I still don’t understand why we were told that dumping the body was in tradition with Islamic law. I also don’t understand why there were so many versions of events out in those early days. Sure, the basic story stayed the same; Pakistan, bin Laden, Marines, raid, 9/11 – but details of shoot-outs (or not), female hostages (or not), an armed bin Laden (or not), who could see what and when (or not) at the White House and other tidbits of info were flipping like a coin at a football game.
On the matter of a dead Usama bin Laden, many people in the US and the world were unimpressed and even critical of Obama for not showing any photos of the newly deceased bin Laden.
Milo is the host of Touch, a daily program from 5:00-6:00 PM Pacific on The Bridge, 95.1 FM in Guerneville. Milo has invited me (Brian Romanoff) to be a regular guest on his show to try to bring more light into the events of 9/11. I appreciate the opportunity and I hope you enjoy the show.
Today we have a varied and general discussion regarding 9/11.
I also bid the listeners a farewell in my last broadcast for a while.
The ACLU is suing the Obama administration under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking to force disclosure of the guidelines used by Obama officials to select which human beings (both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals) will have their lives ended by the CIA’s drone attacks (“In particular,” the group explains, the FOIA request “seeks to find out when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the United States ensures compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killing”). The Obama administration has not only refused to provide any of that information, but worse, the CIA is insisting to federal courts that it cannot even confirm or deny the existence of a drone program at all without seriously damaging national security; from the CIA’s brief in response to the ACLU lawsuit:
. . .
(click on image to enlarge)
What makes this so appalling is not merely that the Obama administration demands the right to kill whomever it wants without having to account to anyone for its actions, choices or even claimed legal authorities, though that’s obviously bad enough (as I wrote when the ACLU lawsuit was commenced: “from a certain perspective, there’s really only one point worth making about all of this: if you think about it, it is warped beyond belief that the ACLU has to sue the U.S. Government in order to force it to disclose its claimed legal and factual bases for assassinating U.S. citizens without charges, trial or due process of any kind”). What makes it so much worse is how blatantly, insultingly false is its claim that it cannot confirm or deny the CIA drone program without damaging national security.
Milo is the host of Touch, a daily program from 5:00-6:00 PM Pacific on The Bridge, 95.1 FM in Guerneville. Milo has invited me (Brian Romanoff) to be a regular guest on his show to try to bring more light into the events of 9/11. I appreciate the opportunity and I hope you enjoy the show.
Today we follow-up on last week’s discussion of the events of September the 11th, 1973 in Chile, and the US backed interference with Chilean politics and society. A military coup took place in Chile on 9/11/73 and General Augusto Pinochet ruled the country for the next 17 years. Startling events took place in Chile that were known and backed by the CIA and covert operations by the Nixon administration, especially through people like Henry Kissinger. Pinochet would eventually set up DINA, a Chilean CIA that hunted political critics throughout South America, Europe and even the US.
On September 21, 1976 a car-bomb went off in Washington DC, killing Orlando Letelier and US assistant Ronni Moffit, who were both critics of the brutal Pinochet regime. Before 9/11/01 Letelier’s assassination by DINA was considered the worst case of international terrorism on US soil. The man responsible, Michael Townley, was a CIA agent or asset along with the head of DINA, Manueal Contreras. At all points of covert activity, we can assume that Henry Kissinger was aware of what was going on via the CIA or DINA.
Remember: The attacks of 9/11/01 in the US may indeed have been completely averted, if not significantly altered had the CIA not intentionally allowed known criminals into the country without telling the FBI.
Available as a live-stream every Monday 5:00-6:00 PM Pacific at the website provided below:
As Dr. Paul Rea states in Mounting Evidence, the 9-11 story is the 21st Century’s “ultimate mass murder mystery.”
Mounting Evidence makes good on the promise implied in this tantalizing quote with a 555 page book that is not only well researched and comprehensive, but is presented in a lively and engaging writing style, ensuring a good read. These characterizations only begin to describe the book’s relevance however, for Mounting Evidence focuses directly on the larger importance of 9-11. What does this event mean, in terms of its origins, in terms of the cover-up of the true facts by a rigged “investigation” by a rigged 9-11 Commission and in terms of the negative effects on U.S. foreign and military policy, even now? With his multiple foci on “meaningful contexts,” the “Global Domination Project” of the United States, the “Official Story,” and the currently available evidence about 9-11, Rea uses his excellent command of all sources to explicate a very complex and multi-faceted subject clearly and compellingly.
Milo is the host of Touch, a daily program from 5:00-6:00 PM Pacific on The Bridge, 95.1 FM in Guerneville. Milo has invited me (Brian Romanoff) to be a regular guest on his show to try to bring more light into the events of 9/11. I appreciate the opportunity and I hope you enjoy the show.
Today we discuss the events of September the 11th, 1973 in Chile, and the US backed interference with Chilean politics and society. A military coup took place in Chile on 9/11/73 and General Augusto Pinochet ruled the country for the next 17 years. Startling events took place in Chile that were known and backed by the CIA and covert operations by the Nixon administration, especially through people like Henry Kissinger. Pinochet would eventually set up DINA, a Chilean CIA essentially, that hunted political critics throughout South America, Europe and even the US.
On September 21, 1976 a car-bomb went off in Washington DC, killing Orlando Letelier and US assistant Ronni Moffit, who were both critics of the brutal Pinochet regime. Before 9/11/01 Letelier’s assassination by DINA was considered the worst case of international terrorism on US soil. The man responsible, Michael Townley, was a CIA agent or asset along with the head of DINA, Manueal Contreras. At all points of covert activity, we can assume that Henry Kissinger was aware of what was going on via the CIA or DINA.
Remember: The attacks of 9/11/01 in the US may indeed have been completely averted, if not significantly altered had the CIA not intentionally allowed known terrorists into the country without telling the FBI.
Available as a live-stream every Monday 5:00-6:00 PM Pacific at the website provided below:
“An increasing number of websites and purported news entities thrive by putting out information that is exciting, shocking, controversial—and often wrong.” – Russ Baker
Perhaps you read or heard the brief flurry of excited reports: an intelligence expert was saying that, contrary to what the Obama White House told us, Osama bin Laden’s body was not hastily thrown into the ocean last May, but instead was secretly flown by a CIA plane to the US, where it underwent forensic examination.
For those of us who see plenty of holes and inconsistencies in the official government account of the Navy SEAL raid last May that purportedly bagged bin Laden, the new reports were tantalizing.
On September 11, 2001, within hours of the murderous 9/11 attacks, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney had committed America to what they later called the “War on Terror.” It should more properly, I believe, be called the “Terror War,” one in which terror has been directed repeatedly against civilians by all participants, both states and non-state actors.1 It should also be seen as part of a larger, indeed global, process in which terror has been used against civilians in interrelated campaigns by all major powers, including China in Xinjiang and Russia in Chechnya, as well as the United States.2 Terror war in its global context should perhaps be seen as the latest stage of the age-long secular spread of transurban civilization into areas of mostly rural resistance — areas where conventional forms of warfare, for either geographic or cultural reasons, prove inconclusive.
Terror War was formally declared by George W. Bush on the evening of September 11, 2001, with his statement to the American nation that “we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”3 But the notion that Bush’s terror war was in pursuit of actual terrorists lost credibility in 2003, when it was applied to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a country known to have been targeted by terrorists but not to have harbored them.4 It lost still more credibility with the 2005 publication in Britain of the so-called Downing Street memo, in which the head of the British intelligence service MI6 reported after a visit to Washington in 2002 that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”5 False stories followed in due course linking Iraq to WMD, anthrax, and Niger yellowcake (uranium).
This essay will demonstrate that before 9/11 a small element inside the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit and related agencies, the so-called Alec Station Group, were also busy, “fixing” intelligence by suppressing it, in a way which, accidentally or deliberately, enabled the Terror War. They did so by withholding evidence from the FBI before 9/11 about two of the eventual alleged hijackers on 9/11, Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, thus ensuring that the FBI could not surveil the two men or their colleagues.
This failure to share was recognized in the 9/11 Commission Report, but treated as an accident that might not have occurred “if more resources had been applied.”6 This explanation, however, has since been refuted by 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean. Asked recently by two filmmakers if the failure to deal appropriately with al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi could have been a simple mistake, Kean replied:
Oh, it wasn’t careless oversight. It was purposeful. No question about that .… The conclusion that we came to was that in the DNA of these organizations was secrecy. And secrecy to the point of ya don’t share it with anybody.7
MSNBC has carried a couple of articles in the past few days relating to the important Florida-Saudi-9/11 connections. Mishandling investigations, cover-ups, Suadi support of 9/11, Senators wanting more answers, US complicity….this is big news!
Please visit all original sources for the full length articles, and to show MSNBC that you care that they covered these important and unresolved issues.
A Saudi man who triggered an FBI investigation after he and his family left their Sarasota, Fla., area home and moved overseas two weeks before 9/11 considered Osama bin Laden a “hero” and may have known some of the hijackers, an informant told the FBI in 2004.
The informant also told authorities that the Saudi, Abdulazziz al-Hijji, once introduced him to Adnan El Shukrijumah – another former Florida resident and suspected top al-Qaida operative who today has a $5 million bounty on his head.
Al-Hijji’s name made headlines in September 2011 when The Miami Heraldreported on a counterterrorism source’s disclosure of a previously unknown FBI-led probe that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington — one that pointed to a possible Saudi support operation for the hijackers in Florida.
I have had my third run in with Norman Solomon, an anti-war activist and media critic who is running for Congress. I have compiled 2 of my run-ins along with some historical context in the video below. I hope you like it and find it interesting.
Norman Solomon has a history of avoiding 9/11, even silencing it.
Now he is running for Congress to represent the 2nd District of California, right where I live.
The US media is especially proud of standing up for the victims of 9/11 by self righteously reporting the apology from Walhberg.Why is it that an actor is able to apologize for insensitive comments but intelligence officials and agents won’t explain let alone apologize for getting a bunch of people killed? When US media could have stood up for the victims in a substantive way they failed to do so. As recently as September 2011, 60 Minutes countered former FBI agent Ali Soufan’s credible accusation of CIA withholding of information by way of a CIA talking point:
The CIA told us any suggestion it purposely refused to share critical information on the 9/11 plots with FBI is “baseless” and “these allegations diminish the hard work and dedication of countless CIA officers.”
This is journalism? Soufan (and others) have already credible demonstrated that the withholding was deliberate. The question then is why did CIA and FBI UBLU officials and agents withhold the information? For unknown reasons the US media will not use their access to power to get an answer. US media has never interviewed Rich Blee, chief of CIA’s Alec Station in the lead up to 9/11 or Rod Middleton, chief of the FBI Bin Laden unit (UBLU) in the lead up to 9/11. Blee was even promoted after 9/11! How on earth could the media not ask Tenet to account for this?
There is a total disconnect in US society in regard to 9/11. Actors are pressured to apologize for making comments that are disrespectful to the victims while US officials and intelligence agents who obstructed al Qaeda investigations before 9/11 are given a complete pass by the US media. If anyone should apologize to 9/11 victims it should be the US media.
In his recent book The Black Banners, former FBI agent Ali Soufan portrays a key 9/11 Commission staff member, Doug MacEachin, as believing the CIA deliberately withheld information from the FBI in January 2001. This is in contrast with the Commission’s final report, which states that the CIA failed to pass on intelligence to the FBI on multiple occasions, but puts it down to honest failings.
MacEachin was one of the best-known of the Commission’s staffers before its formation. He was a career CIA officer and even served as Deputy Director for Intelligence between 1993 and 1996.
According to Soufan, MacEachin believed that the CIA purposefully withheld information placing al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash at the Malaysia summit, a gathering of top al-Qaeda figures in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000 that was monitored by the CIA. This intelligence was especially significant because it linked bin Attash, then known to be a mastermind of the October 2000 USS Cole bombing, to future Flight 77 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi.
In the firsttwo parts of this series we saw how a group of officers at Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, concealed information about al-Qaeda’s Malaysia summit from their FBI colleagues in January 2000. In particular they hid information about a US visa in the possession of Flight 77 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar. We also saw how this protection of Almihdhar, his partner Nawaf Alhazmi and al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash continued even after the involvement of Almihdhar and bin Attash in the October 2000 USS Colebombing became known to the US intelligence community. Concealing information about terrorists involved in seventeen homicides was bad enough, but things were about to get much worse.
Shortly after the CIA had failed to respond truthfully to a second formal request for information about the Cole bombing from FBI agent Ali Soufan in April 2001, the cables the CIA drafted about the Malaysia summit were reviewed at Alec Station. The review was conducted by Tom Wilshire, the station’s deputy chief and one of the key figures in the withholding of the information, and a female CIA officer whose name is not known. The two of them re-read cables from the previous year that said Almihdhar had a US visa and that Alhazmi had flown to Los Angeles with a companion, but neither of them took the appropriate action—watchlisting the Malaysia attendees and alerting the FBI.
After this review, Wilshire ordered another review of the same information. The review was to be carried out by Margaret Gillespie, a CIA detailee to Alec Station whose alleged memory loss regarding the events of January 2000 makes one suspicious of her motives. Wilshire believed, correctly as it turns out, that the cables contained the key to preventing the next major al-Qaeda attack—had they been handled properly, 9/11 would never have happened.
Three weeks before the attacks, Gillespie allegedly discovered a key cable, and this led her to tell the FBI about Almihdhar and Alhazmi. As you know, the FBI hunt for Almihdhar and Alhazmi was unsuccessful and this, as you probably don’t know, was largely due to Wilshire. Nevertheless, Wilshire received substantial praise from the post-attack investigations for getting Gillespie to do the review. Plenty of his other actions cast suspicion on him, but this review seemed to put him in the clear—if he really was trying to hide the information, why start a review?
Posted by Brian 
