9/11 Family Members: Wars Add to Feeling of Loss 
By Guy Kovner 
The Press Democrat 

Sunday 07 September 2003 

The hole that Sept. 11 terrorism tore in the lives of Walt and Sandra Bodley has grown no smaller in
two years. 

At family parties, holidays and other times the Sebastopol couple would have seen their vivacious
20-year-old niece, Deora, her absence looms large. 

"It just isn't fair," said Walt Bodley, a retired airline pilot. 

Deora Bodley, a junior at Santa Clara University, was the youngest of the 44 passengers killed
when United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into a western Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11, 2001. 

Two years have done nothing to ease the family's pain, and two wars -- waged by the United States
in the name of combatting terrorism -- have, in their view, added to the human misery, with civilian
deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Neither invasion was justified, the Bodleys say, because neither country was responsible for the
attacks. Of the 19 hijackers, 15 of them were Saudis, Sandra Bodley said. 

"There isn't a connection (between Sept. 11 and Iraq)," she said. "There never was." 

As the nation moved toward war this spring, Sandra Bodley sought emotional support at Quaker
meetings in Santa Rosa and Sebastopol, surrounded by pacifists. "They are so grounded in their
belief," she said. "I was a basket case." 

The Bodleys attended a retreat in August 2002 put on by September 11th Families for Peaceful
Tomorrows, a group founded by Deora's father, Derrill Bodley, and other victims' relatives advocating
non-violent responses to terrorism. 

"I got all fired up," Sandra Bodley said. But her plans to turn peace activist in retirement got
sidelined. She did retire after 28 years as a nursing instructor at Sonoma State University, switching to
part-time work there, but adding another part-time job as director of Santa Rosa Junior College's
nursing program. 

She's had time for only a few local programs, talking about Deora and her sense of loss. On Sept.
11, Derrill Bodley, a Stockton resident and music professor at Sacramento City College, will be in New
York, performing at a memorial concert a piece he composed right after the attacks, called "Steps to

Walt and Sandra declined to go, preferring to spend the day in the tranquility of their home in the
hills west of Sebastopol. 

Sandra is pained that the death of her beautiful niece -- one of 3,016 killed in the attacks -- has
been the fulcrum for so much more suffering. "I guess that's the hardest thing to stomach," she said. 


Ground Zero Now a Center of Disunity 
By Josh Getlin 
Los Angeles Times 

Sunday 07 September 2003 

As the 2nd anniversary nears, New York's 9/11 civility disappears as development
plans and White House promises are questioned.

NEW YORK -- As she stood in a pelting rain, holding a picture of her dead son, Rosemary Cain
was ready to block traffic and be arrested at ground zero. She and other activists who lost loved ones
on Sept. 11 were protesting plans to build shops and a train station where the twin towers stood. 

This was sacred ground, they insisted at last week's demonstration, and New York Gov. George E.
Pataki had broken his pledge to protect it from development. "Enough is enough," said Cain, whose
firefighter son, George, died in the collapse of the second World Trade Center tower. "Desperate
people have to do desperate things, and we've reached that point now in New York." 

As the second anniversary of the terrorist attacks approaches, the sense of solemnity and civility
that once colored New York's approach to Sept. 11 issues is disappearing. 

It has been replaced by partisan bickering and grass-roots discord over issues that would have been
unthinkable a year ago, when emotions over the terrorist attacks were still raw and the grieving city's
wounds were healing. 

Beyond conflicts over ground zero, there are debates over whether President Bush has kept his
pledge to provide $21 billion in aid to New York, and over the Environmental Protection Agency's recent
admissions that officials misled the public about air quality in Lower Manhattan after the collapse of
the towers. 

There is also wrangling over the Republican Party's decision to hold its presidential convention in
New York next summer. GOP officials insist they will not politicize Sept. 11 during the festivities,
which are scheduled just before the third anniversary, but activists who oppose the president contend
that the party will exploit the backdrop of ground zero to boost Bush's reelection campaign. 

"The intensity of these New York debates has increased in recent months, and it's largely a spinoff
of the national debate over Iraq, which has also gotten more partisan," said Fred Siegel, a history
professor at Cooper Union College in New York. "This trend is going to continue because when it
comes to 9/11, the floodgates have opened." 

None of the disputes are new, but they had been greatly muted amid citywide efforts to rally New
Yorkers, and by what seemed to be an unspoken agreement among officials to tone down rhetoric on
Sept. 11 issues as the city mourned. 

Today, New Yorkers remain fearful of terrorism, with 86% saying another attack is possible or likely,
according to a New York Daily News poll by Blum and Weprin Associates. But the mood in the city
seems more relaxed, either because people are accustomed to the threat or resigned that they can do
little about it, pollsters say. And as fears subside, along with the sense of a city under siege,
divisiveness has returned. 

The attempt by Cain's group to shut down ground zero with an act of civil disobedience, for
example, marked a departure for many family activists, whose activities have been largely confined to
closed-door meetings with politicians and redevelopment officials. Although police frustrated the
protest by closing the gates to the work site before demonstrators arrived, leaders promised to return
to the 16-acre construction area this week with new demonstrations. 

Pataki, reacting to the activists' criticism, told reporters: "My heart goes out to the families. We're
doing everything we can to be as respectful and supportive and understanding of the families' desires
while we continue to move forward." 

At the center of the dispute is the definition of "footprint," the term used to describe the two
unmarked rectangles where the twin towers stood. Pataki has pledged not to allow development on the
footprints, but current plans call for reconstruction of a New Jersey PATH train and other infrastructure
six to seven stories below ground — down to the so-called bedrock level. 

Family members have said both footprints, reaching down to the bedrock, should be protected
because many bodies were found in rubble deep beneath the surface of the World Trade Center. Plans
to build below ground in that area were disclosed only recently. 

Ground zero is a busy construction site. A new train terminal is rising in the pit, and final
adjustments are being made to a blueprint — approved earlier this year — calling for massive new
office buildings and the world's largest tower. Later this year, officials with the Lower Manhattan
Development Corp. will announce the winner of a design competition for a memorial. 

Many of the plans have sparked controversy, including debates over whether emergency and rescue
workers should have their own memorial. There are also concerns about whether developer Larry
Silverstein, who leased the property from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, will have
enough funds on hand to complete the commercial development. 

Beyond ground zero, New Yorkers are debating whether Bush will honor his pledge to give the city
$21.4 billion for economic recovery. The White House insists it will keep the promise, and Mayor
Michael R. Bloomberg, among a host of local, state and federal GOP officials, believes the
administration has been good to its word. 

Last week, however, New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson released a report contending
that the actual figure has been adjusted to $20.8 billion, and that some $3.7 billion is at risk of being
lost because it has not been earmarked for specific projects. The shortfall, he said, was "disappointing
to all New Yorkers" and had become "a moral issue. America and the president said they would stand
with us in our time of need. Now we're saying we need to make sure we utilize every dollar." 

In a separate letter to Bush, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Gifford Miller, the Democratic
speaker of the New York City Council, suggested that New York City would receive at least $2 billion
less than the president had originally promised. 

The White House responded quickly — and bluntly — to the attacks: "The president made a
$20-billion commitment to the people of New York and he has kept that commitment," said
spokesman Ken Lisaius. "Period. Case closed." 

There has been even greater acrimony over recent EPA admissions that officials gave misleading
assurances to the public that the air in Lower Manhattan was safe to breathe after the attacks. These
assurances were made before the agency had data to back up such claims, and White House officials
with the Council on Environmental Quality removed cautionary statements from several EPA news
releases, according to an internal study by the agency released last month. 

Democratic officials have reacted angrily. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman
(D-Conn.) sent a letter to Bush saying that the reports of White House efforts to tone down
environmental warnings, if true, were "galling and beyond comprehension." Rep. Jerrold Nadler
(D-N.Y.), a longtime EPA critic, told reporters that the action showed "a reckless disregard for human
life." Presidential candidate Howard Dean and others have called for congressional hearings on the

White House spokesmen have referred all comments to the EPA, which has defended its actions.
Marianne Lamont Horinko, the acting administrator, said the agency did the best it could under chaotic
circumstances in the days after the terrorist attacks. 

"The agency was confronted with environmental contamination never seen before and ever-changing
and ever-growing data," she wrote in an op-ed piece for the Daily News. The charges made by
Democratic officials show "the depth of cynicism to which [critics] have sunk, to charge this
administration and this agency with deliberately lying to the people of New York about the health
risks," Horinko wrote. 

There is similar indignation over charges that the White House will attempt to exploit the imagery
and memories of Sept. 11 during the 2004 Republican convention in New York. Kieran Mahoney, a
veteran GOP consultant in New York, said Republicans will tread carefully to respect the site and
steer clear of opportunism. 

"Nobody wants to politicize these events," he said. "But on the other hand, combating terrorism is
one of this president's finest achievements, and it is probably the central question for the next leader of
the United States. You can't avoid it." 

Indeed, when New York City pitched the Republican National Committee to hold its convention here,
Bloomberg led a delegation that stressed Bush's links to ground zero as a selling point: "It was here in
New York, with bullhorn in hand, that our president summoned the nation to defend freedom and defeat
terrorism," the mayor said. 

Bloomberg has principally stressed the local economic benefits of bringing the Republican
convention to New York, and notes that he wooed Democrats just as aggressively. But that hasn't
stopped ground zero activists from questioning GOP motives and vowing to protest against the
convention when it comes to town. 

"I'm worried that my brother's death is being exploited for political purposes," said Andrew Rice, a
member of September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. "We are calling on all political leaders to
respect the anniversary as a day of mourning and reflection, not a backdrop for their campaigns." 

Siegel, the Cooper Union professor, predicts Republicans and Democrats will be squabbling more in
the months to come as the presidential campaign heats up and ground zero protests unfold. 

"If you think about it, the Republicans would have probably been criticized if they didn't bring their
convention here, just as they're being criticized for coming to New York City," Siegel said. "The whole
9/11 issue here is becoming a political football." 


September 11th And The Bush Administration
Compelling Evidence for Complicity
Walter E. Davis, PhD
08/31/03: (Information Clearing House)


Clearly, one of the most critical questions of the twenty-first century
concerns why the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were not
prevented. As I outline below, there are numerous aspects regarding the
official stories about September 11th which do not fit with known facts,
which contradict each other, which defy common sense, and which indicate
a pattern of misinformation and coverup. The reports coming out of
Washington do very little to alleviate these concerns.

For example, the Congressional report released on July 25, 2003 by a
joint panel of House and Senate intelligence committees concluded that
9/11 resulted in C.I.A. and F.B.I. "lapses." While incompetence is
frightening enough given a $40 billion budget, it is simply not
consistent with known facts. It is consistent with the reports from
other government scandals such has the Iran Contra Affair which produced
damage control and cover up but not answers to the more probing
questions. But perhaps a comparison to Watergate is more apropos since
we now have twenty-eight pages of this report, which the Bush
Administration refuses to release. The report from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) is believable unless you are seriously
interested in the truth. Under more careful scientific scrutiny, it does
not answer some very important questions.

Newspapers across the country call for an investigation into Bush=92s lies
about the reasons for war on Iraq. Many people may accept the fact of
Bush=92s false pretext for a war on Arab people in a distant place,
especially after the fact. However, few people will be as accepting if
it is shown that this Administration was complicit in acts of atrocities
against its own people.

The magnitude of the crisis is readily apparent by noting that 9/11
serves as a pretext for a never-ending war against the world, including
preemptive strikes against defenseless, but resource rich countries. It
also serves as a pretext for draconian measures of repression at home,
including the cabinet level Department of Homeland Security and Patriot
Act I, and its sequel. September 11th has become the cause for numerous
other acts from massive increases in military spending and to a Fast
Track Trade Agreement for the President.

To date, investigations stop far too short, the public is left in the
dark on too many questions easily answered, and no one in the Bush
has been held accountable for any actions surrounding the attacks of
September 11, 2001. The National Commission on Terrorists Attacks Upon
the United States, which was formed at the insistence of the family of
some of the victims, is continuing to hold hearings and a final report
is expected by May, 2004. It remains to be seen if, after a two-year
lapse, they can come closer to the truth about September 11th. I believe
that this would only happen if public pressure were brought to bear and
accountability demanded from the Bush Administration. Accountability for
any atrocity should attract the attention of serious investigative
reporters, media critics and even news commentators. That is their
chosen responsibility. Who is to raise the question of why journalists
and others in the mass media are failing the people of the U.S. and the

In this article, I outline twenty-two items of evidence and questions,
each one sufficient reason to demand an investigation into why September
11th was not prevented. Together, these items suggest that the most
plausible explanation of events is that the Bush Administration was
complicit in the terrorist attacks. This should be a national and
international scandal. What is being discovered will shock many people,
which is one of the reasons for deliberate corporate media coverup. But
a significant number of people within the U.S. see (or will see) the
consistencies in the events surrounding 9/11 as described below, and
what they know about U.S. foreign policy. Nevertheless, the degree to
which this Administration is pursuing a course of world domination at
any cost is unprecedented. One of the best ways of putting a halt to
this destructive course is to expose the Bush Administration and insist
on their accountability to the American people. Thus, the intent of this
article is to help fill the void in the media on the issue of the Bush
Administration=92s complicity in 9/11.

Here is the official story: On the morning of September 11, 2001 four
Boeing passenger jets were hijacked within an hour by nineteen Arab
terrorists armed with boxcutters. Pilots among these terrorists took
control of the commercial planes and changed course toward targets in
New York City and Washington D.C. Two of the planes were deliberately
crashed into the Twin Towers, causing fires within the towers, which
melted the steel support structures, thereby causing the buildings to
collapse completely. A third plane was deliberately crashed into the
Pentagon. Passengers on the fourth plane overpowered the hijackers and
caused the plane to crash in Pennsylvania. This was an attack on America
planned and directed by Osama bin Laden as the leader of Al-Qaeda, a
previously obscure anti-U.S. international terrorist organization
composed mainly of Arabs. This story cries out for further explanations,
but nothing official is forthcoming. People are simply expected to
believe the official version without question.

Evidence of Complicity by the Bush Administration in 9/11 Terrorist

The following twenty-two separate and related points, citing evidence
requiring further investigation, and include questions that demand
answers, were formulated on the basis of the information from the
several sources cited at the end, which should be consulted for
verification and documentation. These sources contain extensive detailed
information and analysis beyond what is provided in this summary. I hope
that this information will incite public outrage leading to full

The entire United States intelligence community knew of the 9/11 attacks
before hand, including the fact that commercial jets were to be used as
bombs; they also knew the approximate dates and possible targets but
were called off their investigations. Western intelligence had been
aware of plans for such terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as early as 1995.
The plan was known as "Project Bojinka"
It was known to both the CIA and FBI and was described in court
documents in the trial in New York of Ramzi Yousef and Abdul
Murad for their participation in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade
Center (WTC).

Seven to eight weeks prior to September 11th, all internal U.S. security
agencies were warned of the impending Al-Qaeda attacks. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) was warned of the attack but did nothing
to beef up security. At least two weeks prior to September 11th the FBI
agents again confirmed that an attack on lower Manhattan was imminent.
However, the FBI agents were commanded to cut short their investigations
into the attacks and those involved. Agents were threatened with
prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized
information pertaining to their investigations. Some field agents
predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th.

As early as 1997, Russia, France, Israel, the Philippines and Egypt all
warned the U.S. of the possibility of the attack. Warning also came from
came from several others sources as well. Recently (May 25, 2002), CBS
revealed that President Bush had been warned in an intelligence briefing
on August 6, 2001that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial
planes for a domestic attack in the U.S.

There is incontrovertible evidence that the US Air Force all across the
country was comprehensively "stood down" on the morning of September
11th. Routine security measures, normally in place, which may well have
been able to prevent the attacks, or reduce their impact, were suspended
for one hour while the attacks were in progress, and re-instated once
they were over. Sequence of events:

8:46 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston smashed into
the north tower of the WTC. The tower collapses at 10:28 a.m.

9:03 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston smashed into
the south tower. It completely collapses at 9:59am.

9:38 a.m.: AA Flight 77 from Dulles hits the Pentagon.

10:10 a.m.: United Flight 93 from Newark crashed in Shanksville,

Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation about 10 miles
from the Pentagon. On September 11th there were two entire
squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. They failed to do
their job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C. Despite over one
hour=92s advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single
Andrews fighter tried to protect the city. The FAA, NORAD and the
military have cooperative procedures enabling fighter jets to
automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions.
They do not need instructions from the White House to carry out these
procedures, yet they were not followed.

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45
a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground
control and radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its
assigned path of flight. Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately
called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons,
and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point an
emergency was undeniably clear. Yet, according to NORAD's official
timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m.
Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m., a full 32
minutes after the loss of contact with Flight 11.

Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same pattern of delays in
notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are
difficult to imagine considering a plane had, by this time, already hit
the WTC. The plane striking the pentagon is particularly spectacular.
After it was known that the plane had a problem, it was nevertheless
able to change course and fly towards Washington, for about 45 minutes,
fly past the White House, and crash into the Pentagon, without any
attempt at interception. All the while two squadrons of fighter aircraft
were stationed just 10 miles from the eventual target. Unless one is
prepared to allege collusion, such a scenario is not possible by any
stretch of the imagination.

Neither the Joint Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defense nor the
President of the United States acted according to well established
emergency protocols. Acting Joint Chief of Staff General Richard B.
Myers stated that he saw a TV report about a plane hitting the WTC but
thought it was a small plane. So he went ahead with his meeting. By the
time he came out of the meeting the Pentagon had been hit. Whose
responsibility was it to relay this emergency to the Joint Chief of

The Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was at his desk when AA77
crashed into the Pentagon. How is it possible that the National
Military Command Center, located in the Pentagon and in contact
with law enforcement and air traffic controllers from 8:46 a.m., did not

communicate to the Secretary of Defense, also at the Pentagon,
about the other hijacked planes especially the one headed to Washington?

After he was notified, why did he go to the war room?

The actions of the President, while the attacks were occurring,
indicate that he deliberately avoided doing anything reasonably expected
of a
President wanting to protect American citizens and property. Why
didn't the Secret Service inform him of this national emergency? When is
President supposed to be notified of everything the agencies
know? Why was the President permitted by the Secret Service to remain in
Sarasota elementary school? At 9.05, nineteen minutes after the
first attack and two minutes after the second attack on the WTC, Andrew
Card, the presidential chief of staff, whispered something in
President Bush=92s ear. The president did not react as if he was
interested in trying
to do something about the situation. He did not leave the school,
convene an emergency meeting, consult with anybody, or intervene in any
way, to ensure that the Air Force completed it=92s job. He did not
even mention the extraordinary events occurring in New York, but simply
continued with the reading class. His own explanations of his
actions that day contradict known facts.

In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision could
cost thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that the
has a whole network of adjuncts and

advisors to insure that these top officials are among the first
to be informed, not the last. Where were these individuals who did not
inform the top officials?

In short, the CIA, the DCI, the State Department, the President,
and key figures around him in the White House, were ultimately
for doing nothing in the face of the mounting evidence of an
impending threat to U.S. national security. Incompetence is a highly

4) Prior to 9/11, the US intelligence agencies should have stopped the
nineteen terrorists from entering this country for intelligence reasons,
alone. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers' visas should have been
unquestionably denied because their applications were incomplete and
incorrect. Most of the 19 hijackers were young, unmarried, and
un-employed males. They were, in short, the "classic over-stay
candidates". A seasoned former Consular officer stated in the National
Review magazine, "Single, idle young adults with no specific destination
in the United States rarely get visas absent compelling circumstances."

There are several cases damaging to the credibility of the official
accounts of 9/11. But the U.S. response to Mohamed Atta, the alleged
lead hijacker, is most extraordinary. The FBI had been monitoring Atta=92s
movements for several months in 2000. According to PBS=92 Frontlines, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service failed to stop Atta from entering
the U.S. three times on a tourist visa in 2001, even though officials
knew the visa had expired in 2000, and that Atta had violated its terms
by taking flight lessons. Furthermore, Atta had already been implicated
in a terrorist bombing in Israel, with the information passed on to the
United States before he was first issued his tourist visa.

How did many of the hijackers receive clearance for training at secure
U.S. military and intelligence facilities, and for what purposes? Many
of the terrorist pilots received their initial training in Venice,
Florida at one of two flight schools of highly questionable credibility
and with approval of US intelligence. Mohamed Atta had attended
International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery,
Alabama; Abdulaziz Alomari had attended Aerospace Medical School at
Brooks Air Force base in Texas; Saeed Alghamdi had been to the Defense
Language Institute in Monterey, California. These are all names of
identified hijackers, so why has the U.S. government attempted to deny
the match? As early as three days after the 9/11 attacks, FBI Director
Robert S. Mueller III claimed that these findings were new and had not
been known by the FBI previously. This claim is a lie.

Zacarias Moussaouri was arrested after his flight trainers at the
Minnesota flight school, Pan Am International Flight Academy, reported
highly suspicious behavior. He was greatly unqualified; he wanted to
learn to fly a 747 but wasn=92t interested in takeoffs or landings; he was
traveling on a French passport, said he was from France, but could not
speak French. When contacted, the French said he was a suspected
terrorist connected to Al-Qaeda. However, a special counter terrorism
panel of the FBI and CIA reviewed the case and dismissed it.

There are numerous glaring anomalies, illegalities and scandals
connected with Wally Hilliard and Rudi Dekker=92s Huffman Aviation School
at Venice, Florida where other hijackers trained. Dekkers had no
aviation experience and was under indictment in his native country, The
Netherlands, on financial charges. He purchased his aviation
school at just about the time the terrorist pilots moved into town and
began their
lessons. He has yet to be investigated even though he initially
trained most of the hijackers.

Britannia Aviation was awarded a five-year contract to run a
large regional maintenance facility at Lynchburg at a time when the
virtually had no assets, employees, or corporate history and did
not posses the necessary FAA license needed to perform the maintenance.
Britannia was a company with known CIA connections. It was
operating illegally out of Huffman Aviation, the flight school which
Al-Qaeda hijackers and was given a "green light" from the Justice
Department=92s Drugs Enforcement Administration, and the local Venice
Police Department was warned to "leave them alone." Why?

6) How were the hijackers able to get specifically contraband
items such as box-cutters, pepper spray and, according to one FAA
executive summary, a gun on those planes? On the morning of
September 11th, when the 19 hijackers went to purchase their tickets and

to receive their boarding passes, nine were singled out and
questioned through a screening process. But they passed the screening
and were allowed to continue on with their mission.

7) At a time when the U.S. intelligence community was on alert
for an imminent Al-Qaeda attack, the Bush Administration
made it easier for Saudi visitors to come to the U.S. under a
program called U.S. Visa Express, introduced four months before
September 11th. Michael Springmann, former head of the Visa
Bureau at the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia said that he was
repeatedly ordered by high-level State Departtment officials to
issue visas to unqualified applicants. His complaints to higher
authorities at
several agencies went unanswered. In a CBC interview, he
indicated that the CIA was indeed complicit in the attacks.

8) Most of the hijackers were Saudis, as is Osama bin Laden, and
the Saudi Arabian government is known to give financial
support to terrorist organizations. Why is Iraq and not Saudi
Arabia a target if the US government is concerned about
terrorism? Saudi Arabia=92s government cooperates with US oil and
arms industries; Iraq did not. Iraq is forced to now, of course. At
fifteen of the far-flung network of terrorist pilots received
their money from the same source. There is specific evidence that Osama
bin Laden
continues to receive extensive support, not only from members of
his own family, but also from members of the Saudi establishment. A New
Statesman report stated that "Bin Laden and his gang are just the
tentacles; the head lies safely in Saudi Arabia, protected by U.S.
The hijackers responsible for 9/11 were not illiterate, bearded
fanatics from Afghanistan. They were all educated, highly skilled,
professionals. Of the 19 men involved, 13 were citizens of Saudi

9) Why were the FBI called off its investigation of Osama bin
Laden and the Saudi Royal Family prior to 9/11? Moreover, why
were the FBI Agents ordered to curtail their investigation of
these attacks on October 10, 2001? The FBI has repeatedly complained
that it has been muzzled and restricted in its attempts to
investigate matters connected to Bin Laden and Al Qeada. One law
official was quoted as saying, "The investigative staff has to be
made to understand that we=92re not trying to solve a crime now." FBI
are said to be in the process of filing a law suit agents the
Agency for the right to go public.

10) Osama Bin Laden was unofficially convicted of the attacks
within a time frame that could not possibly have allowed any
intelligence to have been gathered which supported the
accusation. That is, it would be impossible if they did not already have

that information. How could they have had no warning of an
operation, which must have been very difficult to keep under wraps, but
be able to name the culprit in less than a day? And if they had
some forewarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, then it
raises even
more questions about government agencies=92 complicity.

It is not logical that Bin Laden was involved, and actually
impossible, unless he was involved in the capacity of collusion with US
or at best, in the context of the US knowing all along what he
was up to, and deliberately allowing him to do it. The point has already
made that if he was involved, then it cannot have been a
surprise, which in turn, points to the President and others in his

From day one, there has not been a shred of publicly available
evidence against Bin Laden. Up until mid December, there was nothing but
continued repetition of his name. The official documents
detailing allegations against Bin Laden provide no convincing evidence.
Of the 69
points of "evidence" cited, ten relate to background information
about the relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban. Fifteen relate
background information regarding the general philosophies of Al
Qeada, and it's relationship to Bin Laden. None give any facts
the events of 9/11. Most do not even attempt to directly relate
anything mentioned to the events of that day. Twenty-six list
allegations related
to previous terrorist attacks. Even if they were convictions of
previous terrorist attacks, everybody knows that this isn't worth the
paper it's
written on, in terms of evidence for involvement of September

Within less than four hours of the attacks taking place, the
media were fed comments, which assumed Bin Laden's guilt, comments made
the basis of events, which could not possibly have occurred. The
Pentagon and the Department of Defense used dialogue attributed to Bin
Laden, in an effort to incriminate him, while refusing to release
all of the dialogue, and refusing to issue a verbatim, literal
translation. Why
was it considered necessary to lie, in order to create a case
against Bin Laden? The truth could well implicate the Bush

11) Pakistan=92s Intelligence Agency (ISI) was indirectly involved
in September 11th. The links between Al Qaeda, Pakistan=92s ISI
and the CIA; and, between the ISI, Osama bin Laden and the
Taliban Axis are a matter of public record. Pakistan has also long
been a supporter of Al Qeada. The Pakistani ISI (secret service)
has been a mechanism by which the CIA indirectly channeled support to Al

Qeada and has been used by successive US administrations as a
"go-between." Pakistan's military-intelligence apparatus constitutes the
institutional support to both Osama's Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Without this institutional support, there would be no Taliban government
Kabul. In turn, without the unbending support of the US
government, there would be no powerful military-intelligence apparatus
in Pakistan.

It was reported that ISI=92s Director-General, General Mahmoud
Ahmad, had funneled $100,000 to the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, shortly

before September 11th. The U.S. government protected him, and
itself, by asking him to resign quietly after the discovery, thus
blocking a
further inquiry and a potential scandal. In the wake of 9/11, the
Bush Administration consciously sought the "cooperation" of the ISI,
had been supporting and abetting Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.
In other words, the Bush Administration's relations with Pakistan's ISI,

including its "consultations" with General Mahmoud Ahmad in the
week prior to September 11th, raise the issue of "cover-up" as well as
"complicity". While Ahmad was talking to U.S. officials at the
CIA and the Pentagon, the ISI allegedly had contacts with the 9/11

12) The USA and Bin Laden are not the enemies they pretend to be.
It is established beyond doubt that senior members of the Bush
administration have close links to the Bin Laden Family and this
relationship is still going on behind the scenes. In fact, there is
plenty of
circumstantial evidence to indicate that Bin Laden, may have had
something to do with 9/11, but the problem is that it also implicates
the Bush
Administration, the CIA, George Bush Senior, Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia and The United Arab Emirates.

It is well known that Bin Laden=92s close working relationship with
the CIA began in the 1980=92s. The claim is that they have since fallen
but this story is a lie. According to the mainstream media spin,
this is OK, because the rest of the family has disowned Osama for his
activities and anti-US views. This spin is also a lie.

The "blowback" thesis is a fabrication. The evidence amply
confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the "Islamic Militant
Since the end of the Cold War these covert intelligence links
have not only been maintained, they have become increasingly

13) How was it possible for the World Trade Center=92s two towers
to have completely collapsed as a result of two jet planes? The
towers in fact stood for forty-five and ninety minutes after the
crashes. The official story is that the burning jet fuel caused the
girders supporting them to melt. However, there is simply no
credibly scientific evidence to support this story. The WTC towers were
designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707. It is highly
unlikely that fire from the jet fuel could have melted the steel
girders. This is
especially true of the South tower since the plane did not hit it
directly. Therefore most of the fuel did not fall inside the building.
The South
Tower was hit second and fell first. Both towers collapsed evenly
and smoothly in a manner consistent with that caused by a planned
demolition. Based upon scientific evidences, photos and videos of
the event, and reports of scientists, the WTC architect and engineers,
it is
highly unlikely that the Towers collapsed because of burning jet
fuel rather than demolition. There are also serious questions regarding
collapse of the building known as WTC7. It is also noteworthy
that ownership of the WTC changed hands several months earlier because
the towers collapsed because of inside demolition, such
accomplishment would require cooperation from the extensive WTC security

14) Why was Bin Laden not captured before 9/11, and why has he
not been captured since? There have been several
opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden, but no effort to do so
was made. Two US allies, Saudi Arabia, and The United Arab
Emirates, have colluded in deliberately allowing Bin Laden to
stay free. Bin Laden was meeting with the CIA as late as July 2001. An
examination of U.S. attempts to capture Osama bin Laden show they
have in fact consistently blocked attempts to investigate and capture
him. Eleven bin Laden family members were flown safely out of the
same Boston airport where the highjacking took place a few days earlier.

Why were they not detained for questioning?

15) The September 11th disaster has resulted in power and profit
at home and abroad by both the Bin Laden and the Bush
families. There are significant business ties between Bin Laden
and senior members of the Bush administration. Reports have emerged that

Carlyle Group, the giant U.S. defence contractor that employs
former President George W. Bush Sr., has had long-standing financial
ties to
the bin Laden family. So while there is compelling evidence that
Osama bin Laden has not broken away from his family, it is also a matter
record that the Bush administration is in turn very significantly
tied to the same family. The Carlyle Group has profited immensely from
wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and from the militarization of U.S.
foreign policy.

16) Revelations of profits made by insider trading relating to
the 9/11 attacks, point to the top levels of US business and the
CIA. The intelligence community regularly analyzes financial
transactions for any suspicious activity. Only three trading days before

September 11th, shares of American and United Airlines -- the
companies whose planes were hijacked in the attacks on New York and
Washington -- were massively "sold short" by investors. Executive
CIA Director AB "Buzzy" Krongard was one of those who profited from
the deal. The names of the other investors remain undisclosed and
the $5 million in profit taking remains unclaimed in the Chicago
account. No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the
Chicago exchange in the day immediately preceding Black Tuesday. There
also unusual trades on several companies occupying the World
Trade Center, including Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., and Merrill
Lynch & Co. These multiple, massive and unprecedented financial
transactions point unequivocally to the fact that the investors behind
trades were speculating in anticipation of a mid-September 2001
catastrophe that would involve both United and American Airlines and
offices in the Twin Towers. To date, both the Securities &
Exchange Commission and the FBI have been tight-lipped about their
investigations of trades. A probe could isolate the investors.
Why has nothing been made public?

17) Selected persons were told not to fly that day. Newsweek
reported that on September 10th, "a group of top Pentagon officials
suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently
because of security concerns." Why was that same information not
made available to the 266 people who died aboard the four
hijacked commercial aircraft? A significant number of selected people
were warned
about flying or reporting for work at the WTC. San Francisco
Mayor Willie Brown received a phone call eight hours before the
warning him not to travel by air. Salman Rushdie is under a
24-hour protection of UK Scotland yard; he was also prevented from
flying that
day. Ariel Sharon canceled his address to Israeli support groups
in New York City just the day before his scheduled September 11th
John Ashcroft stopped flying on public airplanes in July of 2001.

Other evidence exists indicating that government officials knew
of the attacks beforehand. For example, Tom Kenny who was with a rescue
squad from FEMA told Dan Rather of CBS News that, "We arrived on
Monday night (September 10th) and went into action of Tuesday."
How is it possible for high government officials to have been
caught by surprise as some claimed?

18) There are reasonable grounds for suspicion that the U.S.
attack on Afghanistan was already planned before September 11th.
A pretext for war is always needed. From investigative journalist
Patrick Martin, "[t]his examination has found that a specific war on
Afghanistan . . . launched in October 2001 had been planned for
at least a year, and in general terms related to regional strategic and
economic interests, had actually been rooted in at least four
years of strategic planning. This planning, in turn, is the culmination
of a decade
of regional strategizing. All that was required was a trigger for
these war plans, which was amply provided by the tragic events of 11th

It is public knowledge that Unocal and others in the oil industry
were negotiating with Afghan officials for a pipeline across their
country as
part of the "Silk Road" strategy. It was also reported that the
talks had broken down. A specific threat made at a meeting: the Taliban
choose between a "carpets of bombs" - an invasion - or a "carpets
of gold" ? the oil and gas pipelines. Experts agree that Central Asia
and the
Caspian Basin are central to energy in the 21st century and that
energy is central to political, economic and military power. James
noted in the Oil & Gas Journal: "Those who control the oil routes
out of Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of
and the distribution of revenues from new production" (cited in
Ahmed, 2002, p. 69).

The plans for global domination developed by those of Project for
the New American Century, a neoconservative think tank formed in the
Spring of 1997, are also a matter of public record. These plans
included specifics for taking military control of Central Asia,
including regime
change in Iraq. The primary architects of these plans include
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, all
of the first Bush Administration ousted by Bill Clinton and now
back in power with George W. Bush.

19) The 9/11 attacks came at an extremely fortuitous time for the
Bush administration, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, the
weapons industry, and the oil industry, all of which have
benefited immensely from this tragedy. It is worth noting the acute
observations of Canadian social philosopher John McMurtry: "To
begin with, the forensic principle of =91who most benefits from the
clearly points in the direction of the Bush administration. . . .
The more you review the connections and the sweeping lapse of security
so many coordinates, the more the lines point backwards [to the
White House]."

20) Both the U.S. and the USSR are responsible for the rise of
religious extremism, terrorism and civil war within Afghanistan
since the 1980s. The U.S., however, is directly responsible for
the cultivation of a distorted =91jihadi=92 ideology that fueled, along wit=
arms and training, the ongoing war and acts of terrorism within
the country after the withdrawal of Soviet forces.

21) The Bush Administration is clearly capable of creating or
allowing such atrocities to occur. Hitler was able to play the
anti-communist card to win over skeptical German industrialists.
Certainly the Bush family are not newcomers to melding political and
business interests, they got their start as key Hitler
supporters. Prescott Bush, father of George Bush Sr., was Hitler=92s
banker and
propaganda manager in New York, until FDR confiscated his
holdings. George Bush Sr. used Manuel Noriega as a scapegoat, killing
thousands of innocent Panamanians in the process of
re-establishing U.S. control over Panama. It is also widely believed
that the current
Bush Administration knowingly misled the people about the war in

22) There are precedents for these kinds of acts of complicity
and fabrications. Rejecting claim that the evidence for collusion is
over-ruled by a belief that no country would do this to its own
citizens, simply requires pointing out that the contemplation of
terrorist attacks
on U.S. citizens by the CIA is a matter of public record. The
previously classified "Operation Northwoods" document reveals that in
the CIA seriously considered the possibility of carrying out
terrorist attacks against US citizens, in order to blame it on Cuba. The
plans were
never implemented, but were given approval signatures by all the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plan included several options, including
Cuban defectors or U.S. soldiers, sinking ships, and staging
simulations of planes being shot down. All this was done to blame on
Castro as
a pretext for launching a war against Cuba.

Far from being an unprecedented shocker, suspected government
complicity in 9/11 builds on an august and cynical tradition. "It=92s the
trick in the book, dating back to Roman times." Examples of
democracy being hoaxed include the sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbor
bombardment, which President Roosevelt is believed to have known
about beforehand, and the hoax of the Gulf of Tonkin provocation.


The evidence seems clear that if the many agencies of the U.S.
government had done their jobs, the September 11th attack would likely
been prevented. If there had been an immediate investigation into
the September 11th attacks, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq could not
been justified simply on the basis of terrorism. Surely questions
must be asked about why there is yet no accountability of the Bush
administration and why the journalists and others in mass media
are not held responsible for the coverup, deception and lack of
reporting. From the evidence presented it would seem that much
public whistle-blowing ought to be taking place. Why is it not yet

I believe that it is important not to approach 9/11 as the
possibility of some grand conspiracy, but a possible conspiracy of some
nevertheless. One important insight is how hierarchical
authoritarian social systems function. Top down directives and commands,
if they carry the weight of threats of censorship and punishment
serve to keep any dissent in check. There is a great deal of
operating in all institutions in the United States. It is also
important to recognize the role of a shared ideology among the decision
makers, or
perhaps more specifically the role of what social psychologists,
in studies of organizational behavior, call "groupthink." Groupthink is
decision making characterized by uncritical acceptance of and
conformity with the prevailing view. Thus, the will of a few key persons
can be
spread within and across government agencies.

Thus the possibility of complicity on the part of the Bush
Administration is very real. At the very least, further and more honest
must take place and some accountability exacted from those

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Executive Director of the Institute for
Policy Research & Development, Brighton, England, suggests,

The executive branch of the federal government has
apparently enabled a lethal surprise attack with mass
murder against two of the founding thirteen
colonies, New York and Virginia. By such an act, the federal
government would grossly violate and void its
contract with the states, and abrogate its own constitutional
rights and privileges. Even if you do not accept the
complicity argument, it has failed to protect its largest
city from the consequences of its overweening
foreign policies.

Like a loose handgun, our Federal government has
backfired on its owners, the States. The executive has
gone to war in defiance of the Constitution, and
Congress has abdicated its war-making authority on at least
200 occasions since 1945, according to the
Federation of American Scientists. The federal government has
proven utterly incapable and unwilling to remedy its
chronic and world-threatening sickness (p. 376-377).

It seems apropos to conclude: "if you are part of the problem,
then you are not part of the solution." The solution then lies with the
themselves and not with any US government agency, least of all
the Executive Branch.


Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq (2002). The war on freedom: How and why
America was attacked September 11, 2001. Joshua Tree, CA: Tree of
Life Publications. AThe War on Freedom rips apart the veil of
silence surrounding 9/11, and lets readers look at the facts for
This riveting and thoroughly documented study [718 citations] is
a "must" resource for everyone seeking to understand the attack on the
World Trade Center of New York on September 11, 2001 and
"America=92s New War."

Bamford, James (2001). Body of secrets : anatomy of the
ultra-secret National Security Agency : from the Cold War through the
dawn of a
new century. New York: Doubleday, 2001. See for detailed
information on Operation Northwood and other "secrets."

Burbach, Roger, & Clarke, Ben (Eds.) (2002). September 11 and the
U.S. war: Beyond the curtain of smoke. San Francisco: City Light
Books. This is an anthology of 41 short pieces by more than 30
authors who dissent from the bellicose actions of the U.S. government
9-11-01. These essays provide the essential background and
analysis needed to understand the origins and consequences of the attack
September 11th and the U.S. government=92s response.

Chossudovsky, Michel (2002). War and globalisation: The truth
behind September 11. London: Zed Books. "In this timely study, Michel
Chossudovsky blows away the smokescreen, put up by the mainstream
media, that 9-11 was an =91intelligence failure=92. Through meticulous
research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind
the September 11 attacks, and the coverup and complicity of key members
the Bush Administration."

Grey, Steve (2002). September 11 Attacks: Evidence of U.S.
collusion. stevegreyau@yahoo.co.uk.

Hopsicker, Daniel: http://www.madcowprod.com/archive.htm.

Jones, Alex: http://.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/. See especially the testimony
of Mindy Kleinberg, Stephen Push and others on the First Public
Hearings Archives, p. 163.

Thompson, Paul: http://cooperativeresearch.org. See "US preparing
for a war with Afghanistan before 9/11, increasing control of Asia
& since" and several other articles.

http://emperors-clothes.com. See several short articles by Jared
Israel, John Flaherty, Illarion Bykov, Francisco Gil-White and George

http://globaloutlook.ca. This site has numerous links to
documented articles and other valuable resources.

. This web site has extensive information and detailed analysis.
It raises many serious questions about the official stories and reports.
It has
undergone recent revisions based upon new evidence.



Address correspondence to: Walter E. Davis. 263 MACC Annex, Kent
State University Kent, OH 44242 wdavis@kent.edu


British MP Attacks U.S. on 9/11 and War 
This War on Terrorism is Bogus 
Michael Meacher 
The Guardian 

Saturday 06 September 2003 

The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war
against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on
British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation
against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against
terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain
weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not
fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier. 

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick
Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's
deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The
document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the
neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC). 

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not
Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the
regime of Saddam Hussein." 

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the
US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a
larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient
means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding
American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the
scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as
large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to
increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia". 

The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total
control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US
may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool". 

Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes,
and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a
blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is
clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than
the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways. 

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that
at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad
experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said
to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included
the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested. 

It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes.
Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could
crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or
the White House". 

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former
head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly
issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in
terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this
operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers
received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001). 

Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias
Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor
reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents
learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his
computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they
were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning
to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002). 

All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was
such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am,
and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was
scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until
after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept
procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military
launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US
legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent
up to investigate. 

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or
could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and
on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information
provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible
for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence." 

Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin
Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated
Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that
"casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some
lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers,
went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The
whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters
wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban
leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack
because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this
assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with
the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism. 

The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From
this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving
wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the
Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public
consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September
11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on
Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA
repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). 

In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence
again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before
9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April
2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to...
the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's
energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US,
"military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002). 

Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz
Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin
in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October".
Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that
would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with
the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our
offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15

Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11
attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already
been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal
that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941.
Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The
ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the
PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's
dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event -
like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in
accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to

The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to
run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60%
of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity.
As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s. 

This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US,
which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39%
of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages
by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and
90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of
gas reserves in addition to its oil. 

A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most
promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence
on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via
Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through
Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered
power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose
economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas. 

Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of
hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne,
chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the
aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his
desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European
nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya
(BBC Online, August 10 2002). 

The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the
hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of
world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the
whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration
for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our
own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a
radical change of course. 

Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003 


What Was Known About Post-9/11 Air 
By Lisa Myers 

Inspector general says White House changed EPA statements about safety at
Ground Zero 

Sept. 3 — Just days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the agency responsible for the
environmental health of Americans declared the air and water safe in New York. But now, in her first
interview since the release of a troubling report, the Environmental Protection Agency’s top watchdog
says the agency didn’t have the facts when it said it was safe to move back to the neighborhoods near
Ground Zero. And she’s pointing the finger all the way to the White House. 

In the wake of 9/11, there were serious concerns about whether the air around Ground Zero was
filled with toxins - unsafe for workers and residents. 

But by Sept. 18, 2001, many New Yorkers were back in their apartments and on the job. Partly
because of a press release that day from the Environmental Protection Agency reassuring New
Yorkers that “their air is safe to breathe.” 

Was that press release misleading? According to Nikki Tinsley, “It was surely not telling all of the

In an exclusive interview, Inspector General Tinsley, the EPA’s top watchdog, tells NBC News the
agency simply did not have sufficient data to justify such a reassurance. 

In fact, a new report by Tinsley’s office says, at the time, more than 25 percent of dust samples
collected before Sept. 18 showed unsafe levels of asbestos. And the EPA had no test results at all on
PCBs, dioxins or particulates in the air that can cause respiratory problems. 

Tinsley said, “The EPA did not give the people of New York complete information. It had put
together press releases that were more informative than those that it ultimately released.” 

Changed Press Releases 
So what happened? Tinsley’s report charges, in the crucial days after 9/11, the White House
changed EPA press releases to “add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.” 

- Sept. 13: The EPA draft release — never released to the public — said: EPA
“testing terrorized sites for environmental hazards.” The White House changed
that to EPA “reassures public about environmental hazards.” 
- Sept. 16: The EPA draft said: “Recent samples of dust ... on Water Street show
higher levels of asbestos.” 

The White House version: “New samples confirm ... ambient air quality meets OSHA [government]
standards” ... and “is not a cause for public concern.” 

And the White House left out entirely the warning “that air samples raise concerns for cleanup
workers and office workers near Water St.” 

Why all these changes? Tinsley said, “We were told that a desire to reopen Wall Street and
national security concerns were the reasons for changing the press releases.” 

When all the tests on PCBs and particulates did come in, they did not raise any red flags. 

That does not satisfy Kathryn Freed, who lives near Ground Zero and now has been diagnosed with
bronchitis caused by chemicals from 9/11. She never left her apartment, and feels misled. “It did
influence people to stay. I mean it kind of made me feel better. I’m, not sure I really believed it but
there was part of me that said ‘well, it’s OK and I’ve just got to do what I’ve got to do’ and there won’t
be health problems.” 

While the EPA’s Tinsley suggests that the White House misled the public, she stops short of
accusing anyone of actually lying, or knowingly providing false information. And Tinsley says the EPA
handled most things during 9/11 very well. 

Former EPA Chief 
In her first broadcast interview on this topic, former EPA Administrator Christie Whitman denies
misleading anyone. “The White House never directed the Environmental Protection Agency to withhold
facts or to lie to the people of the city of New York.” 

James Connaughton, the head of the White House environmental policy group that changed the
9/11 press releases, agrees, saying, “We used the best information to us available at the time.” 

But for Nikki Tinsley, the question lingers: Was that timely enough? 


Limpopo Investment Follow-Up Begins 

BuaNews (Pretoria) 
1 Septembre 2003 
Publi? sur le web le 2 Septembre 2003 

By Dirk Nel

Limpopo Premier Ngoako Ramatlhodi has been invited to
repeat the province's International Investor
Conference in Los Angeles, in the United States, next

The invitation was issued at the close of the
International Investor Conference in the province on
Friday, by representatives of the Africa-USA
International Chamber of Commerce and Industry. 

During the Conference, Premier Ramatlhodi told
delegates: 'We are looking for vibrant and lasting
partnerships, as we are determined to grow our economy
at a faster rate, to create much-needed jobs.' 

Trade and Investment Limpopo (TIL) Projects General
Manager Andre Bakker has confirmed that the Chamber
invitation is being vigorously followed up. 

The Chamber pointed out during the Conference that
'qualifying African countries' were being offered
liberal access to United States markets, with tangible
incentives to open their economies and to build free

'As a result, African and American entrepreneurs are
currently seeking new business and investment
opportunities in the USA and Africa,' Chamber
President Reuben Jaja explained. 

The North Carolina based Black Farmers and
Agricultural Association (BFAA), Los Angeles World
Airports and the Innovative Technologies Group from
West Virginia, as well as merchant and investment
bankers from California, were among the potential
American investors who attended the Limpopo summit. 

ITIL will also be pursuing investment negotiations
with Norwegian, Italian, Canadian, German, British,
Indian and East European business organisations. 

Agriculture, mining, tourism, information technology
and manufacturing industries are the main fields of
potential investment offered by these countries. 

TIL has pointed out that German tourism expertise,
Belarus tractors and construction machinery, Turkish
mining equipment, and Norwegian cosmetic markets for
Limpopo agricultural products, present particularly
promising investment prospects. 


Record Labels Getting Desperate - Cut Prices 30% Without Even Blinking
- Tech Turmoil Continues

Record Labels Getting Desperate

By Mathew Ingram - Toronto Globe and Mail September 5 2003

Universal Music, one of the five major record companies, announced
late on Wednesday that it is chopping the retail price of its "top
line" CDs by anywhere from 23 to 30 per cent. The company said it is
making this magnanimous gesture "with the aim of bringing music fans
back into retail stores."

And where are all those fans whose absence is such a concern?
Universal doesn't come right out and say it, but they are in living
rooms, university dorms and even offices around the world, downloading
MP3 files as fast as they possibly can. Universal's price cut isn't
really a magnanimous gesture at all -- it's a desperate cry for help.

Among other things, the price reduction -- a move that will likely be
copied by the other major labels -- helps to confirm the widespread
suspicion that the music industry's profit margins are truly
astronomical. How could they not be, if Universal can contemplate a
sudden 30-per-cent reduction in its CD prices without even blinking?

It's also ironic that Universal is asking retailers to help by
reducing the actual prices they charge for CDs (since few people ever
pay the full retail price for a CD). In other words, they don't want
the record stores to use the price cut to boost their own profit
margins. The irony is that Universal and the other major labels were
sanctioned not that long ago for pressuring retailers not to lower
their CD prices.

In February of 2000, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission found that the
major record labels had acted in concert to keep CD prices
artificially high, and that consumers had overpaid by as much as $500-
million (U.S.) between 1995 and 2000. Following the ruling, attorneys-
general in 43 states charged the record companies with price-fixing, a
case that was finally settled this summer; the companies agreed to pay
a total of $140-million, $64-million in cash and $76-million in CDs
donated to schools and libraries.

So is the price cut going to stop the downloading hordes? It might
help stem the flow a little, but it's unlikely to persuade large
numbers of people to give up downloading and head back to the store.
Expecting the move to help boost CD sales by 30 per cent, a forecast
made by one music industry executive, is dreaming in technicolour.

That's not just because there are millions of scofflaws out there who
love stealing music -- if that is even what downloading amounts to
(it's not quite that simple, despite the industry's ad campaign to the
contrary). More than anything, the downloading phenomenon is a symptom
of a larger problem, which is that the whole pricing structure of the
music industry is broken, and probably for good.

To get a sense of how some of the downloading hordes feel, all you
need to do is sample some of the comments made on various websites,
such as those at the tech-focused site Slashdot.org. One member
responded to the CD price cut by saying: "How generous. Rather than
making 90,000% profit on $0.02 worth of plastic, they're taking it in
the shorts with a measly 65,000%. Give me a break."

Of course, the music industry argues that its costs are higher than
they appear, and that CD sales have to cover not just marketing and
distribution but also have to make up for the money spent on bringing
in new artists -- artists who may or may not recoup that investment.
Still, the perception is that CD companies have been lining their
pockets for some time, and Universal's move will do little to alter
that view.

Whatever the actual numbers are, the fact remains that a sizeable
number of people -- the user base of Kazaa, a file-sharing network, is
estimated at more than 50 million -- have voted with their mice, and
the message they have been sending is that the music industry no
longer meets their needs. For several years now the industry has been
trying to fight that reality, and all it has done is to dig itself
deeper into the hole it is trying to get out of.

Ever since the Napster file-swapping network first appeared on the
scene in 1999, the major record labels seem to have spent most of
their time doing one of three things: a) suing the file-trading
networks and those who make use of them; b) trying (and largely
failing) to design their own downloading services; and c) keeping
prices high to maximize their dwindling profits.

The advent of Apple's iTunes music service, and the success it has had
in just the few months since its launch -- 6.5 million downloads as of
August -- shows that there are a substantial number of music fans out
there who are willing to pay money for music. They just aren't willing
to pay what they see as the drastically inflated prices charged for
CDs, and they seem to like the ability to select particular songs
rather than having to buy a whole "album."

The sooner the music industry gets religion on those two points, the
better off it will be. As someone once said, if you find yourself in a
hole the first thing you should probably do is stop digging.