Here first a simple reminder of the official version of the main events of the day on September 11, 2001.
8:46 - American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York.
9:02 - United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center.
9:37 - American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon in Washington.
9:59 - the south tower of World Trade Center collapses.
10:03 - United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
10:28 - North tower of World Trade Center collapses.
17:20 - little known fact: Top 47 stories, the World Trade Center Building 7 (or Salomon Brothers Building) collapsed without being hit by a plane.
***** Let us immediately in the thick of things with a seemingly simple question. This famous catastrophe is undoubtedly the largest terrorist attack in the history of mankind, therefore, does not she deserve to be subject to the most rigorous investigations? Of course.
Considering the likely consequences arising from the American reaction instantaneous divide the world into two groups distinct - we could not therefore be more than the U.S. or with the terrorists - was not it normal to open an immediate investigation into serious and credible international order to confirm or deny, of independently hasty conclusions by the U.S. authorities?
Probably. But history decided otherwise.
General Tommy Franks, who was head of Central Command United States during the attacks of Sept. 11, was ordered to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and capture Osama bin Laden within hours of the event (W84). And, as reported in CBS News, Defense Secretary Donald Rumseld, asked his assistants to provide plans to attack Iraq only five hours after the Pentagon was struck, despite the fact that no evidence linked the country from Saddam Hussein to attack (W156).
Then the following days became weeks, and turned into months without an official investigation is established. Strangely, the administration of George W. Bush resolutely opposed to a commission of inquiry be established to examine the attacks closer, even as American troops landed in Afghanistan. But why
fiercely oppose the establishment of a commission of inquiry? What could be the true interest of America's leaders want to avoid an investigation on this subject? Since one objective of this work is to probe the validity of rumors of government involvement in the United States in the Sept. 11 plot, perhaps we should ask directly if the fear of possible embarrassing revelations could located behind the administration's opposition Bush to make such an investigation.
However, in the months following the sad events, a pressure of increasingly insistent from both victims' families, some media and from within the American body politic was felt from the Bush administration to a commission of inquiry be finally established. So finally, one year after the attacks and the invasion of Afghanistan, President Bush agreed to revise its position and allow the creation of a committee to investigate the attacks, as reported CNN Sept. 20, 2002.
"In a decision applauded by Democrats, President Bush has relented and agreed to the formation of an independent commission to conduct an investigation ˝ ˝ focused on the terrorist attacks of September 11 which will go beyond failures of intelligence agencies already examined. [...]
Minority Leader in the House of Representatives, Democrat Dick Gephardt of Missouri has welcomed the announcement from the White House.
˝ I am encouraged that the White House has ended its opposition to an independent commission to investigate all aspects of the terrorist attacks of September 11 ˝, "he said. [...]» M7
Announced loudly as independent, this inquiry first saw Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State of previous U.S. administrations, be appointed to the helm in December 2002.
Upon his appointment, however, the criticisms coming from all directions. Renowned for his involvement in several controversial stories, wars and other covert operations (Bangladesh, Chile, Vietnam, East Timor, Argentina, to name a few), Kissinger was also perceived as being too close to the Bush administration and some Arab interests in order to lead the investigation. The New York Times devotes an editorial to the case, arguing that Kissinger had "chosen to hold an investigation to which the administration has long opposed." M12
So that George W. Bush sees Kissinger quickly forced to withdraw from the project. He then turned to a former Republican governor of the State of New Jersey, Thomas H. Kean to head the Commission of Inquiry, which would be composed ten commissioners, all politicians representing fairly the Republican and Democratic allegiances. Thus, the fate was sealed it. The people could sleep in peace, investigating the worst terrorist attack in history is now found in safe hands, those of politicians.
But how to explain such a long delay before permitting the establishment of a commission of inquiry? He passed away exactly 441 days (one year, two months and 15 days) before they agreed to open the investigation. And it is only March 31, 2003, twelve days after the declaration of war against Iraq, that finally opened the first public meeting of the commission.
It is interesting in this regard, to compare these with 441 days elapsed reaction times to initiate investigations on various tragedies. For example, it took only seven days to open an inquiry into the death of John F. Kennedy, and many days to discuss the tragedy of the shuttle Challenger, while the initial investigation into the attack on Pearl Harbor was announced after only nine days. Following the sinking of the Titanic, it passed just six days before the announcement of the investigation. It therefore seems appropriate to again question: why wait 441 days before the introduction of a commission of inquiry into the worst terrorist attack in history?
budget side, the picture is hardly more reassuring. Three million dollars were originally allocated to the commission investigating the September 11 attacks. Then, finding themselves once again under pressure, the Bush administration caved and increased the budget to 11 million. This figure remains well below the $ 40 million allocated to the investigation of the Whitewater scandal / Monica Lewinsky, who had splashed former President Bill Clinton, exposing her sex life openly in the late 90s.
So where are the priorities? Is it not reasonable to say that the thin initial three million dollars poorer performing?
Let us then one of the official reaction of the most interesting, that of one of the main actors of the tragedy, Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda. Very few people remember that Sunday post 11 September, bin Laden denied any responsibility for the attacks. Indeed, here is an excerpt from CNN article published September 17, 2001.
"The Islamist militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man regarded by the United States as the prime suspect behind the terrorist attacks last week in New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the shares likely have claimed thousands of victims.
In a statement issued by the Arab satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said that "The United States government consistently blamed me for being behind each of the occasions when his enemies attacked. '
'I want to reassure the world I did not plan the recent attacks, which seem to have been planned by people with personal reasons', said the statement by bin Laden. [...]» P4
Asked that day about whether bin Laden was still responsible for the attacks, President George W. Bush replied "There is no doubt that he is the prime suspect. No doubt about it, "continued the article.
following days these statements marked a brief period of diplomatic negotiations for less riders from the United States to Afghanistan, a country supposed to house the alleged guilty. U.S. rhetoric was simple: deliver us Bin Laden or we'll go and look through force. Afghan reaction was not long coming, as indicated by including a section of the news service RTE: we required evidence that the leader of Al Qaeda was really behind the attacks before collaborating. However, the White House refused to provide such evidence and dismissed the complaint simply. Secretary of State at the time, Colin Powell, however, claimed that the U.S. had enough evidence to indict bin Laden and officially open his trial in U.S. court. I3
In that case, why not have simply provided the evidence requested in Afghanistan, and supposedly available in order to reach a peaceful agreement? The answer to this question we may well have reached a few days earlier in a BBC article dated September 18, 2001, in which a Pakistani diplomat said he had been informed two months earlier by U.S. officials that the United States already provided In July 2001 an attack against Afghanistan.
"A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the U.S. planned military action against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban even before the attacks last week.
Niaz Naik, former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, was told in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would take place by mid-October.
Mr Naik said U.S. officials had told him about the plan at a meeting of international contacts, under the auspices of the United Nations, held in Berlin.
Mr Naik told the BBC that at this meeting, representatives of the United States had told him that unless Bin Laden is transferred them quickly, the U.S. military action to capture or kill bin Laden and Mullah Omar, Taliban leader. [...]
Mr Naik was told that if military action were to occur, it would take place before the first snow falling in Afghanistan in mid-October at the latest. [...]
And he said he doubted that Washington would drop its plan even if bin Laden was given to them immediately by the Taliban. "I2
A prediction that would actually be realized with the U.S. invasion in early October 2001.
Yet even today, Osama bin Laden is still blamed for the attacks of September 11 Official Site of the FBI. Here is rather what is mentioned.
"[...] Osama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the bombings of August 7, 1998 on U.S. embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks around the world. [...]» P6
In other words, even seven years later, U.S. intelligence does not have enough evidence to formally accuse bin Laden of being behind the attacks of Sept. 11, but this does not prevent them from giving the go Green to an international war against Al Qaeda and terrorism in general.
First it was Afghanistan, then Iraq, through Somalia and Lebanon, then he is now talking to Iran and Pakistan, to name a few. Note also that statements similar to the Pakistani diplomat, quoted above, came later, Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary on Iraq. Indeed, an article from Reuters news service in January 2004 revealed that upon taking office, nine months before September 11, George W. Bush showed the intention to invade the country of Saddam Hussein and he was looking for a way to get there.
"Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed in a new book that President George W. Bush came to power in January 2001 with the intent to invade Iraq and was looking for a way to get there.
O'Neill, fired in December 2002 during an overhaul of the economic team of Bush, became the first major insider in the Bush administration to launch an attack on the president. [...]
To go to war, Bush used the argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and should be put out of harm's way in a post-September 11, 2001. The weapons were never found. [...]
Former Treasury Secretary and other White House insiders have given to [Ron] Suskind documents revealing that in the first three months of 2001, the Bush administration was examining military options to get rid of Saddam Hussein, CBS said. "I4
Former Treasury Secretary further revealed the existence of memos dating first three months of the Bush presidency, one of them entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq" while another was titled "Foreign applicants for contracts Iraqi oil fields."
Is it possible that the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction that served as the basic argument in favor of the war in Iraq has been an excuse of convenience to allow the Bush administration to achieve its purpose?
After all, some of the potential motives for invading one of the five richest countries in the world oil resources appear rather obvious. The global economy is based on oil, the first superpower in the world could she not be willing to get their hands on this coveted resource?
0 comments:
Post a Comment