Michel Chossudovsky / Global Research – 2004-07-17 13:08:58
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407D.html
CANADA (July 16, 2004) — The CIA has been the source of disinformation regarding both the terrorist attacks and the terror alerts. Al Qaeda is and remains an intelligence asset of the CIA.
The CIA states that Al Qaeda is planning a new 9/11 type attack, before the November elections. In his CNN interview (14 July with Wolf Blitzer, see below), the acting director of the CIA John McLauchlin says that the threats are real, but he does not substantiate.
“It is necessary for us to hold back a lot of the specifics, because those are the things we need to stop this.”
In so many words, he is saying it is going to happen. But we will try to stop it.
Referring to Al Qaeda:
“Their work is highly compartmented to a small group of people, probably living in a cave somewhere, and our country doesn’t keep secrets very well. So we have to watch what we release about the details. But this is a serious threat period.” (Ibid)
Terrorists “probably living in a cave somewhere.” and planning to attack America in a sophisticated operation like 9/11? Does he expect people to believe that?
And then he says:
“I think the quality of the information we have is very good.” (Ibid)
This statement contradicts that made three days earlier by DHS Secretary Tom Ridge:
“We lack precise knowledge about time, place and method of attack. But along with the CIA, FBI and other agencies, we are actively working to gain that knowledge.” (CNN Interview with Wolf Blitzer, 11 July 2004)
McLaughlin does not substantiate his assertion that America is under attack. He says we do not have the knowledge, then he says we do have the knowledge but cannot reveal it.
What Conclusions Can We Draw?
Homeland Security Sec. Tom Ridge has set the stage with his unsubstantiated warnings that there could be a Second 9/11 and this would lead to postponing or canceling the November elections.
The CIA has confirmed that there could be “a New 9/11.”
n the case of Code Red Alert, emergency procedures would be introduced and the elections would be cancelled.
(See
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407B.html ).
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice seems to contradict both the statements by Ridge and McLaughlin. In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, she says that she knows nothing about all this:
“I don’t know where the idea that there might be some postponement of elections comes from.” (See http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC407A.html )
Whom should we believe?
Have the Democrats accepted to Postpone the Election?
Why is the media silent on these announcements?
Why has the media not questioned the validity of these assertions?
At least two out of the five post 9/11 Orange Code Alerts were based, according to police reports, on phony intelligence. (See http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html )
Why Are the Democrats Silenet?
Why has the Democratic Party and presidential candidate John Kerry remained mum on the issue of canceling the elections?
Remember, Al Gore remained mum following the electoral fraud in Florida in the 2000 elections. And the fraud was then endorsed by the Supreme Court in Bush versus Gore.
There were at least two conflicts of interest in the Supreme Court. The wife of Justice Clarence Thomas was working for the Bush campaign and the two sons of Justice Scalia, belonged to law firms on contract to Bush in the Florida recount lawsuit.
Al Gore could have asked Justices Scalia and Thomas to recuse themselves and Al Gore would have been instated in the White House. Recusing is a simple and unequivocal legal procedure.
The conventional wisdom among Liberals and “Progressives” is that “Bush stole the 2000 election.” That is Not What Happened
Al Gore’s star Attorney, David Boies, perhaps among the best in the US, had been instructed “to lay off” and lose the Bush versus Gore case in the Supreme court. In other words, the Democrats had been instructed, no doubt by powerful people in the corporate establishment, operating behind the scenes, to accept a de facto coup d’Etat.
• Why are the Democrats not outraged at the recent terror alert and election cancellation announcements, emanating out of Homeland Security and the CIA?
• Why are they not saying anything? Its a talking point on network TV. Why is it not an election issue?
It would obviously open up a can of worms. The Democrats are complicit in “the war on terrorism” and the militarisation of civilian institutions. (See: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407C.html ).
Democrats Failed to Act in 2000, As Well
The complacent attitude of the Democrats today is similar to that prevailing in 2000, when the results of the presidential elections were cancelled by the Supreme Court in favor of George W. Bush. And no doubt the same strings are being pulled behind the scenes today as in 2000.
A Second 9/11”
Exclusive Interview with Wolf Blitzer on the possibility of “a Second 9/11” before the November Elections
CNN (July 14, 2004) — (Excerpts, emphasis added)
BLITZER: Do you believe Osama bin Laden is right now personally directing terror attacks this summer against the United States?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, it depends a lot on what you mean by personally directing. Is he sitting behind some large console pulling wires and switches? I wouldn’t say that. But to be sure, he remains the leader of al Qaeda, it’s his guidance to his followers that certainly inspires them to proceed with the attacks that we have seen in places like Istanbul and Morocco and Spain and so forth. But increasingly we see elements of al Qaeda operating with more regional independence than in the past. But if you’re asking me does he have a role, is he the inspirational leader? Yes.
BLITZER: How worried should the American public be this summer about a terror attack against the conventions in Boston and New York or elsewhere between now and the election?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I think, as I’ve said elsewhere during this week, this is a very serious threat we’re facing.
BLITZER: How serious?
MCLAUGHLIN: It’s serious in the following sense, that I think the quality of the information we have is very good. We have a lot of experience now in terrorism. You asked before, how trustworthy is our information? Remember, this is the agency that brought to justice, working with others but on the basis of our intelligence, the architect of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief bomber behind the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, Nasiri, the chief terrorist in the Eastern hemisphere, Hambali. So, we have now, particularly since 9/11, a very strong track record and highly reliable information on terrorism.
There’s a tension all the time, and I know it’s a frustrating one for the American public, that more of the details of what we know doesn’t come out. What I would say to people, though, is that it is necessary for us to hold back a lot of the specifics, because those are the things we need to stop this, those are the things we need to fight terrorists.
One of the important things terrorists do, I’ll tell you, it’s very simple, very simple. They know how to keep a secret. Their work is highly compartmented to a small group of people, probably living in a cave somewhere, and our country doesn’t keep secrets very well. So we have to watch what we release about the details. But this is a serious threat period.
BLITZER: We’re almost out of time. Are there sleeper cells here in the United States based on what you know right now?
MCLAUGHLIN: I can’t talk about the details of that. We have to go on the assumption that they, despite all of the effective defenses we’ve erected and despite the increasing effectiveness of our homeland security, we have to go on this assumption. We can be excellent one thousand times, all they have to do is be lucky once. So I can’t go into details here, but we have to operate on the assumption that we are at risk and we have to operate on the assumption that we have to keep looking for those cells.
BLITZER: One interesting footnote. The whole Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame issue. Did Valerie Plame, a formerly clandestine officer at the CIA, was it her idea that her husband go to Niger to look for this information about enriched uranium?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, that’s a matter I can’t get into. You know there is a Department of Justice inquiry under way looking into the leak of her name. And I’m concerned that anything I would say on that matter would somehow prejudice the case or get involved in the case.
BLITZER: What about you, your future? What are you planning on doing? There’s speculation out there the president’s about to name a new director of the CIA.
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I’ve been doing this now for three days, Wolf. What I can tell you is this. Being acting director doesn’t mean being part-time director. This is a full-time job. I get up every morning with one mission, and that is to be the director of the CIA in an acting capacity. That’s what the president has asked me to do.
I’m happy to do this, as I’ve told him, as long as he needs me to do it. It’s his decision whether I continue in this capacity or whether he nominates someone else. Happy to do this. I’ve done this for a long time. I love the people of the intelligence community. I’m prepared to lead them.
Should he choose to nominate someone else, I’ll be happy to work with that person to get them launched and work with them as long as they need me to work with them to — to help them.
BLITZER: A lot of speculation out there, the morale at the agency is bad right now. Is that true?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, you know, people don’t join this business — as our interview would indicate — people don’t join this business because they expect public praise. People join this business because they want to serve the nation. So, you know, no one likes to be criticized, but there’s an ethic in our business.
I’ve even written notes to our work force in the past, saying, expect to be criticized. Stop and think about it. Just stop and think about it for a minute. The very people who ask us to not be risk-averse are frequently the ones who criticize mistakes that are made in the course of our duties.
If you stop and think about it, to take a risk by definition means there’s a high possibility of a mistake. We risk our lives around the world every day, and our analysts here in Washington risk their reputations every day by taking positions on issues on which the evidence is thin and uncertain.
So there’s always a possibility of a mistake. That’s built into our business. And if you’re in this business, you know you’re going to take a risk. You’re not always going to be right. And you’re going to take criticism.
And the only way we can deal with that is to learn from it, as we have been for the last year. We started our own internal look at Iraq one year ago. And then make the appropriate changes and move on. In fact, a colleague said to me today the best way to react to this is to go out and penetrate another proliferation network, or recruit another terrorist to bring down that network.
BLITZER: One final question. Is the CIA being made a scapegoat right now?
MCLAUGHLIN: Well, you know, I don’t want to get into that, because that starts to draw me — let’s face it. This is a political year. Everything is hotter than it normally is. And I think the men and women of the intelligence community know that criticism is part of our life.
I would say that it’s important to keep our intelligence services out of politics, because ultimately we are the first line of defense for the nation. As I said in the speech that I mentioned to you earlier, there’s no perfection in this business. But people in this business are dedicated to doing the best job they can around the world, risking their lives to save the American people from terrorist attacks and other things.
So I would leave it there.
BLITZER: And we will leave it there. Director McLaughlin, you’ve got an incredibly difficult job. Good luck to you. Good luck to the men and women who are at the CIA. Thanks so much for joining us.
MCLAUGHLIN: Thank you, Wolf.
CIA warns of new 9/11
Reuters
WASHINGTON (15 July 2004) — Acting CIA director says a new 9/11 hangs over the US. Warnings that “terrorists are plotting something big” against the US are based on “very, very solid” information, the CIA’s acting director says. John McLaughlin refrained from giving any details on Wednesday, but likened the threat reports to those that preceded the 11 September 2001 attacks.
In an interview with National Public Radio, the acting director confirmed Washington had no specifics on the timing and targets but a “conviction” as big as the one it had before 9/11.
“And the reason I say that it is serious is that I think the information I’ve seen is very, very solid. We have very little doubt about the information we have in terms of its sourcing and its authenticity,” he said.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that “credible reports” indicate al-Qaida plans to carry out a large scale attack in the US to disrupt the coming elections.
But Ridge also said precise knowledge of the time, place and method of attack was lacking, but security is being stepped up at the sites of the Democratic and Republican nominating conventions this summer.
Confidence in Prediction?
Former CIA director George Tenet stepped down last weekend after seven years at the head of the agency, which has been criticised for its inaccurate intelligence on Iraq’s alleged WMD.
A US Senate report released last week also said most of the major key judgments in the intelligence community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s suspected arms were either overstated or incorrect.
However, in a CNN interview, McLaughlin defended the agency’s work on illicit weapons.
“I tell the American people that they should have confidence in the American intelligence community,” he said.
Further References:
For our coverage of the election campaign terror warnings, see the following articles.
Coup d’Etat in America? by Michel Chossudovsky, 13 July 2004 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407B.html
Bush Administration “Guidelines” for Postponing or Canceling the November Presidential Elections by Michel Chossudovsky, 10 July 2004, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407C.html
Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts Predict a Terrorist Attack by November, by Maureen Farrell, April 2004, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FAR404A.html
Bush Regime working out Procedures for postponing November Election by Webster Griffin Tarpley, 10 July 2004, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/TAR407B.html
Rumor Becomes Fact as Bush Administration Asks for Authority to Suspend the Election by Michael C. Ruppert , 13 July 2004 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP407A.html
Bush backers discuss canceling elections, Emergency Rule and Martial Law, by Webster G. Tarpley 12 July 2004 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/407A.html
The Criminalization of the State, by Michel Chossudovsky, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html February 2004
Homeland Defense: The Pentagon Declares War on America by Frank Morales, Global Outlook, Issue 3, Winter 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR312A.html
“Homeland Defense” and the Militarisation of America by Frank Morales, 15 September 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR309A.html
FBI points finger at the CIA: Terror Alert based on Fabricated Information, 14 February 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG302A.html
Bush’s Christmas Terror Alert, by Michel Chossudovsky, 24 December 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO312D.html
Manufacturing Hysteria: Bogus Terror Threats and Bush’s Police State, by Kurt Nimmo, 31 December 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NIM312A.html
Orange Code Terror Alert based on Fabricated Intelligence, by Michel Chossudovsky 3 January 2004. http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO401A.html
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca .
© MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY, CNN AND REUTERS 2004. For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.
