- Did someone want to keep the American public "out
of the loop" before the September attacks on the World Trade Center?
What you don't know could kill you...
-
- Screaming cruise missiles smash into bunkers and supply
depots. With the blood of American non-combatants still fresh on the
streets,
the U.S. military has the perpetrator caught in the crosshairs.
-
- Imagine yourself the Commander-in-Chief.
-
- You know there's a problem. Despite unprovoked acts of
murder and destruction raining down on American civilians, the leaders
of your opposition in Congress are openly questioning your motives and
your mission is being aggressively undermined by those same leaders needed
to rally around you at this time of national crisis.
-
- Soon, support for your mission evaporates. The murderous
terrorists manage to evade justice, and the nation is told by your
political
opponents at home, that details of your own personal life are more
important
to the national interest than the "untimely" pursuit of Osama
Bin Laden.
-
- Of course its not you who is really in charge. It was
President Clinton in 1998 following Osama Bin Laden's attacks on American
Embassies abroad, and leading Republicans in Congress that refused to
support
the efforts to smash the Al-Qaeda Terrorist network. For them the
President's
sex life was the real issue facing the nation.
-
- Blood on their hands
-
- But between August 1998 and September 2001, international
efforts to destroy Bin Laden and the regime that harbored him continued
beyond the gaze of American media. At the time though, long before
thousands
of innocent Americans were to die at the World Trade Center, a great
opportunity
was squandered. CNN reported,
-
- "Senators Dan Coats (R-Ind.) and Arlen Specter
(R-Pa.)
swiftly voiced concern that Clinton might have acted to divert public
attention
from his personal problems related to the Monica Lewinsky sex
scandal."
-
- In fact it was earlier that same week that Clinton had
used a national TV appearance "to admit an inappropriate relationship
with the former White House intern." And Coats, a member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, said in a statement,
-
- "While there is clearly much more we need to learn
about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president's
personal
difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this
action."
-
- Barely two weeks had passed after the murderous terror
attacks on the U.S. embassies in East Africa and Americans were being led
to believe that the President of the United States was "wagging the
dog".
-
- Was the domestic opposition to Clinton's effort to stop
Bin Laden just an ironic freckle on the face of American history? According
to newly published reports the answers suggest that even then, powerful
forces within the American Petroleum industry have had special plans of
their own for Osama Bin Laden, for the regime harboring him, and for
influencing
Administration policy towards them at home and abroad.
-
- If the reports are true, despite our knowledge of his
key role in worldwide terrorism, the political operatives of domestic
"Big
Oil" must have considered Osama Bin Laden someone that they could
do business with.
-
- Just the Facts
-
- As has so often been the case in our nation's recent
history, the roots of this foreign policy debacle can be found in our
national
addiction to imported oil and our willingness to be held hostage to those
that control it. In this case though it was not exactly oil but natural
gas that ignited the catastrophe.
-
- In addition to uncorroborated allegations, credible
reports
now show that members of the Bush administration and representatives of
Haliburton Oil, Unocal, and others, were negotiating to be bring new riches
to the unrecognized Taliban government. According to some, the efforts
continued only 30 days before the September attacks on America.
-
- Apparently, the Taliban's abysmal human rights record
and their support and encouragement of Osama Bin Laden, did not trouble
the American corporate interests leading the talks. Their only concern?
Securing the Taliban's involvement in a multibillion-dollar plan to site
a natural gas pipeline from the petroleum rich regions of Turkmenistan
across Afghanistan towards ports of call elsewhere. Purpose? Marketing
vast riches, which could become the crown jewel of America's petroleum
giants and the emergent Bush/Cheney energy policy.
-
- Seem hard to swallow? Forget about it. There can be no
doubt that talks were in progress with the Taliban for the siting of
pipelines
in Afghanistan. Take a look at what the US Energy Information Agency has
to say about that on their own website
-
- "Afghanistan's significance from an energy
standpoint
stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil
and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea."
-
- In truth, consideration for siting a pipeline through
Afghanistan had begun long before the Bush/Cheney administration, once
called the oil industry's "Dream Team", had taken up permanent
residence at the White House. The USEIA states,
-
- "This potential includes the possible construction
of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan, which was
under serious consideration in the mid-1990s."
-
- But the negotiations did not fare well. The USEIA
adds,
-
- "The idea has since been undermined by Afghanistan's
instability."
-
- And the prime negotiator Unocal, who since has, at least
publicly, abandoned the project, adds from their own website,
-
- "Unocal was instrumental in proposing the Central
Asia gas pipeline project in 1995 and in forming the seven-member CentGas
consortium in October 1997.
-
- "The consortium was formed to evaluate and, if
appropriate,
to participate in the future construction of a gas pipeline from
Turkmenistan
through Afghanistan to natural gas markets in Pakistan and, potentially,
India."
-
- Following the terrorist attacks on the Khobar Towers
and other American interests abroad, the Clinton administration lost
interest
in the project as well as with the Taliban government then taking hold
in Afghanistan:
-
- "Since 1996, most of Afghanistan has been controlled
by the Taliban movement, which the United States does not recognize as
the government of Afghanistan."
-
- Apparently though, hopes for the project did not end
along with the Clinton presidency.
-
- "Bin Laden: The Forbidden
Truth"
-
- According to reports, the talks were revived following
the inauguration of the Bush administration. French authors Jean-Charles
Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, have recently published a book chronically
the little known events titled "Bin Laden: The Forbidden
Truth"
-
- "In the beginning of August, the Bush administration
and its Big Oil cohorts delivered what amounted to an ultimatum to the
Taliban.
-
- "The Taliban representatives were reportedly told
by Bush/Big Oil: Accept our offer of "a carpet of gold or you'll get
a carpet of bombs."
-
- Among their charges? The authors allege that,
-
- "BUSH HIMSELF directly ordered the FBI and other
U.S. law enforcement groups to BACK OFF on TERRORIST-RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
while the oil pipeline negotiations were underway! "
-
- Who's to say. But in an attempt to corroborate the claim
they add,
-
- "In FACT, the FBI's Deputy Director John O'Neill
resigned in July in protest over this outrageous and intolerable
obstruction."
-
- Tragically though, he's no longer talking. John O'Neil
left his post to become Director of Security at the World Trade Center.
His body was one among hundreds thus far recovered and identified in the
rubble.
-
- Still speaking of the pipeline project, the authors
continue
though,
-
- "The whereabouts of one OSAMA BIN LADEN, then
already
firmly entrenched at the very top of the US's "most-wanted
terrorist"
list during the entire course of these pipeline negotiations, was NEVER
an issue with the Bush cartel."
-
- Prior to September 11th, say the authors,
-
- "Never ONCE were the Taliban urged to hand bin Laden
over for all those OTHER horrendous crimes Feds maintain bin Laden has
been charged with committing over the years."
-
- A month following the collapse of the talks, the World
Trade Center laid in ruins
-
- Bin Laden: From the Crosshairs to the Boardroom?
-
- Condolesa Rice, Bush, and Cheney, all have their roots
in the oil business. But Bush and the Taliban?
-
- Perspective may be helpful here. Secret negotiation with
the enemy is nothing new for Presidents. Do we doubt that Nixon
"opened
the door" to China without first discussing it with them behind closed
doors? After all, history will show that opening up the "Evil
Empire"
to western markets hastened the fall of communism. We all understand that
the world is a tough place and some might have to grow up if they can't
accept political reality.
-
- Some realities though are too harsh to be
acceptable.
-
- Before September 11th , the Taliban's principle source
of income came from the illegal exportation of opium for use by junkies.
Politics make strange bedfellows and the same is certainly true for
transnational
corporate superpowers. America's business is business, we have been told,
and a corporate marriage even with purveyors of murder and addiction could
help the bottom line. After all whether we're selling nicotine, heroin,
or petroleum, addiction is still addiction.
-
- Was the September 11th Attack on America some kind of
knee jerk reaction to the breakdown of talks over the pipeline? Experts
seem in agreement that the attacks were well planned and coordinated. It
is hard to believe that the idea to attack the World Trade Center was born
overnight.
-
- And we should not be shocked to hear that efforts to
form an international coalition to invade Afghanistan may have preceded
our most recent day of infamy. Coalition building for such an eventuality
had taken root years ago after the failed missile attacks by the Clinton
administration. In fact, the Taliban have expressed fears of such an attack
ever since.
-
- Doubtless though, anti terrorist plans may have gone
forward even more aggressively had it not been for that "stained
dress"
and the Republican campaign to use it to discredit all Clinton policies.
Still Clinton wasn't ready to give up. According to a report in the
Washington
Post (October 3, 2001), and cited at http://rense.com/general17/spp.htm
:
-
- "The Clinton administration and Nawaz Sharif, then
prime minister of Pakistan, agreed on a joint covert operation to kill
Osama bin Laden in 1999. The US would supply satellite intelligence, air
support and financing, while Pakistan supplied the Pushtun-speaking
operatives
who would penetrate southern Afghanistan and carry out the actual
killing.
-
- "The Pakistani commando team was up and running
and ready to strike by October 1999, the Post reported. One former official
told the newspaper, It was an enterprise. It was proceeding. Clinton aides
were delighted at the prospect of a successful assassination, with one
declaring, It was like Christmas.
-
- "The attack was aborted on October 12, 1999, when
Sharif was overthrown in a military coup by General Pervez Musharraf, who
halted the proposed covert operation. The Clinton administration had to
settle for a UN Security Council resolution that demanded the Taliban turn
over bin Laden to appropriate authorities, but did not require he be handed
over to the United States."
-
- Before an unsuspecting American public, an invasion of
Afghanistan was clearly planned prior to September 11th. And as late as
just last year, still other reports show the Taliban had been on high alert
fearing reprisals after the Cole bombing.
-
- Although plans for an attack were put on hold, they were
to be rekindled early in 2001 by the Bush White House. And, according to
Brisard and Dasquie, by then the emphasis had shifted from anti-terrorism
to petro dollars. But who is minding the store?
-
- As for the President and front man, any American today
who thinks that George W. Bush is now soft on Bin Laden may have fallen
asleep in some poppy field not far from the Land of Oz.
-
- But what about Haliburton Oil, Exxon, or Unocal?
-
- When the scent of petro dollars is in the air, all bets
are off on this one. A recent BBC report said it well by citing
"former
CIA officer" Larry Johnson,
-
- "We're hostage to oil, that's as simple as you can
put it. We have let the economic considerations take
precedence"
-
- And the oil companies.
-
- By implication, input from Big Oil prompted a policy
shift at the top levels in the White House- 'let's leverage a deal with
the Taliban by offering to ease up on Bin Laden if they will just play
ball on the pipeline- we can forgive and forget Bin Laden's atrocities.
Then all that nonsense about destroying Al-Qaeda will just be bygones'.
No longer was nurturing the embryonic coalition against world terrorism
to be the guiding force in U.S. policy towards Afghanistan.
-
- No problem. We will do anything for more fossil
fuels.
-
- So did that really happen? The best witness has been
silenced. According to Brisard and Dasquie though, as efforts to make a
deal with the Taliban collapsed, they were issued an ultimatum last summer
by a petro industry driven White House desperate for the fossil fuel
treasures
that could be theirs for the taking.
-
- A clue may lie in these recent excerpts from the
Washington
Post about former oil company adviser Zalmay Khalilzad, now a member of
the National Security Council, special assistant to the president, and
according to the 'Post, "one of the most influential voices on Afghan
policy":
-
- "Four years ago at a luxury Houston hotel, oil
company
adviser Zalmay Khalilzad was chatting pleasantly over dinner with leaders
of Afghanistan's Taliban regime about their shared enthusiasm for a
proposed
multibillion-dollar pipeline deal."
-
- A failed policy initiative. But the 'Post story does
nothing to say that the effort hasn't morphed itself lately into adopting
different, more forceful tactics,
-
- "Today, Khalilzad works steps from the White House,
helping President Bush and his closest advisers in attempts to annihilate
those same Afghan officials."
-
- And all for the love of oil? That's what Brisard and
Dasquie suggest.
-
- In the Shadows
-
- The long reach of the special interests is nothing new
in American government. Advocates of freedom have plenty reason to be wary
lest we be persuaded that the butter of our national interest lie on the
wrong side of the toast. And we will all probably hearing more about the
Pipeline later, as a plan to revitalize Afghanistan war ravaged economy,
after a new, oil company friendly government is installed in Kabul.
-
- The scariest part though is when we believe we have no
alternative but to buy what they are selling. What Unocal or Haliburton
doesn't want us to know is that the farms, fields, and streams of America
already have the resources to cast off the chains of big oil's self serving
enslavement of our national economy.
-
- Case in point? Instead of up and going "cold
turkey"
on petroleum, we could wield a big economic stick of our own by using (or
even threatening to use) "gashol", or "biodiesel",
alternatives to petroleum fuels derived from domestically grown grain
stocks.
According to USDA reports, the U.S. used about 35 billion gallons of
on-road
diesel fuel in 1999:
-
- "Economists examined the effect of increasing
soybean
oil demand from 183 million pounds in 2001 to 2.9 billion pounds in 2010
(an average of 1.5 billion pounds per year). That's the equivalent of 200
million gallons of biodiesel production a year.
-
- "The study showed that 200 million gallons of
increased
annual soybean oil demand would boost total crop cash receipts by $5.2
billion cumulatively by 2010, resulting in an average net farm income
increase
of $300 million per year. "
-
- The untold truth? Millions of existing vehicles could
use it without modification and we would inject a powerful fiscal stimulus
right into the farms of our heartland. And we have more. So much
more.
-
- But of course, do you think they would they ever really
let us do that?
-
- One other thing we do know though. The first job for
a pusher is to keep the junkie hooked. Desperate substance abusers will
pay any price, commit any crime, befriend any outlaw, and betray any faith
to get what they want most. Oil is our national addiction and those that
push it can't allow us to think we can do without still another fix.
-
- Speaking of jobs though, it is the duty of the Shadow
Government to stay in the shadows. Under scrutiny, it would soon be obvious
to all that any convergence between the public will and the agenda of
powerful
special interests secretly running the store, must be not only rare but
purely coincidental as well.
-
- In the wake of the attacks of September 11th, America
is awakening to dangers that most of us thought were unthinkable. We will
never know how many lives would have been spared had we known earlier that
some were charting a national course placing us directly into harm's
way.
-
- Knowledge is power and prior to September 11th the
American
public was clearly being held "out of the loop". Brisard and
Dasquie are doing us great service by warning that the Big Oil fox is in
the Presidential Hen House.
-
- Maybe that's why so many think that America is still
being wagged by the tail.
-
- ___
-
- The New Oil Weapon: the U.S. Could put OPEC over a barrel
http://elsi.org/oilweapon.htm
-
- U.S. Energy Information Administration: Afghanistan http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/
cabs/afghan.html
-
- Afghan Roots Keep Adviser Firmly in the Inner Circle
http:/
/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3401-2001Nov22.html
-
- Unocal Statement on Pipeline
- http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/centgas.htm
-
- Most Lawmakers Support Clinton's Military Strikes: but
some Republicans raise questions http://www.cnn.co
m/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/20/strike.react/
|
