Bush, Blair, and the Terrorism Shell Game.

[JacquesL]

Bush, Blair, and the Terrorism Shell Game.
Deceit, Scams, and Coercion in the formulation of "Synthetic Terrorism"

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id362.html

February 20, 2007 -- "Synthetic Terrorism" is the result of deceitful acts on the part of the Bush administration that later turned criminal, treasonous, and potentially resulting in the most serious crime against humanity since the Holocaust.

"Is it high treason or just a simple case of dereliction of duty?" detailed the potential crimes of the Bush administration but there is also ample evidence in the public domain implicating U.S. allies; some of whom could be considered active collaborators in the deceptions.

At the center of this deception is a covert video of Bin Laden, the result of a sting operation executed by Saudi intelligence under the direction of U.S. intelligence. On the videotape, Bin Laden confessed to prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

It was shown with a high degree of accuracy that the sting operation (the taping) took place on September 26, 2001, two weeks after 9/11, and ten days prior to the invasion of Afghanistan on October 6, 2001. If Bin Laden were captured on September 26, as per Bush's promise "dead or alive", there would have been little support, internationally or in the U.S., for an invasion of Afghanistan.

As soon as the sting team, which executed the taping, extracted itself from Afghanistan, around September 30, 2001, Tony Blair made a strong statement relating to Bin Laden's guilt.

The BBC reports the Prime Minister's statements thusly:

"UK Prime Minister Tony Blair says he has been shown strong evidence linking Bin Laden to the attacks against the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington which cost more than 6,000 lives.

In a BBC interview, Mr. Blair said the evidence from intelligence services was "powerful and incontrovertible".

I had to look up the word incontrovertible in the dictionary – incontrovertible; not open to question or dispute; indisputable; absolute and incontrovertible truth.

Four days later, on October 4, 2001, Tony Blair addresses Parliament and informs it that a document detailinBin Laden's guilt would be placed in the Library of the House of Commons for their review. Of a certain category of evidence, specifically what was gathered after September 11, his address deals with it in this manner:

"Since September 11 intensive efforts have taken place here and elsewhere to investigate these attacks and determine who is responsible. Our findings have been shared and coordinated with those of our allies, and are clear..."

The document covers the history of Osama Bin Laden, his relations with the Taliban, what we know of the acts of terror he has committed; and some of what we know in respect of September 11. I enter a major caveat, much of the evidence we have is intelligence and highly sensitive. It is not possible without compromising people or security to release precise details"

Actually, no details of such evidence, precise or vague, were given in the "evidence document", just a new qualifier - of a very specific nature.  The following is the complete statement:

"There is evidence of a very specific nature relating to the guilt of Bin Laden and his associates that is too sensitive to release."

Not much could have changed in four days and what we can conclude from these statements is that the Incontrovertible evidence was of a very specific nature, gathered by intelligence, too sensitive to release, and that it was shared with some of the allies.

The only evidence that fits such description is the product of the intelligence sting operation - the Bin Laden confession tape of September 26, 2001.

Other than Tony Blair, the only allies that made similarly strong statements around that period were NATO, and Pakistan; allies who are critical to the success of Operation Enduring Freedom.

From a State Department document:

"On October 2, 2001, ...After a briefing by Coordinator for Counter terrorism Francis X. Taylor, NATO Secretary-General Robertson said that the United States had provided "clear and compelling" evidence of bin Laden's role in the terrorist attacks. As a result of the briefing, NATO concluded that the attacks were directed from abroad and will "therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one or more of the allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." NATO was therefore prepared to provide unconditional support for U.S. military actions."

From the same document:

"On October 4, 2001, ...In Pakistan, Foreign ministry spokesman Riaz Muhammad Khan said that the evidence shown to his government "provided sufficient basis for indictment" of bin Laden"

Why was this damning evidence shared with those allies essential to prosecute a war and why was it not shared with the rest of the world that was looking for a fair and peaceful outcome?

Now it becomes too obvious that the invasion was the real goal and what that entailed in terms of geopolitical gains for the U.S.; in Bush's own words of February 14, 2007, "sometimes money trumps peace". It was not a slip of the tongue; it was an intentional jab at the European leaders' position on Iraq. Bush stood by his words saying that he knew the statement is general but he considers it accurate; does this accuracy apply to his own approach to Afghanistan?

The invasion went ahead and the Pentagon was counting on a total media blackout over the operations in Afghanistan in order to contain international and domestic public opinion. The Pentagon's control of journalists in the field of operations was so tight that a mutiny among journalists was brewing. The Pentagon even had to apologize, as reported by The New York Times:

"We owe you an apology," Victoria Clarke, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, wrote Thursday in a letter to the Washington bureau chiefs of major news organizations. "The last several days have revealed severe shortcomings in our preparedness to support news organizations in their efforts to cover U.S. military operations in Afghanistan."

The only news organization that was not affected by this blackout was Al-Jazeera and its coverage exposed the atrocities endured by civilians. This prompted war cheerleader, Johns Hopkins professor, CNN pundit, and later demoted to FOX News pundit, Fouad Ajami, to publish What the Muslim World Is Watching in the New York Times, on November 18, 2001. A 6,178-word document that can only be described as a tirade that is too large for even a magazine format; yet a newspaper published it. The whole article can be summed in this relatively small excerpt from a paragraph that describes Al-Jazeera's impact on the Muslim viewer:

"The aim is to win the propaganda war, or the battle of public diplomacy in the Muslim world.... The Bush administration is eager to explain America's war, eager for the Arabs and the Pakistanis to accept the justness of its military actions. But how can it possibly expect to persuade the reporters at Al Jazeera to change their deep-seated view of this conflict? It would therefore be folly for America's leaders to spend too much energy trying to moderate Al Jazeera."

This paragraph must have gotten etched in Bush's mind and might be behind his wish to bomb Al-Jazeera's headquarter in Doha; it seems bombing their offices in Kabul and Baghdad was not enough. Anyway, that is another story and the bottom line is: Al-Jazeera's coverage prompted the Arab and Muslim street to keep asking for evidence and forced the leaders of the invasion to keep trying to produce it.

An attempt in mid November 2001, by Blair failed. An Al-Jazeera bureau chief explained what happened; Blair attempted to release a tape of a Bin Laden interview conducted by Al-Jazeera. The interview was to be comprised of responses to questions by both Al-Jazeera and CNN. When the Al-Jazeera's team reached Bin Laden's hideout to conduct the interview, their questions were tossed out and were informed that Bin Laden had his own set of questions with prepared answers. The news team objected, but feeling threatened, accepted to conduct the interview. Also, Bin Laden put a condition on Al-Jazeera, either Al-Jazeera airs all or none of the interview. Such a condition forced Al-Jazeera to choose none and refused to be intimidated or to act as Bin Laden's mouthpiece.

Somehow, Al-Jazeera's decision reached the west, and British intelligence managed to lift the tape. On Nov 11, David Bamber of the Sunday Telegraph in London introduced the lifted tape. Mr. Bamber informs us that the Telegraph had access to it and reports it this way:

"The footage, to which the Telegraph obtained access in the Middle East yesterday, was not made for public release via the al-Jazeera television network used by bin Laden for propaganda purposes in the past. It is believed to be intended as a rallying call to al-Qa'eda members. He also tells us: "The video will form the centrepiece of Britain and America's new evidence against bin Laden, to be released this Wednesday."

Those translated quotes were recognized by Al-Jazeera as their tape and moved to prevent Blair from using it.

The U.S. distanced itself from the video unveiling and left Blair twisting in the wind trying to save face armed with only a partial transcript.

On November 14, Spin Meister Blair quoted the transcript in Parliament as evidence. To the rest of the world and in legal terms, those quotes can only be considered as hearsay on hearsay and fell too short to be accepted as evidence.

On Nov 14, T.R. Reid, the Washington Post Foreign Service correspondent, reported from London on Blair's predicament; he wrote:

"The British government did not release the video or a full transcript, saying it does not have a copy of the video but has information about it from intelligence sources."

This feeble attempt by Blair to supply evidence can only be described as a desperate act. Its failure augmented the feelings of anger and impatience of the Arab and Muslim streets. Proper evidence needed to be presented and the only evidence of value that can counteract Al-Jazeera's coverage of the atrocities was the tape produced by intelligence services on September 26, 2001.

It took Washington a month to produce the evidence.  One, they needed to put space between them and Blair's failed attempt, two, they needed to clean it up as much as possible to prevent the viewer from realizing it was a covert tape.

Of Bin Laden's visit, which lasted close to three hours, only 35 minutes were left on the tape. All material that would have exposed the camera as a covert camera had to be removed. I suspect, because of the sensitivity of the whole operation, very few were involved in it, most likely rogue intelligence agents, the available talent pool must have been very limited and that impacted the video editing team the most; what was edited out was inadvertently substituted with Bin Laden family home videos.

These Bin Laden family home videos were chuck full of information and extremely helpful in exposing this Bush administration scam.

How many were active participants in the scam and how many participants in the Afghan invasion were just scammed? How far up the chain of command does it go and how far down has it trickled and why hasn't it been exposed on a wider scale?

The evidence leads to the conclusion that the highest echelons of NATO knew, so did senior Pakistani officials, as early as October 2001; did others figure it out the day the covert tape aired on Dec. 13, 2001? After all, Jason Burke of the Observer, a highly respected reporter on terrorism issues and the author of "Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror", wrote the following in The Observer on Dec. 16, 2001:

"This weekend, as the debate the tape has provoked continued across the Islamic world, several intelligence sources have suggested to The Observer that the tape, although absolutely genuine, is the result of a sophisticated sting operation run by the CIA through a second intelligence service, possibly Saudi or Pakistani."

How many government officials, western and otherwise, read The Observer that weekend? I would find it hard to believe if the answer is, none. I also find it hard to believe that no intelligence services vetted those words.

The world is on the brink of another war instigated by the Bush administration as part of its fake war on the "Synthetic Terrorism" it created.

World leaders, from those of NATO, to Pakistan, and others can no longer ignore this issue, hide behind their finger, play the field, and hope that the truth would die away; it rarely does. Not facing the issue exacerbates matters and can only be viewed as hypocritical and irresponsible.

For those leaders who fear the wrath of a world population desperate for sanity to return, and that of the Muslim populations that feel railroaded and wrongfully blamed, I say, you underestimate the capacity of the world to forgive; all that is needed is the application of the rule of law to those who committed these deceptions and atrocities.

Applying the rule of law should and would start in the U.S. with the appointment of an impartial investigator to look into these allegations.  Please review and sign the petition to Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, for the purpose of appointing such an investigative and prosecutorial entity.

[ur=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1571689.stml]Bin Laden 'hidden by Taleban'[/url], BBC News, Blair's incontrovertible evidence statement and other important developments, September 30, 2001.

Full text of Tony Blair's speech to parliament, The Guardian. October 4, 2001.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TERRORIST ATROCITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 11 SEPTEMBER 2001, 10 Downing Street document, Blair's first crack at evidence, October 4, 2001.

Bin Laden: Yes, I did it, By David Bamber, The Telegraph, November 11, 2001.

Blair Reveals Evidence Against Bin Laden, By T.R. Reid, Washington Post Foreign Service, Wednesday, November 14, 2001.

UK offers new bin Laden evidence, CNN archives, Tony Blair at the House of Commons, November 14, 2001.

Bin Laden videotape was result of a sting, By Ed Vulliamy and Jason Burke, The Observer, Sunday December 16, 2001.