He was on Laura Flanders show last week. A producer of the show, after it was over, asked Nafeez about the portions written by the publisher, John Leonard, which had dozens of citations to far right sources like The American Free Press. Nafeez said he was , "naive, " about book publishing when he signed that contract.
>...'This timeline started whenI
saw the excellent timeline at the From The Wilderness website and began
adding to it...
http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/2002_06_01_mckinneysucks_archive.html#78095719
Mike Ruppert’s bullshit-riddled timeline (Part 1). NOTE: This is the first in what will be at least a 5-part series refuting Mike Ruppert’s conspiratorial "timeline" point by point. It may grow longer, as Ruppert continues to add more allegations, in lieu of actually providing evidence to support his older ones.
David Corn may not have the space to devote to Ruppert’s entire timeline – which contains most of his purported "evidence" of government foreknowledge of, and complicity in, the 9/11 attacks.
But I do. From the top…
FTW, November 2, 2001 – 1200 PST – On October 31, the French daily Le Figaro dropped a bombshell. While in a Dubai hospital receiving treatment for a chronic kidney infection last July, Osama bin Laden met with a top CIA official - presumably the Chief of Station. The meeting, held in bin Laden’s private suite, took place at the American hospital in Dubai at a time when he was a wanted fugitive for the bombings of two U.S. embassies and this year’s attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Bin Laden was eligible for execution according to a 2000 intelligence finding issued by President Bill Clinton before leaving office in January. Yet on July 14th he was allowed to leave Dubai on a private jet and there were no Navy fighters waiting to force him down.
Now, let’s go back to the October 31 story by Le Figaro – the one that has Osama bin Laden meeting with a CIA officer in Dubai this June.
The story says that, "Throughout his stay in the hospital, Osama Bin Laden received visits from many family members [There goes the story that he’s a black sheep!] and Saudi Arabian Emirate personalities of status. During this time the local representative of the CIA was seen by many people taking the elevator and going to bin Laden’s room.
"Several days later the CIA officer bragged to his friends about having visited the Saudi millionaire. From authoritative sources, this CIA agent visited CIA headquarters on July 15th, the day after bin Laden’s departure for Quetta…
"According to various Arab diplomatic sources and French intelligence itself, precise information was communicated to the CIA concerning terrorist attacks aimed at American interests in the world, including its own territory."…
"Extremely bothered, they [American intelligence officers in a meeting with French intelligence officers] requested from their French peers exact details about the Algerian activists [connected to bin Laden through Dubai banking institutions], without explaining the exact nature of their inquiry. When asked the question, "What do you fear in the coming days?’ the Americans responded with incomprehensible silence."…
"On further investigation, the FBI discovered certain plans that had been put together between the CIA and its "Islamic friends" over the years. The meeting in Dubai is, so it would seem, consistent with ‘a certain American policy.’"
Even though Le Figaro reported that it had confirmed with hospital staff that bin Laden had been there as reported, stories printed on November 1 contained quotes from hospital staff that these reports were untrue. On November 1, as reported by the Ananova press agency, the CIA flatly denied that any meeting between any CIA personnel and Osama bin Laden at any time.
Who do you believe?
First of all, Le Figaro never "confirmed" anything with Dubai hospital staff, and Ruppert knows this. Bill Weinberg, editor of World War 3 Report called Ruppert on this inaccuracy back in March. The original (French) version actually used the verb affirmer, which Ruppert incorrectly translated to mean "confirm."
Should’ve used Babel Fish, Mikey!
Hence, what Ruppert has here is a single unnamed hospital official to corroborate Le Figaro’s outlandish tale. How about those other "quotes from hospital staff?" According to Agence France Presse, the hospital’s CEO, Bernard Koval "categorically denied" the report. "’Osama bin Laden has never been here. He's never been a patient and he's never been treated here. We have no idea of his medical condition,’ he insisted. ‘This is too small a hospital for someone to be snuck through the backdoor.’" [Luke Phillips, AFP, 31 Oct. 2001]
I believe the CIA. And the officials of the American Hospital in Dubai, who are not affiliated with the U.S. government. That’s two independent sources – both of which were sourced, and used much stronger words than "allegedly" – Ruppert’s mistranslation notwithstanding -- in their version of events.
On with Ruppert’s "timeline," which I will take apart line by line…
1. 1991-1997 – Major U.S. oil companies including ExxonMobil, Texaco, Unocal, BP, Amoco, Shell and Enron directly invest billions in cash bribing heads of state in Kazakhstan to secure equity rights in the huge oil reserves in these regions. The oil companies further commit to future direct investments in Kazakhstan of $35 billion. Not being willing to pay exorbitant prices to Russia to use Russian pipelines the major oil companies have no way to recoup their investments. ["The Price of Oil," by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, July 9, 2001 – The Asia Times, "The Roving Eye Part I Jan. 26, 2002.]
All of which proves absolutely nothing. Yes, the U.S. consumes a great deal of oil. And yes, Central Asia is a burgeoning source which could well supply us, and the rest of the world, for decades to come. But even if we were to accept Ruppert’s conclusions at face value, this in no way supports any logical nexus between our craving of petroleum and the decision to go to war. And it doesn’t even support, much less prove, Ruppert’s allegation that there was foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
And when we prod a little into the substance of this claim, we find it to be a gross oversimplification, treating the oil industry as a monolithic interest. The reality is that there has never been a consensus among oil companies on the best route for the Central Asian pipeline. Take this analysis from BBC:
On the contrary, very few western politicians or oil companies have taken Afghanistan seriously as a major export route - for the simple reason that few believe Afghanistan will ever achieve the stability needed to ensure a regular and uninterrupted flow of oil and gas. … The West, in contrast, and particularly the US, has put almost all its efforts into developing a major new route from the Caspian through Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Black Sea.
This had the potential advantage (from a western point of view) of bypassing Russia and Iran, and breaking their monopoly of influence in the region - allowing the states of the Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan and possibly Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan) to develop a more balanced, independent foreign policy.
Other insight into the war-for-oil conspiracy theory can be found here and here, both good pieces from Spinsanity that obliterated the theory as put forth by Ted Rall – who does not, to my knowledge, believe that there was any government foreknowledge or complicity in 9/11.
2. January, 1995 – Philippine police investigating a possible attack on the Pope uncover plans for Operation Bojinka, connected to WTC bomber Ramsi Youssef. Parts of the plan call for crashing hijacked airliners into civilian targets. Details of the plan are disclosed in Youssef’s 1997 trial for the 1993 WTC bombing. [Source: AFP, December 7, 2001]
This information would not qualify as what has been termed "actionable intelligence." Unless Ruppert is suggesting that we should have shut down all commercial air traffic from 1997 until… well, until when exactly? This, like many of Ruppert’s other "smoking gun" offers no information about specific dates, or even the specific airports from where such attacks would be launched. Moreover, the revelations included such possible targets as the Eiffel Tower. The notion that we could have provided interminable air defenses for such a large range of targets is ridiculous.
3. December 4, 1997 – Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Subsequent reports will indicate that the negotiations failed, allegedly because the Taliban wanted too much money. [Source: The BBC, Dec. 4, 1997]
Nothing more compelling here than his first item. Moreover, this bullet is contradicted by the next…
4. February 12, 1998 – Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca – later to become a Special Ambassador to Afghanistan – testifies before the House that until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan the trans-Afghani pipeline needed to monetize the oil will not be built. [Source: Testimony before the House International Relations Committee.]
Which is it, Ruppert? Either Unocal backed out over too much money, or the lack of stability. Put together, these two items seem to confirm that Unocal’s desire for such a pipeline was tepid, at best.
5. 1998 - The CIA ignores warnings from Case Officer Robert Baer that Saudi Arabia was harboring an al-Q’aeda cell led by two known terrorists. A more detailed list of known terrorists is offered to Saudi intelligence in August 2001 and refused. [Source: Financial Times 1/12/01; See No Evil by a book by Robert Baer (release date Feb. 2002)].
Once again, this does not qualify as actionable intelligence. There is no indication that this "warning" contained any information about the 9/11 plots, or that the leads would have lead to any of its participants – not that that would have mattered. Two years would have been plenty of time for al-Qaeda to retool its plans. <SNIP> http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/2002_06_01_mckinneysucks_archive.html#78095719
::
-- Michael Pugliese
Michael Pugliese