The de facto US-Al Qaeda partnership

Reobert Parry outlines the not-so-secret partnership -- Saudi Arabia, Israel and Al Qaeda -- which is visible to everyone with the eyes to see it, and thus remains invisible to pretty much everyone in our mainstream media.

Zacarias Moussaoui did the world a favor by reminding the world of Saudi participation in 9/11...

And, like the Saudis, the Israelis have sided with the Sunni militants in Syria because the Israelis share the Saudi view that Iran and the so-called “Shiite crescent” – reaching from Tehran and Baghdad to Damascus and Beirut – is the greatest threat to their interests in the Middle East.

That shared concern has pushed Israel and Saudi Arabia into a de facto alliance, though the collaboration between Jerusalem and Riyadh has been mostly kept out of the public eye. Still, it has occasionally peeked out from under the covers as the two governments deploy their complementary assets – Saudi oil and money and Israeli political and media clout – in areas where they have mutual interests.

In recent years, these historic enemies have cooperated in their joint disdain for the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt (which was overthrown in 2013), in seeking the ouster of the Assad regime in Syria, and in pressing for a more hostile U.S. posture toward Iran.

Israel and Saudi Arabia also have collaborated in efforts to put the squeeze on Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who is deemed a key supporter of both Iran and Syria. The Saudis have used their power over oil production to drive down prices and hurt Russia’s economy, while U.S. neoconservatives – who share Israel’s geopolitical world view – were at the forefront of the coup that ousted Ukraine’s pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.

The behind-the-scenes Israeli-Saudi alliance has put the two governments – uncomfortably at times – on the side of Sunni jihadists battling Shiite influence in Syria, Lebanon and even Iraq. On Jan. 18, 2015, for instance, Israel attacked Lebanese-Iranian advisers assisting Assad’s government in Syria, killing several members of Hezbollah and an Iranian general. These military advisors were engaged in operations against al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front.

Meanwhile, Israel has refrained from attacking Nusra Front militants who have seized Syrian territory near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. One source familiar with U.S. intelligence information on Syria told me that Israel has a “non-aggression pact” with these Nusra forces.

The US made an historic error when we decided to take sides in the centuries-old Sunni-Shiite conflict -- a conflict which has nothing to do with our culture, and which is well outside of our concerns.

Now, with Moussaoui’s deposition identifying senior Saudi officials as patrons of al-Qaeda, another veil seems to have dropped.

Complicating matters further, Moussaoui also claimed that he passed letters between Osama bin Laden and then Crown Prince Salman, who recently became king upon the death of his brother King Abdullah.

But Moussaoui’s disclosure perhaps cast the most unflattering light on Bandar, the erstwhile confidant of the Bush Family who — if Moussaoui is right — may have been playing a sinister double game.

Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe a creep like Moussaoui than to believe our conventional pundit class. We live in cynical times.

You want more on Salman? Here it is:

Likewise, you will search long and hard to find substantive discussion of the uncomfortable questions surrounding King Abdullah’s successor, his half-brother Salman. A rare exception, an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily, warned that ‘President Obama should think before bowing to Saudi Arabia’s new king’ because:

‘King Salman has a history of funding al-Qaida, and his son has been accused of knowing in advance about the 9/11 attacks.'

While the corporate news media continued to look away, an in-depth article in Foreign Policy by David Andrew Weinberg examined ‘Salman’s record of bolstering and embracing extremists’, noting that:

‘Salman was the [Saudi] regime’s lead fundraiser for mujahideen, or Islamic holy warriors, in Afghanistan in the 1980s, as well as for Bosnian Muslims during the Balkan struggles of the 1990s. In essence, he served as Saudi Arabia’s financial point man for bolstering fundamentalist proxies in war zones abroad.’

Weinberg continued:

‘Salman also helped recruit fighters for Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, an Afghan Salafist fighter who served as a mentor to both Osama bin Laden and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.’

But Salman’s troubling record is ‘now getting downplayed for political convenience’, said Weinberg, and corporate journalists seem ignorant of the facts, or simply know not to go there.

We have formulated a quiet partnership with the very forces that attacked us on 9/11. Meanwhile, our home-grown legions of anti-Islam fanatics refuse to understand that Muslims are the ones dying in the fight against Al Qaeda and its offshoots, ISIS and Nusra. Millions of foolish, ill-informed and seemingly ineducable Americans cannot be made to understand that our policy of blind support for the Saudis means that we are supporting the very people who gave us ISIS.

And one of those foolish, ill-informed and seemingly ineducable Americans happens to be the governor of Louisiana...

Silly Bobby: The Republicans have flown into high dudgeon because Obama said some very cliched and inarguable things about the flawed record of Christianity. Bobby Jindal is leading the fray...

“It was nice of the President to give us a history lesson at the Prayer breakfast,” Jindal said. “Today, however, the issue right in front of his nose, in the here and now, is the terrorism of Radical Islam, the assassination of journalists, the beheading and burning alive of captives. We will be happy to keep an eye out for runaway Christians, but it would be nice if he would face the reality of the situation today. The Medieval Christian threat is under control, Mr. President. Please deal with the Radical Islamic threat today.”

I would argue that a Medieval form of Christianity still holds sway in the American south, and still poses an enormous threat.

We all know that if Jindal (or any other Republican not named Ron Paul) were in the White House, the alliance with the Saudis -- and with Salman, whose history is sketched above -- would be even stronger than it is today. As noted above, the Saudis are the main force backing the guys responsible for those beheadings which have shocked the world.

So who is Jindal trying to kid? No matter who wins the presidency in 2016, the de factor US-Al Qaeda partnership will continue, as will the secret policy of using ISIS against Assad.

The Berg mystery is getting spooky

Michael Berg has insisted to the press that pure coincidence put his son Nick in the presence of a comrade to Zacarias Moussaoui, and I am not the sort of person who wishes to doubt the word of a grieving father. Still, we're dealing here with a really interesting coincidence.

According to CNN (see link in the post below), Berg met an acquaintance of Moussaoui's while riding a bus. (In an earlier post, I erroneously said that Berg met Moussaoui himself.) At the time, he "was taking a course a few years ago at a remote campus of the University of Oklahoma near an airport." This places the pair in Norman, Oklahoma, also the location of the Airman Flight School.

Berg gave the man access to his laptop computer, and even -- in what we are supposed to accept as an act of flabbergasting naivete -- divulged his email password. This password apparently was passed around by the terrorists, who used Berg's account.

One interesting aspect of the CNN story: Michael Berg's quotations seem to tell a story at a slight variance from the gist of the article, which speaks only of a connection to Moussaoui's comrade. The elder Berg, however, says something rather different -- that his son had run into "some terrorist people -- who no one knew were terrorists at the time." Note the use of the plural, which indicates that the bus encounter was not the only time Nick Berg ran into underground Al Qaeda operatives.

A story on Berg published in the Philadelphia Daily News of May 14 tells much the same story related in the CNN account, but the story published the day before includes these words: "He'd made some contact with Arab kids at the University of Oklahoma - that's what the FBI was checking into..." Again, this wording would indicate that the encounters with Arabs were rather more extensive than one meeting on a bus.

We might here paraphrase Fleming: "Accidentally" running into one or two terrorists is coincidence; three is enemy action.

(A side note: An Al Qaeda operative named Ihab Mohammed Ali attended this flight school in 1999. One wonders who Moussaoui's partner was, and how many other Al Qaeda sympathizers were in that location at that time.)

I am not the only one who has toyed with the possibility that an intelligence agency recruited Berg; for reasons given in previous posts, any agency would want a man of his caliber. If such a recruitment took place, the parents may not have known about it. This theory may seem extreme, but once we grant the possibility, we may inch closer to an explanation for some of the nagging "sub-mysteries" surrounding this affair -- for example, the FBI's curious inquiries, the strangeness involving the passport, Berg's refusal to register his company, his odd choice of reading material at the time of capture, his interest in Arabic (unusual in a Pennsylvania tech worker), and his odd behavior after his release.

Who might have recruited him? It is known that Berg had visited Israel. There have been many reports indicating that ad hoc teams of Mossad helpers (not full-fledged agents, which have always been few in number) were tracking Al Qaeda members in the United States prior to September 11. A little careful Googling will divulge a number of relevant stories. Some of these stories indicate that the FBI has long known about these activities, but considers the matter too sensitive for discussion.

In this light, I would like to know the name of the email service used by Berg -- and therefore by Moussaoui and company.

For example, Commtouch -- an Israeli firm then run by the daughter of known Mossad asset Robert Maxwell -- offers email services. That firm could have easily tracked any Al Qaeda operatives in the United States using their services -- if the company knew which password the terrorists used.

The trick, of course, would be convincing the bad guys to use that password. At this point, one would need the services of a field agent.

Have I speculated beyond the limits of the available facts? Probably. Still, keep this scenario in mind. Further facts may buttress or undermine it.

The dark mirror

The Trump campaign routinely engages in "mirror imaging" -- accusing Hillary Clinton of the very sins found on Donald Trump's ledger.

For example, Trump has excoriated Hillary for being in league with Goldman Sachs, based on a few paid speeches she gave to their executives -- speeches which, by all accounts, were boilerplate. Trump's own ties to Goldman are far more profound: Goldman has invested money in Trump properties, Steve Mnuchin (Trump's financial chair) was a partner at Goldman Sachs, and Steve Bannon (now running the Trump campaign is a Goldman veteran.

I believe that Luke 6:42 has something to say about this situation.

In a recent anti-Clinton speech, Trump called Hillary a liar repeatedly -- even as he claimed that she sent classified materials. That assertion is absolutely false: No emails were marked "classified" in the header, and only a very few that were sent to her contained inner paragraphs containing data mislabeled "confidential" -- the lowest classification marking. Trump claimed that Hillary's server exposed secrets to the Russians. That's rich coming from him: His own financial ties to Russia are well-known. Moreover, Paul Manafort -- Trump's friend and former campaign chairman -- worked for Putin's stooge in Ukraine and established a close working relationship with one Konstantin Kilimnik, widely considered to have a background with Russian intelligence.

For more on Trump's Russian connections, see Michael McFaul's "Why Putin wants a Trump victory."

The latest, and perhaps most insidious, use of the "dark mirror" tactic involves Saudi Arabia.

Trump has repeatedly bashed Hillary for her supposed Saudi ties -- for example, he says that the Clinton Foundation should give back the hefty donations which the Saudi royal family has made. (The Clinton Foundation is an extremely effective charity, not a slush fund. Better, I say, for Saudi money to find a home there than elsewhere.) Trump's surrogates have also spread inane conspiracy theories portraying the Khan family as Saudi agents. Of course, we all recall Trump's claim that Hillary Clinton is the mother of ISIS.

But what of Trump's own ties to that part of the world?

Once again, the dark mirror works its magic. Only the most brazen liar would dare to lay his own sins at the feet of his enemy. Donald Trump may, in fact, be the most outrageous hypocrite in the history of American politics.

To prove the point, go here.

Saudi billionaire Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal said he twice saved US presidential candidate Donald Trump from bankruptcy, describing him as a “bad and ungrateful person”.

In an interview with Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper, the prince said he bought Trump’s hotels after they were acquired by the banks which demanded he repay his debts.

The yacht he used to come to Antalya, southwest of Turkey, is one he bought from Trump when he was threatened with bankruptcy.

That yacht, by the way, is the one made famous by previous owner Adnan Khashoggi, and by the movie Never Say Never Again.

Now let's visit this New Yorker piece for more on the Trump/bin Talal relationship:

This latest tweet battle with Trump refers to the Prince’s investments in troubled Trump properties. The first of these transactions took place in 1991, when, according to Businessweek, bin Talal bought Trump’s huge yacht the Trump Princess from creditors, for eighteen million dollars. At the time, Trump’s Atlantic City casinos were heavily indebted; he also put his airline, the Trump Shuttle, up for sale.

The second deal came in 1995, when bin Talal and a partner, a Singapore hotels company, paid hundreds of millions of dollars to take control of The Plaza, on Fifth Avenue, from Trump. A Times story at the time said that the buyers had agreed to “pay part, or all, of Mr. Trump’s $300 million mortgage on the hotel, guarantee interest payments on Mr. Trump’s Plaza debt and spend $28 million to renovate part of the hotel.” Trump, the article said, was “under heavy pressure because of more than $115 million of guarantees he has given on the Trump Organization’s debt, and because of his recently announced attempt to raise $250 million to expand his casino investments.”

The prince is not just any Saudi oligarch: He was the finance minister of that nation and is rumored to represent other Saudi business interests. He is the second biggest investor in Fox News. After 9/11, he tried to donate $10 million to relief efforts, only to be rebuffed by Rudolph Guiliani.

Bin Talal makes every effort to denounce ISIS in public -- for example, he does so here and here and here. Last month, however, this surprising revelation made headlines (though not in this country, and certainly not on Fox News).

Yesterday, a picture was surfaced on Arab social websites, showing the Saudi Prince and multi-millionaire media tycoon al-Waleed bin Talal visiting the notorious ISIS military commander Abu Omar al-Maghribi in a luxurious hospital in Saudi capital, Riyadh.

Renowned for his entrepreneurial acumen and immense political influence within Saudi foreign ministry, al-Waleed bin Talal is spearheading the Saudi media campaign seeking to give an innocuous and friendly picture of ISIS and other terrorist organizations to Arab viewers.

Dr. Richard Macmillan, a retired CIA counterterrorism expert in Illinois believes that Mr. Bin Talal's blatant visit to an ISIS warlord is tantamount to an overt peace accord between the oil-rich Saudi Arabia and so-called Islamic State; and therefore the international community must sincerely intervene to stop Riyadh making its proxies, namely ISIS and al-Nusra Front, a reality that cannot be easily eradicated from Middle-East's political scene, Qatari News Agency (QNA) reported.

Now let's go back in time. Let's see what Bin Talal was up to at the same time he was helping Donald Trump get out of his self-inflicted financial hole.

The following comes from a report by Daniel Lazare on the testimony of Zacarias Moussaoui.

Now serving a life sentence in a federal supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, Moussaoui, the so-called “twentieth hijacker,” told lawyers about top-level Saudi support for Osama bin Laden right up to the eve of 9/11 and even a plot by a Saudi embassy employee to sneak a Stinger missile into the U.S. under diplomatic cover and use it to bring down Air Force One.

Moussaoui’s list of ultra-rich al-Qaeda contributors couldn’t be more stunning. It includes the late King Abdulllah and his hard-line successor, Salman bin Abdulaziz; Turki Al Faisal, the former head of Saudi intelligence and subsequently ambassador to the U.S. and U.K.; Bandar bin Sultan, a longtime presence in Washington who was so close to the Bushes that Dubya nicknamed him Bandar Bush; and Al-Waleed bin Talal, a mega-investor in Citigroup, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, the Hotel George V in Paris, and the Plaza in New York.

Further on:

Moussaoui, who says he was put to work compiling a financial database upon joining al Qaeda in late 1998, describes flying by private plane to Riyadh as a special courier.

“We went in to a private airport,” he recalled. “[T]here was a car, we get into a car, a limousine, and I was taken to a place, it was like a Hilton Hotel, OK, and the next morning Turki came and we went to a big room, and there was Abdullah and there was Sultan, Bandar, and there was Waleed bin Talal and Salman” i.e., the Saudi crème de la crème. When asked if the princes knew why he was there, he said yes: “I was introduced as the messenger for Sheik Osama bin Laden.”

Moussaoui says that prominent Saudis visited bin Laden’s camp in Afghanistan in return: “There was a lot of bragging about I been to Sheik Osama bin Laden, I been to Afghanistan, I’m the real deal, I’m a real mujahid, I’m a real fighter for Allah.”

Is this testimony credible? No-one is completely sure, but see here.

Mr. Moussaoui’s behavior at his trial in 2006 was sometimes erratic. He tried to fire his own lawyers, who presented evidence that he suffered from serious mental illness. But Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who presided, declared that she was “fully satisfied that Mr. Moussaoui is completely competent” and called him “an extremely intelligent man.”

“He has actually a better understanding of the legal system than some lawyers I’ve seen in court,” she said.

Also filed on Monday in the survivors’ lawsuit were affidavits from former Senators Bob Graham of Florida and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and the former Navy secretary John Lehman, arguing that more investigation was needed into Saudi ties to the 9/11 plot.

If Moussaoui is credible, one must wonder why the Saudis would invest in Trump at the same time they invested in Bin Laden.

Trump's ties to that part of the world are ongoing. From a 2015 CBS report:

As late as this May, Ivanka Trump told the trade publication Hotelier Middle East that in addition to Dubai, the Trump Organization was actively looking "at multiple business opportunities" in Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Trump launched his formal presidential bid in June.

Now let's turn to a little-noticed piece titled "Wealthy Muslims helped Donald Trump build his empire":

Saudi princes: Prince Mutaib bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, a former minister in the Saudi government, and member of the Saudi royal family, reportedly lives in a floor-through Trump Tower apartment. Other former Trump property tenants include Prince Nawaf bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, a Saudi royal family member who owned a 10,500 sq. foot (975 sq. meter) condo at the Heritage at Trump Place that went on sale this year for $48.5 million.

I'd like to know more about Trump's recent hotel project in Saudi Arabia.

Yet Trump wasn’t just politicking: On that same day, he incorporated four companies that seem related to a possible hotel project in Jeddah, the second biggest city in Saudi Arabia. He was president and owner of THC Jeddah Hotel Advisor and DT Jeddah Technical Services Advisor.

The Jeddah companies came to light in Trump’s latest financial disclosure filings, released Wednesday by the Federal Election Commission. The documents do not detail the purpose of the Jeddah companies, and Trump’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Just a few months ago, Donald Trump announced that the world would be better off if Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons.

Despite his Saudi interests, Trump and Bin Talal are now fighting a "War of Tweets" with each other. It's hard to tell if the acrimony is genuine -- after all, Trump staged a "break-up" with his long-time friend Roger Stone, who remains a close adviser and campaign surrogate. (The putative split was meant to protect Trump from the odor of Stone's rather reeky reputation: In 1996, a sleazy sex scandal ended Stone tenure as Bob Dole's campaign chief.)

How do we explain Bin Talal's strangely schizoid stance on ISIS and terror? In interviews, he takes a strongly anti-ISIS stance, yet he apparently visited an ISIS commander in the hospital, and Moussaoui's testimony casts him as a participant in an Al Qaeda conspiracy.

This new NYT article looks into the role of the Saudi royal family as both "Arsonists and the Firefighters":

Saudi leaders seek good relations with the West and see jihadist violence as a menace that could endanger their rule, especially now that the Islamic State is staging attacks in the kingdom — 25 in the last eight months, by the government’s count. But they are also driven by their rivalry with Iran, and they depend for legitimacy on a clerical establishment dedicated to a reactionary set of beliefs. Those conflicting goals can play out in a bafflingly inconsistent manner.

In a huge embarrassment to the Saudi authorities, the Islamic State adopted official Saudi textbooks for its schools until the extremist group could publish its own books in 2015. Out of 12 works by Muslim scholars republished by the Islamic State, seven are by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the 18th-century founder of the Saudi school of Islam, said Jacob Olidort, a scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. A former imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Adil al-Kalbani declared with regret in a television interview in January that the Islamic State leaders “draw their ideas from what is written in our own books, our own principles.”

The United States’ reliance on Saudi counterterrorism cooperation in recent years — for instance, the Saudi tip that foiled a 2010 Qaeda plot to blow up two American cargo planes — has often taken precedence over concerns about radical influence. And generous Saudi funding for professorships and research centers at American universities, including the most elite institutions, has deterred criticism and discouraged research on the effects of Wahhabi proselytizing, according to Mr. McCants — who is working on a book about the Saudi impact on global Islam — and other scholars.

That's just a taste of it.

Obviously, I do not believe that the NYT is going to give us the full story of Saudi Arabia and jihad; for example, this report does not touch on Moussaoui's bombshell claims. Still, the NYT has given us a much more compelling and detailed article than I would have expected. It's definitely worth a read.

And as you read, consider this: Trump is clearly not worth what he claims, as evidenced by the fact that he keeps scraping after the kind of chump change that a real billionaire would disdain. He has been through four bankruptcies. Banks hesitate to lend him money without a co-signer.

So who is helping him acquire capital for that Saudi hotel project?

Will that investment affect Trump's decisions, if he wins the presidency? He absolutely refuses to place his interests in a blind trust.

Yes, Saudis have donated to the Clinton Foundation -- but the Foundation is a charity, from which the Clintons derive no profit. Trump's hotels in Jeddah are serious business. Talk about a conflict of interest! Most Americans are not even aware that Trump has substantial investments in Saudi Arabia. You know damned well that if the Clintons had made such investments, our news media would remind you of that fact every single day.

Berg: Meetings with remarkable men

As readers know, the aspect of the Berg controversy that most intrigues me concerns his possible involvement with an espionage service. Anyone following this angle will want to read this piece by someone named Ewing2000. He tries to establish as fact a point on which I've sought clarification: How many terrorists did Berg "accidentally" meet during his years at the University of Oklahoma?

Previous reports spoke of but one, met on the bus. Berg's father, however, alluded to more than one.

Ewing2000 quotes NewsMax -- not a reliable source -- to the effect that Berg met with Zacarias Moussaoui himself, an assertion conflicting with previous reports that Berg met a Moussaoui associate. More than that: The FBI apparently thinks that Berg "may have known" Moussaoui's two roommates, also tied to Al Qaeda.

The piece goes on to make other claims about Moussaoui and the Oklahoma City bombing. Much of this material is familiar to those who follow such matters, and the details do not congeal into a proper theory. It is still worth reading.

The important revelation here concerns the number of terrorists Berg encountered. "Twice is coincidence; three times is enemy action," as the old spy adage has it -- and Berg, we are told, met with no less than three men linked to Al Qaeda. The mere fact that the press reported the "bus encounter" story while placing Moussaoui and his roommates offstage is significant.

Of course, the above observations all presume that Ewing2000, whoever he is, has his fact straight. I'd like to see a citation that points to a source other than the egregious NewsMax.

Berg: Both sides now

I'm torn: The Nick Berg killing has long carried the distinct odor of fish, at least to my nostrils. Yet conspiracy buffs often tend to annoy me, and I don't relish being counted among their number.

If you're like me, you will appreciate this site, which takes a rational, even-handed look at the circumstances surrounding Berg's death. Most of the observations made by this site's proprietor, J.M. Berger, seem reasonable enough. Even so, I have a few additional comments.

1. Berger notes apparent differences between the orange jumpsuit worn by Abu Ghraib prisoners and the suit worn by Berg. To my eyes, most of these alleged differences can be attributed to the poor quality of the execution video, which reached the net in highly compressed form.

2. Zarqawi, Berger states, wore a hood because he has changed his appearance since the time his one and only available photograph was taken. "Regardless," adds Berger, "it's important to remember all this does not actually prove Zarqawi was the killer. It's simply that the mask is a non-issue." Unassailable logic.

3. Regarding the gold ring, Berger notes that

many Islamic fundamentalists connected to al Qaeda are members of al Takfir Wal Hijra, an extremist sect whose members are exempted from following the ordinary strictures of Islam. The exemption is meant to aid them in infiltrating Western society. They can drink alcohol, take drugs, skip prayers, engage in extramarital sex and have sex with women.

As I recall, the instructions found among the possessions of the 9/11 hijackers (if genuine) forbade fornication and such. At any rate, Zarqawi was and is not infiltrating western society.

4. Berger admits that Berg's business interests do indeed seem odd, but cautions against reading anything into the fact that he did not incorporate. I agree.

5. Berger seems to believe that Berg was already dead when decapitated, but he finds this distinction uninteresting. I can't really agree with him here. Alarm bells should go off when we see any indication that the video was edited in such a way as to present a "story" differing from what actually occurred.

6. Berger argues that the "fake video" angle is intriguing but unpersuasive; his primary interest is directed at the idea that an intelligence agency used Berg as an informant. That's the area which most fascinates me, as well.

It may not be as sexy as claiming the U.S. government killed Berg, but it makes a lot more sense and it's consistent with the FBI's known counterterrorism practices. In the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the related NYC Landmarks case, the FBI aggressively used an informant named Emad Salem to collect information on terror cell activities. (related story)

While more realistic, this idea is not without its paranoid charms. If Berg was truly an informant when he was killed, the next natural question is whether he was an informant when he encountered Moussaoui.

If that turned out to be the case, then the failure to recognize Moussaoui's threat relative to the September 11 attack takes on almost mythic proportions, and a series of succeeding deceptions and cover-ups could fall into place like dominos.

The matter goes well beyond that.

We still do not know if Nick Berg spoke to Moussaoui directly (as the egregious Newsmax claims) or to an associate. We do not know if Berg dealt with but one Al Qaeda member or (as his father stated) more than one. We do not know the time of these meetings. Berg told the FBI that he innocently gave his password to an Al Qaeda operative met on a bus in Fall of 1999, but Moussaoui did not arrive in the United States until February, 2001. Did Berg lie to the FBI -- and if so, why? This chronological conflict is important, and seems quite difficult to explain away.

There is good evidence that the chance meeting on the bus was not the only time Berg met terrorists. Berg seems also to have known Hussein al-Attas, arrested in the wake of 9/11. How many Jewish students in Oklahoma circulate so freely with Arab nationals? And how many undercover Al Qaeda operatives seek the company of Jews?

We do not know why Berg chose the Al Qaeda-infested University of Oklahoma, a not-particularly-prestigious institution located far away from his home. We do not know why Berg continued to work around the university, and live in its vicinity, well after his only semester of attending classes in late 1999. The police in Norman, Oklahoma, arrested him for vagrancy in 2000; how did he segue so rapidly into his well-paying new life as a globe-hopping communications tower specialist?

We do not know if the password he gave to Moussaoui (or to an associate) was used by the FBI or another agency to track the terrorists, although that is the implication inherent in several news stories. We do not (yet) know if Berg was the Caucasian worker at that University library who purchased a ticket for one of the hijackers.

We do not know which email service Berg used at that time -- a potentially important point. If it was Commtouch, then run by the daughter of Mossad asset Robert Maxwell, we would have further possible indication that the Israelis were tracking the 9/11 terrorists in the United States. Or did Berg provide the password to the xdesertman@hotmail.com account mentioned in this court document?

Berger also does not touch on the frustrating mysteries surrounding Berg's brief period of freedom between April 6 and April 10. His behavior was, as we have noted in previous posts, bizarre. Although he previously contacted his father several times a day, Nick Berg refused to telephone or email his family after April 6. Yet he found time to go to the gym in Baghdad and to go out drinking with buddies.

He reportedly refused an offer from U.S. officials to be flown out of Iraq because he did not trust the military to get him safely to the airport. Yet his friend Andrew Duke said that Berg planned (for unexplained reasons) to travel by land to Kuwait -- a far more dangerous option, one would think. Berg told Hugo Infante he intended to get to the Baghdad airport on his own and fly back to the U.S. He told others he hoped to go to Jordan.

He also said that he had come into a great deal of money. One wonders how: He did no known work during his Iraq adventure.

Then there is the as-yet unexplained testimony of "Joe Aziz," or Aziz Al Taee, the Iraqi "freedom fighter" with shadowy connections to the criminal underworld -- and to the Freepers, who have made Michael Berg the target of a hate campaign. Aziz met Berg in Baghdad during the time period under scrutiny. On April 10, Berg called him to say that some friends -- "nice people" -- were going to travel with him to Jordan.

Who were these "nice people"? Obviously (and this is presuming we can trust the account given by Aziz) they were connected to the terrorists -- otherwise, these "nice people" would have come forward. Why would Berg mistrust a U.S. military escort, yet trust these unnamed Iraqi comrades? Recent reports indicate that non-ideologically-motivated crooks in Iraq have been kidnapping workers connected to the occupation forces and handing them over (for a suitable payment) to the insurgents.

We should not forget Aziz' ultra-bizarre claim to have monitored Berg's cel phone calls after his capture. The phone was used as recently as April 19 -- or so the mysterious Iraqi has claimed. If he did not meet Berg on April 10, how would he have gained access to the phone?

And what are we to make of Aziz's links to ubiquitous ex-CIA terror expert Vincent Cannistraro (a few wags have questioned the "ex-" prefix) and to the anti-CIA neocon writer Laurie Mylroie?

What are we to make of reports that Berg, upon his first detention, counted anti-Semitic literature and a Koran among his possessions? Why did his passport contain an Israeli stamp? (The Israelis routinely give a second passport to American travelers who may also visit nations unfriendly to Israel; Berg traveled widely in such locales.)

Finally, why did MSNBC initially report that Berg, during his first Iraq trip, repaired the communication tower at Abu Ghraib -- only to strike out all mention of that site in a re-written version of the story?

Torture-tape-gate, continued

Why were the CIA torture tapes destroyed? Were they destroyed? Larry Johnson offers a timeline and some insights.

His basic argument: In 2005, the Italians "flipped" on the CIA's kidnapping of two Italian citizens considered terror suspects. CIA Deputy Director of Operations Jose Rodriguez figured that if the friendly Italian government could turn on the Agency, then anything was possible. Best to get rid of the evidence -- which Rodriguez did, after consulting with the CIA's Inspector General and counsel.

The chief controversy concerns the filmed interrogations of Abu Zubaydah -- who is either a low-level jihadist kook or Osama's mucho importante Number Two Man, depending on which source you favor. (If you believe some folks, Al Qaeda had more "Number Twos" than The Village.) Zubaydah was captured in March of 2002 in Pakistan.

Johnson reveals something previously unknown to me...

What we know for certain is that the CIA was keeping the President and his National Security team fully briefed on the methods and results of interrogating Abu Zubaydah. In fact, it is highly likely that George Tenet showed part of the videotape of the interrogation to the President.

How would Johnson know? Agency scuttlebutt, I presume. If W did see the tapes, and if the tapes reveal either criminal activity on the part of the interrogators or admissions of Al Qaeda-Saudi collusion, then Bush becomes criminally liable.

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

Johnson links to this letter from U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg, which we've seen before. From this letter, we learn the following:

On May 7, 2003, as part of the trial of Moussaoui, the judge asked the CIA for any audio or video of prisoner interrogations. (The idea was to determine whether any of the captured prisoners mentioned Moussaoui. Reasonable enough.) Two days later, on May 9, the CIA said that no such evidence existed. When the defense asked if interrogations were recorded "in any format" the government's representative answered "no."

This answer was obvious balderdash. Why conduct an interrogation if you're not going to jot down a few notes or otherwise record the answers? Why trust to memory what may be a complex stream of data?

Nevertheless, that unbelievable denial stood. The CIA repeated this denial in 2005, during the penalty phase of the Moussaoui trial.

But it wasn't true:

Unbeknownst to the authors of the declarations, the CIA possessed the three recordings at the time the Declarations were submitted. We asked the CIA to ascertain the reason for such an error. [Sentence redacted.] As best as can be determined, it appears that the authors of the Declarations relied on assurances of the component of the CIA that [line redacted] unknowing that a different component of the CIA had contact with [line redacted].

The authors of the letter did get a chance to view interrogation tapes of someone; unfortunately, the name or names are redacted. The subject(s) may be Zubaydah or those Italian citizens or Khaled Sheikh Mohammed or someone else. Although we are supposed to believe that the prisoner(s) had intimate knowledge of the 9/11 plot, the prisoner(s) said nothing about Moussaoui -- an interesting fact in and of itself.

So. Tapes do exist. Then what did Rodriguez destroy?

As near as I can tell, our only clue derives from that mysterious reference to differing "components" of the CIA.

Let's also toss into this stew another interesting factoid: Rodriguez is friends with House intelligence committee chairman Sylvestre Reyes. At first, I supported the Reyes appointment -- until he made statements revealing himself to be about as dumb as Al Bundy's daughter. He labeled Al Qaeda a Shi'ite organization! (By the way, the report that Rodriguez was in business with a Reyes family member appears to be in error.)

Rodriguez is also pals with Cofer Black, now one of the head honchos at Blackwater. But in early 2002, Black was the head of counter-terrorism at the CIA. As Johnson puts it:

Abu Zubaydah is captured in Pakistan. George Bush is briefed regularly by George Tenet on the details of Zubaydah’s interrogation (see p. 22, State of War by James Risen). Cofer Black is in charge of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center and oversees the CIA’s hunt for the terrorists. Zubaydah is interrogated in Thailand, where the sessions were filmed. He was waterboarded sometime in the May-June 2002 time frame.

If we read between the lines here, we may presume that Black was intimately involved with the torture of Zubaydah. Is it possible that he appears on the videotape itself? This page portrays Black as a hands-on, can-do type of guy. So...maybe.

Thus, Rodriguez may have wanted to protect a friend -- a friend who might offer lucrative post-CIA employment.

(Incidentally, Cofer Black is Romney's chief advisor. That fact tells me to expect Rudy to fade and Romney to surge.)

The Black resume also contains these ominous words:

Black also conceived, planned and led the CIA's war in Afghanistan.

Why "ominous"? Because I accept the assertions in the documentary 9/11: Press for Truth. Specifically, I accept as a starting point for all research into the attack on America that film's evidence that Al Qaeda's leadership and key fighters were deliberately allowed to find safe haven in Pakistan.

If so many "big fish" were permitted to swim away, why the focus on Zubaydah?

We have two major Theories of Zubaydah (or TOZs):

1. The Posner version. Gerry says that Zubaydah fingered three Saudi princes and the head of the Pakistani Air Force, all of whom died soon thereafter. (Now, dear old Gerry is a lawyer, and he might consider himself libeled if anyone were to suggest that he works for either the CIA or Mossad. So we must never, ever suggest that.)

2. The Suskind version. Ron Suskind insists that Zubaydah is a nutjob who, under pressure, could be relied upon to say whatever his abusers wanted him to say. He thus becomes an all-purpose scapegoat for the ramping up of public fear.

Seems to me that intelligence gathered through other means -- illegal wiretaps, or the proverbial "man inside" -- can be attributed to a fellow like Zubaydah. (One of the traditional problems in espionage is how to use your data without betraying its source.)

To a certain degree, Posner's TOZ and Suskind's TOZ can be reconciled. Past a point, they cannot.

So we are left with a number of questions. Who is Abu Zubaydah really? Why was he scooped up while so many other jihadists were allowed safe exit? Does he appear in the "destroyed" torture tapes? Were those tapes, in fact, destroyed -- and if they were, what did Chuck Rosenberg see on September 19, 2007? And why didn't Zubaydah discuss Moussaoui?

Cascading contradictions...

dr. elsewhere here

Hm. I don’t normally listen to talk shows. But tonight on my way home, I had NPR on, and the talk show On Point was discussing Sandra Day O’Connor’s concerns about threats to the judiciary.

I was only in the car a few minutes, but I did catch a call in from a lawyer from South Carolina who made this terrific point. In the Moussaoui sentencing case, where they'll decide if the government gets to execute him, the prosecution is asserting that, had Moussaoui alerted the authorities, the FBI would have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks.

The caller’s point was that, if the prosecution's assertion is true, then the USAPATRIOT Act was not, and is not, needed.

What an elegant observation. Add this to your growing list of internal contradictions coming out of the WH. Not surprising, given their agenda is neither honesty nor integrity, instead simply covering their sorry asses.

Oh, and while the administration’s claim renders the USAPATRIOT Act irrelevant, it does bail out the airlines who are being sued by 9/11 families. Maybe they think that frying Moussaoui and saving the airlines are more important than justifying the USAPATRIOT Act?

Berg and Zacarias Moussaoui

You have probably read reports that Nick Berg was once investigated by the FBI because he had coincidentally used the same password as accused terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. Until now, I had ignored the tale as irrelevant.

I'm still not sure whether the story has any larger significance. But as it turns out, this business runs deeper and gets weirder than anyone knew.

CNN (and you will recall that the administration used CNN to tell the teeming millions that Al Zarqawi "re-grew" his leg) details a very strange incident in which a Moussaoui associate met Berg in Oklahoma in 2001, during a bus ride to a rather obscure college campus. Berg let the man use his laptop -- and his email account. Berg even revealed his password!

It's hard to make sense of this report. Berg was a telecommunications specialist. Not a dummy. He surely knew that one never divulges a password.

Why, come to think of it, would he even need to divulge it? Think about it: You can let someone sitting next to you use either your POP3 or web-based email without giving away your password.

And why was he going to a small college half-way across the country?

I imagine that the last question will eventually give way to a reasonable explanation. Perhaps all my questions will soon have answers. But right now, this whole episode seems odd.

(Addendum: Those pooh-poohing any alternative thoughts on the Berg matter are trotting out the inevitable references to black helicopters and tin-foil hats. C'mon, guys...! In my day, the skeptical harrumphers were capable of expressing themselves with greater originality.)

Fraud, scandal and murder

Top that headline! This is one of those days when I must play traffic cop. My job is to point out where to go.

Vote fraud and votER fraud: Larisa Alexandrovna (who, I am happy to note, has received good news from her doctor) has compiled a map-o-scandal worthy of your study.

The Carol Lam firing: Daniel Hopsicker has a new piece that'll set your head spinning like Linda Blair on a Tilt-A-Whirl. He has uncovered a Carol Lam quote which pretty much confirms that the fired prosecutor had intended to bring charges against another big fish.

He also points out a matter of timing that had never before occurred to me. As those of you who nosed your way through the prosecutorgate document dump may recall, Rep. Ric Keller (Republican of Florida) started to lay the groundwork for a "soft on immigration" charge against Lam back in May of 2006. As it happens, he did so right after Lam started to bring her inquiry to the CIA's doorstep:

When she informed superiors she was taking her corruption probe to the doorstep of the Central Intelligence Agency, notifying them on May 10, 2006 of the imminent arrival of FBI agents at Dusty Foggo’s Washington D.C. home to execute a search warrant, alarm bells went off all over Washington D.C.

Never in the CIA’s history has such a search warrant been issued against a high-level CIA official for non-espionage criminal conduct.

Keller, we learn, has had financial ties to both Jack Abramoff and Adam Kidan.

Hopsicker also has some interesting new points to make about the infamous murders of Kevin Ives and Don Henry -- the Arkansas "train deaths." This mystery may or may not be related to the Cunningham scandal (frankly, I think Daniel is straining a bit too much for connective tissue here), but it sure is fascinating in its own right.

Nick Berg redux: "Nick Possum," the famed investigator Down Under, has whipped up a fascinating new theory concerning the death of Nick Berg, the U.S. contractor with the unusual history who was murdered on camera, allegedly by Zarqawi himself. (Although we later were told -- very briefly, in one of those vanishing news squibs -- that the killers were captured and had nothing to do with either Z-man or Al Qaeda.)

While I never agreed with those who argued that the execution was faked, I always felt that a strange odor pervaded this affair. Berg's previous encounter (in Oklahoma) with Zacarias Moussaoui, along with other clues, set me to thinking that he may have dabbled in espionage. See my previous pieces here, here, and here.

Nick Possum looks at the Berg affair through an unusual lens:

The case of Donald Vance, an American citizen secretly imprisoned by the US military in Iraq after making accusations against an Iraqi-owned security company for which he worked, has revealing parallels with the 2004 disappearance of Nick Berg, a US contractor whose murder is officially attributed to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

More:

Vance is a US Navy veteran who signed on with an Iraqi-owned security company based in Baghdad. He and a fellow-worker, Nathan Ertel, came to suspect that the company was involved in illegal arms dealing “and other nefarious activity”.
He contends that he fell foul of the Occupation military authorities because he shared this information with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. According to David Phinney:

Vance claims that during the months leading up to his arrest, he worked as an unpaid informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Sometimes twice a day, he would share information with an agent in Chicago about the Iraqi-owned Shield Group Security, whose principals and managers appeared to be involved in weapons deals and violence against Iraqi civilians. One company employee regularly bartered alcohol with U.S. military personnel in exchange for ammunition they delivered …

Vance and Ertel barricaded themselves in their office after the Iraqi firm confiscated their ID tags. They were rescued by US soldiers and taken back to the Green Zone. There they were arrested and held, secretly, for three months. They were systematically mistreated and tortured with very loud music.

Possum argues that Vance fell victim to a turf war between our "official" intelligence agencies and the not-quite-official spook networks set up by the neocons.

Moreover, what happened to Vance may be what happened to Berg -- who was photographed in an Abu Ghraib-style orange jumpsuit, sitting in surroundings that bore a striking resemblance to the images that came out of that notorious prison.

The 911 investigator Michael Wright unearthed evidence supporting the view that Berg was working under CIA supervision at OU [University of Oklahoma], perhaps spying on some of the alleged 911 hijackers who were living nearby at the time. Whatever the truth of this, suspicion must arise that Nick Berg was a part-time CIA operative and/or FBI informant.

Beyond Debat (updated)

In the post below, I outlined the controversy over Alexis Debat, the French "terror expert" turned ABC News journalist. Not only did Debat publish a fake interview with Barack Obama, certain claims he has made about his background have proven difficult to verify.

To my eyes, the questionable items in Debat's resume -- not to mention his expertise in the history of the CIA -- indicate that this man may have been recruited by the Agency at some point.

Now, Guillemette Faure of Rue 89 gives us the rest of the story (so far):

To our questions, Jeffrey Schneider, VP communication for the [ABC] network sent us this statement : "In May, officials of the French government told us of problems with Debat's Sorbonne credentials. After an immediate investigation we asked for and received his resignation and initiated a review of all his work as a consultant for ABC News. That review is ongoing. So far our on-going review has uncovered no issues with regard to his work as a consultant for ABC News. We take this matter very seriously and we will continue our exhaustive probe into his work."

Brian Ross has worked closely with Debat. Ross has done some eye-opening work recently -- for example, last July he spoke of a planned "terror spectacular," which he learned about from "law enforcement" sources. Before that, he helped to expose Mark Foley.

But in one high-profile case, Ross acted oddly. In an ABC broadcast, he denied that the DC Madam's client list -- to which he had early access -- included any "newsworthy" names. After Ross filed that report, we learned that the Madam's clients included Senator Vitter and SAIC's Ronald Roughead. Deborah Jeane Palfrey later told me that Ross, speaking off the record, had expressed a very different opinion of that list's newsworthiness. Palfrey seemed puzzled (and, frankly, a bit miffed) by the newsman's apparent turnaround.

Why did he turn? Did someone turn him?

In previous posts, we have discussed the possibility that Palfrey's ladies were used as the bait in a series of "honeytraps" designed to catch out individuals with access to sensitive information.

Yesterday, I outlined my reasons for suspecting that Alexis Debat has connections to the American CIA and, perhaps, French intelligence. This is the kind of story Debat might have learned about from the Agency.

ABC has published an apologetic story on l'affair Debat. They claim that they have yet to find any major errors in his reportage.

Other writers have treated Debat purely in terms of journalistic ethics. They have not discussed the "spooky" aspects of this controversy, even though Debat, in his writings, has evinced an attitude toward the CIA which some would characterize as allegiance. His thesis -- which may or may not have earned a doctorate from the Sorbonne -- was about the CIA. He has already written one book about the Agency and is working on another. I posit, but cannot prove, that Debat was recruited by American intelligence, which seeded him into one of the world's premier news organizations.

Of course, that sort of thing has happened before -- many times.

UPDATE: Another Debat interview, with Alan Greenspan, has been called into question. This fascinating Washington Post story includes a few details relevant to my argument:

Ross said Debat was "very, very knowledgeable" about al-Qaeda and such terror figures as Zacarias Moussaoui, and "his information was spot on. The stuff always checked out."

Ross said he asked Debat for a copy of his doctorate after a French official contacted the network through the embassy here. Debat said some French officials were "trying to take me down and discredit my reporting" because they were embarrassed that he was breaking stories on CIA covert operations.

These "breaking stories" did not seem to injure Debat's good relations with the Agency. So who fed him the information, and why? As this piece makes clear, Debat's reporting has paralleled Seymour Hersh's -- and his scoops have not proven helpful to the Bush administration. (I need not remind readers of the CIA/neocon split.)

I can easily see how some people in France might become infuriated by one of their own who had apparently transferred loyalties to an American espionage agency. Debat's statement implies that someone within French intelligence planted the Rue 89 stories.

Laura Rozen may harbor suspicions about Debat similar to my own. Read between the lines:

Seriously, imagine if a New York Times reporter put an ex NSC or CIA operative on the payroll for about $2,000 to $4,000 a month as a source, cited in articles as a source, and then sometimes let him or her report news stories with a byline, without glaringly indicating to readers what was going on. But this is what ABC was doing with Debat.

As I said earlier, the positioning of spooks within the journalistic community is a very serious matter. Just because this practice has a history does not mean it should have a future.

Who was al-Libi?

Abu Anas al-Libi just died in custody, presumably of liver cancer.

As noted in an earlier Cannonfire post, he was a very mysterious fellow -- an alleged terrorist who may have functioned as an informant for western intelligence.

The UK granted this guy asylum, even though he was accused of terrorist actions in the 1990s. The Daily Mail (and precious few other media outlets) spoke of the man's links to MI6. Apparently, on one occasion he had provided aid to British spooks hoping to kill Ghaddafy.

(I believe that this was the same plot revealed by David Shayler, a former British spook who went on to have a very interesting history. Did I ever tell that story to you folks? Wild stuff...)

There are those who say that al-Libi functioned as a double for Osama Bin Laden. Yes: A double agent posed as Bin Laden. Imagine the possibilities!

Wikipedia places the guy all over the damned place, doing all sorts of things, throughout the decade between 2002 and 2012. Somehow, he kept quite active in the field, even though he was also being held prisoner -- in more than one place. Simultaneously. I double-dog dares ya to make sense of the story: It's freakin' impossible.

On 7 June 2007, al-Libi, who remained on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list, was listed as a possible CIA "secret prisoner" by Amnesty International, without providing details or evidence.[16]

In September 2012, CNN reported that al-Libi returned to Libya after being imprisoned in Iran for almost a decade.

As I jokingly wrote in that earlier post,

Other reports have him attaining his graduate degree at Hogwarts in 2009, operating a Pizza Hut in Darjeeling between 2005 and 2010, handing out "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets in New Orleans in 2008, and working in Santa's workshop disguised as an elf.

This story offers a persuasive argument that the guy was a double agent:

The operation to capture Abu Anas al-Liby on Libyan soil by U.S. Special Forces, who were disguised as Arabs and spoke Arabic dialects, came as quite a surprise. Most intelligence services operating in the region had believed al-Liby to be a double agent - which went a long way to explaining why the Americans had failed to target him for more than two years, despite being aware he was in Tripoli. According to a well-informed source, al-Liby had been put under CIA surveillance a year and a half ago.

Despite the aid that he may have given to the CIA and MI6, Delta Force operatives captured him in Tripoli in October of 2013. (The capture was protested by Ari Fleischer, of all people!) He was held prisoner in New York, where he was charged with participation in the 1998 embassy bombings.

Was he a double agent? Quite possibly. He could even have been tripled.

Well, let's put it this way: I suspect that his true loyalties were always to the jihad movement, even though he would feed information to western intelligence from time to time. Why would he do that? Two reasons: First, to deep-six enemies in the Islamic world (Ghaddafy and Bin Laden didn't exactly get along), and second, to earn himself a "get out of jail free" card in case the Americans caught him.

Which they did. Guess the card stopped working.

If my scenario is true (or anywhere near the truth), al-Libi's testimony in court might have proven rather embarrassing for certain parties. His liver disease was, therefore, more than a little convenient. The government delayed prosecution as long as possible, giving the Big C enough time to do its work.

Last October, al-Libi's lawyer claimed that his client was being denied treatment for his cancer. The lawyer denies that al-Libi had any connection to the embassy bombings and claims that al-Libi was brought to this country under legally dubious circumstances.

There is also the important question of videotapes of al-Libi being interrogated by military authorities. The lawyer claims that such tapes exist. (One can only imagine what al-Libi might have said!) The government denies the existence of this material. Of course, they also denied that tapes were made of Zacarias Moussaoui's interrogations. (We later learned that such evidence did exist but was deliberately destroyed.)

Marcy Wheeler seems to find the whole matter to be more than a little suspicious. So do I.

The book of Judith

In ancient times, a woman named Judith slipped into the tent of an oppressor and took off his head with two great whacks. In more recent times, a woman named Judith entered the tent of an oppressor, and...well. I don't think we can say that she took head.

emptywheel suggests that Judith Miller's source for the pre-9/11 warning of an upcoming terror attack is none other than Richard Clarke. The argument is rather persuasive:

Finally, we know that Clarke is close enough to Judy to have visited her in jail, along with two of his pre-9/11 Counter-Terrorism staffers

Here's my problem. If Clarke is the guy, why didn't Judy just say so? Clarke "came out" as a Bush critic a long time ago.

Another thought. Zacaraias Moussaoui went to jail, and very nearly went to his maker, because he knew about the plot and did nothing to stop it. Zack and Judy are different because...well, just what is the big difference between the two?

The final minutes

Various voices within the so-called 9/11 "Truth Movement" have espoused scenarios I consider foolish. But the final minutes of United Flight 93 are truly puzzling.

In 2002, relatives of the victims were allowed to listen to the cockpit recordings. According to the Phildelphia Daily News, they heard sounds of a struggle at 9:58 a.m. There was a final "rushing sound" at 10:03. Then silence. The plane hit the ground at 10:06.

In 2006, the same recording was played at the Moussaoui trial -- except now, the scenario was quite different.

Three minutes after 10 a.m., passengers seem to be breaking through the cockpit door, fighting with the hijackers in a futile effort to take back the throttle. "Go! Go!" they encourage one another. "Move! Move!" But the terrorists have flipped the plane upside down. They spin it downward.

"Shall we finish it off?" a hijacker asks in Arabic.

In its final plunge, the hijackers shout over and over in Arabic: "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!"

The tape ends.

We do not know, from this account, precisely when the tape ends. If it ends at the 10:03 mark, then what happened during the next three minutes? If the struggle and the chanting are heard between 10:03 and 10:06, then why was silence heard in 2002?

TW3: Verbal equinox, '06

dr. elsewhere here...
The bitch is back, yet again. Thought I had my net connection woes conquered, but no. It's been an interesting time to study patience; I hope that you will all bear with me while I sort out my situation and try to sort out our more global situationS from this week, at least the one that was.

Oh my. Again, where to begin? I suppose the best bet for a random selection would be the State of the Scandals. Seems the feds are closing in on tips from Wilkes and Wade, and in the process, have apparently implicated Katherine Harris, whose highly pointed profile announcement on Fox raised more than just the stakes in this race. Though I’m alerted by Joe’s suspicion that her decision might be informed, there is also the possibility that she is just delusional in her insistence on bucking the Republican leadership who have been abandoning her Senate campaign. Won’t her implication in the big lobbying scandals make her even more of a pariah? And it just occurs to me, given all those rumors about her and Jeb, it might make some twisted sense that he’s just promising to endorse and support (and “deliver”?) a win, perhaps to keep her quiet about their relationship, maybe even about everyone’s roles in the election frauds? Who knows? But I’m guessing no one in the Republican leadership has a clue how to, er, handle her, hot, er, potato that she is.

This week marked the third anniversary of our invasion of Iraq, and hardly any US media noticed that there were worldwide protests, again. And of course Bush hardly noticed that it's hardly a mission accomplished. Unless part of the mission included half of Americans admitting that they've cried about this war. Coinciding with this third anniversary of our invasion of a sovereign nation, a new book came out chronicling the cooked intel and blanket propaganda.

And how does our administration address these and other exposures of misleading and incompetence in the face of growing concerns of civil war in Iraq? First, they launch Operation Swarmer, now revealed as just another smarmy PR effort, where it does appear that timing, as ever, played a role in this non-assault. Third, they continue marketing their “next Iraq” agenda by publishing the National Security Strategy claiming Iran to be our biggest threat, while having Booster Boy vocalize this point on his latest promotional tour, only to have General Pace admit in a press conference that no, we don’t have any evidence that Iran is responsible for all the latest spike in violence in Iraq. Oops. Change the subject. Hey, by the way, oodles of oil and natural gas discovered in Afghanistan, didja hear? Makes it all worth it, now don’t it?

Let’s see, so many scandals, so little time.

With all the dirty laundry spilling out onto the sidewalk, and you’d think we’d start getting some real reforms moving in Congress. Right. Congressman Boenhart shows how driven he is by his dedication to ethical conduct in the House. And then retired General Myers and former Attorney General Ashcroft both cash in on the lobbying craze, as if the word scandal were nowhere near their vocabularies.

Even more scandalous than the lobbying schemes are the various surveillance crimes, which appear to take on numerous permutations, including warrantless physical searches. The good news is that Arlen Specter continues to have trouble with the new deal on warrantless spying crafted by Cheney and Congressional leaders. We’re left to wonder if Specter will actually follow up on his concerns, or just wax politically squeamish for political purposes until Big Brother tells him to clam up.

And just in case you were not yet convinced we are already in a police state, check out the just-revealed memos from within the NYPD on the efficacy of proactive arrests. Feelin' safe yet?

Oh, well, we can’t forget the Leakin’ Libby scandal, the first to break and start picking up steam? Seems his trial, while forcing Libby to refresh his memory, could actually allow his defense to backfire on Bush, tainting him further.

How much taint to achieve saturation? Are we approaching a “beyond tainted” status yet? Because, despite the failure of Democratic leaders to actually show some spine in supporting Feingold’s censure of Bush, it is supported by only half (HUNH?? ONLY??) of polled Americans (isn’t this pretty damning?). These and other poll results are apparently giving some Republicans are talking about Bush’s many problems now, and as if it’s not a new revelation. The discontent throughout the country with Bush's incompetence now reflects as an historic lead for Democrats in the polls. We can only hope they figure out how to take advantage of it.

One would think these polls show a growing unity in the US, as more and more citizens begin to recognize the dire shape of thing. But the profound differences in opinion and position of the factions – given the distorted and imbalanced voice of the media – has prompted one writer to consider the growing civil war, not in Iraq, where more reporters have been murdered than killed in combat in Iraq, but civil war here in the US.

The greatest promotion of this intense division is, of course, the polticized media. Helen Thomas writes again about the shame of the WH lapdog press corps, while the NYTimes actually defends their prewar reporting. For icing on this cake, we learn that two WH staffers masqueraded as FauxNews journalists, in order to scout locations for a Bush visit. And, oh, let’s do put some roses on the icing on this “let them eat” cake! Do taste this latest Coulter morsel of madness, and celebrate the fact that Ted Ralls plans to sue her sorry, and scandalously skinny, derriere.

Throughout all these nightmares, we may still have some hope left in the actions of some principled individuals in the judiciary. The week started with word that Sandra Day O’Connor had made some rather disapproving comments about threats on the judiciary (as word came out that Justices had received death threats). But, despite this climate, a federal court struck down the EPA’s attempt to loosen restrictions on the Clean Air Act (essentially making the statement that the administration’s agency had broken those laws). In addition, we saw Judge *, presiding over Zacharias Moussaoui’s sentencing trial in DC, soundly scold the Attorney General’s office for coaching witnesses, though she later relaxed her initial ruling. Still, the disclosure also exposed the apparent reason for the coaching, which may well have been motivated by a request from the defense team representing the airlines being sued by 9/11 families; if Moussaoui’s defense can show that the strike would have happened regardless of his decision not to warn authorities, then the airlines may have to share some of the burden of negligence with the government.

All in all, another week of more scandals than one can count, more lives destroyed by our occupation of another country, and more spin than a laundromat. As foreign as this feels when compared to life just six years ago, it’s all too rapidly becoming just another week in the life of Bush’s America.

Protecting Atta, blaming Clinton

The Republicans have attempted to put a favorable spin on the Curt Weldon charges. Weldon claims that a DIA "data mining" operation named ABLE DANGER had identified Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 terrorists at least a year before the September 11 attacks.

Originally, we were told that an unnamed DIA lawyer directed the team not to notify the FBI and not pursue Atta further. We were even told that the data miners literally placed tape over Atta's picture in their organizational charts of the terror cell within the United States.

After Weldon's story made the news, rightist pundits used it as a cudgel against the Clinton administration. The revised version of the story (as gleaned from Hannity, NewsMax, and similarly "trusty" sources) maintains that the White House was the ultimate power behind the DIA's decision to keep mum about the extraordinary find. According to the egregious NewsMax, the Clinton administration caused the problem by erecting what NewsMax is pleased to call a "wall" between the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community.

So far, the public has seen no documentary evidence proving the existence of ABLE DANGER. In my view, the Weldon tale nevertheless rests on a credible foundation, not least because it inconveniences the official version of Atta's doings.

According to the standard version, Atta did not enter the United States until June of 2000 -- a chronology which conflicted with strong eyewitness testimony, such as the story told here of Johnelle Bryant, the loan officer for the Department of Agriculture who swore that she had encountered Atta earlier.

The spokesman for the independent 9/11 commission, Al Felzenberg, now claims that the commission did learn about ABLE DANGER and did know that it had identified Atta, but did not include the information in their final report because the DIA's data conflicted with the Authorized Standard Version of Atta's pre-attack whereabouts. (Previously, commission members said: A. They knew nothing about ABLE DANGER, and B. They did know that such an operation existed but remained ignorant of the Atta connection.) According to Felzenberg, the DIA team had reported that Atta entered the country in 1999.

Despite the frustrating contradictions, it now seems fairly safe to stipulate that ABLE DANGER did exist and did uncover Atta's ring. Even so, the right-wing spin on this matter amounts to pure bullshit.

The DIA team, we are told, knew of Atta a year before the attacks. During that year, Clinton was in office a mere four months to Bush’s eight. Why didn't the Bushfolk do anything?

The larger question: Did Clinton's White House prevent members of the intelligence community from talking to each other?

It is well-known that the FBI and the CIA have never "played well" together. The rivalry goes back to the founding of the CIA, when J. Edgar Hoover -- miffed that he was not chosen to lead a combined super-organizations -- decreed that the FBI would not share data. Although communication between the two agencies improved after Hoover’s death, the "wedge" (as it is usually called) remained a problem before, during and after the Clinton administration.

Even so, the record shows that FBI personnel did frequently communicate with other agencies on terror-related issues during the Clinton years. In fact -- and despite what the right-wing propaganda machine would have you believe -- communication within the intel community, though highly imperfect, was probably better at that time than it was after Bush took the oath of office.

According to a report by Eleanor Hill delivered on September 18, 2002 to the investigative committee chaired by Porter Goss and Bob Graham, a number of terrorist actions were foiled during the Clinton years -- foiled, to a large degree, due to cooperative efforts within the intelligence community. A few of these failed plots bear some resemblance to the successful terrorist action which took place on Bush’s watch.

In 1997, the FBI and the CIA shared information on a terrorist group which had purchased a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) for the apparent purpose of flying it into an American building overseas.

In August 1998, unnamed branches of the intel community (probably including NSA) passed on to the FBI information about a plan by Arab terrorists to fly an explosive-laden plane into the World Trade Center.

In November 1998, a Turkish extremist group allied with Al Qaida plotted to fly an explosive-laden aircraft into Attaturk’s tomb. The plotters were arrested after the scheme was discovered by American intelligence, which shared their information with the FBI’s New York office.

The intelligence community also shared information on the following incidents:

* The 1996 Al Qaida plan to attack the White House by air

* A November 1998 recruitment effort by Al Qaida within the United States

* The so-called "Millennium Plot," which came to an end after the arrest of Ahmed Ressam

* An Al Qaida plot to assassinate various intelligence officials (including the head of the FBI) in 2000

Much has been made of the fact that the CIA identified two of the highjackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, at an Al Qaida summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in January 2000. Despite the identification, the men traveled to the United States and lived openly in San Diego -- renting from an FBI informant (about whom there is much more to say, though not here.) When this embarrassment was first revealed to the pubic in early June of 2002, reports indicated that the CIA did not inform the FBI or the INS. However, the CIA was able to produce emails proving that it had, in fact, told the FBI about Alhamzi and Almihdhar. Why the FBI did not act on the data remains an open question; for present puposes, we may note only that inter-agency communication did occur.

For those who still believe in the myth that Clinton had (for lord-knows-what reason) erected an impenetrable "wall" ghetto-izing the various members of the intelligence community, an L.A. Times story of October 18, 2002, revealed a very different situation:

In a world of cloak and dagger, one of the CIA's most secret campaigns was called simply "the Plan."

For two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, it was the official operational strategy that the CIA, the FBI and other U.S. agencies jointly adopted for their clandestine — and still largely unsuccessful — campaign to capture terrorist Osama bin Laden and his chief aides.

Although the intelligence agencies did not function perfectly during the Clinton years, the worst breakdowns -- breakdowns so bad some have presumed sabotage from within -- occurred after George Bush took office.

For example, when FBI agents in Minneapolis had Zacarias Moussaoui in their sites in 2001, higher-ups within the Department of Justice refused to grant a warrant to search his computer. The field agents had to circumvent their bosses in order to discover what the CIA and French intelligence had on Moussaoui.

Bottom line: On Clinton's watch, the Millenneum plot -- and a number of other schemes -- failed. On Bush's watch, September 11 -- and a number of other schemes -- succeeded.

This history lesson brings us back to current events. Is Weldon’s ABLE DANGER story an accurate account that the right has twisted for purposes of disinformation? And if it is accurate, what was the real reason why the DIA turned a blind eye to Mohammed Atta?

Did Berg hide a secret?

Nicholas Berg – the affable 26-year-old communications specialist whose videotaped execution shocked the world – may have had a secret agenda.

Before proceeding, please note: I am not proposing that Berg’s activities were in any way underhanded or dishonorable. Neither does this essay address the controversy surrounding the videotape. I am merely suggesting that researchers take a closer look at the odd circumstances surrounding Berg’s final journey to Iraq.

One insufficiently scrutinized aspect of the Berg mystery concerns what we may call the “in between” period. This term refers to the four days between April 6, 2004 (the date of his release from “Iraqi police” detention) and April 10, the date of his reported re-capture by terrorists linked to Abu Musab Al Zarqawi.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Berg “usually called home once a day and e-mailed several times; [father] Michael Berg is his business manager, and they needed to stay in touch.” During his first detention, Berg’s parents naturally became quite worried for their son’s safety, and one can imagine how they felt upon hearing his voice on April 6. (No news account known to me specifies whether this call came from Mosul or Baghdad -- an important point, as we shall see.)

That conversation, we are told, was the last time Nick Berg’s parents heard from their son. He also sent an email on that date -- reportedly his last.

An AP account published May 13 establishes that Berg spent the next few nights in the Fanar Hotel in Baghdad. While staying at the hotel, he went out for drinks with friends Hugo Infante (a Chilean journalist) and Andrew Duke (a Colorado businessman). He even visited a local gym, where he spoke with a journalist named Jamie Francis.

Berg was a man in a war zone with free time -- yet he apparently did not let his anxious family know either his location or his specific travel plans. No public statement by Michael Berg indicates that he knew where his son was staying. Before his first detention, the younger Berg had asked his parents to meet him at the airport on the expected arrival date. Yet he had no similar discussion with his parents after his release.

How did he get to Baghdad and how did he intend to leave Iraq? The stories differ widely.

First, we must account for the trip from Mosul to Baghdad on April 6 -- presuming he was, in fact, in Mosul at the time of his release. Road conditions were extraordinarily hazardous. Yet news accounts would have us believe that Berg made this journey without military assistance -- an unlikely scenario (rendered even moreso by the suggestion that he continued to wear an orange prison jumpsuit, as depicted in the videotape).

The oddities do not end there. United States officials confirm that they offered to fly Berg out of Iraq via Jordan. Berg turned down this offer, which must have come on or before April 6, because he discussed this business with his father on that date. Michael Berg reports that his son turned down the proposal because travel to the airport was “too dangerous.”

This statement makes little sense. The United States rotates soldiers, private contractors and CIA personnel in and out of Iraq on a routine basis. Is it likely that safety concerns would have prompted Berg to refuse official help? Is it likely that Berg felt safer journeying from Mosul to Baghdad, and from Baghdad to another country, entirely on his own? What factors would make “private” travel plans safer?

A key AP story of May 13 insists that Berg “preferred to travel on his own to Kuwait.” The report goes on to describe Berg’s April 9 conversation with Duke:

Duke, who drank beer with Berg the night before he left, said Berg told him he had made a lot of money and was thinking about going sailing in Turkey. He said he thought Berg was planning to leave the country by land.

"He was looking forward to going home," Duke said.

A journey by land would seem an odd choice for a man who told his father that travel to the airport was too dangerous.

But did he truly fear travel to the airport? According to a CNN report of the same day, “Infante said he thought Berg was intending to go to Baghdad Airport the following morning and take a flight back to the United States.”

During this time, Berg also made odd references to the reasons for his detention as a suspected spy. He did not mention the matter at all to Jamie Francis (in fact, Francis felt that Berg’s very presence in the country was a tad mysterious). He gave his friends at the hotel the impression that the arrest was something of a grand adventure.

He told them that he was arrested because he had a Jewish-sounding last name and an Israeli stamp in his passport. Many countries will not accept visitors whose passports show evidence of a previous trip to Israel, which is why travelers to that nation frequently receive a second passport. Berg had traveled widely throughout the third world in his young life; it is difficult to believe that he could have done so with only a stamped-in-Israel passport.

According to Infante, Berg mentioned that Iraqi police found the electronics equipment in his car suspicious. At no point did he tell his friends that he carried a Koran and an allegedly anti-Semitic book titled “The Jewish Problem” (or something similar), as later reported in the press.

Berg did discuss with Infante and Duke the nature of his captivity, in terms that call into question the official story that he was held solely by the Iraqi police. Coalition Provisional Authority Dan Senor told CBS: "I think there's a little bit of confusion that emanates in part from the fact that many of the Iraqi detention facilities are supported in some way by American MPs." According to Infante, however, Berg said that he was held in “a coalition facility” which also housed Syrians, Egyptians, and other outsiders suspected of entering the country illegally. (We can fairly presume that foreign fighters would not be questioned by the police.) Berg made a similar statement to his father -- a statement consistent with State Department communications with Michael Berg and with the claims of the Mosul police.

Berg’s brag to Duke -- that he had “made a lot of money” -- also deserves some scrutiny.

Although Berg’s ostensible purpose in the war-torn nation was to repair communications towers, none of the many news stories about Berg’s second trip to Iraq specifies who paid him and for what purpose. Accounts differ as to whether his company, Prometheus Methods Tower Service, was approved by the Coalition Provisional Authority to do work in Iraq. Spokesman Senor told a briefing that Berg “was not a U.S. government employee, he has no affiliation with the coalition and to our knowledge he has no affiliation with any Coalition Provisional Authority contractor.”

In January, Berg wrote an email reporting that he would do “tower work” for the Harris Corporation of Melbourne, which had won a Coalition contract. However, there is good reason to suspect that Berg did no work pursuant to this deal.

Some background: Berg had made an earlier visit to Iraq in December, ostensibly in search of work -- even though he had a number of tower jobs lined up at home (Baltimore Sun, May 13). During this time, he seems to have worked on the damaged communication tower at Abu Ghraib -- despite the fact that, according to Senor, his company did not appear on the Coalition’s list of approved contractors.

He also seems to have made contact with Harris representatives. According to AP:

He stayed until Feb. 1, making contact with a company that indicated there would likely be work for him later. But he returned on March 14 and there was no work, so he began traveling.

Those three words -- “he began traveling” – are the sole clue we possess as to his reasons for going to Mosul. Why did he go there? What work, if any, did he do in Iraq on this second journey? Just how did he make “a lot of money” in the short span of time before his detention?

The Iraqi police arrested Nick Berg as a spy. The FBI was sufficiently intrigued by this allegation to interview him three times and to interview his family. Is it possible that the charge held some measure of truth?

We should re-examine, in this light, a bizarre coincidence – if coincidence it be: Iraq was not the first place Nick Berg encountered Al Qaeda-linked terrorists.

In 1999, Berg attended the University of Oklahoma (we are not told why he chose a not-overwhelmingly distinguished college far from home), where he encountered one or more members of an Al Qaeda cell. Most news accounts refer to a single meeting on a bus with an associate of Zacarias Moussaoui; Michael Berg, however, has told reporters that his son had accidentally run into more than one terrorist while in Oklahoma.

One would think that there would be immediate tension between an increasingly conservative young Jew and a Muslim with secret links to terrorism. Yet Nicholas Berg, we are told, allowed access to his computer – and even revealed his password! (Even pre-teens usually know better than to discuss passwords.) The password traveled throughout the terror network, and seems to have provided the FBI with one mechanism for tracking Al Qaeda members in the United States.

One may fairly ask if “accident” truly suffices to explain these events. Berg’s “foolishness” had the interesting effect of making Al Qaeda more transparent to the authorities.

Nicholas Berg was young but mature, intelligent, in good shape, politically conservative, eager to take risks, willing to learn difficult languages, and fond of travel to exotic lands. What intelligence agency would not want to recruit someone of that description?

Further investigation may resolve many of the questions asked in this essay. New facts may reveal that Nick Berg really was just a telecommunications specialist in the wrong place at the wrong time.

At this moment, however, we have good reason to wonder.