Thus, evidence could be amassed to cast aspersions on the
activities of each of these three countries, depending on the intended audience.
On another level, political elites within these countries could be assured
that any aspersions would be relegated to insular "rogue" cliques.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, a few princes of the Saudi royal family were
thus eliminated within days of one another in 2002. In the case of Pakistan,
"rogue" elements within the ISI were publicly purged in the months
after 9/11. Yet in the case of Israel, its apparent "buy-in" through
the 2002 Kenya attack served to strengthen, rather than weaken, the thread
connecting Israel as a possible 9/11 culprit. If, in the context of this
article, this would appear to be a short-sighted strategy by Israeli political
elites, one can only surmise that these elites were blinded - or assured
- by an apparent post-9/11 geo-strategic shift in favor of Israeli interests
(i.e. an attack on Iraq) in conjunction with a publicly affirmed surge in
influence among its supposed neo-con allies.
With three alternative counter-legends in place to co-exist
with the Official (i.e. mainstream) 9/11 Legend, the stage was thereby set
to muddy the real trail leading to the events of September 11. With the
participation of a global network of well-connected spinmeisters - both
passive and active - each of the 9/11 threads could thus be nurtured through
a series of carefully calibrated revelations.
Of all the 9/11 spinmeisters, one of the most effective -
and therefore damaging - was Jean-Charles Brisard, co-author with Guillaume
Dasquie of The Forbidden Truth. Brisard burst on to the mainstream
scene shortly after September 11 as one of the first "credible"
critics of 9/11, weaving a trail of seemingly incriminating red herrings
that will, in all probability, tie up a number of otherwise industrious
conspiracy researchers for decades. In Brisard and Dasquie's version of
9/11, the main protectors of al-Qaida were the Saudis, who in turn were
protected by greedy oil interests which sought - through the State Department
- to obstruct any investigations that might unsettle their Saudi business
associates. To nail down the point, Brisard recounted his summer 2001 meeting
with John O'Neill, in which a frustrated, scandal-ridden O'Neill purportedly
confided to Brisard that the "answer" to the al-Qaida riddle lay
in Saudi Arabia. For good measure, Brisard had the well-timed implosion
of Enron as a backdrop for his revelation, implicating this now-dead shell
of a corporation in a stubborn push for an oil pipeline through Afghanistan
(though senior Enron exec - and CIA offspring - Frank Wisner, Jr., was,
as it happens, also one of the 17 elite "players" in the aforementioned
"Dark Winter" exercise).
Through Brisard (in addition to Pakistani Foreign Minister
Niaz Naik), we learned that the U.S. had made plans as early as June of
2001 to invade Afghanistan by October of that year. During that summer,
as Brisard chronicled it, a number of nations - including Iran, Russia,
and India - got together for a four-day conference in Berlin, where the
dispute with the Taliban was broached by U.S. diplomats. The U.S. demanded
that the Taliban hand over bin Laden (in addition to negotiating for pipeline
rights). Otherwise, the Americans threatened to blanket Afghanistan with
"a carpet of bombs."
Brisard's initial theory, then, was that this threat prompted
bin Laden to launch a pre-emptive attack against the very nation that was
now placing him in imminent peril. Brisard also seemed to implicate Bush,
Sr. by way of his Carlyle Group interests. But in the end, as Brisard essentially
kept bin Laden in place as the sole 9/11 culprit, the aspersions cast on
the Bushes, the State Department, "oil interests", et al, would
not amount to much - at least from a legal standpoint. At most, these parties
could be judged as too blinded by greed to recognize - and pre-empt - the
very real threat from al-Qaida. However you clothed Brisard's revelations,
the "official" 9/11 Legend remained in place. Al-Qaida was still
the defendant (albeit with a new excuse), O'Neill was still a martyr (albeit
with a new Saudi gripe), and the Saudis were still suspicious (albeit with
possibly a new gripe against Brisard). Brisard, incidentally, also happened
to have written - for French intelligence - the first comprehensive report
on the financial structure of al-Qaida, a copy of which was furnished to
the Bush administration. Thus do national security types and their 9/11
critics have a deeper understanding of the 9/11 Legend courtesy of the efforts
of Jean-Charles Brisard.
Brisard's co-author, Guillaume Dasquie, also comes by his
own intelligence connections, by way of his role as editor of Intelligence
Online. It was through Dasquie's efforts that Intelligence Online, in March
2002, announced that it had come into possession of a 61-page "secret"
DEA report on a large Israeli spy ring of "art students" who were
casing federal buildings several months before September 11. The "leaking"
of this document, in conjunction with Carl Cameron's December 2001 Fox News
report on the spy ring, ignited an online firestorm among 9/11 critics -
pointing the way, for some, to the Israelis as the main operative agents
behind September 11.
Yet, as we shall see, in the campaign to paint Israel as the
main suspect, here was a case of mostly right wing sources doling out the
goods for largely left wing consumption (with the obvious exception of Justin
Raimondo, a political supporter of, and former speechwriter for, Pat Buchanan).
Thus, while the likes of Stephen Emerson, Daniel Pipes, and John Loftus
were doing the lecture circuit at Jewish Community Centers across North
America, regaling this influential community with insinuations of possible
Saudi and/or Iraqi involvement in 9/11, a more covert - and subtle - plan
was afoot to plant the seeds of a new Jewish neocon/Zionist conspiracy among
the left wing (i.e. the traditional foothold of the bulk of the American
This relatively recent campaign to subvert the left with visions
of a Jewish neocon/Zionist conspiracy dovetailed nicely with a more longstanding
covert campaign - dating back more than thirty years - to build up a small
but powerful right wing contingent of Jews to wean the rest from their knee-jerk
liberalism (and thereby sap the strength and vigor of the traditional Democrat
wing). The species of the Jewish "neo" conservative is best represented
by Irving Kristol, a self-admitted former Trotskyite who had been a member
of the "left-wing" Congress of Cultural Freedom (later exposed
as a CIA front) before making a "sudden" right turn in the late
sixties, bringing along with him a few other like-minded "disillusioned"
Jews from CIA-funded "leftist" groups. The typical neo-conservative
was "neo" in the sense that he would continue to hold liberal
social values while espousing hard right (i.e. pro-corporate) economic views
and a hawkish foreign policy - pretty much the course that American society
has taken in the thirty-odd years since Kristol made his ideological "shift."
Though the history is far more complex and detailed than indicated
above, the crux of the point is this: in order to neutralize the influential
American Jewish community on the subject of civil rights and domestic dissent
(where they historically predominated), it was not sufficient only to wean
the Jews from the left, but to turn the left against the Jews by now slurring
them as right wing, Zionist "imperialists" (best exemplified by
Richard Perle, who is actually more a product of the national security community
than of the Jewish community).
In concert with this strategy was a plan - also dating back
more than thirty years - to wean the South from the Democrats by promoting
a fundamentalist Christianity that grew in counter-point to the overall
loosening social values. The typical fundamentalist Christian Republican
would hold conservative social views while espousing hard right (i.e. pro-corporate)
economic views and a hawkish foreign policy (best exemplified by John Ashcroft,
who is actually more a product of a deeply cynical political community than
of the community of belief).
With that background in mind, we may now touch upon the national
security/conservative clique which has furnished most of the information
concerning Israeli perfidy and 9/11. For our purposes, the story begins
on May 7, 1997, when Nora Boustany of The Washington Post first broached
the existence of Mega, a suspected code name for a suspected Israeli
mole within the upper echelons of the Clinton government. As reported by
Boustany, the National Security Agency had intercepted a request from a
Mossad operative to view a diplomatic letter from Yasser Arafat. When the
operative was heard to ask his superior for the assistance of someone or
something called Mega, he received the reply, "We don't use Mega for
The story, in fact, broke on the very day when South Korean
spy Robert C. Kim was scheduled to deliver a guilty plea after a plea bargain
- a similar bargain that was, in fact, dishonored in the case of convicted
Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard in the mid-80's. Kim, like Pollard, had worked
in the Office of Naval Intelligence, though Pollard had worked in the counter-terrorism
section. A week before the Mega story broke - on April 30, 1997 - Pollard
had petitioned the Israeli High Court to compel the Israeli government to
reveal what it knew about his case. If a battle was brewing between Pollard
supporters (Likud/ neocon elements) and opponents (the Bush/ Baker clique/
Woolsey/the national intelligence apparatus), the May 7 Mega leak by way
of the National Security Agency seemed to head it off, publicly raising
the specter of yet another Israeli mole. And then the story ultimately went
cold, with no official resolution and - most crucially - no hard details
by which to flesh out this possible mole hunt.
Yet Jeffrey Steinberg of Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence
Review has attempted to draw a line between this morsel of an item and a
Mega Group that was mentioned by Lisa Miller in the Wall Street Journal
on May 4, 1998. In Steinberg's telling, the Mega Group is, in fact, the
shadowy Mega from the Boustany article. As Steinberg put it, the Mega Group
- a select group of Jewish billionaires including Bronfman, Steinhardt,
Spielberg, Tisch, and others - had come together to influence U.S. security
policy toward Israel. Yet that was a disingenous - and I dare say, dishonest
- reading of the Miller article. In other words - and this was very clear
from the Miller article - their main concern was assimilation and philanthropy,
not Israeli national security issues, as Steinberg had reported. But Steinberg's
technique was all too typical - mischievously weaving two totally disconnected
items so as to give the impression that he was uncovering bona fide evidence
of a fully known Jewish/Israeli conspiracy.
Yet taking the thread of a burgeoning Israeli spy conspiracy
further, in May 2000, J. Michael Waller and Paul M. Rodriguez of Insight
magazine (the sister publication of the ultra-right wing Washington Times,
which is in turn owned by the Moonies) broke the story that the Israelis
had possibly compromised U.S. government phone lines, giving them access
to sensitive information. Carl Cameron of Fox News followed this up on May
5, 2000 by reporting on the investigation into the Israeli-founded company
AMDOCS, describing "an alleged penetration of U.S. government phone
This thread was also taken up by Gordon Thomas, the MI5 (British
intelligence) connected editor of the website Globe-Intel. Thomas, in his
book, Gideon's Spies, broached the subject of the Israeli infiltration of
the Clinton White House by way of the Mega mole. He also had alleged that
the Mossad had a possible role in the death of Princess Diana; that the
Mossad tapped Monica Lewinsky's phone in order to pick up her conversations
with President Clinton; and that the Israelis stole the sophisticated PROMIS
software, which eventually ended up in the possession of Osama bin Laden.
Incidentally, Gordon Thomas holds himself out as a friend and intimate confidant
of Mossad insiders. We shall return to Thomas shortly, for he - like Brisard
and Dasquie - has also played a significant part in lining up new alternate
9/11 suspects (most recently China, in his book Seeds of Fire).
Picking up the thread, in March 2001 - significantly, several
months before September 11 - the U.S. National Counterintelligence Center
sent out an advisory for federal employees to be aware that a number of
young Israelis were approaching federal agents at their offices and at their
residences throughout the country, passing themselves off as art students
looking to sell their work - but more peculiarly, identifying themselves
as Israeli art students, thereby "red-flagging" themselves for
the benefit of the National Counterintelligence Center. A few months after
September 11, Carl Cameron - in December of 2001 - once more visited the
issue of Israeli penetration, this time naming a second Israeli company,
Comverse Infosys, as having access to nearly all wiretaps placed by U.S.
law enforcement. As part of a four-part series for Fox News, Cameron also
cited a "secret" DEA report that chronicled the actions of the
aforementioned Israeli "art student" spy ring. Soon after a transcript
of Cameron's report was uploaded on the Fox News website, it was taken offline
and purged from the archives - a presumed cover-up that actually raised
far more suspicions over Israeli/Jewish influence than the report itself.
Perhaps that was the intended effect - as the purpose would
be to "red flag" this item for an "alternative" online
audience, not for the mainstream couch potatoes who were wedded to the Official
9/11 Legend in any case. Was Cameron simply a dedicated journalist who was
muzzled by his conservative, pro-Israeli, employers at Fox? Or was he rather
a passive disinformation asset, coyly nursing the Israeli thread when told
to do so? On May 13, 2002, with government warnings of a follow-up terrorist
attack seeding the media zeitgeist, Cameron red-flagged the Israelis once
more, this time reporting that a rental truck with traces of TNT was pulled
over near an army base in the State of Washington. Once again, suspicious
Israelis were discovered as occupants, and once again, the news suspiciously
disappeared from the airwaves.
There was a curious parallel to the manner by which various
Israelis tended to be "pulled over" in the Israeli/9/11 Counter-Legend
as opposed to the manner by which various al-Qaida operatives tended to
incriminate themselves through those fortuitous cell phone and email "intercepts"
in the al-Qaida/9/11 Legend. On June 23, 2002, ABC News picked up the earlier
story of five "suspicious" Israelis celebrating on the roof of
their van in the wake of September 11. When the police had pulled them over
and searched the contents of the van, sure enough, they found...box cutters.
And just as sure enough, this story also "suspiciously" vanished
without a follow-up. It is also a curious fact that former CIA counterterror
chief/ABC News consultant Vincent Cannistraro lent his own spin on that
report. As I had pointed out in The Propaganda Preparation For 9/11, and
as I will show further in this article, Cannistraro has "spun"
a great deal of information on the 9/11 Legend.
While the spy ring story has been neglected by much of the
mainstream media, it nevertheless remains in the background, ready to be
"mainstreamed" if or when the "official" 9/11 Legend
begins to show cracks (or if the resident Israeli government proves to be
troublesome). As I have pointed out, much of the first-hand revelations
of Israeli penetrations have come not from alternative sources, but from
well-established, "credible" conservative sources highly placed
within the intelligence apparatus. While Daniel Pipes (CFR member and former
Defense Department employee) made a disingenuous attempt at discrediting
the spy ring story, the actual DEA report that was acquired by Dasquie's
Intelligence Online was confirmed as authentic on February 25, 2002 by Will
Glaspy of the DEA's public affairs bureau. Moreover, according to a May
5, 2002 report in Le Monde, Cameron's four-part Fox broadcast was shown
and cleared with the CIA, FBI, and NSA before its airing. Clearly, somebody
high up wants this out in the ether.
Yet it is a curious fact that some of this information comes
from sources which are traditionally known to be friendly to Israeli interests.
For instance, J. Michael Waller, who wrote the Insight piece with Paul M.
Rodriguez, is a member of the right wing, pro-Israel Center For Security
Policy, which, according to the Center's own site, includes an "extraordinary
number of members of the Center's National Security Advisory Council"
in the top echelons of the Bush Administration. Waller, incidentally, also
wrote an Insight piece entitled "Preparing For The Next Pearl Harbor
Attack" - just a few months before 9/11 - in which he described the
plan for a Homeland Security Agency, as recommended by the Hart-Rudman Commission
report (yes, they had the "homeland security" blueprint in place
several months before 9/11).
As for Waller's associate, Paul M. Rodriguez - the managing
editor of Insight - has had a history of printing incriminating items that
don't quite circulate yet get the point across all the same. One particularly
creepy example concerns an Insight piece that Rodriguez wrote in 1989, reporting
on a pedophile ring in the nation's capital, linking one of its participants
to Donald Gregg, a senior aide to President Bush. Since then, Gregg has
served as Ambassador to South Korea and as head of the Korea Society. This
might have something to do with the fact that the Moonies, owner of Insight,
have been rumored to be a front for the South Korean CIA. Incidentally,
since President George H.W. Bush has left office, he has put in a considerable
number of appearances at Moonie functions.
As for Gordon Thomas of Globe-Intel, it turns out that he
has been a major contributor to the Israel/9/11/ Counter-Legend in addition
to his other contributions to Israeli legends. Perchance he had come by
this good fortune through his father-in-law, a former MI5 British intelligence
operative who had introduced Thomas to so many of his intelligence contacts.
Adding his own "insider" gloss to the spy ring tale, Thomas is
a source for the claim that Israel sent out spies to infiltrate al-Qaida
in the U.S., writing that Israel sent warnings about the impending attacks
to the Bush administration through French and German intelligence.
In his May 21, 2002 article for Globe-Intel, Thomas - in a
Mossad "insider" scoop - revealed that Israeli Prime Minister
Sharon in fact authorized a "leak" of documents showing that Bush
was warned by Israel of the approaching al-Qaida threat by virtue of Israel's
comprehensive infiltration of al-Qaida cells on American soil. In other
words, Sharon wanted to prove to Bush (and to Globe-Intel readers?) that
his Mossad agents - art students, perhaps? - had learned of 9/11 over coffee
with Mohammed Atta. As Thomas put it: "Sharon's reaction is a calculated
response to growing claims that Mossad has been running spy operations in
the United States..." A calculated response? Either Thomas is serving
us up some fairly heavy British intelligence disinformation (false-flagged
as a Mossad scoop), or he's implying that Sharon was on some pretty serious
weed at the time - for insisting with documented proof that, yes, his own
agents did in fact illegally spy on U.S. territory, and what's more, did
lunch with the 9/11 hijackers. Yet given Thomas' record of pinning likely
British intelligence "hits" on the Mossad - Princess Diana, Robert
Maxwell, etc. - I'm willing to bet that the former is the case.
In that context, it is perhaps curious that Thomas - like
Brisard - has chosen to use John O'Neill, this time in order to weave a
counter-legend of Israel at the center of a global criminal network. In
his latest book on Robert Maxwell, Thomas alleges that Maxwell was an Israeli
"super-spy" who, in the words of John O'Neill, "was at the
heart of the global criminal network." Thomas writes that O'Neill's
contribution to the book was "enormous" - which is indeed interesting,
as the book covers much of the corruption wrought through the British/C.I.A./BCCI
networks, though Thomas employs O'Neill to "spin" the global corruption
instead as the joint work of Israel (via Maxwell) and Russian criminal gangs.
Thomas' fellow Globe-Intel editors are also an interesting
bunch. One fellow editor, the British Sunday Express correspondent Yvonne
Ridley, had made her own entry into the 9/11 Legend as a high-profile captive
of the Taliban. Ridley, who claimed that the British government were inciting
the Taliban to kill her by implying that she was their covert agent, was
fortunately released by her captors on October 8, 2001, just one day after
the invasion of Afghanistan had begun. Given such a grave accusation, one
wonders why she would subsequently take up office space with an MI5 "groupie"
(Thomas) - unless, of course, she had now established her bona fides as
a "credible" source of disinformation.
[[New material added on December 19, 2003:
Apparently, Yvonne Ridley's episode among the Taliban did help to establish
her credibility - at least among the Muslim masses of the Middle East.
In the aftermath of her well-publicized captivity, Ridley embarked on
a course of study in the Koran, culminating in her conversion to Islam
- and, most significantly, her subsequent posting to Qatar as an anti-Western
correspondent for al-Jazeera. Last month, she was abruptly dismissed from
al-Jazeera for reasons that remain unclear. Sandwiched between her role
as a famous Taliban captive and her subsequent incarnation as a fundamentalist
employee of al-Jazeera, Ridley was a key source - in collaboration with
Gordon Thomas - for the contention that Mossad had provided forewarnings
specifically by reason of its infiltration of al-Qaida cells. Perhaps
only time will tell - but Ridley is looking more and more credible as
a source of disinformation as her legend proceeds down its bizarre, twisted
Rounding out the Globe-Intel editorial group is terrorism
expert Martin Dillon, who wrote a well-circulated tribute to his friend
John O'Neill, substantiating the official legend that O'Neill was "frustrated"
by State Department efforts to block his pursuit of bin Laden.
In reading the detailed revelations of Brisard, Dasquie, and
Thomas, one enters the proverbial hall of mirrors, where subtle truths reflect
back upon themselves as half-lies, and perceptions splinter amid a cascade
of contradictions. Such is the world of the disinformation operative. As
a first defense, all you need to know is when you're in it, not particularly
what's in it.
Still, a more curious case is that of John Loftus, a long-standing
Catholic friend of the Jews who had served in the Justice Department's Nazi-hunting
unit, where he had discovered - through CIA archives - the depth of the
CIA program to smuggle in Nazi war criminals through "ratlines"
to the United States after the Second World War. In his book, The Secret
War Against The Jews, Loftus documented in painful detail the anti-Semitic
history of the powerful Anglo-American "Establishment", the Wasp
clique which, through their oil and industrial holdings, has had a stranglehold
on American foreign - and military - policy for close to a century. Loftus,
clearly intimate with a great many operatives in the intelligence community
- whom he refers to as the "old spies" - had posited that the
Jews were repeatedly used as pawns and scapegoats in the grand match played
out by these men on the geopolitical chessboard. Loftus' reading of this
Establishment - which encompasses the likes of the Rockefellers, the Dulles
brothers, the Bakers, and the Bushes - dovetails nicely with the writings
of scholars like Peter Dale Scott (whose personal integrity and research
skills are beyond question). In other words, Loftus knows who is the real
power behind the throne.
Yet in the light of 9/11, it appears that Loftus has put on
his blinders, going out on the lecture circuit and offering the warmed-over
neo-conservative view that September 11 was essentially the work of wicked
Saudis intent on destabilizing the West by priming the terror pumps with
their oil wealth. More ominously, Loftus was offering his audiences a neocon
bird's eye view into the near future (courtesy of his military contacts
out of MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa) - a future in which a liberated
Iraq would be turned over to a compliant Hashemite monarchy (now resident
in Jordan), and then on to Saudi Arabia, where the Saudis would be booted
and replaced by compliant Hashemite monarchs in a new Hashemite Arabia.
And as for the West Bank Palestinians - well, they would be handed over
to the custody of the compliant Jordanian Hashemites. As for Loftus, he
was making his own contribution by heading up a class action lawsuit on
behalf of the families of 9/11 against those ruthless Saudi financiers.
And, as an aside, he was assuring his mostly Jewish audience that George
W. Bush is, at root, a decent fellow.
In short, Loftus was propagandizing his audience toward a
highly selective reading of 9/11. Gone were the ominous shadows of BCCI
and Iran-Contra, casting their pall over the credibility of those powerful
politicians feeding us their take on a new world order. More than anyone
(this writer included), Loftus should have been able to detect a high-level
disinformation campaign to set up "the Jews" and "the Zionists"
as the main evil conspirators behind 9/11. Yet ironically, here was Loftus
casting his lot in with those very neo-conservatives who will one day serve
as the showcase exhibits for what is sure to be the latest entry in an updated
blood libel. From the Crucifixion, to the Rothschilds, and on to the Twin
Towers, the Jews were being set up once more to play their historical role
as punch toys to smokescreen a powerful oligarchy.
The set-up was on two fronts - foreign and domestic. On the
domestic front, the neo-conservatives headed by Dick Cheney and Richard
Perle -widely dubbed by the mainstream press as the "hawks" -
were being marketed as the true ideological powers behind the Bush administration.
Their patchwork of inter-connected think tanks - Center for Security Policy,
Project for A New American Century (PNAC), Center For Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), American Enterprise Institute (AEI) - were deeply involved
in sending out various "experts" to explain the War On Terrorism
in a mainstream forum, thereby setting out the parameters of debate (in
addition to the parameters of the perceived threat).
But did these neo-conservatives constitute a mere "rogue
element" - an insular "cabal" of pro-Zionist conservatives
holding a largely naive President Bush in their sway (as Lyndon LaRouche
and the folks at Executive Intelligence Review would have us believe)? Or
rather, were they just a group "cut-out" for other, more powerful
interests - in other words, the public face that would skew the ultimate
responsibility, letting the true masterminds off the hook while the "cut-out"
proxies would double as potential patsies?
It had certainly been the case during the Clinton era, when
Richard Mellon Scaife's organization took center stage as the most vociferous
entity in attacking the integrity of President Clinton. Thus, while Scaife's
cronies made sure that all eyes were focused on Whitewater, Lewinsky, Foster,
et al, the mainstream focus was kept far from the infinitely more nefarious,
and damaging, scandal that was known by the four-letter word Mena, the crucial
transit point in Arkansas which, under Governor Clinton, had served to sustain
the arms/drug dealing operations that were fed through Iran-Contra and laundered
through BCCI. Thus, with Whitewater as the Scaife-funded public face of
the Starr inquiry into Clinton, those Clinton associates who could really
provide the dirt on the Clinton/Mena connection were being "purged"
in plain sight - through various prosecutions, accidents, murders, or well-timed
heart attacks (in the case of Jim MacDougall). Meanwhile, all eyes were
directed to the curious stain on the blue dress. Once Clinton was safely
out of office (and a leash presumably was no longer needed), Scaife disappeared
from public view as suddenly as he entered it - to be replaced by Dick Cheney,
Richard Perle, and their coalition of fundamentalist Christian/Jewish Zionists.
Picking up on the above theme, in the excerpt below,
Kupferberg analyzes the contributions of Vincent Cannistraro and Robert
Baer to the neo-con/Israel counter-legend. Cannistraro and Baer, two "former"
CIA officials who have since served as frequent consultants and "critics"
in the mainstream media, have elsewhere inserted themselves personally
into the 9/11 Legend - Baer, in his self-professed capacity as Daniel
Pearl's "research" partner; and Cannistraro, through his past
revelation of an Iraq/Oklahoma City connection.
Richard Sale [of UPI] would later go on to cite both Baer
and Cannistraro (on record here) for their views of the neo-con clique in
Washington - the one that was widely marketed as pushing for war in Iraq.
Sale's February 11, 2003 UPI article quoted Cannistraro thusly:
" 'Clearly Iraq is not the last phase of what the administration
tends to do in the Middle East.' According to the neo-con theory, [Cannistraro]
said, 'Syria is to be the next target.' He concurred with another view
in Washington that holds that part of the Bush plan was to 'wean the Jewish
lobby away from the Democrats' and that 'it's already pretty much happened.'
As for Baer's own assessment of the neo-cons:
"Former CIA official Robert Baer, when asked about
the master plan for the Middle East, told UPI last fall that Bush's team
allegedly wanted 'to divide up Syria, give part of Iraq to Turkey, overthrow
the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, [and] restore the Hashemites to the Hijaz,'
a very center of Saudi Arabian culture.
'The underlying motivation' for this, Baer said, 'is Israel...'
Recall that previously I had argued that both the "Jewish"
neo-cons and the state of Israel were to be set up as second tier proxy/patsies
for the events of 9/11. And while 9/11 was not at issue in the above-referenced
article, it is not unreasonable to conjecture that the article was meant
to be read on two levels. On the "mainstream" level, Baer and
Cannistraro were pushing the view that the approaching war in Iraq was a
project of an insular group of neo-cons acting on behalf of the state of
Israel, allied with the Jewish lobby. No indication here of a 9/11 conspiracy.
Elsewhere, Cannistraro and Baer had repeatedly gone on record as adhering
to the main contours of the Official 9/11 Legend - that al-Qaida was the
key perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, perhaps with a bit of help from Saudi
elements. On the "alternative", more "conspiracy-minded"
level, Cannistraro and Baer were reinforcing suspicions that this powerful
neo-con clique was perhaps responsible for plots more sinister than a push
toward Iraq. In this respect, perhaps it was not just a matter of happenstance
that Yosri Fouda had chosen to pair Cannistraro's commentary about the cheering
Israelis on the white van with Lyndon LaRouche's well-circulated theory
of a "rogue", self-contained, "cabal" of largely Jewish
neo-cons behind 9/11. Again, something for everyone.
Cannistraro and Baer - who both have gone on record as criticizing
the neo-cons and their spurious evidentiary claims of an Iraqi connection
to 9/11 - also share a common journalistic connection with Seymour Hersh,
the investigative journalist who has played his own part in discrediting
the neo-cons and the state of Israel. Hersh, in fact, wrote the foreword
to Baer's See No Evil - a recommended book for those wedded to the complacency
theory of 9/11, to be read in conjunction with Brisard and Dasquie's The
Forbidden Truth and Coleen Rowley's congressional testimony.
Hersh, a classic "access" reporter who first made
his reputation in an expose of the Mai Lai Massacre in Vietnam, was playing
the neo-con angle for all it was worth. In the Spring of 2003, in the midst
of global hysteria over Iraq, Hersh raised allegations that arch-neo-con
Richard Perle had peddled his influence with the Defense Policy Board for
financial gain, thereby forcing Perle to resign his position as Chairman.
Thereafter, Hersh revealed - in a May 12, 2003 article in The New Yorker
- the intellectual influence behind the scheming, insular neo-cons: the
late Leo Strauss, a professor at the University of Chicago. In Hersh's telling,
the Bush Administration was in the grip of the influential Office of Special
Plans at the Pentagon, dominated by the neo-cons, who were now branded as
"Straussians." In nailing down his point, Hersh quoted Cannistraro,
who claimed to have intimate knowledge of this Straussian clique:
"The group's members, Cannistraro said, 'reinforce
each other because they're the only friends they have, and they all work
together. This has been going on since the nineteen-eighties, but they've
never been able to coalesce as they have now. September 11th gave them
the opportunity, and now they're in heaven."
Again, Cannistraro here can be - and probably was intended
to be - read on two levels. On the "mainstream" level, the charge
consists of nothing more sinister than that of an "opportunistic"
post-9/11 grab at the foreign policy agenda. Yet on the "alternative"
level, Cannistraro was providing a powerful ready-made quote for use by
the "9/11 conspiracy crowd." Indeed, the Lyndon LaRouche apparatus
at Executive Intelligence Review was once more playing counterpoint to Cannistraro's
melody - for, whether coincidental or otherwise, LaRouche's unveiling of
Leo Strauss as the intellectual godfather of the neo-cons (whom he dubbed
as the Children of Satan) had in fact just preceded Hersh's more "mainstream"
take on the neo-con Strauss crowd. And now that Cannistraro had furnished
his "smoking gun" quote, the LaRouchites at Executive Intelligence
Review were subsequently quoting Cannistraro in order to burnish their contention
that 9/11 was likely the work of the insular neo-con "Perle/Wolfowitz
Meanwhile, both Baer and Cannistraro were lending their growing
reputations as critics of the War on Iraq in order to bolster the legitimacy
of the case for the War on Terror. At least that was the inevitable effect.
Like Brisard and Dasquie, Baer and Cannistraro seemed to be informational
Zeligs, showing up all over the media map, structuring perceptions in a
very definite direction, offering legends and counter-legends intended for
various audiences, both mainstream and alternative. On the broadest level,
Cannistraro and, especially, Baer were advocating the complacency theory
behind 9/11, posing as mainstream "critics" of their "former"
CIA employers while at the same time keeping the general contours of the
Official 9/11 Legend in place. In lockstep with the neo-cons, they were
also raising suspicions of possible Saudi perfidy, primarily for the Saudi
role as financial and political enablers of al-Qaida. A sub-set of the Saudi
thread also connected with the Cheney/ Halliburton / Enron /Big Oil theory
behind 9/11. This theory had a dual use - one, for an opportunistic complacency
theory behind 9/11, and the other for an opportunistic complicity theory.
In any case, the ailing Cheney had already been pre-packaged as a self-contained,
potentially "rogueish", power behind the Bush throne, while the
dead husk of Enron was marketed as the self-contained, rogue manifestation
of "Big Oil". If "Big Oil" and Cheney seemed to be taking
a large dose of bad publicity in the first several months following 9/11
and the War in Afghanistan, the storyline - and the villain role - gradually
shifted over to the Perle/Wolfowitz neo-cons in the year-long lead-up to
the War In Iraq. And here, too, a dual use was made of the neo-cons - one,
to raise suspicions of premeditated complicity, and alternatively, to raise
the allegation of post-facto opportunism.
As for Iraq, Cannistraro seemed to be playing it both ways
- casting aspersions on the Iraqis for the Oklahoma bombing, yet giving
them a clean bill of health with regard to the alleged evidence linking
them to 9/11. And, as stated before, Cannistraro and Baer's criticisms of
the War In Iraq only served to bolster the credibility of their opinions
concerning the War On Terror - and, by extension, to lend credibility to
the Official 9/11 Legend. If, during the whole War In Iraq episode, the
Bush and Blair regimes' sputtering efforts at propaganda and disinformation
were being repeatedly exposed as amateurish and ill-considered, then surely
- the reasoning goes - any attempts at information management concerning
9/11 would likewise have been exposed as fraudulent.
Yet it is a curious fact that, in the aftermath of the War
In Iraq - at a time when more Americans do not trust CNN - the structural
pivots of the Official 9/11 Legend appear more sturdy and unassailable than
ever before. For surely if all those British and American intelligence operatives
were heaping scorn on the "evidence" linking Iraq to 9/11, then
why not repose our trust in them when they tell us exactly who was behind
End of excerpts.
[The following is new material added December 18,
Who, exactly, is Robert Baer? In the months after 9/11, Baer
first emerged on the public radar scope as a "former" CIA official
involved in counter-terrorism. After publishing his widely acclaimed book,
See No Evil, Baer established himself as the mainstream media's "go-to"
guy when making the case for pre-9/11 complacency and opportunistic blindness.
But his contributions to our understanding of 9/11 didn't end there. In
addition to focusing attention on Saudi Arabia and the dominating influence
of the neo-conservatives on foreign policy, Baer has personally insinuated
himself into the Daniel Pearl story. On September 30, 2002, Richard Sale
of UPI reported:
"Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was investigating
the man who allegedly planned the Sept. 11 airplane hijackings and attacks
on New York and Washington when he was kidnapped and murdered in Pakistan,
according to two Central Intelligence Agency officials...
...'I was working with Pearl,' said [Bob] Baer, who had
written a book about his time as a CIA official and has acted as a consultant
and source for numerous media outlets. 'We had a joint project. [Khalid
Shaikh] Mohammed was the story he was working on, not Richard Reid [a.k.a.
the shoe bomber].' "
Was Baer being truthful, or rather was he disseminating a
blatant slice of disinformation? You be the judge. In Baer's latest widely
acclaimed book, Sleeping With The Devil - published after the September
30, 2002 UPI article - Baer blatantly contradicts himself, as evidenced
"I have no way of knowing whether Pearl went to Karachi
and asked about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The Wall Street Journal says no,
that he was working on the shoe-bomber case."
No way of knowing? What about that "joint project"
with Pearl? According to Baer's UPI version, back in 1997, Baer learned
of efforts by the government of Qatar to shield Khalid Shaikh Mohammed from
FBI apprehension. Khalid, at the time, was wanted for his alleged role in
the aborted 1995 Bojinka plot. Yet when none of his former colleagues in
counter-terrorism would follow up on Baer's leads, according to UPI, "Baer
said he was frustrated and called Pearl..." telling him that "he
had a hot story on terrorism..."
However, in Baer's book version, it was Pearl who had first
initiated contact after hearing of Baer's leads from other sources:
"In 1998, when I was living in France, I got a call
from a young Wall Street Journal reporter named Danny Pearl."
As for that "joint project" alluded to in the UPI
article, here is how Baer sums up the course of their interaction in his
"We met in Geneva...I told him about KSM [Khalid] and
Qatar. He listened, took notes, and promised to follow up on it one day.
We saw each other from time to time in Washington. He would bring up the
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed story, but neither of us had anything new to add."
And here is the version that Baer offered to UPI, describing
the aftermath of his very first telephone contact with Pearl:
"Baer said to his annoyance, Pearl did not begin to
work on the story. Nothing was done until the day of the Sept. 11 attacks
when Pearl called to talk to Baer."
Thus are we faced with two alternate realities. In the quantum
reality offered in Baer's book, Daniel Pearl is the dogged investigator
who tracks down Baer for his story on Khalid, following it up on subsequent
meetings with further queries of Baer, though neither has "anything
new to add." Yet in the quantum reality offered to UPI, it is Baer
who tracks down Pearl, and who subsequently becomes annoyed with Pearl's
presumed disinterest in Baer's revelation - that is, until September 11,
2001. In Baer's book, three days after September 11, Pearl called Baer after
sending him an email the day before. What follows is Baer's account of their
very last conversation:
"I reminded him about our talks on KSM [Khalid] and
Qatar. 'Worth thinking about,' [Pearl] replied."
Thus, in Baer's book version, that fateful phone call signals
the end of their interaction, consequently leaving Baer with "no way
of knowing" whether or not Pearl had picked up the ball and hustled
on over to Karachi to flesh out Baer's initial lead on Khalid. Meanwhile,
over in the UPI parallel universe, that post-9/11phone call marks the beginning
of their "joint project":
"Baer said he gave Pearl all the old information he
had and new information he had since obtained -- for example, that there
are files on [Khalid] in the Qatari Embassy in London.
Baer said he and Pearl then 'began to work together' --
in other words, Pearl would get info and check it out with Baer and Baer
would feed Pearl what he was getting. It was 'a joint project,' said Baer.
Baer was giving direction, but Pearl's contacts were not confined to Baer."
Simply based on the foregoing, one might reasonably conclude
that Baer is either a quantum leaper or a bona fide fibber. But even if
Baer's credibility is undermined by all this, what's the big deal? Isn't
Baer, after all, just a retired CIA guy far out of the loop, trolling the
media circuit as an "independent" critic? Or is he, rather, a
key operative among an insular (though by no means rogue) counter-terror
clique involved in the formation and presentation of the Official 9/11 Legend
and its off-shoots?
At the time of Baer's UPI revelation, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
had only been known to the public for less than four months - dating from
the time in June 2002 when he was first introduced as the "official"
9/11 mastermind. Prior to that date, scarcely any details at all were offered
to the public concerning Khalid - other than a generic "wanted"
listing for his alleged role in the 1995 Bojinka plot. And, perhaps, a very
brief, general reference to Khalid as an expert in the hijacking of planes
in Baer's first book. Yet if we are to believe Baer's post-June 2002 account,
Khalid was the object of intense concern to both Baer and Pearl - neither
of whom had ever gone on record as evincing any substantive interest in
Khalid at any time prior to Baer's September 30 UPI account. More curiously,
by June 2002, with Khalid now making the headlines as the brains behind
9/11 - and coming more than four months after Pearl's own widely publicized
kidnapping - Baer was continuing to do the media circuit, promoting his
earlier book along with his version of the 9/11 Complacency Theory, yet
still no word on his purported "joint project" with Pearl on the
newly unveiled 9/11 mastermind. Rather, Baer waited until three weeks after
the well-publicized apprehension of Khalid's alleged co-plotter, Ramzi Binalshibh,
and only then broached the news of his "joint project" with Pearl,
tying this in with the latest bombshell that Khalid had also likely killed
Daniel Pearl. Curious timing, that.
So who, exactly, is Robert Baer - and, more to the point,
why should this question matter? Baer - along with the likes of Vincent
Cannistraro and Milt Bearden - is among the select few who have managed
to "dirty" their hands with past CIA involvement with the Afghani
mujahedin. Terror, drugs, arms-smuggling,and the Byzantine workings of Mideast
geopolitics - Baer has personally seen it all. In Baer's chronicle of the
past CIA/Bin Laden/Muslim Brotherhood nexus, there is really nothing particularly
sinister in the fact that the CIA had originally fostered and funded a network
that would later go on to unveil itself as America's foremost enemy. Baer
characterizes it all as blowback.
But perhaps Baer manages to provide us a crucial - though
probably unintended - insight as to how we may characterize all that purported
blowback. In Baer's oft-repeated account of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's escape
from Qatar, he reveals that Khalid had managed to slip away with another
member of his al-Qaida cell - a man by the name of Shawqui Islambuli, whose
brother happens to be the man who had assassinated Egyptian President Anwar
Sadat on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is indeed an artful pairing - for these two men serve,
on a symbolic level, as the operative bookends of the Official 9/11 Legend.
At the tail end, of course, stands Khalid as the 9/11 mastermind. At the
front end stands the Egyptian fundamentalist clique whose 1981 move against
Sadat would coincide with its recruitment by Baer's CIA colleagues into
the Afghan effort. One member of that Egyptian clique, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman,
would go on to become a CIA asset, and, after his acquittal in relation
to the Sadat killing, would then be cleared to enter the United States in
1990 by way of a CIA-approved visa. Setting up shop in a Brooklyn mosque,
the men in Abdel-Rahman's circle - Sayyid Nosair, Ramzi Yousef, etc. - would
go on to be implicated in the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane, the plot
to destroy New York City landmarks, and, most importantly, the 1993 bombing
of the World Trade Center.
If the early shoots of what would eventually evolve into "al-Qaida"
look suspiciously like an Egyptian-CIA hybrid, that is probably due to the
fact that - from the vantage point of 1993 - a suspicious number of Egyptian
CIA assets (and/or FBI informants) were popping up all over the map. For
one, a former Egyptian military officer (and FBI informant) named Emad Salem
had managed to "infiltrate" former CIA asset Abdel-Rahman's New
York circle, giving his FBI handlers the "heads-up" on the plot
to take down the Twin Towers in '93. Meanwhile, another former Egyptian
military officer (and subsequent FBI informant) by the name of Ali Mohamed
would train Abdel-Rahman's men in the arts of bomb-making, formation of
operative cells, and all the sophisticated military tactics Ali had gleaned
from his three-year stint as a U.S. sergeant with the Special Forces at
Fort Bragg. Ali had first entered the United States on a CIA-sponsored visa
in 1981, in order to serve his first four-month stint with the Green Berets
at Fort Bragg - incidentally, the same year in which Ali had reportedly
joined the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood implicated in the Sadat assassination.
After being honorably discharged from service at Fort Bragg
in 1989, Ali's resume would include the training of Abdel-Rahman's men,
an ongoing stint as an FBI informant (carrying on even after the 1993 WTC
bombing), the authorship of al-Qaida's training manuals, along with the
training of bin Laden's personal security detail and the refinement of al-Qaida's
military tactics. Publicly outed for the first time in 1995 as the trainer
of the 1993 New York landmarks suspects, Ali would remain free to carry
on his busy globe-trotting itinerary for three more years before being lured
out of his cozy Sacramento digs in the aftermath of the 1998 Embassy bombings
in Tanzania and Kenya. Duly subpoenaed and then "secretly" indicted,
Ali would go on to plead guilty, implicate his fellow conspirators, and
then forever fade from public view (and scrutiny).
With just the foregoing facts in mind, it doesn't take a forensic
expert to connect the dots and draw certain conclusions as to the likely
paternity of what would later become known as "al-Qaida." From
the vantage point of 1993, where were those suspicious dots connecting this
close-knit terrorist network to Saddam Hussein? Or the Pakistani ISI? Or
the Saudis? Or the Israelis? After 1995, however, there would be new dots
to connect up, with new links subsequently forming in Afghanistan, Pakistan,
and Saudi Arabia, along with new al-Qaida cells springing up in London,
Hamburg, and across the globe - and, in lockstep with the times, new investigative
cliques forming across the US, UK, and the EU. Yet from that crucial, embryonic
time period of 1981-1993, we can venture a reasonable guess as to which
entity was most involved in coddling, handling, clearing, and funding this
insular grouping of Egyptian-born radicals, from out of which would grow
the full blossom of al-Qaida. And so we must ask what the likes of Bob Baer,
Vincent Cannistraro, and Milt Bearden were truly up to in those years.
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP312B.html
Chaim Kupferberg is a freelance researcher, writer and frequent
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original CRG articles in their entirety,
or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text
and title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged
as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
. The active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article and the author's
copyright note must be clearly displayed. (For articles from other news
sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.) For
publication of CRG articles in print or other forms including commercial
internet sites, contact: firstname.lastname@example.org .
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.