Bush's Tora Bora Bull

How important is a story like this? Well, for newcomers that come to this site, people that aren't sure whether or not the "official story" is a lie, it speaks volumes. Imagine coming to this site thinking that Osama Bin Laden was solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and that we went into Afghanistan to get him "dead or alive", only to find out that we made a decision to allow him to escape. Then, just a few months later, Bush says he isn't "too concerned" about getting the alleged perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks. On top of that, the real purpose of nation building and regime change in Afghanistan is exposed. That speaks volumes. I am well aware that our Government never provided evidence that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. I am well aware that 9/11 is not a crime listed on Osama Bin Laden's FBI poster. I am well aware that the Taliban said that Osama Bin Laden didn't pull of the attacks. I am well aware that there are several reports stating that Osama is dead. I am also aware that pointing out contradictions in the official story, using reported facts as opposed to unproven theories, is extremely helpful in making our case. - Jon

Bush's Tora Bora Bull - antiwar.com

by Paul Sperry

It's now common knowledge that Osama bin Laden escaped from Afghanistan in December 2001 and is still at large, still at al-Qaeda's helm calling the shots. Even Rush Limbaugh knows it, and has stopped trying to convince dittoheads that President Bush has the terror kingpin's body on ice somewhere.

How we let bin Laden get away is still in dispute, however. And it's no trivial matter.

The White House, loath to take the blame for an embarrassing failure, has deflected criticism by denying we ever had Enemy No. 1 cornered in Tora Bora, as virtually every foreign correspondent who was there at the time has reported.

Singing from the same hymnal, Bush, Vice President Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former CENTCOM Commander Gen. Tommy Franks have all insisted: "We didn't know if bin Laden was at Tora Bora."

But two CIA officers who were on the ground then argue they did in fact know he was there – and did next to nothing to snatch him. So does the CIA official who briefed the president about the Afghan operations.

Now the former CIA director is backing them up.

"Was Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora?" CBS correspondent Scott Pelley asked George Tenet in their recent "60 Minutes" interview.

"We believe that he was," Tenet replied.

Perhaps the CIA knew but failed to inform the White House or Pentagon?

Not according to Gary Berntsen, the key CIA field commander on the ground near Tora Bora at the time. He in vain requested 800 American army rangers to prevent bin Laden's escape. The request was denied by Franks, who argued U.S. troops were not necessary because an Afghan militia had been hired to fight in their place. His priority was removing the Taliban from power, even though al-Qaeda financed, controlled and sponsored the Taliban, and not the other way around.

(Most Americans don't know this, but Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan did not include any effort by U.S. forces to capture the al-Qaeda leadership, seal the border with Pakistan or cut off al-Qaeda escape routes. The U.S. attack on al-Qaeda consisted primarily of bombing deserted training camps, something former President Clinton had already tried before 9/11. The main focus of OEF was Taliban regime change, followed by nation building, something candidate George Bush vowed he'd never do.)

In his book, Jawbreaker, Berntsen refutes claims by Franks and the White House that bin Laden was able to escape from Tora Bora because they didn't know he was holed up there.

"He was there," he says, "and could have been caught."

He says he escaped with the help of our paid Afghan proxy fighters, as well as Pakistani agents.

"They were happy to take our money and let al-Qaeda slip away," said Bernsten, who made it clear in his reports back to Washington that the locals weren't interested in going after bin Laden in Tora Bora or blocking escape exits into Pakistan.

The U.S. National Intelligence director recently testified bin Laden is now operating from a "secure hideout" inside Pakistan, our purported ally. As Bush redeployed Special Forces, intelligence assets, translators, surveillance satellites, drones and other resources to Iraq, bin Laden set up several new terror-training camps in Pakistan and has exported terrorists – in addition to the London bombers – from there to hit targets in the West.

Bernsten's account is corroborated by former CIA official Hank Crumpton, who personally briefed Bush and Cheney, as well as Franks, about the need to go after bin Laden in Tora Bora.

Crumpton, who headed up the CIA's Afghan campaign, was in constant contact with Franks. Just weeks before bin Laden escaped, he strongly urged the general to move marines to the cave complex in Tora Bora, complaining "the back door was open." But Franks balked.

So Crumpton turned to the commander-in-chief and tried a more direct appeal. "We're going to lose our prey if we're not careful," he told Bush. Cheney also was in the meeting, according to Ron Suskind, author of the One Percent Doctrine.

But they did nothing. In spite of the CIA's repeated advice to move against bin Laden in Tora Bora, the commander-in-chief and his top security advisers did not act. They ignored key intelligence.

Then there's Gary C. Schroen, the CIA field officer in charge of the initial CIA incursion into Afghanistan after 9/11. The author of First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan also refutes the Pentagon and the White House. Witness this 2005 exchange on NBC's Meet the Press:

TIM RUSSERT: In October 2004, General Tommy Franks offered this observation: "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp." You just disagree with that?

SCHROEN: I absolutely do, yes.

RUSSERT: And President Bush and Vice President Cheney all quoted General Franks saying "We don't know if bin Laden was at Tora Bora." You have no doubt?

SCHROEN: I have no doubt that he was there.

Franks, an old schoolmate of Laura Bush from Midland, Texas, is a diehard Bushie. He campaigned for Bush in 2004, and was rewarded with the Medal of Freedom for his loyalty. And he's sticking to his story.

"We don't know whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora," he told the New York Times. He was "never within our grasp." Franks lets it slip in his own memoir, however, that he briefed the president in December 2001 about "unconfirmed reports that Osama has been seen in the White Mountains ... the Tora Bora area."

(It may have been more CYA than slip-up. In mid-December 2001, a spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem, told reporters there had been "indicators" of bin Laden's presence at Tora Bora in early December. There's no doubt a paper trail within high command detailing these "unconfirmed reports" and "indicators." The Associated Press through a FOIA request has already uncovered a U.S. government document that describes how one of bin Laden's commanders now held at Gitmo "assisted in the escape of Osama bin Laden from Tora Bora.")

Rumsfeld, who refused to put enough troops on the ground in Afghanistan (as well as Iraq), maintains that he didn't "know of any evidence" that bin Laden "was in Tora Bora at the time, or that he left Tora Bora at the time." (He admitted in testimony before the 9/11 Commission that he did not deploy Special Forces to hunt down al-Qaeda in the White Mountains, explaining that the war was "not about al-Qaeda.")

Cheney, for his part, has insisted "it was not at all certain that bin Laden was in Tora Bora." For all anyone knows, "he might have been in Kashmir."

Bush also isn't budging from that official line.

During the presidential debates, he essentially claimed Sen. John Kerry was lying when he said Bush lost bin Laden at Tora Bora because he outsourced the hunt to Afghan tribal leaders. He also challenged Kerry's patriotism for daring to even question the war.

Bin Laden had released a pre-election speech that proved he was still alive and well – contrary to White House spin. He might as well have jabbed a thumb in the president's eye just days before polls opened, and the last thing Bush wanted to do was concede on national TV the possibility he dropped the ball in Afghanistan.

"My opponent tonight continued to say things he knows are not true ... it is especially shameful in the light of a new tape from America's enemy," Bush said following the debate.

Clearly, someone is lying about Tora Bora. Hmm ... wonder who it could be.

Roughly three months after he left Washington and New York in flames and inspired Bush to vow to capture him "dead or alive," a desperate bin Laden was finally cornered – trapped like a rat, according to Suskind. The CIA had a bead on him in about a 15-square-mile area in the White Mountains of Afghanistan. It was the one moment in the five years since 9/11 that his location could be pinpointed.

By Dec. 15, 2001, bin Laden got on his shortwave radio and praised his "most loyal fighters" – about 800 strong at that point, dug in throughout the complex caves and trenches of Tora Bora – and told them the battle against the "crusaders" would continue "on new fronts," Suskind says. Then he led them in prayer, and slipped away on horseback into Pakistan.

By all accounts, we knew where bin Laden was at the time, and blew a golden opportunity to take him and his inner circle out. He and an estimated 90% of his forces – including almost all of al-Qaeda's senior management – survived the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, according to Michael Scheuer, the CIA officer who ran the bin Laden tracking unit at Langley.

And most of them escaped across the border to Pakistan after we neglected to "dog the escape hatches" with our own troops, Scheuer says. No effective cordon was thrown up around al-Qaeda's leaders – even though the national mandate after 9/11 was to once and for all decapitate al-Qaeda's leadership so the organization could no longer plot and execute major attacks. (Six days after the 9/11 attacks, Bush himself announced to reporters: "The focus right now is on Osama bin Laden, no question about it. He's the prime suspect and his organization.")

"Sadly," says al-Qaeda expert Peter Bergen, "there were probably more American journalists at the battle of Tora Bora than there were U.S. troops."

Just weeks after bin Laden escaped, Bush assured the press at his Crawford, Texas, ranch that "he is not escaping us." Then, as it became obvious that he had indeed escaped, the president acted as if the über-terrorist were never the prime target in the war on terror. "I truly am not that concerned about him," he shrugged.

With the help of spinmeisters Karl Rove and Mike Gerson, the president then proceeded to morph bin Laden into Saddam Hussein. If you can't defeat your enemy, create a new one that you can defeat.

Would capturing bin Laden make a difference? "Absolutely," said Bruce Riedel, a 29-year CIA veteran. Allowing him to run loose has "created a mystique" around him in the Muslim world that he's "beyond the reach" of Western infidels.

"We need to smash that mystique," he said. Until that happens, bin Laden will be lionized as the "Robin Hood" of the Islamic jihad.

Riedel agrees that Bush had him cornered more than five years ago and took his eye off the prize. He argues he should have kept his focus on bin Laden in South Asia instead of diverting resources to Iraq.

"It's inexusable not to go after" bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders still today, he said. They are operating with relative impunity more than 1,000 miles away from Iraq, where Bush insists on pretending the "central front" in the war on terror is located.

Today Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Franks exalt the initial Afghan operation as an unqualified success ("remarkable," in fact, Rummy boasts). But Osama bin Laden is on the loose again because they allowed him to escape from Tora Bora, and then blew him off apparently for good to start a wag-the-dog war in Iraq that's back-firing, big-time. It's that simple.

If bin Laden directs another attack on America from his new redoubt inside Pakistan, the flawed Afghan operation will go down – alongside the non-sequitur war in Iraq – as the worst chain of military blunders in U.S. history.

I wonder...

Who would vote this important article down. Hmmmm... I wish blog voting was public. That way, we could see who is voting down important blogs.

When this story was originally posted in August 2005, I posted the following:

"Very simply... The "Perpetrator" of the 9/11 Attacks was allowed to escape by the Bush Administration. How does that make you feel?"

I went to all of the right leaning sites, posted that story, and asked that question. They didn't like me very much.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Jon, what are some

of the "right-leaning sites" you've posted to?

Just curious, for other 9/11 truth posting actions.


That's a hard question... considering I've been banned from all of them.

Sean Hannity's board I know was one of them. indystar I believe. I honestly don't remember.

Ask SBG... he and I used to go to right wing sites just to "f" with people. :D

I actually think it was the promotion of this story that got me banned from John Conyers' site. It was either this one, or the one that said the State Dept. refused to cooperate with a German court trying to convict an alleged co-conspirator in the crimes of 9/11.

This is one of those stories that goes into the category of, "This is exactly the opposite of what I would think would happen, if the official story was true."

For instance, if the 9/11 attacks were as we were led to believe, wouldn't they have shut down all borders after 9/11? If the 9/11 attacks were as we were led to believe, wouldn't they have wanted to investigate them so as to make sure they would never happen again?

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

i gave it a 1

because it's a racist piece of yellow journalism reinforcing the official gov't version. yeah, i read your reasons for posting this. i disagree. this article is the definition of gatekeeping and serves no other purpose intellectually, psychologically, or otherwise. thanks for your time.


are you suggesting tim osman is alive?

and does it really matter if he is? no, because he is/was a controlled asset and had nothing to do with blowing up the towers. as for me, i think he died a long time ago.
again, posting this article about bush's mad chase, or lack thereof, for the boogeyman serves no useful purpose other than GATEKEEPING.


I'm suggesting that I don't know, and neither do you. I already explained the purpose of posting this article. No where in that description did I mention gatekeeping. That is your opinion which you are entitled to. I think you're wrong.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

I also gave it a 1

and I'm all for making blog ratings and comment votes public.

Gosh, I sure hope Obama does a better job of finding Osama!

I think this is

a very important story, and I gave it a "10".

However, I think this articcle is easier to read:


(and Newsweek is a more "authoritative" source in the minds of the sheeple)

I just...


"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
GW Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
GW Bush, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Train keeps rolling. - Great quotes.

Great quotes to have on hand Cattle. I imagine Tora Bora occurred somewhere between these two dates? If we could ever get a public forum, we'd kick their ass with facts like this. Hopefully people start to care more and we get the forum we need. May 24th on "The View" is a damn good start too :)
Wolf Blitzer and Keith Olbermann both covered the new JFK evidence in the last days. I was happy to see that.

thanks and yes

the Tora Bora bombing and Bin Laden "escape" was November 2001, according to this Washington Post article from April 2002


Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Rated 10

Just sent this piece to Ron Paul's campaign on the hope that he starts talking about it in the debates. His last attempt on 9/11 issues was poor to counterproductive.

Plus, it's already been breached by Kerry in 2004, so it's officially acknowledged as a legitimate criticism.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.


That was the first and only time I remember thinking Kerry was for real. Except when I read about his investigations into the Government drug running.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

"reported facts as opposed to unproven theories"

These are not facts. They are 5-year old propaganda claims, not much better than this:


How can you say on the one hand the government has provided no evidence, then turn around and call this a "fact"?

This has been widely reported for years, and was a big issue in the 2004 election. And it's unverifiable and most likely a big lie. Why should a truth movement spread government propaganda?


From who? Gary Bernsten? Gary C. Schroen? I gotta tell ya Ningen. It seems like you're just trying to start an argument. What kind of propaganda shows this Administration couldn't care less about Osama Bin Laden (lending further credibility to our cause)? What kind of propaganda exposes agendas of nation building, and regime change? What kind of propaganda gives an indication that this Administration would rather keep their all powerful boogeyman alive so as to keep the American public afraid?

Maybe we should promote Space Beams, Mini-Nukes, TV-Fakery instead?

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Remember those Special Ops Soldiers from Fort Bragg

that committed suicide and killed their wives after they came back from Afghanistan?

It was Special Ops Soldiers from Fort Bragg that were among the first to go into Afghanistan after 9/11 to find bin Ladin. The story I heard was that indeed they did find bin Ladin and had him cornered. They were ready to go in for the capture, when the big guns showed up and took over their operation. Supposedly they saw bin Laden get on a helicopter and he was taken away.

By July 2002, when these guys got back home all of a sudden they start killing their wives and themselves. Of course, the military claimed the killings had no connection to each other or these soldiers service in Afghanistan. Must have been something in the water, I suppose?


Yes, propaganda

It supports the unproven assertion that Al Qaeda did 9/11, and the lie that the reason for invading was to shut down Al Qaeda and capture bin Ladin. The reason all along was geopolitical, and the fairy tale you support was the lie to get Americans to shut up and go along.

Why should I believe Gary Bernsten? He's in the CIA, and as such is a liar almost by definition.

Space beams and mini-nukes, and especially TV Fakery are much closer to the truth than this recycled propaganda.

At least the space beam and mini-nuke arguments are looking at what brought the Twin Towers done and killed all those people, unlike this recycled John Kerry election speech - "I would have gotten bin Ladin." I see nothing wrong with looking at exotic weapons, though I'm not personally convinced and have doubts about Judy Wood.

And TV Fakery is looking at the military's use of the media as a very powerful weapon. I have said before that if there is even a 10% chance of this being true, it must be vigorously pursued, because the implications are so profound and dangerous. I'll give it a 95% chance of being true, and a warning that next time it won't be so easy to detect.


"Space beams and mini-nukes, and especially TV Fakery are much closer to the truth than this recycled propaganda."

Now I understand John.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders


didn't some dude named 'john albanese' post this as a blog yesterday morning only to remove it after a few negative comments and ratings were applied to this 'evil muslims did 9/11' disinfo piece? hmmmm....talk about rehashing some old news.

As a matter of fact, yes!

Pretty weird, huh? He yanked it and Jon Gold re-posted it. What's interesting is that there is at least one regular poster on blogger who is forbidden to post on any Jon Gold blogs (and Gold to post on his) who would be likely to have a lot to say about why this is racist and props up the official story about evil Muslims. But now he can't. Oh, well...

You know...

For a fact that evil men, who just happened to be Muslim, weren't involved in any way, shape, or form?

Tell me... who was flying those planes if not the evil men that happened to be Muslim?

I thought I made this point to you already in this thread...

Now, if you are going to say that there were no hijackers, then I will say you are full of it. You don't know what took place on those planes anymore than I do. The argument that promoting information pertaining to the alleged hijackers reinforces the idea that everyone should hate all Muslims is absurd, and here's why...

The 9/11 Truth Movement, to my knowledge, blames elements within the U.S. Government for the attacks. Not Muslims. One of the purposes of the 9/11 Truth Movement is to STOP the genocide taking place against innocent Muslims in the Middle East.

To me, that sounds like the most pro-Musliim thing I've ever heard.

As Donna Marsh O'Connor said in front of the United Nations 9/11/2005, "You went to Iraq for 9/11, why? Is one Arab the same as all Arabs? How dare that work in America!"

Some people realize that a crime is a crime, no matter what ethnicity/religion pulls it off, and that you should NEVER blame an entire race of people because of the actions of a few.

Just today, it's been insinuated that I am a racist, and a disinformationist. It's a thankless job being a patriot.

I must be doing something right.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

No evidence for this

Now, if you are going to say that there were no hijackers, then I will say you are full of it. You don't know what took place on those planes anymore than I do. The argument that promoting information pertaining to the alleged hijackers reinforces the idea that everyone should hate all Muslims is absurd, and here's why...

None. If there were, you would know that there were hijackers on the plane. You don't know that. So yes, you're promoting an unproven assertion that has led to racial hatred, and feel-good statements can't stop that.

No one is saying you're a racist, John. The point is that the entire official lie is causing racial hatred and is the justification for war, and absence real evidence of Arab involvement, we should not stipulate to this essential part of the government lie.

Sure, Muslims might have been involved as patsies. I assume that their role was to be visible before 9/11 - no telling what they were told about their flight training. That's different from stipulating that Muslim hijackers flew those planes.

David Ray Griffin is inconsistent on this and I find that incoherent. He talks about no proof of hijackers and the absence of evidence of a plane, then talks about a standdown.

No planes and TV Fakery is a coherent theory -- it was all blips on radar screens, decoy planes, faked videos, and other forms of deception. A big war game with real world, highly profitable results for the corporations that own the media. I doubt that many people in the media knew what was going on - like the guys in NEAD, they were getting their information from CNN or their own feeds.

Planes couldn't be shot down so there were none to find - no need to blame loyal people in the military. You should take a look at it. It makes a lot of sense.

Whether or not you do that, please consider whether this failure to capture bin Ladin nonsense was very effective when it was a major issue in the 2004 presidential election.

Ningen knows that I disagree with his

assessment of the video fakery hypothesis. However, in terms of the DANGER presented by various attempts to narrate the events of 9/11, the Osama myth has led to the deaths of something approaching a million people, with the real potential for the Democrats to continue to use it to justify some continuation of the war(s). I'd call that much more dangerous than arcane arguments about whether tv images can be faked in real time.