by Kristen Breitweiser
Mr. Rove, the first thing that I would like to address is Afghanistan – the place that anyone with a true “understanding of 9/11″ knows is a nation that actually has a connection to the 9/11 attacks. One month after 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, took down the Taliban, and left without capturing Usama Bin Laden – the alleged perpetrator of the September 11th attacks. In the meantime, Afghanistan has carried out democratic elections, but continues to suffer from extreme violence and unrest. Poppy production (yes, Karl, the drug trade) is at an all time high, thus flooding the world market with heroin. And of course, the oil pipeline (a.k.a. the Caspian Sea pipeline) is better protected by U.S. troops who now have a “legitimate” excuse to be in that part of Afghanistan. Interesting isn’t it Karl that the drug “rat line” parallels the oil pipeline. (Yet, with all those troops guarding that same sliver of land, can you please explain how those drugs keep getting through?)
Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the… Continue reading
by Tom Flocco
Washington — Former FBI contract translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds and her attorneys were ordered removed from the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse so that a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel could discuss her case in private with Bush administration lawyers.
In an exclusive interview on Saturday, we asked Edmonds if she would deny that laundered drug money linked to the 911 attacks found its way into recent House, Senate and Presidential campaign war-chests, according to what she heard in intelligence intercepts she was asked to translate.
“I will not deny that statement; but I cannot comment further on it,” she told TomFlocco.com, in a non-denial denial.
Edmonds is appealing the Bush administration’s arcane use of “state secrets privilege,” invoked last year to throw out her U.S. District Court lawsuit alleging retaliation for telling FBI superiors about shoddy wiretap translations and allegations that wiretap information was passed to the target of an FBI investigation. Given our multiple reports and numerous other interviews, Edmonds heard much more–but enough to warrant public suppression of criminal evidence by a wholly Republican appeals court panel?
“Tom, I’m telling you that not a single newspaper covered what happened to me on Thursday when I went into court,” said the exasperated translator, adding, “[Judge David] Ginsberg kicked everyone out, cut off my lawyer’s arguments and told us ‘we have questions to ask the government’s attorneys that you cannot… Continue reading
by Andrew Buncombe
Friday, February 11, 2005
Washington – Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the 11 September 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida were planning aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks, according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing.
Critics say the new information undermines the government’s claim that intelligence about al-Qa’ida’s ambitions was “historical” in nature.
The independent commission investigating the attacks on New York and Washington concluded that while officials at the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) did receive warnings, they were “lulled into a false sense of security”. As a result, “intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures”.
The report, withheld from the public for months, says the FAA was primarily focused on the likelihood of an incident overseas. However, in spring 2001, it warned US airports that if “the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable”.
Kristin Bretweiser, whose husband was killed in the World Trade Center, said yesterday the newly released details undermined testimony from Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser, who told the commission that information about al-Qa’ida’s threats seen by the administration was “historical in nature”.
She told The Independent: “There were 52 threats that were mentioned. These were present threats – they were not historical. There were steps… Continue reading
The ABC News website has finally acknowledged the existence of alternative research and popular doubts about what really happened on September 11, how and why. We welcome this breakthrough.
We are very pleased that the article by Dean Schabner, published today on the front page of the ABC News website, seems to have fairly quoted two persons among the many citizens pursuing alternative research and actions for justice and full disclosure around 9/11.
We hope that ABC News will follow up with televised broadcasts on this subject, and give a fair hearing to all points of view.
Even as we thank ABC News, we must unfortunately also note that its article adopts a dismissive tone toward doubts about September 11, in advance of full inquiry. The headline is mildly misleading; the unanswered questions about September 11 did not merely “surface” on the eve of Election Day, but have been the subject of untiring work by hundreds of researchers for more than three years and the subject of such best-selling books as The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin and the recent Crossing the Rubicon by Michael C. Ruppert.
No basis whatsoever is given for the assessment of the ABC Polling Unit that the Zogby International survey of New York residents cited in the article (co-commissioned by 911Truth.org) is “not credible.”
Using the same established methodologies as in other surveys regularly cited by ABC News and other major media, Zogby polled a representative sampling of 808 adult New York… Continue reading