>From: Michael Pugliese <michael098762001 at earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Review of Griffin's 9-11 book
>Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:57:44 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
>
> >...Nafeez Ahmed's (1st) book
>
> 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
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
_________________________________________________________________ Limited-time offer: Fast, reliable MSN 9 Dial-up Internet access FREE for 2 months! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&pgmarket=en-us&ST=1/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/