by Ed Haas
June 6, 2006
Ed Haas is the founder, editor, and
writer for the Muckraker Report. To comment or request reprint
permission, please contact Ed Haas via e-mail.
The Muckraker Report published its
last article on May 9, 2008. What remains is a historical archive of
our best work.
This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet
news groups, and was sent to the
Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan
(Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to
the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.
In the e-mail, the question is asked,
“Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted
poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11,
The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of
the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.
According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people.
The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin
Laden by saying,
“In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in
other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report
contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s
Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in
connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb,
Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.
When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on
Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said,
"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on
Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard
evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI
spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked,
“How this was possible?”
Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been
formally charged in connection to 9/11.”
I asked, “How does that work?”
Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence.
Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of
Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough
evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998
United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally
indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted
and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence
connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning
of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood
pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling
with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered.
First and foremost, if the U.S. government does
not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it
possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out
of his cave?”
The federal government claims to have invaded
Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the
talking heads in the mainstream media, the
Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin
Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly
3000 people on September 11, 2001.
Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that
it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
the Bin Laden “confession” video that was
released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans
remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his
comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against
the United States.
The Department of Defense issued a press
release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H.
“There was no doubt of bin Laden’s
responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was
What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that
Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession
video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government
already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
BBC News article  reporting
on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to
have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid
reminder to many people of their loss.
But, he also knew it would be “a devastating
declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt.
“Were going to get him,” said President
Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”
a CNN article  regarding the
Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that,
“the tape removes any doubt that the U.S.
military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than
Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the
vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said,
“The tape’s release is central to informing
people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in
the September 11 attacks.”
Shelby went on to say,
“I don’t know how they can be in denial
after they see this tape.”
Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal
Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are
Muckraker Report attempted to secure a
reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession
video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration
and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if
it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard
After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime
such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug
cartel openly talking about a successful distribution operation in the
United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury.
The identified participants of the video would
be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient
evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden
“confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?
Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity
Rex Tomb said,
“The FBI has no hard evidence connecting
Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.”
This should be headline news worldwide. The
challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not.
Why has the U.S. media blindly read the
government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without
passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001?
Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any
guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up,
rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about
9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account?
And on those few rare occasions when a
9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream
media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to
the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the
government’s 9/11 account?
Why is the Big Media Conglomeration
blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much
verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few
clicks of a computer mouse?
Who is it that is controlling the media
message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin
Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government
How is it that the FBI has no “hard
evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11,
2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11
connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence
that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers,
the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?
…No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden
to 9/11… Think about it...
 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most
Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden,
[Accessed May 31, 2006]
 United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases
Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001,
[Accessed June 5, 2006]
 BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001,
[Accessed June 5, 2006]
 CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly”, December
, [Accessed June 5, 2006]