April, 2004

Dear Friend of Radio Liberty,

"I still to this day do not understand why it was impossible for the United States to find a competent group of Afghans, Americans, third-country nationals, or some combination who could locate bin Laden in Afghanistan and kill him."
Richard Clarke: counterterrorism "czar" under President Clinton, and President Bush [1]

"By the time a CIA briefer gave President Bush the Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief headlined 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,' the president had seen a stream of alarming reports on Al-Qaida's intentions. . . . In April and May 2001, for example, the intelligence community headlined some of those reports 'Bin Laden planning multiple operations,' 'Bin Laden network's plans advancing' and 'Bin Laden threats are real.' . . . 'The system was blinking red,' Tenet told the commission in private testimony."
San Jose Mercury News, April 14, 2004 [2]

". . . the vice president conceded that the unspeakable air attack had caught the government by surprise, even though 'there had been information coming in that a big operation was planned.'"
Maureen Dowd, The New York Times, September 19, 2001 [3]

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people . . . would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."
Condoleezza Rice: May 2002 [4]

"An idea is growing in foreign policy circles in Washington . . . that there is no turning back. We are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan for 25 to 40 years, we are embedded in our prideful unilateralism, and nothing can return us to more traditional American values and principles of action. The hubristic creators of this 'inevitability' planned it this way. . . . Their failures in Iraq have not stopped the fanatic, power-hungry neoconservatives. . . . The hard-liners who dominate this administration - and who have imposed their thinking on an unsuspecting and uninformed president - have led us to eternal conflict with Muslims. . . ."
Georgie Anne Geyer: The Washington Times, March 16, 2004, page A19 [5]

I intended to complete my analysis of the events that took place on September 11, 2001, this month, but the important revelations in Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, and Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission must be addressed. Someone, or some group, is trying to confuse the American people. Reams of disinformation and contradictory reports have been released, misleading articles have been published, highly placed government officials have given conflicting testimony, vital information has been suppressed, and our intelligence agencies appear to be incompetent. CIA and FBI officials claim they didn't have sufficient funding to monitor or track the terrorists. The 9/11 Commission claims the FBI "couldn't connect the dots," but won't permit people who know what happened before the attack to testify in public.

Richard Clarke headed the federal counterterrorism program during the Clinton administration, and the first year and a half of the Bush administration. He claims Osama bin Laden financed the first World Trade Center bombing, planned the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia, financed the Islamic movement in Bosnia and Chechnya, declared war on the United States in 1998, and orchestrated the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Clarke claims President Clinton recognized the danger, and ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to capture or kill bin Laden, but they did not follow through. [6] The CIA also failed to cut off al Qaeda's funds. [7] When U.S. officials asked the Taliban to expel Osama bin Laden, they offered to convene an Islamic court and try him if the U.S. provided evidence against him. The U.S. did not pursue the offer. [8] Why did the CIA refuse to try to capture or kill Osama bin Laden? Why did they refuse to cut off al Qaeda's funding? Why didn't U.S. officials follow up on the Taliban's offer to bring bin Laden before an Islamic court? I'm certain Richard Clarke pondered those question when he wrote:

"I still to this day do not understand why it was impossible for the United States to find a competent group of Afghans, Americans, third country nationals, or some combination who could locate bin Laden in Afghanistan and kill him." [9]

Richard Clarke told the 9/11 Commission that the Bush administration ignored the threat of Islamic terrorism, but Condoleezza Rice testified:

"President Bush understood the threat. . . . He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to Al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was tired of swatting flies. This new strategy was developed over the spring and summer of 2001 and was approved by the president's senior national security officials on Sept. 4. . . . The strategy set as a goal the elimination of the Al Qaeda network and threat and ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of Al Qaeda a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power, intelligence, financial, diplomatic and military to meet that goal." [10]

Condoleezza told the Commission that President Bush understood the terrorist threat because he met with George Tenet at least forty times and discussed the problem. [11] Is that true? The New York Times reports:

"An interim report by the panel's staff offered a stinging assessment of the CIA under Tenet's leadership. . . . Tenet disclosed that he had little contact with President Bush during much of the summer of 2001, a period when intelligence agencies were warning of a dire terrorist threat. Tenet . . . testified that he had no contact at all with Bush in August, the month in which the president received a CIA report suggesting that al-Qaida terrorists were already in the United States and might be planning a domestic hijacking. The agency later telephoned reporters on Wednesday to correct Tenet's testimony, saying he did meet twice with the president that month." [12]

When Attorney General John Ashcroft appeared before the 9/11 Commission he told them a member of their committee was responsible for the 9/11 attack:

"Testifying on Tuesday afternoon before the commission . . . Attorney General John Ashcroft said 'the single greatest structural cause for Sept. 11 was the wall' in the Justice Department that prevented criminal investigators from communicating freely with intelligence agents. 'Somebody built this wall,' Mr. Ashcroft declared. It was established . . . by a memorandum written in 1995 that he had just declassified. 'Full disclosure . . . compels me to inform you that its author is a member of the commission.' As most people in the hearing room knew, he was referring to Jamie S. Gorelick. . . . Ms. Gorelick . . . was deputy attorney general under Janet Reno in the Clinton administration." [13]

No one asked Mr. Ashcroft why he didn't rescind Ms. Gorelick's memorandum when he became Attorney General; he could have solved the problem with a sweep of his pen.

Mr. Ashcroft told the 9/11 Commission he was aware of the Islamic threat because the FBI briefed him regularly on the problem, but Thomas Pickard, the acting Director of the FBI during the months that preceded the 9/11 attack, disputed the attorney general's statement. The New York Times reports:

"There were sharp contradictions between the sworn testimony of Mr. Pickard and Mr. Ashcroft, with Mr. Pickard testifying that Mr. Ashcroft had not made a high priority of counterterrorism issues before Sept. 11 and had told Mr. Pickard that summer that he no longer wished to discuss terrorist threats during regular FBI briefings. One of the staff reports said that Mr. Pickard 'told us that although he initially briefed the attorney general regarding these threats, after two such briefings the attorney general told him he did not want to hear this information anymore.' Mr. Ashcroft angrily testified that he had never made such a comment to Mr. Pickard. . . . Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Pickard agreed, however, that neither of them had been informed by the White House during the summer of 2001 that President Bush had taken an interest in the question of domestic threats posed by Al Qaeda and had received a special CIA briefing on the issue on Aug. 6, after months of dire intelligence warnings that suggested an imminent, possibly catastrophic attack. They also testified that the White House had not provided them the written intelligence report that accompanied the briefing, even though the so- called Presidential Daily Brief outlined investigations by the FBI that summer into the possibility that Qaeda terrorist cells were present in the United States." [14]

Thomas Pickard should have known the details of the terrorist threat because he was the acting director of the FBI at that time, and most of the information in the Aug. 6 PDB came from the FBI. CIA officials claim they weren't allowed to discuss the terrorist threat with the FBI. If that's true, how did they obtain the information that was summarized in President Bush's Aug. 6 PDB?

The New York Times reports:

"Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Freeh have said that their agencies did what they could to try to pre-empt a catastrophic attack in the United States. But commission officials said evidence gathered in their investigation, when added to the detailed public record about law enforcement failings before Sept. 11, showed that the FBI and the Justice Department have never given adequate attention to counterterrorism, and that the bureau had not seen connections among seemingly obvious danger signs in the summer of 2001. Those signs included a July 2001 memorandum from an FBI agent in Phoenix warning that Al Qaeda appeared to be training terrorists in American flight schools; the arrest the next month of Zacarias Moussaoui, a flight school student who was later connected to the German terrorist cell that carried out the attacks; and the discovery in late August that two Qaeda operatives had entered the United States. . . . Mr. Ashcroft may also be confronted with an internal administration budget document, dated Oct. 12, 2001, showing that he had gone along with a White House plan to sharply cut an emergency FBI request for $1.5 billion in extra counterterrorism money after the attacks." [15]

Did President Bush know about the 9/11 attack beforehand? He should have known because:

"By the time a CIA briefer gave President Bush the Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief headlined 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,' the president had seen a stream of alarming reports on Al-Qaida's intentions. So had . . . Dick Cheney and Bush's top national security team. . . . In April and May 2001, for example, the intelligence community head- lined some of those reports 'Bin Laden planning multiple operations,' 'Bin Laden network's plans advancing' and 'Bin Laden threats are real.' . . . 'The system was blinking red,' Tenet told the commission in private testimony.'" [16]

When Vice President Cheney appeared on Meet the Press on September 16, 2001, 5 days after the terrorist attack:

". . . the vice president conceded that the unspeakable air attack had caught the government by surprise, even though 'there had been information coming in that a big operation was planned.'" [17]

During a press conference on May 17, 2002, Condoleezza Rice stated:

"I don't think anyone could have predicted that these people . . . would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." [18]

Did Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice know that al Qaeda was going to use airplanes as missiles? Condoleezza Rice may not have known the details of the attack, but she knew al Qaeda planned to strike the United States. [19] Dick Cheney probably knew far more, and followed "orders." U.S. Presidents, and their cabinet members, don't run intelligence operations. The president tells his staff, and the director of the CIA, what needs to be done, and they carry out his request. President Reagan told his staff he wanted funding for the Contras. They obtained the money, but didn't tell Presiden Reagan where it came from so he could deny knowledge of the program. That's how covert operations work. [20]

Richard Clarke monitored the Islamic terrorist movement during the early years of the Clinton administration, and was appointed first National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter- Terrorism in May 1998. [21] He wrote:

"Although neither CIA nor FBI had yet heard of al Qaeda, because of the many known terrorism events of 1993, the Clinton team, from the President down, was seized with the issue by 1994. Clinton, Lake, and I believed our response to terrorism should be high on the list of measures to shape the post-Cold War world." [22]

Following al Qaeda's attack on the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000 Richard Clarke prepared a plan to eliminate Osama bin Laden's haven. He recommended cutting off al Qaeda's funds, freezing their bank accounts, closing fake Islamic charities, and launching a military attack on Afghanistan. Clarke wanted the U.S. to fund the Northern Alliance, send Special Forces units to Afghanistan, and provide air support when they attacked the Taliban regime. [23] Sandy Berger was President Clinton's National Security Advisor at the time. Time magazine reports:

"Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive-just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole . . . he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security 'principals' on Dec. 20. (2000-ed) But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. 'We would be handing (the Bush Administration) a war when they took office on Jan. 20,' says a former senior Clinton aide. 'That wasn't going to happen.' Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together." [24]

Condoleezza Rice told the 9/11 Commission that President Bush developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda before the 9/11 attack; she testified the ". . . new strategy was developed over the spring and summer of 2001, and was approved by the president's senior national security officials on Sept. 4." What was President Bush's plan? The Bush administration accepted Richard Clarke's plan, but couldn't implement it because the American people didn't want to go to war with Afghanistan, and our allies wouldn't support a pre-emptive strike against the Taliban regime. The Bush administration needed a provocation. [25]

I believe some members of the Bush administration wanted to attack Afghanistan to eliminate the threat of Islamic terrorism, others wanted to destroy the Taliban so U.S. oil companies could build a pipeline across Afghanistan. [26] The members of PNAC wanted to attack Afghanistan so they could go to war with Iraq and establish permanent U.S. bases in the Middle East; others wanted to involve the United States in a series of wars that will bankrupt our country, disillusion our people, and establish a world government. [27]

I believe the intelligence community began working on a program to deceive the American people and precipitate World War III long before George Bush was elected. They knew the president who was elected in 2000, whether he was a Republican or a Democrat, would need an excuse to attack Afghanistan. To accomplish that objective, they orchestrated an elaborate charade to convince the public:

(1) The FBI is led by bumbling idiots,
(2) The FBI "couldn't connect the dots,"
(3) The intelligence community was underfunded,
(4) The FBI couldn't infiltrate the terrorist cells,
(5) Intelligence agents couldn't talk to other agents.

Are those statements true?

(1) The FBI infiltrated and destroyed the U.S. Communist Party, the Mafia, the American Militia, the Christian Identity Movement, and the Aryan nation, but we're told that the FBI couldn't infiltrate the Islamic terrorist movement in the United States. Is that true? I believe the FBI knew the identity of most of the hijackers before the 9/11 attack. When Kristen Breitweiser testified before the Joint Select Intelligence Committee on September 18, 2002, she noted:

"The New York Times reported, 'On Tuesday, a few hours (emphasis added) after the attacks, FBI agents descended on flight schools, neighborhoods, and restaurants in pursuit of leads. The FBI arrived at Huffman Aviation (where several of the hijackers learned to fly-ed) at 2:30 am, Wednesday morning: They walked out with all the school's records, including photocopies of the men's passports.' The New York Times also reported that students at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University said that within hours (emphasis added) of the attacks FBI investigators were seen at their school. . . . How did the FBI know exactly where to go only a 'few hours' after the attacks?" [28]

(2) The public has been told the FBI "couldn't connect the dots," they didn't understand the relationship between the "Phoenix memorandum" (that suggested al Qaeda was planning to hijack airplanes), and the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui in Minnesota. [29] That isn't true. The FBI investigated Zacarias Moussaoui's activities before the attack. I contacted the owner of the flight school in Norman, Oklahoma, because I was told she had important information. The flight instructor told me the FBI contacted her approximately 10 days before the 9/11 attack to verify the fact that Moussaoui had been a student at her flight school, but couldn't learn to fly. Why is that important? The FBI was aware of Zacarias Moussaoui's activities and the threat of terrorist hijackings before the 9/11 attack. The FBI contacted the Norman flight school shortly after the 9/11 attack and asked about Muhammad Atta. The owner didn't recognize the name, but the agents insisted Atta had been there because they knew the motel where he stayed. The flight instructor checked her records and discovered Muhammad Atta had filled out an application, but didn't train there. The FBI knew far more about the Islamic hijackers than they've admitted. [30]

(3) The public has been told the Intelligence Community didn't have enough money to monitor the Islamic terrorist movement. The New York Times reports, "Agents worked on an aging computer system that kept them from knowing what other agents in their own offices, much less those around the country, were working on. Some FBI analysts hired to assess terror threats were assigned to jobs entering data and answering telephones." [31] How could a country that could put men on the moon, and space vehicles on Mars, not have enough money to track a terrorist group that threatened the survival of our nation? Congress doubled the Intelligence Community's funding for counterterrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing. Richard Clarke wrote, "At a time of a decreasing federal budget, we took the federal counterterrorism budget from $5.7 billion in 1995 to $11.1 billion in 2000. The counterterrorism budget of the FBI was increased over 280 percent over that period." [32]

(4) We've been told the FBI didn't know about the terrorists' plan to hijack airliners because they couldn't infiltrate terrorist cells, yet President Bush's August 6, 2001, PDB stated, ". . . FBI information . . . indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives." [33]

(5) We've been told FBI intelligence agents couldn't talk to other FBI agents because the Clinton administration built a "wall" between them. That may be true, but John Ashcroft could have removed that "wall" with a sweep of his pen.

The Intelligence Community is trying to confuse the American people and conceal the fact that some people knew about the 9/11 attack beforehand. The U.S. attack on Afghanistan led to our war with Iraq. More battles lie ahead. Georgie Anne Geyer wrote:

"An idea is growing in foreign policy circles in Washington . . . that there is no turning back. We are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan for 25 to 40 years, we are embedded in our prideful unilateralism, and nothing can return us to more traditional American values and principles of action. The hubristic creators of this "inevitability" planned it this way. . . . Their failures in Iraq have not stopped the fanatic, power-hungry neoconservatives. . . . The hard-liners who dominate this administration - and who have imposed their thinking on an unsuspecting and uninformed president - have led us to eternal conflict with Muslims." [34]

I hope I can complete my analysis of the events that took place on 9/11 next month.

Our audience continues growing; the first hour of our evening program is heard on eleven stations, and over a thousand people listen to at least one of the three Internet outlets that carry our program.

Bound volumes of the Radio Liberty letters by year from 1999 to 2003 are available. I have four scheduled speeches and several meetings next month. Our annual seminar will be held in Santa Cruz on November 6. I hope you can make arrangements to attend. More details will be forthcoming.

The United States has entered a series of senseless wars that will have disastrous consequences. Some people don't want to consider the terrifying implications of our foreign policy, but they must, because "truth" is our most effective weapon. I close this letter with a segment of Patrick Henry's speech to the Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775:

"It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it." [35]

Remember - . . . we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places; Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. [36]

I appreciate your support, and your prayers.

Yours in Christ,

Stanley Monteith




REFERENCES

1. Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies, Free Press, New York, 2004, p. 204
2. Dana Priest, "Sept. 11 panel: Bush alerted early," San Jose Mercury News, April 14, 2004, p. 14 A.
3. Maureen Dowd, "Old Ruses, New Barbarians," The New York Times, September 19, 2001, OP-ED page.
4: www.dailyhowler.com/dh080403.shtml
5. Georgie Anne Geyer, "Forsaking U.S. traditions," The Washington Times, March 16, 2004, p. A19.
6. Clarke, op. cit., p. 134 and 204.
7. Ibid., p. 191-193 and 270.
8. Ibid., p. 208.
9. Ibid., p. 204.
10. "Excerpts From Rice's Testimony Before Commission Investigating Sept. 11," The New York Times, April 9, 2004, p. A12.
11. www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/politics/18SEPT.html
12. Philip Shenon et al, Aug. 2001 CIA memo: "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly," Santa Cruz Sentinel, April 15, 2004, p. A6.
13. David Rosenbaum, "For Members of Panel, Past Work Becomes an Issue in the Present Hearings," The New York Times, April 14, 2004, p. A 17.
14. Philip Shenon et al, "FBI Is Assailed by Panel For Handling of Terror Risks," The New York Times, April 14, 2004, p. A15.
15. Philip Shenon, "9/11 Panel Plans Hard Questions For FBI and Justice Dept. Chiefs," The New York Times, April 6, 2004, p. A20.
16. Dana Priest, op. cit.
17. Maureen Dowd, op. cit.
18. www.dailyhowler.com/dh080403.shtml
19. Dana Priest, op. cit.
20. Michael Ledeen, Perilous Statecraft, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1988.
21. Clarke, op. cit., back page of book cover.
22. Ibid., p. 90.
23. www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html
24. Ibid.
25. Rowan Scarborough, Rumsfeld's War, Regnery Publishing, 2004, p. iii.
26. www.time.com/time/nation/articles, op cit., See Also: Paul Sperry, Crude Politics, WND Books, Nashville, TN, 2003, p. xii.
27. www.newamericancentury.org, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," p. 14. The primary goal of the CFR, and other internationalist groups, is world government.
28. Kristen Breitweiser, September 18, 2002 testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Copies available from Radio Liberty.
29. Philip Shenon, op cit.
30. Personal communication with the flight school owner.
31. www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/politics/18SEPT.html
32. Clarke, op. cit., p. 97.
33. Aug. 6, 2001, PDB. Copy available from Radio Liberty.
34. Georgie Anne Geyer, op. cit.
35. John Bartlett, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 1980, p. 383.
36. Holy Bible, King James Version, Ephesians 6:12-13.


Return to Radio Liberty home page