The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

FW: [vvigwimail] very interesting

This was forwarded to me - but not where it appeared. Here we go. F.
Not a Smoking Gun?
John LeBoutillier
Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2001
On Tuesday - just one week after the terrible bombing of the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon - it was reported at midday that someone inside U.S.
intelligence had revealed that Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first
plain to hit the World Trade Center, had rendezvoused in Europe this summer
with "a high-ranking official of the Iraqi Intelligence Service."
CBS News's Jim Stewart broke this story - which was soon reported on CNN,
News, ABC and MSNBC.

Clearly someone inside our intelligence community wanted this story out

The administration immediately rushed to counter this leak by saying, "it is
not a smoking gun."

Why this back-and-forth?

Let us review:

On the day of the attacks, the U.S. government intentionally leaked that it
"was 90 percent certain that Osama bin Laden was responsible." An awfully
quick verdict, don't you think? If it was "90 percent certain" right after
the attack, why wasn't it more vigilant before the attack?

Bin Laden is already under indictment for other bombings - so it is no
stretch to think he may be involved in this one.

But not a word of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Then, on Sunday's "Meet the Press," Tim Russert asked Vice President Dick
Cheney if there was any evidence linking Saddam to this bombing. The veep
shook his head and definitely said, "No, not to this point."

Tuesday - about 48 hours later - someone inside our intelligence community
who wants to remain anonymous ran a systematic campaign to leak the
connection to the news media.

This indicates a war inside our intelligence community.

Clearly there are forces inside the CIA, NSA and Pentagon who know that Iraq
has its hands all over this latest attack. And this side of the argument
wants the U.S. government to act on this fact. This side is distressed that
Saddam is once again slipping the noose for his actions.

Why is there another side in this argument? Who is deliberately trying to
steer this story away from Iraq - and why?

1) It could be that the Bush administration is leaking about bin Laden as
part of an elaborate feint - and the real goal is to go after Saddam's
regime. Saddam's son - Uday - a cruel sadist who hopes to take over for his
father someday - has predicted in the Baghdad newspaper that the U.S. will
soon attack Baghdad. (Let's hope he is right!)

2) It could also be that the Bush administration wants to focus only on bin
Laden. Iraq is a much tougher nut to crack - and perhaps the White House
feels that we should just focus on the "operational arm" of the 9-11-01

3) It could also be that the Bush Team wants to avoid opening their old can
of worms: why they let Saddam off the hook ten years ago at the end of the
Gulf War when they had him in their sights. Cheney, Powell and
Bush overruled Stormin' Norman's strong on-the-ground recommendation to
Saddam's fleeing Republican Guard and thus destabilize his regime. Perhaps
Team Bush does not want to admit now that that decision was a colossal - and
tragic - mistake.

Whatever the reason for the Atta-Iraq leak, it of course is a huge smoking
gun that leads directly to Saddam Hussein's bunker.

Who can doubt that this was Saddam's payback for the Gulf War?

The Trade Center is the symbol of international money - which has been
to Saddam since the U.N. imposed severe economic sanctions on him in 1990.

And the Pentagon is the symbol of our military might - which crushed his
military in the Gulf War.

This devastating attack is Saddam's latest volley in a grudge match that can
only end with his death - and the removal of his entire regime and his Bath
Party from power.

The question remains: why does the Bush administration deny that this is a
"smoking gun" piece of evidence?

If we are to truly "eliminate the evil-doers" - as the president has said -
isn't Baghdad the place to start?

* * *
By the way, in light of last week's multiple jet bombings, we need to
the TWA 800 investigation. More than 300 people saw "an object" fly up to
plane. The CIA was brought in to debunk them. Strange, isn't it, that the
would be involved in the investigation of a domestic airplane explosion?

That case - never satisfactorily explained - may be involved in this same
pattern of jet terror in the skies of New York City.

I highly recommend that you buy (it is available at the NewsMax store)
"Silenced: Flight 800 and the Subversion of Justice." This video shows what
sham the official FBI-NTSB investigation was.

This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email
CASI's website - - includes an archive of all postings.

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]