CHAPTER X
Political Deception: The Missing Link Behind 9/11

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

On May 16th 2002, The New York Post dropped what appeared to be a bombshell: “Bush Knew.” Hoping to score politically, the Democrats jumped on the bandwagon, pressuring the White House to come clean on two “top-secret documents” made available to President Bush prior to September 11, concerning “advance knowledge” of Al Qaeda attacks. Meanwhile, the US media had already coined a new set of buzzwords: “Yes, there were warnings” and “clues” of possible terrorist attacks, but “there was no way President Bush could have known” what was going to happen.

The Democrats agreed to “keep the cat in the bag” by saying: “Osama is at war with the US”and the FBI and the CIA knew something was cooking but “failed to connect the dots”. In the words of House Minority Leader, Richard Gephardt:

This is not blame-placing …. We support the President on the war against terrorism—have and will. But we’ve got to do better in preventing terrorist attacks.1
The media’s spotlight on “foreknowledge” and “FBI lapses” served to distract public attention from the broader issue of political decep tion. Not a word was mentioned concerning the role of the CIA, which throughout the entire post-Cold War era, has aided and abetted Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda as part of its covert operations.

Of course they knew! The foreknowledge issue is a red herring. The “Islamic Militant Network” is a creation of the CIA. (See Chapter II.) In standard CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an “intelligence asset”. Support to terrorist organizations is an integral part of US foreign policy. Al Qaeda continues to participate in CIA covert operations in different parts of the world. (See Chapter IV.)

While individual FBI agents are often unaware of the CIA’s role, the relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda is known at the top levels of the FBI. Members of the Bush administration and the US Congress are fully cognizant of these links.

The foreknowledge issue, focussing on “FBI lapses”, is an obvious smokescreen. While the whistleblowers serve to underscore the weaknesses of the FBI, the role of successive US Administrations (since the presidency of Jimmy Carter), in supporting the “Islamic Militant Base”, is simply not mentioned.

Fear and Disinformation Campaign

The Bush administration—through the personal initiative of Vice President Dick Cheney—chose not only to foreclose the possibility of a public inquiry, but also to trigger a fear and disinformation campaign:

I think that the prospects of a future attack on the US are almost a certainty …. It could happen tomorrow, it could happen next week, it could happen next year, but they will keep trying. And we have to be prepared.2

What Cheney is really telling us is that our “intelligence asset”, which we created, is going to strike again. Now, if this “CIA creature” were planning new terrorist attacks, you would expect that the CIA would be first to know about it. In all likelihood, the CIA also controls the “warnings” emanating from CIA sources on “future terrorist attacks” on American soil.
 

Carefully Planned Intelligence Operation

The 9/11 terrorists did not act on their own volition. The suicide hijackers were instruments in a carefully planned intelligence operation. The evidence confirms that Al Qaeda is supported by Pakistan’s ISI. Amply documented, the ISI owes its existence to the CIA. (See Chapter III.)

The Missing Link

The FBI confirmed in late September 2001, in an interview with ABC News, that the 9/11 ringleader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from unnamed sources in Pakistan. The FBI had information on the money trail. They knew exactly who was financing the terrorists. Less than two weeks later, the findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP) and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington).

As mentioned in Chapter IV, according to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9/11 attacks had allegedly been “wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad]”.3

According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source):

The evidence we have supplied to the US is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism.4

Pakistan’s Chief Spy Visits Washington

Now, it just so happens that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged “money man” behind 9/11, was in the US when the attacks occurred. (See Chapter IV.) He arrived on the 4th of September, one week before 9/11, on what was described as a routine visit of consultations with his US counterparts. According to Pakistani journalist Amir Mateen (in a prophetic article published on September 10):

ISI Chief Lt-Gen. Mahmoud’s week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, he is on a routine visit in return for CIA Director George Tenet’s earlier visit to Islamabad. Official sources confirm that he met Tenet this week. He also held long parleys with unspecified officials at the White House and the Pentagon.

 

But the most important meeting was with Marc Grossman, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. One can safely guess that the discussions must have centred around Afghanistan … and Osama bin Laden. What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmoud’s predecessor, was here, during Nawaz Sharif’s government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days.5

Nawaz Sharif was overthrown by General Pervez Musharaf. General Mahmoud Ahmad, who became the head of the ISI, played a key role in the military coup.

Condoleezza Rice’s Press Conference

In the course of Condoleezza Rice’s May 16, 2002 press conference (which took place barely a few hours after the publication of the “Bush Knew” headlines in The New York Post), an accredited Indian journalist asked a question on the role of General Mahmoud Ahmad:

Q: Dr. Rice?
Ms RICE: Yes?
Q: Are you aware of the reports at the time that the ISI chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And why was he here? Was he meeting with you or anybody in the Administration?
Ms RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.6

Although there is no official confirmation, in all likelihood General Mahmoud Ahmad met Dr. Rice during the course of his official visit. Moreover, she must have been fully aware of the $100,000 transfer to Mohammed Atta, which had been confirmed by the FBI.

Lost in the barrage of media reports on “foreknowledge”, this crucial piece of information on the ISI’s role in 9/11 implicates key members of the Bush administration including: CIA Director George Tenet, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Under-Secretary of State Marc Grossman, as well as Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat), Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee (who met General Ahmad on the 13th of September). “According to Biden, [Ahmad] pledged Pakistan’s cooperation.”7 (See Text box 10.1.)

Mysterious 9/11 Breakfast Meeting on Capitol Hill

On the morning of September 11, General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged “money-man” behind the 9/11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham (Democrat) and Representative Porter Goss, Chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees respectively. Also present at this meeting was Pakistan’s ambassador to the US Maleeha Lodhi.

The report confirms that other members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees were present.

When the news [of the attacks on the World Trade Center] came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss’ staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. “We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan,” Graham said.

Mahmoud Ahmed, director general of Pakistan’s intelligence service, was “very empathetic, sympathetic to the people of the United States,” Graham said.
Goss could not be reached Tuesday. He was whisked away with much of the House leadership to an undisclosed “secure location”. Graham, meanwhile, participated in late-afternoon briefings with top officials from the CIA and FBI.8

While trivializing the importance of the 9/11 breakfast meeting, the Miami Herald (16 September 2001) confirms that General Ahmad also met with Secretary of State Colin Powell in the wake of the 9/11 attacks:

Graham said the Pakistani intelligence official with whom he met, a top general in the government, was forced to stay all week in Washington because of the shutdown of air traffic. “He was marooned here, and I think that gave Secretary of State Powell and others in the administration a chance to really talk with him,” Graham said.9

With the exception of the Florida press (and Salon.com, 14 September 2001), not a word was mentioned in the US media’s September coverage of 9/11 concerning this mysterious breakfast meeting.

Eight months later, on the 18th of May 2002, two days after the “Bush Knew” headline hit the tabloids, the Washington Post published an article on Porter Goss, entitled: “A Cloak But No Dagger; An Ex-Spy Says He Seeks Solutions, Not Scapegoats for 9/11.”

Focussing on his career as a CIA agent, the article largely served to underscore the integrity and commitment of Porter Goss to waging a “war on terrorism”. Yet in an isolated paragraph, the article acknowledged the mysterious 9/11 breakfast meeting with ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, while also confirming that “Ahmad ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban”:

Now the main question facing Goss, as he helps steer a joint House-Senate investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, is why nobody in the far-flung intelligence bureaucracy—13 agencies spending billions of dollars—paid attention to the enemy among us. Until it was too late.

 

Goss says he is looking for solutions, not scapegoats. “A lot of nonsense,” he calls this week’s uproar about a CIA briefing that alerted President Bush, five weeks before Sept. 11, that Osama bin Laden’s associates might be planning airline hijackings.

None of this is news, but it’s all part of the finger-pointing,” Goss declared yesterday in a rare display of pique. “It’s foolishness.” [This statement comes from the man who was having breakfast with the alleged “money-man” behind 9/11 on the morning of September 11.] …

Goss has repeatedly refused to blame an “intelligence failure” for the terror attacks. As a 10-year veteran of the CIA’s clandestine operations wing, Goss prefers to praise the agency’s “fine work” ….

 

On the morning of Sept. 11, Goss and Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmad—the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan’s intelligence service. Ahmad ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.10

While The Washington Post acknowledges the links between ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad and Osama bin Laden, it failed to dwell on the more important question: What were Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham and other members of the Senate and House intelligence committees doing, together with the alleged money-man behind 9/11, at breakfast on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11?

Neither does it acknowledge the fact, amply documented by media reports, that “the money-man” behind the hijackers had been entrusted by the Pakistani government to discuss the precise terms of Pakistan’s “collaboration” in the “war on terrorism” in meetings held at the State department on the 12th and 13th of September 2001.

When the “foreknowledge” issue hit the street on May 16, 2002, “Chairman Porter Goss said an existing congressional inquiry has so far found ‘no smoking gun’ that would warrant another inquiry.”11 This statement points to an obvious “cover-up”.

The Investigation and Public Hearings on ‘Intelligence Failures’

In a piece of bitter irony, Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham—the men who hosted the mysterious September 11 breakfast meeting with the alleged “hijackers’high commander” (to use the FBI’s expression)—had been put in charge of the investigation and public hearings on “intelligence failures”.

Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney had expressed anger on a “leak” emanating from the intelligence committees regarding,

“the disclosure of National Security Agency intercepts of messages in Arabic on the eve of the attacks. The messages … were in two separate conversations on Sept. 10 and contained the phrases ‘Tomorrow is zero hour’ and ‘The match is about to begin.’ The messages were not translated until September 12.”12

Red Carpet Treatment for the Alleged “Money Man” behind 9/11

The Bush administration had not only provided red carpet treatment for the alleged “money man” behind the 9/11 attacks, it had also sought his “cooperation” in the “war on terrorism”. The precise terms of this “cooperation” were agreed upon between General Mahmoud Ahmad, representing the Pakistani government, and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in meetings at the State Department on September 12 and 13.

In other words, the Administration decided in the immediate wake of 9/11 to seek the “cooperation” of Pakistan’s ISI in “going after Osama”, despite the fact (documented by the FBI) that the ISI was financing and abetting the 9/11 terrorists. Contradictory? One might say that it’s like asking the Devil to go after Dracula.

The CIA Overshadows the Presidency

Dr. Rice’s statement regarding the ISI chief at her May 16 2002 press conference is an obvious cover-up.

While General Ahmad was talking to US officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, he had allegedly also been in contact (through a third party) with the September 11 terrorists.

But this conclusion is, in fact, the tip of the iceberg. Everything indicates that CIA Director George Tenet and ISI Chief General Mahmoud Ahmad had established a close personal working relationship. As mentioned in Chapter IV, General Mahmoud had arrived a week prior to September 11 for consultations with George Tenet.

Bear in mind that the CIA’s George Tenet also has a close personal relationship with President Bush. Prior to September 11, Tenet would meet the President nearly every morning, at 8:00 a.m. sharp, for about half an hour.13

A document, known as the President’s Daily Briefing, or PDB, “is prepared at Langley by the CIA’s analytical directorate, and a draft goes home with Tenet each night. Tenet edits it personally and delivers it orally during his early morning meeting with Bush.”14 This practice of “oral intelligence briefings” is unprecedented. Bush’s predecessors at the White House received a written briefing:

With Bush, who liked oral briefings and the CIA director in attendance, a strong relationship had developed. Tenet could be direct, even irreverent and earthy.15

The Decision to Go To War

At meetings of the National Security Council and in the “War Cabinet” on September 11, 12 and 13, CIA Director George Tenet played a central role in gaining the Commander-in-Chief’s approval to the launching of the “war on terrorism”.

George W. Bush’s Timeline—September 11 (from 9:45 a.m. in the wake of the WTC-Pentagon Attacks to midnight) :

• Circa 9:45 a.m: Bush’s motorcade leaves the Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida.
   

• 9:55 a.m: President Bush boards “Air Force One” bound for Washington.16 Following what was noted as a “false report” that Air Force One would be attacked,Vice-President Dick Cheney had urged Bush (10:32 a.m.) by telephone not to land in Washington. Following this conversation, the plane was diverted (10:41 a.m.) (on orders emanating from Washington) to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. A couple of hours later (1:30 p.m.), after a brief TV appearance, the President was transported to Offut Air Force base in Nebraska at US Strategic Command Headquarters.
   

• 3:30 p.m: A key meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) was convened, with members of the NSC communicating with the President from Washington by secure video.17 In the course of this NSC video-conference, CIA Director George Tenet fed unconfirmed information to the President. Tenet stated that “he was virtually certain that bin Laden and his network were behind the attacks … .”18

  
  The President responded to these statements, quite spontaneously, off the cuff, with little or no discussion and with an apparent misunderstanding of their implications. In the course of this video-conference (which lasted for less than an hour), the NSC was given the mandate by the Commander-in-Chief to prepare for the “war on terrorism”.Very much on the spur of the moment, the “green light” was given by video conference from Nebraska. In the words of President Bush: “We will find these people. They will pay. And I don’t want you to have any doubt about it.”19
   

• 4:36 p.m: (One hour and six minutes later … Air Force One departed for Washington. Back in the White House that same evening (9:00 p.m.) a second meeting of the full NSC took place together with Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had returned to Washington from Peru. The NSC meeting (which lasted for half an hour) was followed by the first meeting of the “war cabinet”. The latter was made up of a smaller group of top officials and key advisers.
   

• 9:30 p.m: At the war cabinet: “Discussion turned around whether bin Laden’s Al Qaeda and the Taliban were one and the same thing. Tenet said they were.”20

By the end of that historic meeting of the war cabinet (11:00 p.m.), the Bush administration had decided to embark upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Did Bush Know?

Did Bush, with his minimal understanding of foreign policy issues, know all the details regarding General Mahmoud and the “ISI connection”? Did Tenet and Cheney distort the facts, so as to get the Commander-in-Chief’s “thumbs up” for a military operation which was already in the pipeline?
 

Notes

1. Quoted in AFP, 18 May 2002.
2. Fox News, 18 May 2002.
3. The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001.
4. AFP, 10 October 2001.
5. Amir Mateen, “ISI Chief’s Parleys continue in Washington”, News Pakistan, 10 September 2001.
6. Federal News Service, 16 May 2002. Note that in the White House and CNN transcripts of Dr. Rice’s press conference, the words “ISI chief” were transcribed respectively by a blank “—” and “(inaudible)”. Federal News Service Inc. which is a transcription Service of official documents provided a correct transcription, with a minor error in punctuation, which we corrected. The White House transcript is at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html. All three transcripts were verified by the author and are available on Nexus. Federal News Service documents are also available for a fee at http://www.fnsg.com/ For details on the transcripts, see Appendix.
7. New York Times, 14 September 2002.
8. Stuart News Company Press Journal (Vero Beach, FL), September 12, 2001).
9. Miami Herald, 16 September 2001.
10. Washington Post, 18 May 2002.
11. White House Bulletin, 17 May 2002.
12. Miami Herald, 21 June 2002.
13. The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, 17 May 2002.
14. Washington Post, 17 May 2002.
15. Washington Post, 29 January 2002.
16. Washington Post, 27 January 2002.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.

Back to Contents

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER X

Doctoring Official Transcripts

Excerpts from the transcripts of Dr. Condoleezza Rice’s press conference of May 16, 2002

Below are excerpts from the transcripts of the same Condoleezza Rice press conference from CNN, the White House (FDCH) and Federal News Service. The latter is the source quoted in Chapter X. The other two sources (CNN and the White House) were manipulated.

CNN SHOW: “Inside Politics” 16:00, May 16, 2002 Transcript # 051600CN.V15:

QUESTION: Are you aware of the reports at the time that (inaudible) was in Washington on September 11. And on September 10, $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And while he was here, was he meeting with you or anybody in the administration?
RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.

FDCH Federal Department and Agency Documents, May 16, 2002, Agency, White House:

QUESTION: Dr. Rice, are you aware of the reports at the time that (inaudible) was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired to Pakistan to this group here in this area? And while he was here was he meeting with you or anybody in the administration?
DR. RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.

Federal News Service, May 16, 2002, Special White House Briefing:

QUESTION: Are you aware of the reports at the time that the ISI chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th, $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And why he was here? Was he meeting with you or anybody in the administration?
MS. RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.

Notice the difference between the three transcripts. Both the White House and CNN exclude the identity of the “ISI chief” to the extent that the transcripts are totally unintelligible.
 

Back to Contents