The Truth Will Out

The following is from "Online Journal" and is a synopsis/review of " Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth [/b] ", a book which has been a best seller in France and which the Il Duce regime has tried to stop from being published in the United States. Nation Books, the publishing arm of the highly respected "The Nation" has decided, though, to publish it in September. The public relations plan to discredit the book has begun and is expected to intensify.

Is there truth to this? Perhaps one has to look at what has happened since the book was published and then each can make his/her own judgement.

1. The man the Il Duce Regime installed as the interim head of the Afgan government has deep ties to the American oil industry.

2. The American representative to Afganistan appointed by the Il Duce Regime was a high executive in an American oil firm.

3. Outside of seeking international aid, the only significant foreign policy action by the new Afgan government during the interim when its primary goal was to pacify and rebuild the country was to announce that the pipeline is a major goal for the Afgan government.

4. The Afgan government has stated that it wants Unocal to build the pipeline which was being negotiated and was then rejected by The Taliban --even though a Brazilian firm also had bid on it with a lower price and more revenues to Afganistan.

5. The Il Duce Regime took a very active role the recent Afganistan meeting which selected the permanent government, working to ensure that the man it installed as the Interim Leader would be named the permanent leader.

Now on with the synopsis:

Quick take on "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth"
By John Emerson
Online Journal Guest Reviewer

February 1, 2002—Ben Laden: La Verite Interdite ("Bin Laden: the Forbidden Truth") by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie is a well-researched piece of mainstream French journalism. It is not a scandal-mongering knockoff—in some places it is so well documented as to be tedious. Besides ample research in print media, the authors received information from disgruntled US sources, together with the French and (presumably) the Israeli intelligence services.

While most of this book seems convincing to me, I am not able to give it an expert critique. I am here merely presenting the most interesting points I found in my reading of this as-yet untranslated book. (The failure to publish an English translation of this French bestseller is a chilling reminder of the degree of corporate control of American corporate media. For those who read French, the book can be bought from Amazon.fr, express mail, for about $32.)

This book is terribly damaging to Saudi Arabia and only slightly less so to the oil industry, US strategic planners, and of course the Bushes. The big story is that Saudi Arabia has been heavily funding fundamentalist Islam, including terrorism, for some time (starting not long after the phony 1973 oil crisis, when their revenues quickly multiplied eightfold). In the Afghan war against the Soviets, massive amounts of both US and (especially) Saudi money went to fund fundamentalist militants, who by 1994 (after the defeat of the Soviet Union and its withdrawal from Afghanistan) directed their hostility to the US. (During the Soviet Afghan war the US was quite friendly to these militants, but they were primarily funded by the Saudis and the Gulf States rather than by the US. And the Saudis had their own agenda in Afghanistan and elsewhere).

Saudi support for fundamentalism comes from members of the establishment, and is distributed through an extremely complex and sophisticated commercial and financial network. (Offshore banks and shell companies used by rich Westerners and large multinationals to hide and transfer funds are equally useful to terrorists—not to mention drug lords.) The bin Ladens and the allied Mahfouz clan are the dominant economic powers in Saudi Arabia. Their influence internally is on a par with that of the Saudi royal family and the Wahhabite religious establishment, but since the two latter groups are ill-equipped to deal with the modern world, these two clans effectively control Saudi Arabia. (Clans like this are the archaic Saudi equivalents of corporations in a secular society. The holdings of the bin Laden clan and of the Mahfouz clan both rank among the top 100 private fortunes in the world).

Since Saudi Arabia is one of the most secretive nations in the world, it is impossible to be sure that everyone in the Saudi establishment has completely cut off its ties with Osama Bin Laden, and there are good reasons to believe that many have not. Despite his present disgrace and loss of Saudi citizenship, Osama has much high-level support in Saudi Arabia, and many are waiting for him to return and reform the corrupt Saudi government on fundamentalist grounds. In Saudi Arabia, family connections are everything and the formal central power is extraordinarily weak. It is a mark of the influence of the bin Laden family that Osama's brother Mahrouz, who participated in the 1979 attack on the grand mosque in Mecca (an attack aimed at the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy), was the only one of 500 attackers who was not executed. (He works to this day in a family business in Medina).

For more than a decade, oil companies have been interested in a pipeline across Afghanistan, which would give convenient access to Central Asian oil. The oil companies have no real interest in social conditions in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else as long as they get their oil, and they were at all times perfectly willing to work with the Taliban or anyone else who could ensure stability in Afghanistan. Since US foreign policy is driven more by oil than anything else, direct and proxy negotiations with the Taliban continued almost without a break from its coming to power in 1994 until August 2001 (a month before the WTC attack).

The book does not say so, but it can be deduced that the WTC attack was a preemptive strike by bin Laden intended to make it impossible for the Taliban to betray him and cut a deal with the US.

A few main points in conclusion. First, from the evidence presented here, the death of Osama bin Laden would have no disastrous impact on the activities of al Qaeda. Its financial structures and networks of militants are still in place, and al Qaeda was never financed primarily by bin Laden's personal fortune. Bin Laden will become a martyred hero, and someone else will take his place. The roots of al Qaeda are to be found in Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and the Sudan are only the hapless proxies of our Saudi friends.

With regard to George W. Bush, we may not have the "smoking gun" here, but the protectiveness of the oilmen and the foreign policy establishment toward the Saudis played a major role in getting us in the mess we're in now. Since the two Bushes who occupied the White House were both oilmen and part of the foreign policy establishment, they cannot escape blame. (Bush the Younger, of course, who couldn't name Pakistan's leader a year ago and laughed at people who thought he should be able to, is part of the foreign policy establishment by birth and ex-officio, rather than by training or competence).

While there is no real evidence in this book for specific Bush foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, we can be sure that they were not as big a surprise as is claimed. Combined with other information about a hands-off FBI policy on domestic terrorism and the return of the entire bin Laden family to Saudi Arabia (without being questioned) at a time when most US airports were locked down, it still can reasonably be suspected that the Bush administration knew that it had something to hide, that it knew that some kind of attack was in the works, and that it was waiting for a pretext to go to war.

Even without any conspiracy theories at all, however, we can see that the administration's public account of these attacks is fraudulent. The roots of the recent Afghan war were not in 9/11. They were the result of the failure of six months of negotiations with the Taliban (ending two to four weeks before the attacks) intended to secure a US-controlled pipeline. US foreign policy, especially under the Bushes, is entirely realistic in the most cynical sense of that term. Early in 2001, the Bush administration laid plans to get that pipeline one way or another. When the diplomatic efforts failed (to put it mildly), the war policy (which was already in place as an option) was put in effect. This war policy has no intrinsic limits and at this point we can only sit and watch it develop.

And here is how much of the more respected news media around the world has handled the story, as compared to the US news media.

FLASH: Before 9/11, the Bush Administration Curbed FBI Anti-Terrorism Efforts, Allegedly in Order to Advance Negotiations for a Government and Gas Pipeline in Afghanistan [/b]

In its issue of November 12, Le Monde summarized a new book, Ben Laden: La Verite interdite (Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth). The book's authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, claim that the Bush administration, up until September 11, was curbing the FBI's anti-terrorism efforts, in order to facilitate negotiations for an enlarged Afghan government which could then revive the Unocal pipeline project through Afghanistan.

An analysis of the book in English became available from www.truthout.com. Since then fuller summaries have appeared in the Asia Times of November 20, and Irish Times of November 19. The Irish Times reports from the book that the first international arrest warrant against bin Laden was filed in March 1998, by Qaddafi in Libya. It was ignored by Interpol, presumably because in the mid-1990s British intelligence was plotting in collaboration with al-Muqatila, bin Laden's Libyan terrorist group, to assassinate Qaddafi.

Only one fragment of the book's argument has reached the mainstream US press. Here for example is the story in the 11/12/01 New York Times, which appears to blame the curbing on the State Department and more specifically a U.S. Ambassador:

"A former F.B.I. antiterror official who was killed at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 complained bitterly last summer that the United States was unwilling to confront Saudi Arabia over Osama bin Laden and that oil ruled American foreign policy, according to a new book published in France.

"The former official, John P. O'Neill, was the director of antiterrorism for the F.B.I.'s New York office when he resigned in August to become chief of security for the twin towers. "All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization can be found in Saudi Arabia," Mr. O'Neill is quoted as saying in the new book, "Ben Laden: La Verite Interdite" ("Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth"), which argues that Saudi support for Mr. bin Laden has been extensive.

"One of the book's co-authors, Jean-Charles Brisard, a security expert who has spent several years examining Mr. bin Laden's financial empire, says in the book that he met with Mr. O'Neill in June and July. Mr. O'Neill is quoted as lamenting "the inability of American officials to get anything at all from King Fahd," the ailing Saudi ruler.

"He explains the failure in one word: oil.

"In telephone interviews and e-mail exchanges, Mr. Brisard elaborated on the book, released this week by the French publishing house Denoel.

"He said he first met Mr. O'Neill in June in Paris, where the two had dinner with a group of French antiterror officials. Mr. Brisard had written a report for the French intelligence services on the finances of Mr. bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization and he gave Mr. O'Neill a copy.

"In late July, he said, they met alone in New York for drinks and dinner, and Mr. O'Neill complained that the F.B.I. was not free to act in international terror investigations because the State Department kept interfering.

"Mr. O'Neill, who had worked on investigations of the first World Trade Center bombing, in 1993, and on the attacks on two American embassies in Africa in 1998, also suggested that he would soon move to the private sector, Mr. Brisard said.

"Mr. Brisard said his conversations with Mr. O'Neill were not interviews. He is publicizing Mr. O'Neill's opinions as `a tribute' to a man he admired.

"Mr. O'Neill's frustrations with the State Department were not secret. He had been leading the F.B.I.'s investigation into the bombing of the destroyer Cole in Yemen in October 2000, but he had been barred in July from returning to Yemen by the United States ambassador there.

"The ambassador, Barbara Bodine, complained that Mr. O'Neill and his associates showed no sensitivity to Yemeni culture or concerns and were harming relations between the two countries.

"After Mr. O'Neill's death in September, Yemeni officials called the F.B.I. and offered to cooperate with their investigations, Barry W. Mawn, the assistant director of the F.B.I., announced at Mr. O'Neill's funeral Mass.

[End of New York Times story.]

In its Opinion Journal, the Wall Street Journal of 11/15/01 also blames "Our Friends at the State Department."

Thus there has been no reporting of the core of the book's argument, as reported by Le Monde:

"Before September 11, the Bush Administration curbed the FBI's antiterrorist activity, because it was conducting intense negotiations with the Taliban....The authors affirm that American diplomacy has been engaged for years in multiple dealings with the Taliban and their neighbors...in order, essentially, to respond to the expectations of the American petroleum companies....They show that the negotiations were resumed, with passion, by the Bush administration, where the petroleum lobby is at the controls."

Le Monde quotes the remarks of a former Pakistani Foreign Minister (Naif Naif) who participated in unofficial diplomatic negotiations last July: "Once an enlarged [Afghan] government was constituted, there would be international aid. Then the pipeline could come."

Details of the July meeting in Berlin (where three American ex-officials including former ambassador Tom Simons attended but the Taliban did not turn up) were previously reported by the London Guardian on 9/22/01. Naif also talks of warnings from the Americans (which the Pakistanis transmitted to the Taliban) of possible military strikes against the Taliban if the Taliban did not comply with American demands. Simons denies the allegation (cf. Brisard and Dasquie, 77).

Oil companies were blamed by O'Neill according to the truthout analysis: "Brisard [and Dasquie] claim O'Neill told them that "the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it".

The full version of this suppressed story helps to make sense of other stories suppressed in this country, such as the report of 11/6/01 on the BBC that the Bush Administration stymied an FBI investigation of the Bush family's business associates, the bin Laden family. The Sydney Morning Herald also reported the story, with details linking the bin Laden investments to the Carlyle Group and George W. Bush's first oil companies (for fuller details see Brisard and Dasquie, 297-98).

Or the story in France's Le Figaro and London's Guardian, that "Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent." Radio France Internationale later supplied the name of the CIA agent -- Larry Mitchell -- who visited bin Laden on July 12.

The oblique treatment in the U.S. press of the new book by Brisard and Dasquie is a good example of why it is so important to keep in touch with the press of the rest of the world. Not only do we realize that important allegations are not being reported in this country, the news not reported helps in many cases to define what is really central to the current campaign.

And now, for a discussion of the Unocal Pipeline:

Afghanistan, Turkmenistan Oil and Gas, and the Projected Pipeline(10/21/01; updated 5/16/02)[/b]

UPDATE, 5/13/02: Karzai to hold talks with neighbors on proposed gas pipeline.

On May 13, the BBC announced that: `Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan's biggest foreign investment project, said Mohammad Alim Razim, minister for Mines and Industries told Reuters.'

`Mr Razim said US energy company Unocal was the "lead company" among those that would build the pipeline, which would bring 30bn cubic meters of Turkmen gas to market annually. Unocal - which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea - has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured. "Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online.'

This announcement comes at a time when the US, according to Stratfor on 5/15/02, is debating whether or not to help quell the dispute between the Karzai central government and the dissenting warlord Padsha Khan in Paktia Province. Obviously the prospects for the viability of a pipeline are intimately linked to the prospects for peace and security in Afghanistan, which are poor unless the US becomes more engaged.

As Ahmed Rashid quotes in Taliban , "peace can bring a piepline, but a pipeline cannot bring peace."

Sorry George, didn't read your entire diatribe, it's the Fourth, and I have peas to pick, and a barbeque to do.

Has oil had an impact on American foreign policy? As long as the eco-nuts keep us from developing our own reserves, yes it will. Without it, the economy grinds to a halt. We wouldn't even be able to afford the electricity to run these computers.

Has the American government perpetrated some of the acts this shining report of French journalism alledges?

george, the French press has as much respect as the town drunk at a temperance meeting.

It's the Fourth, george. Go have fun!

This cracks me up George. Why don't I just quote the "highly respected 'National Review'". Let all objectively determine the ideological bent of "the highly respected ' The Nation '".

And now to the substance (and I use that word advisedly) of this diatribe:

I addressed the matter of "the highly respected 'The Nation'" above. Here is what The Online Journal is all about. Once again, I will let all decide the objectivity of this source.

"Deep ties". Just what does that mean. Was he the CEO of an oil company? Or was he a consultant for Unocal. This point was addressed before and means no more now than it did before. It should come as no surprise when any highly placed individual in the Middle East or Central Asia has prior associations with oil companies.

So what?

I'm not sure how pacifying and rebuilding the country or announcing that the pipeline is a major goal for the Afghan government is a "foreign policy" action but, putting that aside, a major construction project would seem to be a very appropriate action for the new Afghan government if it wants to stimulate employment and economic activity. I would dispute the contention that this has been their only action as well. I know of a company that is, at this very moment, constructing a cellular phone network in Afghanistan. Shall we begin searching the backgrounds of Afghan officials for links with wireless communications companies?

There are any number of reasons for awarding (or not awarding) a construction contract that have nothing to do with price alone. Reasonable expectation of performance or protection from liability (insurance) are just a few of the reasons that can override quoted price. This situation has an added element of our own national interest in terms of security as well. This only demonstrates the simplistic view of how business is done typical of the left.

I would, again, dispute this characterization but assuming that the Bush Administration did promote the continuation of Karzai's leadership, so what. This says more about our interest in the continued stability of Afghanistan than in the construction of an oil pipeline.

What follows is a review of this book by one who obviously is anything but disinterested. Most of it rehashes a lot of what we already know about the Saudis and seems more an indictment of prior administrations' foreign policy going back to 1973 than the current administration until you get to the last three paragraphs:

Let me see if I have this right. This is not a "smoking gun" for the Bush Administration but both Bushes cannot escape blame for the protectiveness of the Saudis because they were both oilmen and part of the foreign policy establishment, presumably going back to 1973. Rather a sweeping statement to which my reply is "poppy****". Of course, the final snide remark in parentheses only illustrates the total lack of objectivity by Mr. Emerson. A member of the foreign policy establishment by birth and ex-officio? Just what the heck does that mean. I suppose I am a member of the insurance industry because my Dad sold insurance for 40 years.

Mr. Emerson starts out by saying "there is no real evidence in this book for specific Bush foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks" but then proceeds to make just that contention unsupported by anything but speculation and innuendo. Show me the factual evidence in support of this astonishing allegation.

This is the most startling accusation of all, again, unsupported by any evidence. It would be interesting for Mr. Emerson to explain how an attack that took well over a year of planning and preparation was percipitated by a breakdown in negotions just two to four weeks before this attack. I would also be interested in hearing about the "diplomatic options" that were available to us and what response, other than war, would be appropriate to the 9/11 attack.

Once again, the oil pipeline explanation to our involvement in Afghanistan is far less plausible than the obvious one. That is, as a result of the 9/11 attack. What will be the shady deal lurking behind our future action in Iraq? And why would people so obviously wrought up over the Saudis and our dependence on their oil have so much concern about a pipeline that would make other (Russian) oil resources more accessible. I don't see shady backroom dealings by grubby businessmen hoping to line their pockets as much as I see a real attempt to do something about our dependence on the Saudis.

This concludes my allotment of time invested in this rediculous three cushion shot of a conspiracy theory that I will spend on this 4th of July. Happy 4th.

George has brought these issues up before and I initially dismissed them. However I am starting to believe there is some truth in them. We once calculated that if we could corner 2% of the world's energy market that would amount to something like $100 billion dollars a year in revenues. This was a few years ago, so it is obviously worth more today. These kinds of sums demand respect. A year ago if I told you that Enron would collapse under the current scandal you would have dismissed it outright. Large corporations are not run by dis-honest (and overpaid) executives; and even if they were, there are external auditors, FERC and the SEC to keep them honest. Now we're learning otherwise. If corporations the size of small countries why not groups in the Federal Government. Hollywood has been making money off these thoughts for years. Truth can be stranger than fiction. Do I believe George Bush knew about Sept 11 beforehand....no, not specifically. If he did, there may be reasons (right or wrong) nothing was done. The bombing of Coventry (in England) is well documented. Churchill learned of it but made the decision not to do anything as the enemy would have learned that they had cracked their toughest codes. It's tough to judge someone without knowing the facts. We will probably not learn the facts until the information is released in 30 years, and possibly not even then.

How can you use this argument to dispell George's point? Someone is paying to construct a cellualr phone system that the average individual scratching a living at the Afghan poverty level will not be able to afford. I remember the marketing plans for Iridium and GlobalStar - people in countries that don't have phone service available through land lines will be able to have a phone. Places like darkest Africa and China. Well as it turned out, these same people couldn't afford the luxury of a phone and both services died through lack of customers. So if someone is putting in a cellular phone system you have to ask yourself why. What we know of pre-Taliban Afghanistan is that there was one industry - opium poppies.

I do believe the stuff about Saudi Arabia - I have heard it from several learned persons. The only way out of this mess may be to send an occupying force into Saudi Arabia to root out the real culprits.

Iainhp,

Irridium and Globalstar were high end satellite telephone systems that were far too expensive even for the average American. There are cellular phone sytems being constructed in many parts of the world where land line infrastructure does not exist and the cellular systems are actually a cheaper alternative to this infrastructure. China has been building theirs for years and it has been very successful. Comparing such systems with Irridium and Globalstar is apples to oranges.

As far as the rest of what you have said, I suppose nothing is so far-fetched as to be inconceivable. Any hypothesis still demands proof to be believable. None has been presented thus far.

As I said, we won't really know the truth until many years have passed. I am, however acknowledging that there may be some truth to what George put in print.

So you'll forgive me for not believing in God???

Websters: hypothesis: "an unproved theory, proposition, supposition, etc. tentatively accepted to explain certain facts or (working hypothesis) to provide a basis for further investigation, argumment"

As for the cell phone stuff, it belongs in a different thread - I am suspicious of the whole telecommunications industry (not in a criminal way, but in a business sense - the suppliers are fighting to become the dominant supplier - I think WorldCom and Global Crossings are the tip of the iceberg).

A belief in God is a matter of faith and, by its vey nature, cannot be proved. THAT would properly belong in another thread.

When I described the topic of this thread as a hypothesis it was somewhat tongue in cheek since its proponents seem to have the "accepted as fact for the sake of argument" part down but are a little weak in the "until proven by investigation" part. There may appear to be some truth to any number of ideas which, upon investigation, turn out to be entirely wrong. The only thing I have seen so far is supposition drawn from certain past associations.

As far as the telecommunications industry is concerned, that is what I do and I have first hand knowledge of the viability of wireless local loop in countries without wireline infrastructure. This is a fact and has little to do with Worldcom or Global Crossing which, in any case, are largely fiberoptic in nature. You are right about the tip of the iceberg. I look for Lucent and Nortel to hit bottom shortly. The carriers, my clients, are doing quite well actually.

Cutting through to the bare bones of George’s contentions reveals the following positions:

The rulers of Saudi Arabia are guilty of supporting the al Qaeda terrorist network and Osama bin Laden. So? This isn’t news.

George Bush Sr. and his son, the president, are oilmen. Ditto.

The oil business centered on the Persian Gulf’s enormous supply of high grade cheap oil is of vital national interest to the United States. Ditto.

The oil business determines American foreign policy. Yep. And you suppose that it shouldn’t? Think about it next time you fill up your gas tank, pay your heating bill, electricity bill, turn on that air conditioner, etc.

The Afghan war, toppling the Taliban regime, was about getting an American company, Unical, the contract to build a $2 billion pipeline across Afghanistan to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India (and China). This is a conspiracy theory. Just because the facts seem to fit neatly together doesn’t prove it. However if so, it will have a stabilizing effect on a former Soviet republic, two potential deadly adversaries, a huge stumbling giant as well as Afghanistan itself.

The Bush administration let 9/11 happen in order to get America to go to war in Afghanistan, topple the Taliban and get that contract for Unical. Ditto, except that you would have to say the same of Roosavelt and Pearl Harbor or Churchill and Coventry as mentioned. Just because something CAN happen doesn’t mean that it WILL happen.

Why is George so agitated about all this?

Implicitly, nobody but American leftists care about the Afghan people.

They never cared enough before when the Taliban were treating everyone as if they were running a huge concentration camp, so why now?

Implicitly, George Bush ought to be thrown out and replaced by a Democrat politician; choose one, Hillary, Daschile, Gephardt, Gore, etc.

Give it up man. Every one of these people are LOSERS. I know Daschile personally from a long time back (1978) and he’s a puppet just as much if not more so than G W Bush.

What really irks George is that his party didn’t win the White House in 2000.

It should to an extent, yes, but there are limits. Just as there should be for other industries. Do you support using child labor if it means you get a cheap pair of tennis shoes? Reduced safety standards at chemical plants in India? I'm not proposing we go cold turkey, but I find it strange that there is no real long term energy policy with a goal of at least reducing our use of fossil fuels. I voted for Bush largely because I couldn't imagine another 4 years of the Clinton manifesto carried on by that wet teabag AL Gore.

I can think of many scenarios as to why Bush didn't do anything about Sept 11 if he knew beforehand. The one that scares me the most is the possibility that there are moles in Al Qaeda and the Feds know of the potential of something bigger.

As for the oil, well everyone has their price (except maybe Inspector Callahan, aka Dirty Harry). It would at least be prudent to keep a weather eye on the proceedings.