Friday, April 15, 2005

A new theory on September 11

Bush and Sharon had a meeting in Crawford, and Bush pretended to insist on the 'Road Map', including the prohibition on the expansion of Israeli settlements. This was very encouraging, but misleading. As soon as Sharon left Texas he was confirming that he had no intention of following the 'Road Map', and that Israel would do just what it wanted with respect to illegal settlement expansion. Sharon left not the slightest doubt who was calling the shots. Despite the AIPAC Grand Jury and the Plame investigation, the Israelis and their neocon stooges in Washington are obviously certain that they have total control of the American government. The recent report blaming the CIA for intelligence failures leading to the attack on Iraq, without mentioning the real culprit, the Office of Special Plans and similar neocon operations in the Pentagon, is evidence that the neocons are still sitting pretty. The shocking honoring of the Israeli operatives behind the Lavon Affair proves that the Israelis feel not the slightest concern about directly insulting the United States. How can they possibly be so confident?

From "Reprise of the October Surprise: Is the Worst Surprise Still to Come?" published in May/June 1991 and written by Richard H. Curtiss, concerning Reagan's election and the October Surprise (my emphasis in bold):

". . . what is the significance today of this violation of the law that may have tipped the scales in favor of his election? First, it is a very likely explanation of why, whenever the Reagan administration and the hard-line Israeli governments of Menachem Begin and his successors went eyeball to eyeball, it was always the US that blinked. The US declined to press Begin on such topics as the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, the invasion of Lebanon, the occupation of West Beirut, the Sabra-Shatila massacres, and even the Reagan Plan for Middle East peace. The Reagan administration apparently was vulnerable to highly damaging Israeli blackmail, and at least some top officials of both governments knew it.

It also explains how and why the Reagan administration so easily fell into the catastrophic series of arms-for-hostages blunders, clearly instigated as well as carried out by Israel, that became known as Irangate, or the Iran-Contra scandal. The renewed arms shipments in 1985 and 1986 were initiated by reopening exactly the same channels used in 1980 and 1981 by some of the same principals on both, sides.

The final significance of the story concerns the administration of George Bush, now clearly teetering on the edge of a major initiative to put pressure on Israel for a land-for-peace Israeli-Palestinian settlement. If Bush really was involved personally in illicit Reagan campaign activities to forestall an 'October surprise,' he would now be so vulnerable to Israeli blackmail that no such political or economic pressure on Israel would be possible, even today. In the more likely event that Bush was not personally involved, clever Israeli agents could work through media leaks to create doubt about his role. This seems to be happening with the televised testimony of Israeli agent Ari Ben Menache, and that of Hushang Lavie, the Iranian arms dealer."

This was written before Gary Sick's great book on the October Surprise was published. Sick's thesis was that George Bush was indeed involved. Robert Parry has since found and published a Russian memo confirming Bush's personal involvement. George Bush is a fellow who claims not to have been involved in a lot of things. He claims not to have been in Dallas on November 22, 1963. He claims to have not been involved in the October Surprise. He claims to have been 'out of the loop' in Iran-Contra. In each case, he is almost certainly lying, and his lies left him open to political blackmail. Iran-Contra in particular never made any sense from an American strategic point of view. The only real beneficiaries were Iranian hard-liners and Israeli arms dealers. The small amount of money that actually flowed to the Contras could easily have been obtained in many easier and politically safer ways. The real story of Iran-Contra and the October Surprise may have been to provide the Israelis with opportunities to blackmail the American government.

Like father, like son. The same neocons behind the October Surprise and Iran-Contra are back in the White House. What if Tenet's famous briefing to Bush in Crawford in early August, 2001 contained sufficient information to indicate that the United States was under grave and imminent danger of an attack involving hijacked passenger planes flying into buildings? What if it described the probable targets, the approximate date of the attacks, and the concrete steps Bush could take to prevent the disaster? What if the neocons in Crawford surrounding Bush convinced him that Tenet was just a Nervous Nelly, and that Bush need not take any immediate action and should just continue on his well-deserved holiday? What if the neocons knew that Tenet was right, as they had Israeli intelligence confirming Tenet's fears, in part derived from the surveillance of Atta and the gang in Florida, and set Bush up to make the biggest mistake of his Presidency? What if threats to reveal this mistake have since been used by Israel to blackmail Bush into continuing to support the crazy Likudnik policies that are so obviously the real reason behind the terrorist threat to America? The real story of 9-11 may have been to take what was at least in part a legitimate terrorist threat and manipulate Bush's reaction to warnings about it in such a way as to leave him subject to Israeli blackmail.


  1. Right after September 11 there were some grumblings that Israel had known about 9-11 and had failed to inform its American ally. Israel angrily denied these charges, and pointed out that it had passed on warnings to the American government about a serious terrorist threat. There are still some doubts about the issue, but it seems clear that Israel - as well as many, many other countries - passed on fairly specific information to American officials regarding the threats of terrorist attacks.

  2. Joseph Cannon makes an excellent case that Tenet's famous Presidential Daily Briefing memo presented to Bush in Crawford on August 6, which is usually described as one and a half pages long, was actually ten pages longer than that. In other words, the Bush Administration is pretending that a shorter version of the memo, no doubt edited to remove the more embarrassing parts to Bush, is the memo Tenet presented to Bush in Crawford. It makes sense that the Administration, fearing that they might have to produce the memo, would create a sanitized version.

  3. During the proceedings of the 9-11 Commission, Richard Ben-Veniste asked Rice to provide the name of the August 6 memo, and she gave the title as "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States". She looked like a deer caught in the headlights, and everyone took this as a major 'gotcha' moment. It never really made sense. Ben-Veniste was hand-picked to sit on the Commission just because he could be counted on not to ask any questions that might embarrass anybody. This exchange between Ben-Veniste and Rice seems to be a piece of political theater, cooked up and rehearsed by Rice and Ben-Veniste to keep the pressure on Bush while not actually revealing all the contents of the memo. Everyone is left to speculate how much warning Bush actually had. The most damaging parts of the memo, and thus the potential for blackmail, remain hidden. The 'Bush knew' idea of the conspiracy theorists may actually be a neocon plot to trap Bush.

  4. When the Israelis making a video of the destruction of the WTC towers were caught celebrating and were arrested, one of them is reported to have said: "We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem." I interpreted this to mean that the United States was now subject to Islamic militant terrorism, and so would share Israel's problems. What if he really meant that the United States now shared Israel's problems because Bush had failed to act on Israeli warnings about 9-11, and was thus now completely subject to Israeli blackmail? They weren't cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center, but rather the fact that the trap had been successfully set. Until the WTC fell, Bush was safe from blackmail.

The most serious charge made against Israel was that it had information on the 9-11 terrorists and failed to inform American authorities so they could have prevented the terrorist attacks. What if this is completely backwards? What if Israel fully informed the CIA of its concerns and intelligence, and made sure such information reached Bush, but had its neocon agents ensure that Bush would not do anything about it, thus leaving him open to continuous blackmail? That would explain the supreme over-confidence of Israel and the neocons, the fact that the American government caves in to every insane Likudnik position no matter how damaging to real American interests, and the apparent lack of concern about outrageous embarrassment of the American government by the Israelis. Has George Bush fallen into the same Israeli blackmail snare that caught his father?


Reign Insurance said...

Check out my recent listing about affordable health insurance. Health Insurance