manna for conspiracists

Charles Jannuzi jannuzi at edu00.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp
Wed Jan 9 21:04:54 PST 2002



>And it was devilishly clever of >Bush & Co. to arrange for those
>planes to hit the WTC, thereby >killing O'Neill *and* offering the
>perfect pretext for a pipeline war in >one swell foop. Damn, that
>ruling class is clever!

Reading some on O'Neill and I have to say, if this guy was among the top anti-terrorist experts that US, no wonder the entire law enforcement and counter-intelligence systems look so inept post 9-11.

This guy had multiple lives and a top, top security clearance. It would have been like something out of a Hitchcock movie tracking how many of his women showed up at his funeral--no wait, that was a Stanley Donnen movie with Audrey H, 'Charade'. If his body hadn't been found (all the more remarkable because it was found btw), I'd almost think he was using the incident to pursue a new identity somewhere.

He started out as FBI law enforcement but got into the 'glamor' diplomatic and intelligence sides, though being in overseas anti-terrorist efforts probably meant he had to work with groups to which he didn't really belong (military, State Department and CIA in their overseas operations mode).

None of his analysis in public speeches is very profound or groundbreaking (you could say it was his security clearance, but apparently that didn't stop him from shooting off his mouth over drinks with reporters). I'm not familiar with his investigative work, but that doesn't sound like his speciality--rather, politicking does.

After the first WTC bombings (1993)that was the whole debate--state-sponsored terrorism vs. networked stateless groups of religious fanatics. O'Neill spent a lot of time emphasizing the latter, while his establishment rivals said, No, go after Iraq. So, next, McVeigh was such a big surprise.

Well, no, there was also the constant, distracting alarm over weapons of mass destruction, the exaggerated danger of which is still being used to distract our attention. Is it that hard to realize how godawfully stupid US counter-terrorist efforts must have been to allow that many jet planes to get commandeered in a coordinated fashion?

Chip B writes:
>There is not one iota of evidence >linking the death of O'Neill to
>the terror attacks. None. Zip. Nada.

Of course there is. More than a mere coincidence; it was the man's own conscious choices.

In the Hollywood movie the part played by Bruce Willis quits in frustration from the FBI's counter-terrorist office in NYC. Then Bruce gets some information that will prevent the WTC from being blown up, but no one will listen to him. He even gets arrested by the NYPD for making a scene. Bruce takes a job as security guard at WTC in an assumed identity. He survives a terrorist attack, saves the WTC , and leads the FBI's own Delta Force all-powerful danger rangers deep into OBL territory to kick the evil one's evil ass himself.

In reality the guy gets a building falling on him. He was long a part of NYC anti-terrorism efforts and all that multi-agency coordination (better called interagency rivallry and confusion). I wouldn't be surprised if he was part of the moronic decision to put an emergency crisis center so near to what his ingroup thought was the most likely target. And no doubt one reason why he chose a jump over to security at WTC is he'd still be in the thick of things, with his security clearance, in NYC hanging out with the same crowds, at the center of it all, right at his own envisioned ground zero.

What must have been going through his mind after the first building got hit? How as usual the State Department and the CIA had let him down? At least he went down with his ship.

Charles Jannuzi



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list