What the Iraq Forgery Says About 9/11

George Washington / OpEd News | August 5, 2008

::::::::

Bestselling journalist Ron Suskind has revealed that the White House ordered the CIA to forge and backdate a document falsely linking Iraq with Muslim terrorists and 9/11 . . . and that the CIA complied with those instructions and in fact created the forgery, which was then used to justify war against Iraq.

Suskind also revealed that "Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official 'that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.' ”

This is a stunning revelation in its own right. But what does it say about the government's claims that 9/11 was an attack by Muslim extremists which the U.S. government could not have anticipated?

Well, if the White House ordered the CIA to forge documents falsely implicating the people against which they wanted to wage war (Iraqis), and falsely linking supposed Al Qaeda terrorists with someone they had no connection with (Saddam Hussein), is it possible that a similar thing occurred as to who carried out 9/11?

Let's take a look:

• 
  
• - The flight manuals and other evidence supposedly "accidentally" left behind by the terrorists were in fact planted. For example, the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the My Lai massacre in Vietnam wrote:

"Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, 'Whatever trail was left was left deliberately — for the F.B.I. to chase'"

• 
  
• - The top expert on Osama Bin Laden has said that Bin Laden's "confession" video is fake (and see this statement by a video expert )

And imagine if a piece of evidence could not be authenticated according to basic science. For example, let's say an apparent confession note was found at an arson crime scene where the entire building had been turned to fine ash particles and nothing else survived. That would raise suspicions, right?

Well, a passport from one of the alleged hijackers was "found" a couple of blocks from the Twin Towers. And yet the government claims that the areas inside the Twin Towers where planes crashed were infernos so hot that they caused the collapse of the massive steel cores in the center of the towers. Indeed, the passport-owner's hijacked plane was allegedly almost completely lodged in the building's core. How could the passport have survived and ended up a couple of blocks away?

And if the above-described documents were in fact forged, isn't that strong evidence that elements of the U.S. government actually aided and abetted the 9/11 attack? For example, the "initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals", had to have been planted before or immediately after the 9/11 attacks?

For those still skeptical about the possibility that the government intentionally created false evidence, please remember that Norad intentionally lied about what happened on 9/11; indeed, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required).

And remember that the government intentionally and falsely linked Muslims with the anthrax attacks, when it was obvious that the attacks came from white Americans.

At the very least, isn't it likely that the White House instructed the intelligence agencies and the 9/11 Commission to ignore any evidence which contradicted the narrative that would justify wars in the Middle East (euphemistically called "the war on terror") - that 9/11 was carried out solely by Arabs?

In connection with Iraq, Suskind writes that "the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official 'that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.'” And an ex-CIA official confirms that evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq was ignored.