Understanding Bush Foreign Policy
Past, Present & Future
Introduction
This writer has long been skeptical of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Much of the evidence presented in support of these theories has an alternative explanation. And yet, there was something odd about president's reactions to the attacks. In time, this prompted digging on the internet. After discarding much interesting, but inconclusive, evidence, and organizing the truly informative data in a coherent way, a clear view emerges. A view that reaches far beyond 9/11, and a disturbing one, to put it mildly. All data was obtained from open sources, via the internet, during April of 2005. Most came from respected media organizations, and all are cited at the end of this paper.
Updated November, 2006
-Policy Analyst
Past as Prologue
Imagine you are president, in the midst of addressing some schoolchildren. Your Chief of Staff approaches and whispers: “A second plane has hit the World Trade Center! America is under attack!” Now pause for a moment and consider what you would do…
The natural response would be to excuse yourself, and hustle off to the nearest spot from which you could attend to your duties as Commander-in-Chief.
What did the president do? Upon receiving this news, he nods his head ever so slightly, twice, and after a short while, once more. He purses his lips, and picks up a book. He pretends to read, but peers into the distance, pensive[1]:
G. W. Bush has been accused of being just a dumb puppet, waiting to be told what to do. But - he nods his head? This is not the response of someone too shocked, or dim witted, to act. This is the demeanor of someone for whom everything is going according to plan, and is pondering his next move.
The body language is suggestive. Let's look at harder evidence.
Was he warned?
The Pentagon was. According to Newsweek: "on Sept, 10, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning"[2]. Willie Brown was: "For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel."[3] Salman Rushdie was: "Salman Rushdie says US authorities banned him from taking internal flights a week before the terrorist attacks.…He says the Federal Aviation Authority told his publisher it had intelligence of something about to happen."[4]
Congressmen knew: According to NPR, on the morning of 9/11, "Congressman Ike Skelton…said that just recently the Director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack—an imminent attack—on the United States"[5]. The Arab "street" in New York knew: "some Middle Easterners in the New York area were warned ahead of time to stay out of lower Manhattan the morning of Sept. 11, the Daily News has learned."[6] A boy in Houston knew: "Tomorrow [9/11], World War III will begin. It will begin in the United States, and the United States will lose."[7]. A messaging service was warned: "Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen"[8] [emphasis added, above]
Did someone forget to inform the Commander in Chief?
No. The now famous Presidential Daily Brief ("PDB") of August 6, 2001, entitled Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within the US, states: "FBI information … indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings"[9] After receiving this briefing, did Bush show any interest in preventing the hijackings? No. He spent the rest of that day fishing[10], and the rest of the month on vacation[11]. There was no failure of intelligence here - there was a failure to act. Is this president too lazy and disengaged to do his job? Not when action suits his purpose: "President Bush … rushed to the White House from his Texas ranch to be on hand to sign the [Terri Schiavo] bill in his pajamas in the middle of the night."[12]
This was by no means the only such warning. In her testimony before the 9/11 commission, Condi Rice admitted Bush received 40 warnings face to face from the Director Of Central Intelligence that a major al Qaeda attack was going to take place in the months before 9/11.[13],[14] The Director of Central Intelligence, George J. Tenet, had been "nearly frantic" with concern since June 22, 2001.[15]
For eight months, Richard Clarke, his National Coordinator for Antiterrorism, had been urgently seeking principals' meetings on this threat, and had only succeeded in getting such a meeting, without the president, a week before 9/11. "We urgently [emphasis in original] need such a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network," ... he wrote January 25, 2001.[16] "I realized then that until today [9/12] I had not ever briefed the president on terrorism"[17]
By contrast, when this same note of urgency was sounded within the Clinton administration, there were regular principals' meetings on terrorism, with the president present, and no problem getting presidential authorization for action[18]: "We gotta get rid of these guys once and for all. You understand what I am telling you?"[19]
The August 6 PDB was
well founded:
The German intelligence service warned the CIA in June of 2001 that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture,[20] and German police, monitoring the phone calls of a jailed Iranian man, learned the man was telephoning US intelligence agencies in the summer of 2001 to warn of an imminent attack on the World Trade Center in the week of Sept. 9.[21]
The FBI arrested an Islamic militant linked to bin Laden in Boston in August 2001. French intelligence sources confirm that the man is a key member of bin Laden's network and the FBI learns that he has been taking flying lessons. At the time of his arrest the man is in possession of technical information on Boeing aircraft and flight manuals.[22]
According to Isvestia, "Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened….at least 25 people. All of them had a special training on the territories of Afghanistan and Pakistan including piloting of an aircraft". [23] In an MSNBC interview on Sept. 15, 2001, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated he had ordered Russian intelligence to warn the US "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent assaults on airports and government buildings before the attacks on Sept. 11. According to Delmart "Mike" Vreeland , a former U.S. Naval lieutenant assigned to the Office of Naval Intelligence, he returned from Russia, to Canada, in December 2000, to hand over a sealed pouch containing intelligence documents. When the handoff was compromised Vreeland opened the pouch and looked at some of the documents. Those documents, which he later had translated, gave specific warnings of the pending WTC attacks that took place nine months later. [24]
In the summer of 2001, Jordanian intelligence made a communications intercept, and King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington. The message: A major attack was planned inside the U.S., and aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was "The Big Wedding." [25]
Israeli intelligence officials
say that they warned their counterparts in the United States, in August of
2001, that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the
American mainland were imminent.[26]
Morocco’s royal intelligence informed
Washington that one of its agents, who had penetrated al Qaeda, learned that
bin Laden’s organization was preparing “large operations in New York in the
summer or autumn of 2001.” The agent, who is said to be presently in the U.S.
helping its intelligence agencies, also informed Moroccan intelligence that
bin Laden was ‘very disappointed’ with the first WTC bombing which failed to
bring the two towers down.[27]
And finally, the United States received warnings from a
secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on
American soil[28]:
"The warnings were delivered by an aide of Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban Foreign Minister at the time, who was known to be deeply unhappy with the foreign militants in Afghanistan, including Arabs. Mr. Muttawakil, now in American custody, believed the Taliban's protection of Mr. bin Laden and the other al-Qaeda militants would lead to nothing less than the destruction of Afghanistan by the US military. He told his aide: 'The guests are going to destroy the guesthouse.' The minister then ordered him to alert the US and the UN about what was going to happen….
"Mr. Muttawakil's aide, who has stayed on in Kabul and who has to remain anonymous for his security, described in detail to The Independent how he alerted first the Americans and then the United Nations of the coming calamity of 11 September. The minister learnt in July last year that Mr. bin Laden was planning a 'huge attack' on targets inside America, the aide said. The attacks were imminent and would be so deadly the United States would react with destructive rage.
"Mr. Muttawakil learnt of the coming attacks on America not from other members of the Taliban leadership, but from the leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Tahir Yildash. The organisation was one of the fundamentalist groups that had found refuge on Afghan soil …
"According to the emissary, Mr. Muttawakil emerged from a one-to-one meeting with Mr. Yildash looking shocked and troubled. Until then, the Foreign Minister, who had disapproved of the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Bamiyan earlier in the year, had no inkling from others in the Taliban leadership of what Mr. bin Laden was planning.
" 'At first Muttawakil wouldn't say why he was so upset,' said the aide. 'Then it all came out. Yildash had revealed that Osama bin Laden was going to launch an attack on the United States. It would take place on American soil and it was imminent. Yildash said Osama hoped to kill thousands of Americans.'
"The emissary went first to the Americans, traveling across the border to meet the consul general, David Katz, in the Pakistani border town of Peshawar, in the third week of July 2001. [emphasis added; see below] They met in a safehouse belonging to an old mujahedin leader who has confirmed to The Independent that the meeting took place.
"Another US official was also present possibly from the intelligence services. Mr. Katz, who now works at the American embassy in Eritrea, declined to talk about the meeting. But other US sources said the warning was not passed on [due to] warning fatigue".
The "other US sources" convey the Bush administration cover story, which is not credible: As we have seen, the CIA would indeed have been inundated with warnings. It is their job to analyze them, "warning fatigue" or not. The PDB of August 6 shows they did their job, and did it well. As to the American Consul in Peshawar, can we imagine a line of Taliban emissaries at his door? Not likely. A warning straight from the Taliban would have been treated with the highest urgency, especially since the abundant detail carried the ring of truth. In the aftermath, however, Mr. Katz might well not care to discuss it with the press, if by doing so he would discredit and alienate his employer.
Protecting Essential Personnel
So, we were warned by Russia, Germany, France, Israel, Morocco, and - the Taliban! We knew who - Al Qaeda, what - World Trade Center and government buildings, when - summer or fall of 2001, where - same as what, why -among other things, that bin Laden was ‘very disappointed’ with the first WTC bombing, and how - hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons. This had to have been the worst-kept terrorist secret in history - even Arabs on the New York street were in the know. Bush had been warned 40 times. Tenet was "nearly frantic".
Bush takes no action to defend the country. Does that prove his administration was doing nothing?
Not at all. They diligently protected themselves. Shortly after the Taliban warning, both Bush and Cheney cleared out of town. On July 30 it was announced that "Vice President Dick Cheney is expected to spend most of August at his home in the Jackson Hole area."[29] On August 4, Bush retired to Crawford[30], where 24-hour fighter cover was placed over his ranch.[31] When Bush was in Sarasota, Florida, the night before the 9/11 attacks, surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort where he was staying.[32]
On July 26, 2001, cbsnews.com reported that John Ashcroft had stopped flying on commercial airlines. Ashcroft had been flying commercial, just as Janet Reno did. But now, he started taking chartered government planes.
CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart asked the Justice Department why. Because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI, he was told. But "neither the FBI nor the Justice Department ... would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it"[33]
Why did
Ashcroft think he was using a $1,600-plus per hour G-3 Gulfstream, when he
could have flown commercial, as before, for a fraction of the cost? Ashcroft
claimed an amazing lack of curiosity when asked if he knew anything about the
threat. "Frankly, I don't," he told reporters.[34] This, from the person responsible for
prosecuting terrorists and to whom the FBI reports. This incuriosity was apparently enforced
upon FBI investigations of suspected terrorists. Consider
the case of Zacarias Moussaoui …
Running Interference
After just one day of training at the Pan Am International Flight School in Minneapolis, the staff become suspicious that Zacarias Moussaoui is a terrorist. They discuss "fuel on board a 747-400 and how much damage that could cause if it hit anything." They call the FBI with their concerns later that day.[35] They are suspicious because:
1) In contrast to all the other students at this high-level flight school, he has no aviation background, little previous training and no pilot's license.[36]
2) He wants to fly a 747 not because he plans to become a
pilot, but as an "ego boosting thing."[37]
Yet within hours of his arrival, it is clear he "was not some affluent
joy-rider."[38]
3) He is "extremely" interested in the operation
of the plane's doors and control panel.[39]
He also is very keen on learning the protocol for communicating with the flight
tower despite having no plans to actually become a pilot.[40]
4) He is evasive and belligerent when asked about his background. When an
instructor, who notes from his records that Moussaoui is from France, attempts
to greet him in French, Moussaoui appears not to understand, saying that he had
spent very little time in France and that he is from the Middle East.[41]
5) He says he would "love" to fly a simulated flight from London to New York, raising fears he has plans to hijack such a flight.[42]
6) He pays for thousands of dollars in expenses from a large wad of cash.[43]
7) He seemed to be trying to pack a large amount of training
in a short period of time for no apparent reason.[44]
8) He mostly practices flying in the air, not taking off or landing
Based on these concerns, Moussaoui is arrested and detained in Minnesota, on August 15, 2001, on an immigration violation. The FBI confiscates his possessions, including a computer laptop, but doesn't have a search warrant to search through them. When arresting him they note he possesses two knives, fighting gloves and shin guards, and had prepared "through physical training for violent confrontation".
Field agents are required to get permission from an FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA), at headquarters, before getting a search warrant. Let's see what happens when Minneapolis Chief Division Counsel and Special Agent Coleen Rowley tries to do so in the case of Mr. Moussaoui[45]:
"The Minneapolis agents who responded to the call
about Moussaoui's flight training identified him as a terrorist threat from a
very early point…the Minneapolis agents' reasonable suspicions quickly ripened
into probable cause, … When the French Intelligence Service confirmed his
affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and activities
connected to Osama Bin Laden, they became desperate to search the computer lap
top that had been taken from Moussaoui… The Minneapolis agents' initial thought
was to obtain a criminal search warrant, but in order to do so, they needed to
get FBI Headquarters' (FBIHQ's) approval …
"The fact is that key FBIHQ personnel whose job it
was to assist and coordinate with field division agents on terrorism
investigations and the obtaining and use of FISA searches …, continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up
roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA
search warrant,…HQ personnel
brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine
the probable cause. [emphasis
added] In all of their conversations and correspondence, HQ personnel never
disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only
approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight
schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!"
Not long after, the suspicious behavior and Al Qaeda links are deemed sufficient cause to seek the death penalty against Moussaoui. In the meantime, however, Special Agent Rowley cannot even get permission to search his computer. Can we attribute this obstruction to mere incompetence or sloth? No - the course of least resistance would have been to simply acquiesce to the desperate and repeated urgings from the field. Moreover, per the August 6 PDB, FBIHQ is already aware of suspicious activity related to hijackings. But, how can we know this obstruction is not due to some bad motive unrelated to Bush administration policy? Because[46]:
"I do find it odd that (to my knowledge) no inquiry whatsoever was launched of the relevant FBIHQ personnel's actions a long time ago. Despite FBI leaders' full knowledge of all the items mentioned herein (and probably more that I'm unaware of), the SSA, his unit chief, and other involved HQ personnel were allowed to stay in their positions and,…The SSA in question actually received a promotion some months afterward!" [emphasis added] This is fully consistent with the Bush administration policy of rewarding those that do their bidding, such as giving Medals of Freedom to Tommy "we've got enough troops" Franks, and George "WMDs are a slam dunk" Tenet. (We hasten to add that by all accounts Tenet was, with the exception of trying too hard to please his boss, a good CIA chief).
This attitude of
actively ignoring terrorism was not limited to middle-management.
Acting FBI director Tom Pickard testified to the 9/11 commission that when he tried to brief Ashcroft on July 12, 2001, about the terror threat inside the United States, he got the brush-off. "Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore," commission member Richard Ben-Veniste asked, "Is that correct?"
"That is correct," Pickard replied.[47]
On September
10, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft rejected a proposed $58 million
increase in financing for the bureau's counter-terrorism programs. On the same
day, he sent a request for budget increases to the White House. It covered 68
programs, but none of them related to counter-terrorism. He also sent a
memorandum to his heads of departments, stating his seven priorities - none of
them relating to counter-terrorism.[48]
This is the same Ashcroft who had stopped flying public airplanes, six weeks
earlier, due to terrorist threats.
In June of 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration distributed a circular warning of potential hijackings, stating: "an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the U.S. remains a concern.”[49] As late as July 31, the FAA urged U.S. airlines to maintain a "high degree of alertness."[50] Yet, in this same month, a 40-year-old FAA rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed is rescinded.[51] The excuse was that the rule was moot because it had not been taken advantage of, but, disuse is not a valid reason to rescind a useful permission. After 40 years, why is this permission suddenly noticed?
So, George W. Bush is warned repeatedly and urgently about an upcoming attack. He and his close associates go to great lengths to protect themselves, but do nothing to prevent it. An investigation that threatens to get too close to the hijack plot is obstructed. The obstructer is promoted.
As outrageous as it may seem, the only theory that fits the evidence is that the Bush administration was knowingly running interference for the upcoming attack. Not only that, but they are so bold and arrogant as to openly reward those who help them.
Why would they do this?
Roots of Policy
Let's listen to Bush as governor of Texas: “He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said biographer Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’"[52] Invading Iraq was also on the collective minds of The Project For A New American Century ("PNAC") a neo-con think tank. PNAC sent a letter to then-president Clinton in early 1998 urging Saddam's overthrow.[53] Signers included Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. Further insight into their thinking can be found in a PNAC white paper entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”[54]:
"Without
increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be
unable to … preserve its technological edge on future battlefields…Further, the
process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to
be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl
Harbor."
It
would appear they are viewing a "new Pearl Harbor" as a beneficial
event, does it not?
Now fast forward to 9/11. After
being told that there is no doubt this was the work of Al Qaeda, what is,
literally, the first thing on Bush's mind? "See if Saddam is involved…I
want to know any shred"[55]
Clarke and others then wrote a report that was based on all available evidence
and it was cleared by both the CIA and FBI. They found no Iraqi connection to
9/11. "We sent it up to the president and got it bounced by the national
security adviser ... and sent back, saying, `Wrong answer ... Do it again!'',
he told 60 Minutes.[56] Likewise, on the morning of September 12,
2001, Rumsfeld demanded that the US
attack Iraq,[57]
suggesting the terrorist attacks provided an "opportunity" to attack.[58] "We [Richard Clarke and staff] said Iraq
had nothing to do with this, and that didn't seem to make much difference"[59]
In the April 2002 New Yorker reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote:
"Inside government, the reason September 11th appears to have been 'a transformative moment' as the senior official I had lunch with put it, is not so much that it revealed the existence of a threat of which officials had previously been unaware as that it drastically reduced the American public's usual resistance to American military involvement overseas". Condoleezza Rice told him " 'I think September 11th was one of those great earthquakes that clarify and sharpen. Events are in much sharper relief'. Rice said that she had called together the senior staff people of the National Security Council and asked them to think seriously about 'how do you capitalize on these opportunities' to fundamentally change American doctrine, and the shape of the world, in the wake of September 11th"[60][emphases added]
How convenient. Opportunities to change
doctrine, shape the world, start a war, and be seen as a
commander-in-chief. If there is any
concern for human suffering, it is not apparent. With the aid of a compliant
media, Bush is re-elected and his congressional majorities increase. The
thousands that died horribly in the 9/11 attack, and who will die later in
Iraq, are sacrificed like pawns. The
responsibility to protect the nation's citizens is regarded as quaint, just
like the Geneva Convention.
It beggars
the imagination to think that anyone responsible for defending this country
could be so callous. This lust for power is so insatiable, it is not enough
to be at the helm of the most powerful nation, and in control of its congress.
This power must be increased, without limit, at home and abroad, without regard
for the costs or the means.
We are now in a position to understand Bush foreign policy.
Foreign policy
To a naïve observer, Bush foreign policy appears to be lacking in "intelligent design". The fact that Bush is a notoriously inept speaker lends credence to this thesis. Is he really as dim-witted as his detractors think? Let's take a look at the candid Bush:
"When Mr. Wead warned that he had heard reporters
talking about Mr. Bush's 'immature' past, Mr. Bush said, 'That's part of my
schtick, which is, look, we have all made mistakes.' "[61]
"As eager as Mr. Bush was to cultivate the support
of Christian conservatives, he did not want to do it too publicly for fear of
driving away more secular voters. When Mr. Wead warned Mr. Bush to avoid big
meetings with evangelical leaders, Mr. Bush said, 'I'm just going to have one,'
and, 'This is not meant to be public.' "[62]
To Paul
O'Neill, before firing him: "You're
getting quite a reputation as a truth-teller"[63]
To Maureen
Dowd:
"Suddenly, W. turned around, stopped and looked right at me. Then he
flashed a wink, not a flirty wink but a mischievous Clark Gable 'I've got your
number and you think you've got mine but I win' wink."[64]
Well spoken or not, this is a smart, calculating, wily politician.
GWB's apparent lack of intelligence is a red herring - it misdirects our attention, in foreign policy, as in responsibility for 9/11. It is easy to despise his apparent mistakes, but - they are not mistakes at all.
That is the key to understanding. Bush & co. were not misled by the likes of Ahmed Chalabi and the neo-cons. Saddam's supposed WMD's were a convenient excuse to start the war they wanted. For the Bush crew, fear, terrorism, and war are good - it helps them win elections and maintain dominance. Fear, war, terrorism, suffering -good. Peace - bad.
So, now, invading Iraq makes perfect sense. In times past the U.S. regarded secular Saddam as a counterweight to the fundamentalist Shiites in Iran. Who needs a counterweight when you like terrorists? Why even go after them? As cited above, in the aftermath of 9/11 Bush and Rumsfeld wanted to attack Iraq, not Al-Qaeda.
Hard to believe? Suppose you are president or Defense Secretary, and you sincerely want to eradicate terrorism, and especially, Al-Qaeda. Would you do it like this?...
Richard Clarke:
"What they did was slow, and small. They
put only 11,000 troops into Afghanistan.
There are more police here in Manhattan…US Special Forces didn’t get
into the area where Bin Laden was for two months [after 9/11]"[65]
"Commander Muhammad Musa, who said he had led 600
Afghan soldiers on the Tora Bora front lines;…praised the US Air Force but was
dismissive of American forces on the ground. 'They were not involved in the
fighting,' he said. 'There were six American soldiers with us, US Special
Forces. They co-coordinated the air strikes. My personal view is if they had
blocked the way out to Pakistan, al-Qaeda would not have had a way to escape.'
"[66]
Gary
Berntsen was the commander of the combined CIA-Special Forces team at Tora
Bora. He had led his team and their
Northern Alliance allies on a successful advance through the Shomali Plains and
on into Kabul. He was a much-decorated
and highly regarded CIA commander. His attitude was, "Instead of writing
pithy intelligence reports… I wanted my reports to read 'Target captured and
rendered to justice'".[67] The Afghan troops who were supposed to be
assisting him at Tora Bora were beset with conflicting loyalties. Some had even
been ordered by their local religious leader to allow the Taliban to escape.[68] It was clear to Berntsen, at the time, that
these forces were insufficient, and he sent out urgent requests for 800 Army
Rangers. "I repeated to anyone at
headquarters who would listen, 'We need Rangers now!'"[69] Is it possible these urgent pleas got lost in
the bureaucracy? No. In a meeting in the Oval Office, Bush and
Cheney were briefed in detail on the situation at Tora Bora. Bush specifically asked whether the Afghan
forces were "up to the job", and was told, "Definitely
not".[70]
Nonetheless, Berntsen had a
reputation for getting his man. Perhaps
he might have succeeded, even without the Rangers. We will never know, because he was relieved
of his command at the height of the battle. Why? Had he committed some misconduct? Here is what he was told, "We've
selected a permanent chief, which will allow you to return to your post in
South America…we all think you've done a remarkable job, You've seized control
of almost the entire country…"[71]. All except bin Laden.
Having let
bin Laden out of Tora Bora, we were not about to catch him in Pakistan. After
the escape: “ 'If they had not gone to Iraq they would
have found Osama by now. The best people were moved away from this operation.
The best minds were moved to Iraq. It’s a great shame.' - Rohan Gunaratna, a
Sri Lankan terrorism expert who has analyzed thousands of Al Qaeda documents
recovered by various governments. Many
intelligence insiders shared Gunaratna’s concerns. Cannistraro, the former
C.I.A. official, said that the effort to find bin Laden had 'lost at least half
of its original strength. Arabic speakers are in short supply. You still have
some intelligence-collection assets in Afghanistan, but mostly it’s just small
teams looking for signals. That’s because of Iraq.'
"Rand Beers, who until March 2003 handled terrorism issues for the National Security Council, …, who served on the N.S.C. under Ronald Reagan and both Presidents Bush: 'I have worried for some time that it became politically inconvenient' for the Bush Administration to 'complete operations sufficiently in Afghanistan….They wanted to make it sound as if there were just a few more stitches needed in the quilt,' he said. At the time, in fact, Beers believed that the security situation in Afghanistan was so unstable that Al Qaeda might reconstitute itself there. The Administration, Beers said, ignored such concerns. 'They didn’t want to call attention to the fact that Osama was still at large and living along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, because they wanted it to look like the only front was Iraq,' he said. 'Otherwise, the question becomes: If Afghanistan is that bad, why start another war?' "[72] [emphases added]
Why start
another war, indeed? Unless you were
only begrudgingly in Afghanistan to begin with, just going through the motions,
and really didn't want to catch Bin Laden.
Afterward, they "forgot" to include funds for rebuilding
Afghanistan in the budget: "The United
States Congress has stepped in to find nearly $300m in humanitarian and
reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush administration failed to
request any money in the latest budget."[73]
If you like terrorists, you want more, not fewer. After invading an oil-rich country, unprovoked, round up those who are suspected of opposing you, and, guilty or not, torture them. Be sure to take plenty of pictures: "The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focused on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror. …[After they were exposed] Rumsfeld’s explanation to the White House, the official added, was reassuring: ‘We’ve got a glitch in the program. We’ll prosecute it. The cover story was that some kids got out of control' "[74]
Does North Korea insist on one on one talks, or else they will build nuclear weapons? The last thing you would want to do, then, is to talk to them. The more loose nukes around, the more fear, the better.
With this perspective Bush foreign policy now makes perfect sense.
Moreover, if all you care about is power, and terrorist attacks increase your majorities, there is no more reason to protect your population, now, against new attacks, than there was to protect them before 9/11….
The Future
Of course, the Bush administration has to go through the motions. Our civilian aircraft are now armored against 9/11 type hijackings. But as the heroes of Flight 93 demonstrated, such attacks are no longer possible, now that the passengers know what's up. If inaction means you are going to die, then better to go down fighting, save those on the ground, and at least have a chance for survival. Yes, the actions to protect airliners are worthy, but that is fighting the last war. What is the next war?
"If it had been even a primitive nuclear weapon that hit the World Trade Center three years ago, hundreds of thousands of people would have died instead of fewer than 3,000, and the free society we enjoy almost certainly would have been a casualty as well. In the shock of that moment, the administration probably would have created a national network of detention camps"[75] … and canceled elections, perhaps?
According to Michael Scheuer, senior intelligence analyst who created and advised a secret CIA unit for tracking and eliminating bin Laden since 1996, "We had found that he [Bin Laden] and al Qaeda were involved in an extraordinarily sophisticated and professional effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In this case, nuclear material, so by the end of 1996, it was clear that this was an organization unlike any other one we had ever seen,"[76]
"The … trial of Bin Laden and others for the
August 7, 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies … has shed new light on the
efforts of Bin Laden and… Al-Qaida to
acquire weapons of mass destruction. Prosecution witness Jamal Ahmad al-Fadl
detailed his efforts to assist Bin Laden in an attempt to acquire uranium,
presumably for the development of nuclear weapons, from a source in Khartoum,
Sudan, in late 1993 or early 1994"[77]
In 1998 Israeli military intelligence sources reported that Bin Laden paid over 2 million pounds sterling to a middle-man in Kazakhstan, who promised to deliver a “suitcase” bomb to Bin Laden within two years.[78]
Arabic news magazine Al-Watan Al-Arabi reported that Bin Laden was engaged in a comprehensive plan to acquire nuclear weapons. From information reportedly provided by sources that included the Russian intelligence agency the report stated that Bin Laden had forged links with organized crime members in the former Soviet republics in Central Asia and the Caucasus.[79]
The Al-Watan Al-Arabi article cited one particular meeting in which an agreement was negotiated by some of Bin Laden’s followers and Chechen organized crime figures in Grozny, Chechnya. It was referred to as “the nuclear warheads deal.” Bin Laden reportedly gave the contacts in Chechnya $30 million in cash and two tons of opium in exchange for approximately 20 nuclear warheads. Sources stated that Bin Laden planned to have the warheads dismantled by his own team of scientists, who would then transform the weapons into “instant nukes” or “suitcase nukes.”[80] Beginning in 1993, Bin Laden instructed some of his aides to obtain weapons-grade uranium that could be used to develop small nuclear weapons.[81]
In a 1998 interview with Time Magazine, Bin Laden asserted that acquiring weapons of any type was a Muslim “religious duty.” When asked whether he was seeking to obtain chemical or nuclear weapons, Bin Laden replied, “Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so.”[82] He responded similarly to the same question in an ABC News interview two days later, stating, “If I seek to acquire such weapons, this is a religious duty. How we use them is up to us.”[83]
The only real question now is whether Bin Laden has "a few," as Russian intelligence seems to think, or "over 20," a figure cited by intelligence services of moderate Arab regimes. "There is no longer much doubt that Bin Laden has finally succeeded in his quest for nuclear ‘suitcase bombs," says Yossef Bodansky, head of the Congressional Task Force on Non-Conventional Terrorism in Washington. In a recent book, Bodansky reports that Bin Laden’s associates acquired the devices through Chechnya, paying the Chechens $30 million in cash and two tons of Afghan heroin, worth about $70 million in Afghanistan and about 10 times that on the street in Western cities. [84]
Bodansky’s statements corroborate 1998 testimony by former Russian security chief Alexander Lebed to the U.S. House of Representatives. Lebed said that 43 nuclear suitcases from the former Soviet arsenal, developed for the KGB in the 1970s, have vanished since the collapse of the former Soviet Union a decade ago. Lebed said one person could detonate such a bomb by himself, and kill 100,000 people.[85]
Mock-up of a "suitcase" nuclear bomb, made by Congressional staffer Peter Pry.[86]
Time magazine reported that U.S. officials in October 2001 issued an intelligence alert to a small number of agencies indicating that terrorists were thought to have obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal and planned to smuggle it into New York City.[87]
On Mar 21, 2004, the biographer of al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader told an Australian television station that Al Qaeda claims to have bought ready-made nuclear weapons in central Asia. Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir said Ayman al-Zawahri claimed that "smart briefcase bombs" were available on the black market. Mir recalled telling al-Zawahri it was difficult to believe that al-Qaida had nuclear weapons when the terror network didn't have the equipment to maintain or use them. "Dr Ayman al-Zawahri laughed and he said 'Mr. Mir, if you have $30 million, go to the black market in central Asia, contact any disgruntled Soviet scientist, and a lot of ... smart briefcase bombs are available,'" Mir quoted al-Zawahri as saying "They have contacted us, we sent our people to Moscow, to Tashkent, to other central Asian states and they negotiated, and we purchased some suitcase bombs," .[88],[89]
According to Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA unit dedicated to tracking Bin Laden. Bin Laden was criticized in some Muslim circles because he failed to provide advance warning of the September 11 attacks and, according to some interpretations of Islamic law, should first have offered to help convert his victims to Islam. Subsequently, Osama Bin Laden approached a prominent Saudi Arabian theologian to obtain religious approval for the use of a nuclear weapon against the United States. The theologian provided a “rather long treatise” that concluded Bin Laden was entitled to use the weapon because America was responsible for “millions of dead Muslims around the world”[90] It wouldn't do to kill massive numbers of people without proper religious authorization first, would it?
The Image
So, what are we doing about all this?
According to "knowledgeable sources" in the Bush administration, "Tenet's briefing [on the Al-Qaeda nuclear threat] raised fears that 'sent the president through the roof.' With considerable emotion, two officials said, Bush ordered his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to the United States."[91]
"Alarmed by growing hints of al Qaeda's progress toward obtaining a nuclear or radiological weapon, the Bush administration has deployed hundreds of sophisticated sensors since November [2001] to U.S. borders, overseas facilities and choke points around Washington." Unfortunately, as one official put it, "There are limits, 'governed by the laws of physics,' to American technology for detecting these materials. In broad terms they have to do with sensing radioactivity at a distance and through shielding"[92]
"Concern
that terrorists could use container shipping to mount a catastrophic attack on
the United States prompted the Bush administration to implement the Container
Security Initiative (CSI). The CSI was first announced in January 2002 and is
now operational in at least 16 major seaports in Europe, Canada, and Asia. Most
of the 20 leading mega-ports that ship cargo containers to the U.S. are in Asia
and Europe. The CSI identifies and checks a
relatively small number of cargo containers for possible weapons of
mass destruction or dangerous radioactive substances that terrorists might try
to place inside."[93]
The Reality
"Putting a nuclear weapon in the hold of a cargo ship is
the most likely way that we will be attacked by a nuclear weapon.
While we have
committed billions to a 'Star Wars' satellite defense system, attacking the
United States by means of a nuclear missile is extremely unlikely, even if a
rogue state managed to gets its hands on such a weapon. Missiles are easy to
track. Any state that attacks the United States by missile would be obliterated
in return.
But putting a
nuclear device in a cargo ship of international registry, sending it into, say,
San Francisco or New York or Los Angeles harbor and detonating it would be
relatively easy. And we would not know whom to retaliate against - Which is why
we have to check all cargo on all ships entering our harbors.
But we aren't
doing that. On [April 21, 2003] The Wall
Street Journal ran a story stating that about 12 million containers enter
U.S. ports each year. Only 4 percent undergo security checks.
'Eighteen
months after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the nation's
ports remain conspicuously vulnerable to assault, law-enforcement officials
say,' the Journal reported. The story goes on to point out that while Congress
has committed $8 billion to airport security, our nation's ports have been
promised only about $350 million. How much money is actually needed? The Coast
Guard says it will need $6 billion over the next 10 years to safeguard our
seaports. That is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. But when
Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., tried to add $1 billion for port security to the
president's request for nearly $80 billion to fight the war in Iraq, the Senate
voted it down."[94]
So, "knowledgeable sources" in the Bush
administration claim Bush gave the order to "give nuclear terrorism
priority over every other threat", yet his administration does not even
care to spend 1% of the Iraq war budget on port security.
The United States
has many thousands of miles of land and water borders, as well as several
hundred sea, land, and air ports of entry — 317 by one count —giving terrorists
many pathways to smuggle a nuclear bomb into this nation.[95]
Oct. 13, 2004: "A new report from the Homeland Security Inspector General's office reveals that serious questions still remain regarding the prevention of nuclear materials from entering the country, according to Rep. Jim Turner, D-Texas, ranking member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, who had a classified briefing.
Turner and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., asked for the report after ABC News successfully shipped 15 pounds of depleted uranium into the country two years in a row. The Inspector General's report will be released to the public on Thursday.
'Improvements are needed in the inspection process to ensure that weapons of mass destruction or other implements of terror do not gain access to the U.S. through oceangoing cargo containers,' said the report, which was obtained by ABC News. 'The protocols and procedures that [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] officials followed, at the time of the two smuggling incidents, were not adequate to detect the depleted uranium.'
'It is hard
to see how the government can reassure anyone based on the Inspector General's
report,' Turner said. The sad state of affairs is that three years after
9/11 it still seems possible to get nuclear material into this country.'"[96]
And the hunt for Bin Laden? "He's been marginalized…I just don't spend that much time on him" - GWB[97]
It would appear that once again, Bush & co. are merely going though the motions.
What Moves Bin Laden
February 6, 2005: "A startling number of U.S. nuclear and terrorism specialists I have talked with during the last year believe that the threat of a jihadi nuclear attack in the medium term is very serious. … [Bin Laden] is an unusual terrorist leader in that he has produced a broad and sustained body of interviews, pamphlet essays and videotaped speeches, even after going into hiding. In these lie the jihadi nuclear doctrine, in plain sight. … In often tedious debates with comrades during the 1990s, he has argued that only by attacking distant America could al Qaeda hope to mortally wound the Middle East's frontline authoritarian governments. His inspiration, repeatedly cited in his writings and interviews, is the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…Bin Laden has said several times that he is seeking to acquire and use nuclear weapons not only because it is God's will, but because he wants to do to America … what the United States did to Japan. "[98]
The Life You Save May be Your Own
..and that of your loved ones. Bin Laden was not content to merely hijack one airliner, nor will he be content to merely detonate a single nuke. The next attack will be multiple nuclear bombs, in major city centers. Vast numbers will die horribly, some quickly, many slowly and in great agony. Even more will be sickened by the radioactive fallout. Resources to render assistance will be utterly inadequate to cope with the carnage. 9/11 will look like a mere warm-up. Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor, fundamentalists and atheists alike will all suffer.
The value of American corporations will plummet, due to the obvious inability of the government to protect the country from attack. Foreign investors, who have been supporting our trade deficit by investing in the U.S., will become reluctant to do so. The dollar will plummet. Imports - oil & gas, and nearly all consumer goods, will skyrocket. Financial assets will drop to a fraction of their current value. The U.S. will become just another has-been superpower.
This is the course we are on. The only way to change this course is to elect a government that is actually interested preventing terrorism. The only way to do this is for the public at large to be aware of this story. The only way for this to happen is for you, the reader to get this story our to your friends, family, and the media. I pray that we succeed, before it is too late.