CIA Bad Apples Named By Whistleblowers

Bush and Clinton counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke alleges that the CIA improperly blocked information from being passed to the FBI which would have stopped 9/11. Many other top counter-terrorism experts question the “official” governmental version of 9/11 as well.

Yesterday, FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds – along with producers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy – named two additional CIA officers who they allege blocked the information from being passed to the FBI. See this, this and this.

According to New Yorker and Wall Street Journal reporter Jane Mayer, one of these CIA agents was also instrumental in U.S. torture and rendition, including the torturing of an innocent man.

It is certainly beyond dispute that 9/11 was foreseeable. And it is beyond dispute that the CIA could have stopped 9/11, but failed to do so.

But other intelligence agencies – like the NSA – were also listening into the hijackers’ phone calls, and an FBI informant rented a room to two hijackers. So it is not like the other agencies were helpless in light of CIA failures. NSA, FBI or other intelligence services could have stopped 9/11 as well. And various government teams tasked with tracking Al Qaeda were disbanded or stopped prior to 9/11. See this.

But professor Michel Chossudovsky argues that all of the claims of “foreknowledge” and “intelligence failures” are red herrings, because they still justify the basic phony narrative for the war on terror. Remember, former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate that the war on terror is “a mythical historical narrative”. The war on terror is – and has always been – about regime change in a number of Middle Eastern countries which America considers to be strategic targets.

For example, General Wesley Clark states:

I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September.


So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

And a newly-published memo on U.S. strategy from secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld to President Bush dated September 30, 2001, stated:

If the war does not significantly change the world’s political map, the U.S. will not achieve its aim/ There is value in being clear on the order of magnitude of the necessary change. The USG [U.S. Government] should envision a goal along these lines: New regimes in Afghanistan and another key State (or two) that supports terrorism.

And the U.S. appears to be using Al Qaeda brigades as the spearhead of its war in Libya … and soon Syria. See this and this (from an Israeli source frequently cited by top American intelligence officials), this, this, this, this and this.

Moreover, virtually everything the U.S. is now doing was planned before 9/11.

Indeed, professor Chossudovsky documents the creation and control of Al Qaeda by the CIA to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan, and the continuing use and control during the Bosnian war and continuing up until 9/11. Chossudovsky says that 9/11 was a false flag incident.

So are Edmonds’ and Chossudovsky’s claims irreconcilable?

Perhaps. But Edmonds also alleges that Bin Laden worked for the United States right up until 9/11.

In other words, even if the hijackers were patsies or agents of rogue elements within the CIA and/or other governmental agencies, the FBI could have stopped them if the information had not been blocked by the CIA.

So instead of being irreconcilable, they might be providing two different pieces to the same puzzle.



I agree with Professor Chossudovsky that foreknowledge was not needed. As to Clarke's recent interview, I thought it was a joke. He was not believable when he said his good friend Tenet with whom he spoke to on the phone several times a day and who was a close friend withheld evidence from him. It was not logical and Clarke seemed to lack congruency on that point.

Take this to the Bank.

So instead of being irreconcilable, they might be providing two different pieces to the same puzzle.