Open Letter to Jeffrey St. Clair of Counterpunch
Mr. St. Clair,
I commend you for openly disagreeing with your co-editor. As global temperature does change all by itself without human intervention -- and I have never seen an accurate accounting to date of the natural vs. manmade contributions to temperature, I'm not 100% convinced that Cockburn is wrong about the reasons for climate change.
I am 100% sure that he's wrong about September 11th. Your own website has supported the allegations of Sibel Edmonds and several others who spoke of protected drug smuggling which has financed terrorism, and probably still does today.
If I could prove that there were indeed laws broken intentionally, to the benefit of the 9/11 terrorists -- would it matter over at Counterpunch? Cockburn doesn't seem willing to look at any evidence, no matter the source, no matter the damning implications.
I can prove criminal behavior by US government operatives easily in a dozen ways. I'll cite two incontrovertible cases.
Al Mindhar and Al Hazmi
These two Saudis were photographed and monitored in Kuala Lampur at a high level "Al Qaeda" meeting more than a year and a half before 9/11. The FBI Inspector General report revealed how CIA deliberately withheld a memo that was intended to inform the FBI that one of the pair had a US multi-entry visa. The FBI liason was told that the memo was sent. The memo, however, was withheld by direct order of the CIA's Counter Terrorism Center supervisor.
Further, photographs linking the two to another known terrorist (Khallad) were withheld from FBI even after FBI figured out that the two 9/11 terrorists (Mindhar and Al Hazmi) were already in the country. Then, in a time of unprecedented warnings -- the "hair on fire" period, the FBI inexplicably gave the case over to a first-time junior investigator and marked it "routine."
This is in addition to at least four other suppressions of investigations by the FBI's counterterrorism headquarters. Their own investigators have skewered the supervisors in the press, yet these supervisors are kept on and even promoted.
Dick Cheney's Illegal "Orders"
During the 9/11 attacks, Norman Mineta entered the PEOC bunker at approximately 9:20am, where he noted Dick Cheney and his team giving orders.
The 9/11 Commission blatantly lies and claims that Cheney entered the PEOC at about 9:58am, AFTER the incident was history. This is perjury, a deliberate cover up. Cheney testified in secret, not under oath. Mineta testified on television, under oath.
Mineta witnessed the period that the "plane was coming into the Pentagon" and that a nervous junior officer kept informing the Vice President how far out the plane was from Washington, "30 miles out," etc.
"When it got down to 'the plane is 10 miles out' the young man also said to the Vice President, 'Do the orders still stand?'"
The Vice President said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
These orders were apparently a military stand down. No plane intercepted the incoming attacking plane. Air Force General Myers testified to Congress that the order to scramble was given after the Pentagon was struck. No surface to air missiles were launched.
The cover story became: they had no idea that there WAS a plane approaching the Pentagon. This is clearly made inoperable by the Secretary of Transportation's testimony.
Where did the plane hit?
It hit on the ONLY side of the Pentagon that was specially reinforced with 2,500 lb. "blast proof" windows, and "kevlar reinforced" exterior walls. I do not believe that any other wall of the Pentagon has ever been "renovated" in this fashion, even to this day AFTER the attacks there.
The plane struck on the very first floor, making the possibility of it overshooting and hitting other wedges nearly impossible. It hit at a place where minimal number of Pentagon employees were working, and on the opposite side of the complex from the top officers, and Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld claims he had no idea that a plane was inbound either. His legal obligation as Secretary of Defense was to give "approval" for scrambling jet fighters during an "air piracy(hijacking)" incident -- according to the military's own orders updated June 1st 2001. Rumsfeld gave no "approval" that day.
Mr. St. Clair,
Dick Cheney had no command authority to give any order whatsoever during this attack. The Vice President has no role as "Commander in Chief." This was an illegal, and most treasonous event.
The reason Cheney was in a position to give orders regarding the 9/11 attacks was because he was in charge of "war games", and by Executive Order was given that authority in May 2001. Cheney then scheduled numerous war games to coincide with the 9/11 date. His role as commander of "preparedness exercises" suddenly morphed into his role as illegal "commander in chief" when the exercises were suddenly in competition with real attacks on America. Still, he had no authority to affect our air defenses in any way shape or form. But he did.
By confusing the issue, and by his bogus authority as a result of heading up the training exercises, he managed to convince military responders not to intercept the plane. He claimed that they were arguing about whether or not to intercept on Meet the Press, that Sunday.
There is no argument about whether or not to intercept. That is standard operating procedure in the FAA manual. Cheney exceeded his authority and helped allow a commercial jet to impact the Pentagon, thus giving America an "Act of War" against a military target.
Acts of War are distinguished from crimes in the response. The "Global War on Terror" was a fait accompli by allowing the military headquarters to become a victim that day.
The 1993 World Trade Center bombing did not lead to a "war" on terrorism. It led to criminal trials. The 9/11 attacks did lead to "war", a bogus war as correctly described by former British member of Parliament Michael Meacher.
I'm going to post this as an Open Letter on my blog, and hope that you will consider reinvestigating September 11th yourself on behalf of Counterpunch.