Online Journal: 9/11 Joint Inquiry chairmen are in conflict of interest:

Story at Online Journal:

The 9/11 Joint Inquiry chairmen are in conflict of interest: Mysterious September 11 breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill

By Michel Chossudovsky
Online Journal Contributing Writer

August 7, 2003—The chairmen of the Joint Inquiry on 9/11, Sen. Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, are in conflict of interest. Or are we dealing with something far more serious?

The chairmen of the Joint Inquiry have dubious links to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) which is known to have actively supported al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Moreover, according to intelligence sources, including the FBI, Pakistan's ISI played a role in financing the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The two Joint Inquiry chairmen Sen Bob Graham and Rep Porter Goss were fully cognizant of the "Pakistani ISI connection" and the role played by its former head, General Mahmoud Ahmad.

Why then did they choose to exclude an examination of the role of the ISI from the Joint Inquiry's 858-page report?

(more at ) http://www.onlinejournal.com

-------------

Does any Graham supporter want to comment on the substance of this article,
which is that Graham was up to his eyeballs in 9-11, visiting Pakistan soon
before 9-11 AND that he managed to whitewash all that out of the committee
report that he produced?

How do Graham supporters rationalize his earlier deep involvement in
intelligence with his current anti-war position? Did he have a "Saul
on the road to Damascus" experience?

Who is this Chossudovsky? Does he have any track record? Is he in any known
political camp?

Remember, this story is at Online Journal, a reliable source for progressive news.

arendt

...

I'm sure if you asked SeventhSon you'd get a different answer.

Yes, indeed, Graham and Rep. Goss were in Pakistan "shortly before 9/11." They were trying to get bin Ladin extradited. The Taliban said they would not hand him over, and Musharraf said he couldn't do anything about it.

It isn't a big surprise to anyone that the ISI was hand-in-glove with the Taliban. I can remember right after 9/11, that when Musharraf made his decision to "support" the U.S., he got rid of all the top ISI guys =because= they had been giving material support to the Taliban and by extension to bin Laden. It was a coup within a coup, a Very Big Deal in Pakistan.

It's possible you can fault Graham and Goss for failing in their August mission. One presumes that if they'd succeeded, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened. I have no idea what kind of support they had from the administration or what sort of negotiating situation they were in. But clearly, they failed.

The only reported link I have ever seen between Ahmed and the hijackers come from this article that your journal quotes:

In the days following Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad's dismissal, a report published in the Times of India, which went virtually unnoticed by the Western media, revealed the links between Pakistan's Chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad and the presumed "ring leader" of the WTC attacks Mohamed Atta. In many regards, the Times of India report constitutes "the missing link" to an understanding of who was behind the terrorist attacks of September 11:

While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmoud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday <8 October>, the day the US started bombing Afghanistan], the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday , that the general lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud. Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh's mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.

According to this article, the information about Ahmed's connection to Atta was delivered by Indian intelligence. Note that this is in October, and at that point Musarraf sacked Ahmed.

The rest of the conspiracy theory revolves around the idea that because the CIA and ISI had been working together closely for years, therefore Graham and Goss MUST have known that Ahmed was supporting Atta. (Presuming the Indian newspaper article is true in the first place and that's why and how Ahmed got sacked. Keep in mind that India and Pakistan are bitter, bitter enemies.)

I have always been of the opinion that the 28 pages may well contain references to Pakistan as well as Saudi Arabia. They are governments which are equally steeped in connections to Islamic terrorism, carrying on a strange, schizophrenic and precarious scramble to stay in power and deal with snakes. I can easily see a man like Ahmed playing a triple or quadruple game between the Taliban, bin Laden, Musharraf and the CIA. I can also be a bit skeptical about a single article in an Indian newspaper, although I have no way to prove or discount it.

Graham has just introduced legislation which attempts to address the issues of lack of communication between intelligence agencies. He's tried to get the 9/11 report into the open (not only the 28 pages, but much that was redacted earlier). He's warned against the continuing threat from al Queda.

None of that seems to me to suggest that he's trying to cover up something. The reverse, he seems to be trying to get things out in the open. If he's hiding something, he's taking a big risk by pushing the Bush administration so hard to declassify more.

On the contrary, I think it is his deep concerns about the threats to us that made him decide to run for president.

In the Washington Post article

Changed by Terror, A Nice Guy Converted

He has shed his nice-guy image in his criticisms of President Bush's handling of homeland security. Graham, a former chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is angry about what he regards as failed measures to protect the nation. He charges that Bush neglected terrorist enclaves in Afghanistan in favor of war with Iraq, allowing "Osama bin Forgotten," his nickname for the architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and al Qaeda to reconstitute.

Graham was seriously considered as a running mate by Bill Clinton in 1992 and Al Gore in 2000. But he says he never had the passion to bid for the top job himself until the terrorist attacks and their aftermath gave him a reason.

"The fundamental change is the fire which has borne out in my belly, my outrage . . . the disrespect that this administration has shown to the American people," Graham said in an interview. "America has turned in a sharp and very negative direction."

I agree that all the evidence is pretty thin and from
self-interested sources. I have no problem with the
substance of your response.

Its just I have a basic problem with intelligence agencies
in America, and how much of our policy is based on them.

Even if everything you say about Sen. Graham is true,
even if he is honorable and patriotic, it worries me that
he is so gung-ho about the way intelligence is running
this country from the shadows. He doesn't have qualms
about the general concept, just the particular details.

The CIA (or rogue elements that used to belong to it -
like the Iran-Contra crowd) has been out of control ever
since the Ollie North era. What is Senator Graham going
to do about that? He seems committed to better intelligence,
more covert action.

The way I see it, more secret operations means less democracy.

arendt

I'm not sure I'd say Graham is for "more" secret operations. In fact some of the points in his bill are intended to "rein in" the various intelligence agencies with more accountability.

From the August 1:

Taking advantage of the publicity over the congressional report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Graham's bill incorporates many of the report's bipartisan recommendations, designed to centralize the government's 14 agencies that handle intelligence and improve accountability.

The final report of the joint House-Senate investigation found numerous examples of the CIA, FBI and other agencies not sharing information and even working at cross purposes. The report found those problems helped contribute to the success of the Sept. 11 attacks.

****

There are many many concerns about this kind of thing. I don't discount the civil liberties issues, and I don't think Graham does either.

I do think, and will repeat, that the great majority of the American people will insist on a candidate who strongly addresses the threat of terrorism. I just think that's the reality of the situation now, since 9/11. I believe Graham has the most informed and reasonable stance on it, targeting the main threat and renewing our relationships with our real allies, instead of mis-aimed attempts at trying to remake the world, like Iraq.

His views and attempts are undoubtedly imperfect, but he is historically a man who is open to working out the best solution possible in an open way.

Don't forget, he's calling for MORE openness from the administration, not more covert activity. He's saying that we need to make these hard decisions on how to handle terrorism as a country, with all the facts at hand.

> I do think, and will repeat, that the great majority of the American people will
> insist on a candidate who strongly addresses the threat of terrorism. I just
> think that's the reality of the situation now, since 9/11. I believe Graham has
> the most informed and reasonable stance on it, targeting the main threat
> and renewing our relationships with our real allies, instead of mis-aimed
> attempts at trying to remake the world, like Iraq.

You can't declare war on "terrorism". Hell, we can't even define it.
Jewish guy wants to blow up a mosque, he's not a terrorist according
to Asscroft.

The War on Terrorism is really the War on Some Terrorists, just like
the War on Drugs is the War on Some Drug Dealers. It is as phony
and self-serving as can be. We are now busy trying to destabilize
Iran, using some terror front group called the Mujahadeen Khalk
(phonetic spelling). And we are declaring war on ALL terrorism,
Puh-leaze!

You want to stop terrorism, stop screwing up other countries all over
the world for corporate profits. I mean, the corporations no longer
have any loyalty to the US. They are now in the final stages of looting
and abandoning us - shipping the white collar jobs to India and China.

Sorry to sound like a paleocon, but they're right on that one.

So, I disagree that Americans are unanimous that the only way
to deal with terrorism is more repression, more force, more money
down the military rat hole, more soldiers shot like clay pigeons in
a shooting gallery for the higher profit of Haliburton.

People want America to go back to being the good guy, to making
good products and having lots of allies. We won't get there by
ratcheting up the military and covert-action crowd. That is exactly
the wrong direction.

arendt

Research on Globalisation.

CRG Statement:
The Centre's objective is to unveil the workings of the New World Order...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/about/

I will bookmark it and check in the morning.
I assume you have no personal opinion or
knowledge about the man, or you would
have mentioned it.

Bedtime for me.

arendt

I'm not an expert on Chossudovsky but do have some impression of him. I believe he's a serious thinker about globalization -- very critical of it, but not necessarily critical of capitalism per se.

Leftist organizations that I have high regard for take his viewpoint seriously. For example, the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) has reviewed his work, in connection with the Seattle WTO meeting of '99. Also, "Project Censored" from Sonoma State University (which each year selects the 25 most important news stories most systematically ignored by the mass media in the preceding 12 months) has honored the work of Chossudovsky's CRG.

http://www.projectcensored.org
http://www.wsws.org