Skip to comments.Breaking: Man who allegedly met with terrorist Atta has been caught (Iraqi connection to 9/11?)
Posted on 07/08/2003 3:55:36 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
On the CBS Evening News a bit ago, reporter David Martin broke an exclusive that the Iraqi leader who may have met with Mohamed Atta in Prague prior to his terrorist attack on 9/11 has been caught. It will be interesting to see if he says anything.
CIA may not always be right but it is never wrong.
CIA will not pursue hu(man) int(elligence) being obsessed with satellite sensors and electronic intercepts.
Baer relates being pulled off the trail of the Beirut Embassy bomber by a superior busily shining his shoes.
DCI James Woolsey reported he had less face time with Clinton than Monica did.
Clinton booted Woolsey to install Deutch. Deutch said at the outset he was out to "f--k them" [CIA]. Which he did.
Deutch compromised 17,000 CIA files on his unsecure home computer logged on to Russian sites.
When investigated, Nora Slatkin covered for Deutch (Slatkin having done to CIA what Hazel O'Leary did to Energy).
Deutch split to CitiBank and brought along Slatkin (one hand washing the other).
Porter Goss' Chief of Staff John Millis was Robert Baer's predecessor at CIA. Millis warned Baer to avoid outing the Clintons' suspicious campaign donors. "Do you have any idea what you're doing? . . . .They'll come after you." [SEE NO EVIL, p. 254]
Millis had called Deutch the "worst DCI for counterintelligence" and Clinton the "worst president for counterintelligence".
Millis subsequently sucked a shotgun in a bathtub of the Breezeway Motel in Alexandria, Virginia.
Senator Robert Torricelli eviscerated CIA by mandating no hires of agents with "records".
George Tenet was John Deutch's annointed successor, a partisan Clintonite in the belly of the Bush administration.
The latest CIA buffoonery entails its admission that Iran and North Korea are further along in nuclear fuel rod processing than earlier thought.
Over at FBI Clinton ended the agency's traditional counterintelligence and counterterrorism function.
Enter Robert Mueller to crucify Coleen Rowley for daring to warn of Islamists taking flying lessons including Zacarias Moussaoui.
Per Bill Gertz' BREAKDOWN: How America's Intelligence Failures Led to September 11, Regnery, 2002, page 96:
John P. O'Neill, the chief of the FBI's counterterrorism section said in a speech in April 1996 that the threat from Islamic radicals is "the greatest threat coming to us domestically in in the United States. . . .O'Neill was killed in the Septermber 11 attacks after he had become security director for the World Trade Center.
Add that O'Neill was set up, having his briefcase of terrorism case notes stolen while attending a seminar of FBI agents. Clinton declined Osama bin Laden three times Sudan offered him.
Yet Clinton wasted 440 cruise missiles and hundreds of Precision Guided Munitions to distract from his Monica mess (July 20, 1998) and his impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice (December, 1998).
Meanwhile Hillary smooches Suha wife of the chief al Fatah terrorist, and takes money from American Muslim Council a Hamas front.
That Hillary's most effective critic Barbara Olson was flown into the Pentagon is gravy.
Will the WMDs shuttled out of Iraq by our French and Russian allies reappear in a second catastrophic terror attack on CONUS?
Obviously CIA and FBI won't have a clue.
They'll be terrified of "profiling" charges from CAIR and ACLU.
So they watch for the angry white man in the white van.
If you had seen his face, you would know that he also believes that 9-11 would not have happened.
I'm not sure if Hitlery addresses 9-11 in her book but I'd start reading between the lines.
I did a search on Jim Fox...found out he died a few years after he was relieved of duty. Does anyone know how he died? I tried to do another search to find out more info, but kept coming up with Mulder and Scully stories, LOL!
THE IRAQ CONNECTION
by R. James Woolsey
R. JAMES WOOLSEY is a partner at Shea & Gardner in Washington, D.C. He served as director of central intelligence from February 1993 to January 1995.
In the immediate aftermath of Tuesday's attacks, attention has focused on terrorist chieftain Osama bin Laden. And he may well be responsible. But intelligence and law enforcement officials investigating the case would do well to at least consider another possibility: that the attacks--whether perpetrated by bin Laden and his associates or by others--were sponsored, supported, and perhaps even ordered by Saddam Hussein.
To this end, investigators should revisit the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. A few years ago, the facts in that case seemed straightforward: The mastermind behind the bombing, who went by the alias Ramzi Yousef, was in fact a 27-year-old Pakistani named Abdul Basit. But late last year, AEI Press published "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America," a careful book about the bombing by AEI scholar Laurie Mylroie. The book's startling thesis is that the original theory of the attack, advanced by James Fox (the FBI's chief investigator into the 1993 bombing until his replacement in 1994) was correct: that Yousef was not Abdul Basit but rather an Iraqi agent who had assumed the latter's identity when police files in Kuwait (where the real Abdul Basit lived in 1990) were doctored by Iraqi intelligence during the occupation of Kuwait. If Mylroie and Fox (who died in 1997) are right, then it was Iraq that went after the World Trade Center last time. Which makes it much more plausible that Iraq has done so again.
According to the theory of the 1993 bombing embraced by federal prosecutors and the Clinton administration, Yousef/Abdul Basit was just another Middle Eastern student who became radicalized in his early twenties. But it is worth noting that the only two publicly reported items suggesting that Yousef and Abdul Basit are the same man could very easily have been products of Iraqi tampering with Kuwaiti police files: a few photocopied pages from earlier Abdul Basit passports that had clearly been tampered with, provided by Yousef in New York in 1992 to get a Pakistani passport in Abdul Basit's name, and fingerprints matching Yousef's found in Abdul Basit's police file in Kuwait. It is also worth noting that Abdul Basit and his family, who lived in Kuwait, disappeared during the Iraqi occupation, and the family has never reappeared. Was this a random tragedy of war or part of an effort to set up a false identity for Yousef?
Moreover, the Fox/Mylroie theory--that Yousef, via Iraqi intelligence, stole Abdul Basit's identity--would explain a number of troubling differences between Abdul Basit in the summer of 1989 (when he left the United Kingdom after three years of study) and Yousef in September 1992 (when he arrived in New York). If the two are indeed the same man, then, over the course of three years, he would have: (a) grown four inches (from five foot eight inches to six feet) in his twenties; (b) put on between 35 and 40 pounds; (c) developed a deformed eye; (d) developed smaller ears and a smaller mouth; (e) gone from being an innovative computer programmer to being computer-challenged; (f) aged substantially more than three years in appearance; and (g) changed from being a quiet, smiling young man respectful to women to a rather different one (a sound file in Yousef's computer, for example, includes his voice saying "Fuck, fuck, fuck" and "Shut up, you bitch").
What incentive would the U.S. government have had to overlook these changes, stipulate that Abdul Basit and Yousef were the same person, and turn away from any suggestion that Saddam was behind the first WTC attack? One can only speculate. But by arguing that the 1993 WTC bombing and a separate, FBI-thwarted plot to bomb New York tunnels and buildings were connected as parts of a common conspiracy, prosecutors made convicting the participants, under the very broad seditious conspiracy law, far simpler. As for the Clinton administration itself, there would be less need to confront Saddam, and perhaps less need to make hard choices, if it didn't finger him as being behind the WTC bombing.
And indeed, ever since Fox's ouster, federal prosecutors and the White House have hewed to the line that most terrorist attacks on the United States are either the products of "loose networks" of folks who just somehow come together or are masterminded by the mysterious and unaccountable bin Laden. Explicit state sponsorship, especially by Iraq, has not been on the agenda. The Clinton administration, meanwhile, treated Saddam--in former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's famous metaphor--like the mole in an international version of the "Whack-a-Mole" carnival game: If you bopped him on the head, he'd stay in his hole for a while. But what has he been doing while he's down there? If Fox and Mylroie are right, quite possibly planning, financing, and backing terrorist operations against the United States.
As of yet, there is no evidence of explicit state sponsorship of the September 11 attacks. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Does it not seem curious that bin Laden issues fatwas, pushes videotapes, quotes poems, and orders his followers to talk loudly and often about his role in attacks on us? Does someone want our focus to be solely on bin Laden's hard-to-reach self, and not on a senior partner?
If we hope to answer that question, the 1993 WTC bombing is a good place to start looking. No one other than the prosecutors, the Clinton Justice Department, and the FBI had access to the materials surrounding that case until they were presented in court, because they were virtually all obtained by a federal grand jury and hence kept not only from the public but from the rest of the government under the extreme secrecy requirements of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Now a new administration, a new attorney general, and a new FBI director should investigate the materials that Abdul Basit handled while in the United Kingdom in 1988 and 1989, which were taken into custody by Scotland Yard. If those materials have Yousef's fingerprints on them, then the Fox/Mylroie theory is likely wrong. But if they don't, then Yousef was probably a creature of Iraqi intelligence. Which means that Saddam still considered himself at war with the United States in 1993. And, tragically, he may still today.
Clinton, Berger, Deutch/Tenet, Freeh/Mueller have all resisted the Ramzi Yousef/Iraq connection--and the Iraqi fingerprints on OKCBomb revealed by Jayna Davis (amplified by Jim Crogan and James Patterson), the real cause of the downing of Flight 800, etc.
And they would have us looking for a white man in a white van for the anthrax attacks as well (Hatfill looks good to the Chief Moose contingent).
John Millis, John O'Neil, James M. Fox, Coleen Rowley: the inconvenient people.
Fox cited as viewing Ramzi Yousef as Iraqi agent, in agreement with Jayna Davis and James Woolsey, and contrary to Freeh and company.
Fox removed by Freeh 1994. Dies 1997.
It was about this time that the Sudanese decided they had had enough of hosting Osama bin Laden and offered him to us on a platter. Maybe if the White House and National Security Council had been spending less time thinking about Exxon and Mobil and Amoco and more time thinking about the implications of letting a known venomous snake slither away to Afghanistan, we might have all been spared a lot of future misery.
Note: The author has noted National Security Advisor Anthony Lake owned Exxon stock, while his wife owned Mobil. Secretary of State Warren Christopher was weighing in, and the author "found it hard to avoid the conclusion that the Clinton administration was pimping for Exxon."
And we were told that only the wascally wepubwicans were oil barons.