In August 2001, O'Neill resigned in frustration and took up a new job as head of security at the World Trade Center. He died in the September 11th attack.
The reviews and articles can be found at the floowing links.
Irish Times
Asia Times
Truthout
Islam Web
And for you French speakers go here and read the Le Mond article.
Assuming some truth in the allegations, my thoughts are as follow....
The one major fault I see with this is that it does not take into account the vast amount of time and planning that went into the attacks on 11 September 2001. According to some things I've heard, those attacks had been in the planning stages for some time.
Still one has to wonder if the threat to bomb the Taliban had any affect on the timing of the terror attacks on the United States.
And one has to wonder if the slowdown of investigations on Bin Laden and terrorism would have had an affect on the events of 11 September 2001.
If true, what I want to know is what in the heck was Bush thinking slowing down terror investigations to help big oil wtih it's negotiations with the freaking Taliban?
Why did the Bush Administration let big oil / big business define national foreign policy and interests?
Final thought, Bush has a great many questions to answer.
[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Hm. Possibly he was thinking the same thing the Pro Cuba trade folks are thinking when they want us to end the embargo on Cuba, and the same thing the Pro China Trade people were thinking when they were lobbying for normalizing trade relations with China... that a major economic influx might help hasten social reforms in the country?
If Bin Laden was mad at the US for having troops (invited there) in Saudi Arabia, he must have been furious at the thought of US companies moving right in on his new home turf.
Oh, and one more thing: Don't trust the French.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'm kind of disturbed by the U.S. envoy's threat to bomb the Taliban if they didn't cave in to the US's demands (mind you, this was before 9/11 occured). Does Bush think its okay to declare war on a country (albeit, hard to find a more deserving one then the Taliban) if they don't want a pipeline running through ... ?
Very disturbing.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I wonder about the context.
By taht point, LOTS of people were already anti-Taliban, and it's possible that the US was considering measures against it.
Think of it this way, it's like saying to the enemy "I was planning on coming down hard on you... but if you agree to this, maybe I won't come down quite so hard.. maybe we can avoid this altogether."
I don't trust their interpretation of the dialogue. Nations just don't use that language when dealing with each other.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Was the Taliban recognized as the legitimate "head" of Afghanistan ... ? And we're talking behind-the-doors negotiations here anyway.
Speaking of which, have you figured out who John Edwards is yet?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yah, he's the supposedly "independent" senator from North Carolina who ran as a centrist but rubber-stamped for the Liberal Democrats 94% of the time last year.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'm glad to see you did some research.
So, he didn't rubber-stamp with the moderate Democrats?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"When the negotiations started to go south, the Bush Administration told the Taliban to accept 'a carpet of gold or you'll get a carpet of bombs.'"
I don't believe it. Even though that quote is dumb and makes no sense, it's still too clever for Bush to have thought up. :-)
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
"Bush Administration began to negotiate with the Taliban about oil rights and pipelines, ect. immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad."
I heard that one reason the US didn't go into the middle east sooner was something about oil and supplies.
And I hear on CNN that Saddam Hussien is saying that his country will destroy any force that threatend iraq... He said that just before Desert Storm too. The US Air Force shoulda turned that putrid pile of rotting flubber into... uh... a smaller pile of putrid rotting flubber (for lack of better descriptive words)a LONG time ago.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Yes, because there were no Marines or soldiers involved in Desert Storm at all, and Navy fighters have NEVER flown over Iraq ever.
The US Air Force
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I'm not sure that was meant to be malicious or a slight on any other branches of the armed forces there Jeff.
But the question I have are these.
- Do the allegations of obstruction an FBI investigation on terror bother anyone here in the least bit?
- Do the allegations that foreign policy considerations and criminal terror investigations were subverted by the oil buisness bother anyone here at all?
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Not much more than the allegations that Bat-Boy has been recruited by the army to go into Afghanistan's caves to look for BinLaden.
And that Nostradamus predicted all of this.
Anybody can make allegations. The hard part is backing that up. Something that our sensation-hungry society often forgets.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
The usual spin.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I never knew "Show me the evidence of wrongdoing" was 'spin.'
Then again, your side is well-established as the best players in the 'guilt by accusation' game, when you use the accusation to 'prove' the guilt.
I can see it now...
"Are you now, or have you ever been, speaking to anybody on or related to the board of Enron?"
"Well, I once discussed Grisham's latest book with Enron's vice president in charge of stem bolts' neice.."
"AHA!"
"'AHA', WHAT?"
"Doesn't matter! BURN THE WITCH!!!"
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Well, crap on a stick there Rob, as I recall, it was simply the allegations of wrongdoing the had Clinton investagated for half of his entire term.
If you want to bitch about Enron's access to most of Mr. Bush's administration and the formation of domestic policy, there's an actual thread for that.
If you want to talk about Mr. Bush's obstruction of an FBI investagation for the gain of the oil industry that he and his administration came from, this is the place.
However, a dismissive attitude is what I've come to expect for our two champions of right-wing justice. It's an intresting and predictable thing to watch.
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I don't see much of a case here.
These guys said 'this happened' and the rest is hearsay.
There's nothing that really supports this... certainly less than there is for Enron, and we know how flimsy that case is from the other thread.
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
The same can be said of Gennifer Flowers and Whitewater.
Only this is actully serious.
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Oh, and a cartoon for discussion purposes is hardly presenting evidence.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
i was not trying to be malicious to other branches of the military. i'm just saying that because the air force was the first branch to be involved in Desert Storm and later, Desert Fox. the ground war came later. And i'm saying that they shoulda blown Saddam into little tiny bits. just like they're doing in Afghanistan.
Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
Asking for evidence of unsubstantiated claims is a typical response from First o' Two? You'd think that such a thing would be a smart thing to do.
At least with the Clinton debacle there was evidence- the fact that Congress waffled on it doesn't change that. This little report doesn't have any except that two french guys said so. Give it up.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
You wouldn't know evidence if it slapped you in the face. Always that dismissive attitude...
You think these "two french guys" pulled the whole story out of their ass. Sorry, that is just a liiiittle bit too unlikely for my taste, what with Bush having been bought into the WH by Big Oil et all. I am rather sure their sources are somewhat more reputable than those of the average Jean-Luc. It'd be illogical (to coin a phrase) for them to jeopardise their careers - and make total fools of themselves - by producing phony information, don't ya think?
It's often the independent foreign researchers who manage to turn up the truth in an investigation.
Hmm... this road looks awfully familiar. Could it be we've been down it before?
[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
These two French writers claim that the second-in-command at the FBI told them this in an direct quote:
quote:And Rob claims that is hearsay? Sounds an awfull lot like a journalist quoting a source to me.
...the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.
It's a pretty scandalous charge. One that should be looked at in greater depth.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
God told me you had 'the intellectual capacity of a raisinette.'
There, I quoted a source, so I must be truthful.
May the Gods save us from the credulous.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, if you're speaking to 'God', then we know how accurate you are, don't we?
But, hey, I suppose the FBI's #2 man is an idiot. After all, Rob's equating him with God.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:No, you're not supposing that.
I suppose the FBI's #2 man is an idiot
You're supposing he said what the French journalists say he said.
Perhaps it's true, perhaps not. People can say other people said lots of things, without being truthful, if there's something in it for them (like a lucrative book deal).
Remember the respected journalist who ghostwrote Howard Hughes's autobiography?
Remember the Hitler Diaries?
Remember "Go Ask Alice?"
Remember back when the "Weekly World News" was still pretending to be real?
[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Rob, people might listen to your arguements more if you didn't go around insulting the population of a whole country to undermine two people. It reeks of a certain desperation to attack something for which you have no other weapon to do so.
the froggies
Using your logic, I could debase your arguements by arguing that anyone who lived at home until age thirty doesn't deserve to be listened to.
And since your whole arguement seems to be "the French aren't trustworthy, and the darn liberal media certainly isn't!" it is thus promptly ignored.
Thank you for playing.
[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
You were right about the froggies... don't know why I said that. My mind was elsewhere, I guess.
However, use of an unpopular word does not invalidate the rest of the argument, depite what the PC brainscrubbers have told you.
Everybody spins.
Some folks fib.
I've seen enough "the untold story" and "top censored stories" and "what the papers didn't tell you" stories to know that the media can fib just as well as anybody else.
I know of people who have falsified stories, quotes, and data to get THEIR stories told, from regular folks all the way up to best-selling 'expose' authors. I know of stories that 'everyone' accepts as true that aren't. Like the 'high number' of incidents of tampered-with candy on Halloween.
Verify, then return. I never take the word of ONE man. (Or in this case, one team).
[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:I didn't realize PC brainscrubbers were the ones that implanted the idea that insulting a person (by calling them 'froggies', or how long they lived at home) wasn't a way to win a debate. Wow. I guess they got to you?
However, use of an unpopular word does not invalidate the rest of the argument, depite what the PC brainscrubbers have told you.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
God to you eh? In the form of a white dove or a whisper on the wind. Or, did He send a flesh and blood person to talk to you like the former number 2 guy at the FBI?
My guess is that if we read the book, one would find some supporting evidence...not that you missed that part of my first post stating that no one here had read the book. If you notice, when I wrote I called the charges allegations or something of that sort.
I bring up these charges for discussion, not saying it was true or not. I do, however, think it's important for a person who made character such a big issue during the last election to have his actions while in office held up to scrutiny.
Obstruction of an FBI investigation sounds like a pretty serious charge for someone to make about Mr. Bush in a public forum. I can't think of many journalists here at the Times who would go public for the short term goal of selling a book and ruining their reputaion and future forever in process. I guess for you, it's just easier to call them liars and be done with it.
Still, if you think it's effective just to call the French guys liars, cause that's an effective way not to deal with the issue, then by all means Fo2, let's do that. Oh, what evidence do you base that on? Just cause you're so hip and media savy?
You don't know if the writers lied or if their charge is true...you won't admit that...but the one sure thing is you don't care to find out or dicuss the possibility of it being true.
It's a comforting thought that the idea of Mr. Bush obstructing a ciminal investigation doesn't bother any of our right-wingers at all.
[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well, I finally found some reviews of this book on this page:
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/bl_tft.htm
Of course, there's also a link to this, which casts their acceptance of the book in a somewhat dubious light...
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wtc.html
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I'd say more than somewhat dubious.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I see, so if I post a link to a fundie Christian webpage praising something, it invalidates that which it praises?
Intervesting.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I didn't say 'invalidates,' I said 'renders dubious.' There's a difference.
So far, that's the only place I've seen that book reviewed.. but I'll keep looking.
It is, though, my general opinion that if you find a source which is frequently (primarily) quoted by nutballs, it's likely a nutball source.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
So if George W. Bush gets a good job review from some fundementals' website ...
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
This was the most interesting part of this article, the rest is mostly names places and alleged negotiations.
quote:I don't know how to find out if Afghanistan was on the lists or not but it would be interesting.
By way of corroboration, one should note the curious fact that neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration ever placed Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, despite the acknowledged presence of Osama bin Laden as a guest of the Taliban regime. Such a designation would have made it impossible for an American oil or construction company to sign a deal with Kabul for a pipeline to the Central Asian oil and gas fields.
So if anyone can please add the url.
Here is the rest of the article
http://members.telering.at/islam/texte/0100/132_us_warplan_Afg.htm
And here is an interview with the authors.
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/02/08/forbidden/index.html?x
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
No. You're not getting it.
It's like... oh, the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." A source frequently quoted by all sorts of nutball groups to 'prove' that the Jews are out to take over the world, slay all the goyim, and sacrifice people to Satan. That the book is entirely fictional, and well-debunked, is generally ignored or not even known. But sometimes, even semi-rational people quote from it.
Anyway, I just went and seached for more reviews of this book. Though most were either simple statements of the books existence, (or worse, their "review" just restated what the book said with no critical analysis) and most were on what I could generously call 'fringe' sites, "astrologyforthepeople" and "freemasonwatch" for two... there were a few balanced reviews.
Here's one, hardly from a 'right-wing' source:
http://eatthestate.org/06-12/NaturePolitics.htm
[ March 05, 2002, 13:32: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Strange, this reminds me of a news report I saw today regarding a Russian businessman, Boris Berezovsky, who is now in London and making claims that the 1999 bombings of some blocks of flats in Russia, blamed on Chechen-backed Islamic terrorists, which led to an offensive against Chechnya and fostered a mood that lead to the election of Vladimir Putin, was actually carried out by elements of the Russian government. He can't prove - and oesn't really suugest - that Putin was directly involved or instigated the act, just that a firm intention was to help him come to power.
Read about it here.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Thank goodness you waited a month and a half to post links that I posted on the first page of this thread!!
So far, that's the only place I've seen that book reviewed.. but I'll keep looking.
Waaaay back on January 11th.
We're saved!!
[ March 05, 2002, 19:06: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
That was the only review he found that he could find a way to sound sincere about giving us a review, but be able to discredit at the end. Strangely he then finds another review, quickly that totally discredits the book, and from some posslbe leftwing entity. Makes you wonder if he's not from the OSI.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Actually, the second review was the only "review" I could find, since LJ and PW don't seem to have reviewed it yet. None of the others were real reviews, just restatements of the contents.
The newspaper says that the OSI (or at least, the rumors about it) proved so unpopular that the Pentagon has already given up on the idea.
Of course, the fringies will say "See? It's the disinformation campaign! It's already STARTED!!" *gasp* *boggle*
Then they'll all put on their Nikes, eat their pudding, and have a nice, long rest.
[ March 06, 2002, 12:14: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
But, Rob, Jay posted those links you did. Why did you feel the need to post them again?
I guess it's easier for you to make fun of people then admit that you committed a librarian's worst flaw: you failed to read.
Gee.
[ March 06, 2002, 12:47: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
waitafraggin'minnit.
Jay's Links:
Irish Times
Asia Times
Truthout
Islam Web
MY links:
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/bl_tft.htm
http://eatthestate.org/06-12/NaturePolitics.htm
WHICH of these are the SAME?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Wow, Rob is -- for once in his life -- correct about the URL. I guess it would've happened sooner or later.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Remind me never to hire you as a research librarian there Robespierre.
Your link, first article:
quote:which is, let's see, copywrited 2001 Asia Times Online Co. Ltd
U.S. Policy on Taliban Influenced by Oil"
By Julio Godoy
(first two paragraphs)
Under the influence of United States oil companies, the government of President George W. Bush initially blocked intelligence agencies' investigations on terrorism while it bargained with the Taliban on the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.
In the book, "Bin Laden, La Verite Interdite" (Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth), that was released recently, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.
My Asia Times link:
quote:Your link, second article:
US policy on Taliban influenced by oil - authors
By Julio Godoy
(first two paragraphs)
PARIS - Under the influence of United States oil companies, the government of President George W Bush initially blocked intelligence agencies' investigations on terrorism while it bargained with the Taliban on the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.
In the book Bin Laden, la verite interdite (Bin Laden, the forbidden truth), that was released recently, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.
quote:oddly enough, this was copywrited 2001 ireland.com.
U.S. Efforts to Make Peace Summed up by 'OIL'
By Lara Marlowe
(first two paragraphs)
The fate of John O'Neill, the Irish-American FBI agent who for years led U.S. investigations into Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network, is the most chilling revelation in the book Bin Laden: The Hidden Truth, published in Paris this week.
O'Neill investigated the bombings of the World Trade Centre in 1993, a US base in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam in 1998, and the USS Cole last year.
My Irish Times link:
quote:The only one you missed re-posting is the article by Dr. Firoz Osman on the Islam Web link.
US efforts to make peace summed up by 'oil'
A new book alleges years of attempts to arrest Osama bin Laden being blocked by the US , one of the authors tells Lara Marlowe
(first two paragraphs)
ANALYSIS: The fate of John O'Neill, the Irish-American FBI agent who for years led US investigations into Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, is the most chilling revelation in the book Bin Laden: The Hidden Truth, published in Paris this week.
O'Neill investigated the bombings of the World Trade Centre in 1993, a US base in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam in 1998, and the USS Cole last year.
The Truthout link is a double of the Godoy article.
For full disclosure, the Lara Marlowe on Serendipity does contain an extra paragraph or two, but not enough for anyone to call them different articles.
The Asia Times and the Irish Times are what I like to call root links. I posted these to allow the reader more information about the entity that ran the article...and which you, Rob, apparently did not read.
Even when I said they were the same.
Odd that.
[ March 06, 2002, 19:22: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Has it ever occurred to you, way down deep in the dark crannies of your cerebral cortex, that I said "reviews _I_ found" because your reviews had already been posted, and I was looking on DIFFERENT sites?
Just because the articles quoted are from the same source file does NOT mean that the URL's or the surrounding materials are the same, which is what I was getting at.
If two people writing books/articles/webpages about the same topic both quote the same source, this to be EXPECTED, it is NOT bad research. It is the convergence of similar sets.
The fact that the webpages drew from the same sources means virtually nil. The actual COMMENT on the pages, ABOUT the article abstract is what's relevant, NOT the abstract itself.
For instance, you'll notice that the "serendipity" article LEAVES OUT the part of the review in the Irish Times that says:
quote:They also leave out this entire bit:
"Less convincingly, they conjecture that the September 11th suicide attacks were the result of the failure of those negotiations."
quote:I notice you make no mention of my second post. Good. That's the one I actually found a REVIEW in, after all.
For the Taliban - assuming its leadership had advance knowledge of the suicide attacks - September 11th was a sort of pre-emptive strike.
Brisard and Dasqui� claim a significant part of the Saudi royal family supports bin Laden. "Saudi Arabia has always protected bin Laden - or protected itself from him," says Brisard. He points out that attacks inside the kingdom targeted US interests, never the Saudis.
Khalid bin Mahfouz is the former chairman of the kingdom's biggest bank, the National Commercial Bank, who, with 10 family members received Irish citizenship in December 1990. Brisard and Dasqui� call him "the banker of terror".
The 73-year-old Mahfouz is now under house arrest in the Saudi resort of Taif, accused by the FBI and CIA of having diverted $2 billion to Islamic charities that helped bin Laden.
[ March 07, 2002, 12:59: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
But, Rob, as Jay pointed out, the articles you posted are nearly identicle to what he posted. As in, they're the same articles. As in, uh, hello?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Look back and read it now that I've finished editing that last post. Hello.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
A different URL and all...that explains it.
Or as the great Bugs Bunny said, it is to laugh.
Anyway, GLAD to see that the action of RANDOM words in ALL caps isn't lost on just one person.
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3