That is what President Bill Clinton said, but the FBI was evidently motivated by another agenda and other interests. If the FBI had listened to President Clinton, the people who delivered the USS Cole terrorist assault would not have been available, to deliver the biggest terrorist assault in American history.
According to the repeated harangue of the media, September 11 changed everything. September 11, 2001 did not change anything, it is just more of the same. It is an absolute insult to suggest that the terrorists who are responsible for providing the opportunity for this diabolical, well planned plot to suceed, changed everything. That was the intent. This is the reality. If everything has changed, the FBI would prove that it is not still a hierarchical, politically motivated bureaucracy that has historically jeopardized the personal safety of American citizens. Clearly, there is absolutely no excuse for an act of terrorism that has received more pre-planning publicity, than Hitler's prescriptive, Mein Kampf, wherein Hitler wrote that "the media is a means and must, therefore, be judged in relation to the end it is intended to serve. It must be organized in such a way as to attain its objective." Hitler did not actually say "the media", he used the word "propaganda" in the above quote, but if you look at the way the media has operated in the last decade, it does not make a shred of difference. In terms of the current crisis that has been made hazy by the propaganda that is routinely pawned off as "the news", where was the FBI and the CIA, when Osama Bin Laden and his faceless, terrorist allies used media publicity to promote hostile intention? If the media could get close enough to repeatedly interview him, why couldn't American Intelligence get close enough to bring him to justice?
What does the fact that Osama Bin Laden's followers use President Clinton's picture for target practice, really mean? Is this a war between Osama Bin Laden and the United States of America, or is it a rivalry between extremists and moderates, wherever they may exist? In particular, is this a war between fanatics who think they represent the American way of life and political rivals who are targeted with fierce hatred? In the eyes of some extremists, "Liberals" are the new threat to America's national security, and "Democrats" are the party that harbors them. But September 11, 2001 has temporarily oblitherated the clear distinction. Republicans and Democrats alike have been traumatized to the point where they have all become leading war hawks, and that is the typical consequence of the psychic trauma that war produces. When his handlers wanted to control Mark David Chapman, they took him to Beirut, showed him all the ruins and all the body parts and blamed all the terror on "phony" peace activists like John Lennon. The stage for the murder of a peace activist like John Lennon had been set and American foreign policy could be shaped without worrying about mass opposition to the horrific, death squad justice in Central America and all the unanswered civil rights abuses at home. Now, they take Democrats and Republicans on a tour of devastation in New York and they set the stage for all the civil rights abuses that targeting invisible enemies and prosecuting meaningless wars will demand. Mark David Chapman was guilty of murdering John Lennon. What will all the Democrats and all the Republicans be guilty of, when this unlimited declaration of war is over? The stage has been set, but the horror of September 11 was so extreme and so inexcusable, that everybody is denying responsibility. The stage has been set, and the enemy is everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
In the past ten years or so, we have watched ignorant extremists destroy the integrity of everything they have touched, including the Independence of the United States Supreme Court. And now that they have created the world of their choice, they seek more power and more authority to be able to target their enemies in the name of fighting terrorists. Ground Zero has become the training ground that is used to terrify political rivals into accepting the demand to launch any war at any time and in any place they choose, without the usual restraint. The psychic trauma of war has been fully exploited, and we are now given two choices that are being called our freedom. We can either support this unprecedented demand for war or we can be targeted and destroyed. Can they really terrorize every single person who does not share their beliefs? New Yorkers have proved they are fearless and they have paid in blood. Try terrorizing Boston, or Chicago, or San Fransisco or any other city that dares to print an unfavorable editorial or criticizes this faceless, nameless, preposterous war. Try to control the Internet. Clearly, the current campaign to destroy every imaginable civil liberty has absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism, because the case against Osama Bin Laden is largely classified and it is not possible to blame civil rights restrictions for the failure to bring a known terrorist to justice. And if this is all about seeking to set the stage to deny the civil rights of peace activists, we should make it absolutely clear that peace activists are not terrorists. There is no distinction between peace activists and freedom loving people, and if it is the intent of this faceless, nameless agenda, to destroy everybody who is not lulled into war, try destroying everybody, because in the end, all freedom loving people are New Yorkers.
In the final analysis, the terrorists who used a giant poster of President Bill Clinton as target practice, defined the domestic combatants of this invisible war? Was Osama Bin Laden attacking Clinton's America in the manner that Rush Limbaugh claimed that America was a hostage as long as Clinton was the President of the United States? Should anybody really be surprised by the fact that New York was eventually targeted in the worst possible way? The only thing that changed on September 11, 2001 is that the terrorists finally unleashed the full force of the hatred that was consistently brewed during the entire Clinton presidency and beyond. Nothing, absolutely nothing else has changed. Hatred and fear is the fuel of the terrorist, and every single media circus that preceded September 11, 2001, manifested absolutely nothing beyond fierce hatred.
The most poignant fact which proves beyond all doubt, that absolutely nothing has changed is the failure to bring the terrorists of the USS Cole to justice. There is absolutely no excuse for that failure. Oliver North and other extremists called the bombing of the USS Cole an 'act of war' and now that everybody is being forced to embrace the pattern of Oliver North's thinking, we believe that everything has changed. We believe that everything has changed because it is absolutely not possible to understand the magnitude of this horror, but absolutely nothing has changed. Change is about deliberate, sustained, rational, persistent, conscious behavior, it is not about the consequence of being terrorized. We have been terrorized beyond belief and beyond human imagination, we have not changed. It is simply not possible for any act of terror to change American heroes -the firefighters and the police officers who sacrificed their lives for the sake of seeking to save fellow New Yorkers were not changed, and that is always the position of every genuine, American hero.
Firefighters and police officers have emerged as the new national heroes, and they are victims who had nothing to do with the politics of terrorism. Firefighters and police officers do not have the budget that American Intelligence Agencies have, and law enforcement desperately requires the power to prosecute barbarians who violate human rights for political purposes. In particular, despite the Elian Gonzalez media kidnapping circus, nobody was brought to justice for a calculated wave of terrorism that violated every single, imaginable human right, and turned an ordinary family into the political pawns of overzealous extremists. That's what you call terrorism, and prior to September 11, 2001, only Janet Reno was willing to do whatever it took, to rescue Elain Gonzalez. The zealots who secretely escorted Elian Gonzalez to safety, are also responsible for allowing his mother to drown, but we are supposed to believe that Elian Gonzalez was escorted to safety by "magic dolphins" and that is the level of gullibility that encourages terrorists. Terrorists turn human beings into political pawns, and their ways and means are to convince the gullible public that "magic dolphins" are responsible for rescuing Elian Gonzalez. And now, we expect these people to protect us from the terrorists?
We have not changed, we have seen more of the same. Is there anybody who in fact believes that the media has the power to interview Osama Bin Laden and that the United States of America did not have the power to control him? We have not changed. We cannot change, because under these circumstances, change means succumbing to the will of the terrorist. Free nations never succumb to the will of any terrorist, and if that ever happens, it will not be because we have changed. It will be because we have lost our freedom and New Yorkers will never lose their freedom. New Yorkers will always rebuild and they will never change. And the Federal Government should always be generous to the needs of fellow New Yorkers, it does not require a horrific catastrophe, to lend the hand that the entire world has extended. Forty billion dollars is a drop in the bucket. New York deserves and should expect much more, because this is one trauma that will never be forgotten and if that is what we mean by change, then everything has indeed changed.
With respect to FBI reluctance to aggressively pursue USS Cole terrorists, it is not reasonable to expect a thorough exposure of the World Trade Center terrorist plot, unless or until the FBI betrays the reason behind the previous failure to prosecute USS Cole terrorists. The fickle excuse that Yemeni authorities refused to cooperate with investigators is not even remotely credible, and the rather abrupt 'about-turn' betrays deliberate reluctance to follow the trail, rather than the alleged frustration with the Yemeni authorities who had been initially praised for their cooperation. It is an absolute, undeniable disgrace to suggest that the most powerful nation on earth blames Yemeni stonewalling for the failure to bring USS Cole terrorists to justice and it is not even remotely plausible to accept this excuse.
American Intelligence agencies are not hopelessly incompetent, and the fact that they abandoned the joint, Yemeni/USA effort to bring terrorists to justice, is a clear indication of deliberate reluctance. History proves that instances of apparent gross incompetence, are a consequence of deceptive, disguised motivation and the politically motivated interference that American Intelligence Agencies periodically practice, it is not a consequence of simple, intelligence failure. To put it bluntly, when American Intelligence screws up, nobody does it better, and American Intelligence is equally adept when terrorists are successfully intercepted
Difficult to believe, but everybody makes mistakes, and we do not bring them up to embarrass anybody but because we must get a handle on the common mistakes that every nation in the world is subject to entertain. Nationalism and patriotism are a universal response and we should all abandon the proposition that we can destroy every single adversary in the world without destroying ourselves in the process. The need to maintain stability and security has always been a delicate balancing act and the tactics of the past are too dangerous and potentially too catastrophic to repeat. The current challenge is not to re-define terrorism or to demonize our adversaries, but to demonstrate the character and the will to be as strong in our desire to promote peace as we are in the willingness to declare war. September 11, 2001 has not changed anything. It has merely highlighted an urgency that has always existed, and a universal declaration of war against terrorism is clearly the best place to start if and only if world-wide peace is the clearly defined objective. If war is the ultimate objective, a universal declaration against terrorism is the start of World War III, and that is a battle that can neither be contained nor won in the realm of anything beyond the minds of terrorists, ignorant fanatics, and deluded warmongers. In particular, those who are obsessed with applying the methods and tactics that were used to "win" the Cold War, should abandon the delusion that Ronald Reagan singlehandedly defeated the evil Soviet empire. The Cold War was ultimately a foolish game of chicken that did not get out of hand because men of reason contained the potential horror. And who were these men? We have made a footnote out of the men who contained the horror that the Cold War threatened to unleash, but history will never forget the contribution of the leaders who are ultimately responsible for the fact that we survived the Cold War. We were fortunate enough to survive the obsession to win the Cold War, and now, we must survive the obsession to win the war against terrorism. And todays giants are not a 'Kennedy' or a 'Gorbachev' or a 'Reagan,' today's giants are ordinary people. Today's giants are the firefighters, the police officers and the national security and military forces that reject all forms of terrorism and propaganda.
The truth about September 11 2001 has never been told, and we expect it never will. At the same time, we have probably heard more than enough. The reluctance to aggressively pursue USS Cole terrorists foreshadowed the "classified" secrecy that surrounds September 11, 2001, and the news that indestructable flight and voice recorders were recovered was disheartening, because the likliehood that this evidence would receive the light of day was remote. It would have been nice if the chain of custody of this key physical evidence could be carefully scrutinized by an independent media, but that was a vain hope. To be sure, the belief that Barbara Olson was supposed to be the indestructable voice data recorder of American Airlines flight 77 sounds like a Tom Clancy conspiracy theory, and somebody should check the annals of both history and fiction, to see if this extraordinary scheme is a copycat or whether it is an original. Censored by Solicitor General Ted Olson, the final conversation between Barbara and Ted suggests that the identity of the hijackers was known before Barbara Olson boarded American Airlines flight 77, and that is a speculation which places a "patriot" like Barbara Olson in the limelight she always demanded.
Barbara Olson was a fierce, predictable advocate who routinely made a mockery of every reasonable analysis, and her well established role is not subject to any dispute. In particular, when physical evidence is scarce or is tampered with, human intelligence sources assume credibility or the opportunity to promote deception, and Barbara Olson always practiced the latter. Indeed, prior to September 11, 2001, Barbara Olson was zealously advancing the suggestion that Gary Condit was a murderer who must be charged with obstruction of justice and perjury, and despite a total absence of incriminating evidence, "media circus" pundits like Barbara Olson routinely slandered Congressman Gary Condit and assumed the role of judge, jury and executioner. Barbara Olson never failed to place herself at the center of every predictable 'news cycle' and that is what makes the claim that a damaged voice data recorder denies the opportunity to promote the truth as certainly as propaganda advocates like Barbara Olson provide the opportunity to distort it, so absolutely compelling.
Prior to crashing into the Pentagon, Barbara Olson was speaking to her husband on the hijacked airliner for at least 5 minutes, and if we are to believe Ted Olson, she not only failed to describe the hijackers, but he also failed to ask her about them. They constantly referred to the hijackers as "they had knives and box cutters" and "they herded everybody to the back of the plane" and if they didn't know who they were prior to their conversation from the hijacked airliner, why did they sound like they did? Ted Olson claims that he did not think to ask any questions about the identity of the hijackers, but you do not have to think, to ask the most obvious question in the world. You ask about the identity of the hijackers because you are shocked and concerned, you do not ask about them because you need to stop and think about it.
We do not suggest that Barbara Olson committed suicide, we rely upon the irrepresible spirit of Barbara Olson, to define the scope of her behavior. In particular, if Barbara Olson knew that United Airlines 77 was going to be hijacked, it is not reasonable to believe that she also knew that the plane was going to deliberately crash into the Pentagon. It is highly unlikely that the full extent of this plot was widely shared, and that is always the modus operandi of sophisticated, terrorist plots. Barbara Olson was merely a pawn and a fierce advocate of the well funded, political agenda that extremists promote. Indeed, in the final analysis, the spokesperson of the Scaife-funded Independent Women's Forum, proved that she was everything but independent. In the end, her eulogy was fittingly delivered by the self-professed 'cultural warrior' Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court Justice who, according to the brilliant Vincent Bugliosi, shares the irresponsible conduct of the people who have betrayed America.
On September 15, 2001, CNN reported that two of the men who were on the flight with Barbara Olson were on the FBI's 'watch list' and were linked to the USS Cole, terrorist assault. Now isn't that a very creative and handy way to deal with USS Cole terrorists? The irony of this fiasco is that if people like Barbara Olson had not wasted their lives dividing the Justice Department through fickle 'FBI Filegate' charges, she could have done her part to support the FBI enough to bring USS Cole terrorists to justice. When the FBI is bounced around in every direction, it is the ones who are doing the bouncing, who share responsibility for the distractions that make the FBI less effective. The FBI relies and depends upon credible, public support and its ability to function is seriously drained when it is manipulated by fierce, relentless, fickle, well funded, politically motivated advocates. In the end, Barbara Olson suffered the consequence of abusing FBI resourses, and the only question that needs to be answered now is: What will it take, to make the FBI the independent, law enforcement agency that it should be?
Despite all the propaganda that was instantly unleashed to justify the failure to intercept the most grotesque and horrific terrorist attack in world history, there is no plausible excuse. According to the September 15, 2001 copy of the Philadelphia Inquirer, "The CIA alerted the FBI that at least one of the suspects in Tuesday's terrorism was either on his way to the United States or already here before the attacks, three U.S. government officials familiar with intelligence matters said yesterday." The CIA and the FBI declined comment, and under the circumstances, that is understandable because; "It appears that the name of at least one of the terrorists was on a CIA watch list and that the CIA then handed off the notification to the FBI." Clearly, there was no shortage of American intelligence about the terrorists that Barbara Olson accompanied, on the hijacked American Airlines flight that struck the Pentagon. And if that doesn't explain the fact that Barbara Olson did not have to explain who the hijackers were or what they looked like, what does? Moreover, Barbara Olson's final inquiry was reportedly "what shall I tell the pilot?", and doesn't that reflect the fact that her sense of control was extremely premature? Clearly, there is nothing more dramatic than landing a hijacked plane on the White House lawn and having the patriotic and courageous Barbara Olson emerge fron the trauma more defiant than ever, but Barbara Olson evidently overestimated her capacity to control at least one hijacker.
There are three levels of responsibility for this grotesque massacre. The people who allowed this to happen thought that they were smart enough to use and to control the terrorists, the barbaric fanatics who committed suicide are abslutely repugnant in their disregard for human life and the shadowy, "faceless" zealots who exploit terrorism for political purposes, deserve the most contempt because they are the ultimate architects of this massacre.
There is a Bay of Pigs element to this entire fiasco, and there is plenty of "Hell to Pay" [to use the title of Ms. Olson's book] for allowing pilots who are traind in Florida to terrorize an entire nation. This is the land of "three strikes and you're out" and there is no more room for error or excuse. Florida is the state where your vote is selectively counted and where children like Elian Gonzalez are indoctrinated, for the sake of some perverted vision of what it means to declare war against terrorists. It is without question, the hotbed of hatching machiavellian, homegrown plots for the sake of mobilizing public opinion, and if that is not what terrorizing New York City was all about, then somebody else should explain it, because September 11, 2001 was clearly a defining moment. September 11, 2001 brought out all the heroes and the worms burrowed deeper into their holes or they crawled out for the opportunity to sell their agendas. Even Newt Gingrich crawled out to promote the excuse that American National Security Intelligence Agencies require a bigger budget. Has anybody bothered to tell him that it is not even remotely possible to analyze the deficit or the excess of a secret budget? Can he stop feeding us all the propaganda that got us into this mess in the first place? Why doesn't he go to New York and recover some body parts? He can certainly fan the flames of ignorance from the comfort of a media couch, but if he wants to spare the world, he should seek the comfort of a good psychiatrist -and if he would like some sympathy, he can cry on public television. As far as his intelligence is concerned, he doesn't have any.
The Bay of Pigs element of this fiasco, is the only scenario that makes any sense at all. If the White House thinks that the plane that hit the Pentagon was supposed to hit the White House, did Barbara Olson think that she could make the hijackers land the plane on the White House lawn? American intelligence had a handle on the terrorists at least a week before the hijacking, and doublecross is the only plausible explanation to account for the fact that a hijacked plane that was evidently supposed to land without incident, crashed into the Pentagon. In retrospect, the American intelligence that Barbara Olson relied upon, failed to save her life, and USS Cole terrorists managed to conclude another terrorist mission. The mystery question of course, is why did Barbara Olson believe that she could control terrorists who were responsible for the murders of USS COLE sailors? Perhaps she thought she was in the drivers seat because we are talking about people who are easy to control, in the "plea bargain" sense that their crimes had clearly limited the options for freedom. Perhaps, Barbara Olson neglected to consider the fact that the murderers she accompanied were capable of manipulating everybody they come into contact with, for the opportunity to kill again. No doubt, the fact that she travelled with people who were essentially 'dead on arrival' did not even cross her mind. Incredibly, we are talking about the sorts of people that the FBI and the CIA should be putting out of business, yet "security experts" are currently claiming the need to hire such repugnant killers, to prevent what just occurred. This is the level of madness that is currently being promoted, and such irrational reaction is entirely understandable because madness is the only credible word to describe it. Those who claim that the twin towers massacre could have been avoided if the CIA was free to hire murderous thugs, should carefully consider the plight of Barbara Olson and the murderous thugs that she failed to control.
The White House has taken absolute control of this terrorist investigation and there is no opportunity to promote anything they do not want to reveal. When the Press Secretary was asked to provide proof of Osama Bin Laden's guilt, he refused in the name of protecting the secrecy of intelligence gathering operations. That is certainly one way to contol information, but it is difficult to understand why the intelligence gathering tactics that failed to safeguard New York City need to be kept a secret. Indeed, isn't it important to understand every aspect of the failure to intercept known terrorists, to be able to deny a repeat deployment of the carefully planned terror that was unleashed on September 11, 2001?
Osama Bin Laden is a known terrorist, and it is not a big challenge to produce evidence which proves the fact. At the same time, the obsessively secretive contacts of an elusive terrorist like Osama Bin Laden compromises the opportunity to expose the truth. Speculation is the last resort of the reluctance to share information, and when in doubt, history is the source which turns a mysterious gap into a reasonable assessment. And so, despite extreme, obsessively maintained secrecy, despite vaults of "classified documents" and despite the "eyes only" criminal operations that former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover routinely maintained in the name of the national security, people who promote freedom, justice and democracy reject the arrogance of police state methodology. Patriotism will certainly unite and focus resolve, but the deployment of police state tactics in the name of patriotism is tyranny, and the politically motivated tactics that have historically compromised freedom and justice are not defensible in any democracy.
Following the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the popularity of John F. Kennedy saored to the point where there was enough patriotism in the air for him to have gotten away with bombing Cuba and even if he didn't want to go there, he could have promoted all kinds of excuses to declare war on terrorism. For example, he could have said; "We have messed up, but I can't tell you what went wrong because I reserve the right to mess up again." Instead of making excuses or hiding behind classified, national security concerns, Kennedy assumed responsibility for the entire fiasco, and that made all the difference. Indeed, we now know that the lessons that Kennedy learned from the Bay of Pigs fiasco is what gave him the confidence to resist the extremists who were plotting to bomb Cuba back to the stoneage, in response to the Cuban Missle Crisis, and it is Kennedy's determination to restrain extremists that averted a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States. John F. Kennedy averted World War III, despite extremists who were ready to wage it, and that made all the difference in the world.
Almost forty years later, we are back to 1962 and on the verge of unleashing the start of the calamity which was avoided in 1962. Having compared September 11, 2001 to Pearl Harbour, we are prepared to declare World War III, and time will tell if we can once again contain anti-terrorist hysteria today, as we managed to contain anti-communist hysteria in 1962.
History repeates itself with uncanny consistency and it is threatening to trigger an unprecedented holocaust. They are trying to convince us that there is a "terrorist" under every bed, so they can demand our resolve to declare war on terrorism. They want to out-terrorize the terrorists. They want the power and the authority to murder anyone, anywhere, at any time, and they want us to accept this demand for absolute power in the name that they are fighting terrorism without one hand tied behind their backs. And the horrific Trade Center terrorist attack was supposed to shock us into accepting these absurd, barbaric terms.
And who are "they"? They are evidently a rogue, shadowy, covert alliance that must gloat over the delusion that they have singlehandedly defeated communism and that it is their current mission to defeat terrorism. The CIA spent an estimated 2 billion dollars to support Osama Bin Laden in the war against the Soviet Union, it supplied hundreds of advanced "stinger" missles and the lifelong, secret bonds that are evidently responsible for facilitating the most barbaric, terrorist assault in world history. And nobody will ever underestimate the horrific potential of their covert operations again.
In the world that "they" seek to manufacture, they are the guardians of freedom and Osama Bin Laden is not a target, he is a means to an end. The only reason he is still alive today is because they provide the intelligence he requires to evade law enforcement. And they are exploiting the name of a fellow terrorists like Osama Bin Laden today because he is an identified fugitive, and as we have recently learned, there is nothing easier than to exploit media publicity, when a fugitive is involved.
But this terrorism has mobilized more than public opinion. The horrific Trade Center brutality has mobilized the entire world against terrorism and the vast majority have responded, not in a blind rage to out-terrorize the terrorists, but with the dignity, the compassion and the resolve that World Trade Center victims deserve. This time, the terrorists have out-terrorized themselves because there is absolutely nothing they can say or do, to justify this barbaric horror.
The disconnect between a specific act of terrorism and the official, White House response reflects the peculiar loyalties that a terrorist like Osama Bin Laden commands. Bush's initial public remarks about the attack was a rushed appearance before the cameras in Florida, wherein he referred to the mass murderers as "folks". If he was talking about "folks" like Barbara Olson, Bush got it right. But the plane that Barbara Olson was evidently hoping to control did not land on the White House lawn, it struck the Pentagon... Ten hours after the initial assault, Bush said, now "we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world." The disconnect between a specific act of terror and vague rhetoric is quite revealing in the assurance that there is no serious intent to follow the entire trail of this terrorist assault. Instead of condemning and focusing upon the need to prosecute the terrorists, the response has been to declare war on world-wide problems, and that ultimately reflects a war that cannot be won.
A specific act of terror demands a specific and credible response, and if we replace that absolute necessity with vague, war mobilization efforts, the terrorists have won. 'Operation Infinite Justice' is a great concept, in the sense that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist who deserves to be brought to justice, but the vague pledge to relieve the entire world of evil is meaningless, insignificant and potentially dangerous, because if ignorant extremists are granted the opportunity to launch indiscriminate, military attacks in response to vague allegations, they will merely create more terrorism and more gloating about the need to declare war on terrorism. Nobody can realistically question the urgent need to declare war on terrorists. At the same time, it is equally important to do everything possible, to promote the clear understanding that the terrorism that one nation faces, is no less and no more significant than the terror faced by another. And if all the people of every nationality who were slaughtered in the September 11, 2001 massacre do not make the need for international cooperation absolutely clear, nothing ever will.
Adressing the American Senate on September 20, 2001, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that terrorists "hate us for who we are, not for what we do." The current claim that terrorists are attacking our very way of life is the new wave of propaganda that is supposed to shock us all into the belief that you either accept our way of life or you are a terrorist. This "us against them" mentality is aggressively promoted, to the point where it is blindly repeated without thought and without a clear understanding about the potential ramifications. If we would like to divide the world into hostile armed camps, the propaganda that is currently promoted will certainly achieve that mission, but it is difficult to believe that Benjamin Netanyahu represents the view of compassionate people. Did Benjamin Netanyahu hate Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for his way of life or did he hate him for what he did, and in the final analysis, does it really make any difference? Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin is still dead, and it is not very difficult to demonstrate the fact that the terrorist who murdered him at a giant peace rally in Tel Aviv, despised his policy. Why don't we focus upon the need for peace and stop seeking to justify or to make excuses for our own mistakes? If the cowardly terrorists who believed that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin threatened Israeli security, took it upon themselves to target him, there is no need to fabricate their motivation. If we would like to divide the world, let's do it right, and the World Trade Center horror has clearly defined the challenge. You are either a New Yorker or you are not and Yitzhak Rabin was clearly a New Yorker.
If we are to avoid future terrorist acts, we need to fully comprehend this one, and the effort to understand people like Barbara Olson is evidently a good place to start. Was Barbara Olson really a former movie producer or was she a secret intelligence operative? If she wasn't a politically motivated intelligence asset, why did she always sound like the politically motivated wackos who were obsessed by the determination to destroy the political viability of Democrats like President Bill Clinton and Gary Condit? Barbara Olson operated on the level of those who deliberately slant intelligence reports for political purposes, and in the final analysis, it is not surprising that the fierce, relentless advocate became a casualty of the murky world she embraced. Prior to September 11, 2001, Barbara Olson was repeatedly used to slander Gary Condit and she was predictably discarded on the very same day that the Chandra Levy disappearance case died.
Gary Condit was not an original target, he was just the last of the typical campaign to cripple the political viability of Democrats. Before setting her sight on Gary Condit, Barbara Olson was deeply involved in the vicious plot to destroy President Clinton, and while most of the country was fed up with the Monica Lewinsky media circus, she used a traumatic constitutional crisis as a forum to promote her agenda. Appearing on the Geraldo show on December 8, 1999, Barbara Olson proudly said, "we proved that he (Clinton) is a cad". Isn’t that a wonderful ambition? In a previous show, Barbara Olson had claimed that Hillary Clinton was an "icon of the Liberal party" and one can safely assume that given Barbara Olson's agenda, her only purpose in life was to destroy the political prospects of the so-called "Liberal" party.
If the fact that Barbara Olson was the first, identified casualty, of the most unspeakable horror in world history was a mere coincidence, then we have to assume that Barbara Olson was not predictable, and Barbara Olson was always very predictable. Indeed, it is her very consistency and predictability, which leads to the conclusion that the people who used Barbara Olson are probably the very same people who are responsible for the disappearance of Chandra Levy. Make no mistake about it, terrorists destroy the lives of ordinary people, and sooner or later, they are exposed, not by the extreme secrecy of their diabolical plots, but by the otherwise inexplicable plight of their innocent victims.
The fact that Barbara Olson has revived interest in the Chandra Levy case is an unintended consequence. The Chandra Levy case was supposed to be controlled by people like Barbara Olson, Anne Coulter, 'Judicial Watch' and Lucianne Goldberg's favorite investigative journalist, Michael Isikoff, but the credibility of these sources of misinformation is too tarnished to promote anything beyond propaganda. Even an apparently "mainstream" journalist like Michael Isikoff operates on the level of a politically motivated mouthpiece who promotes the stories of deliberate liars and targets intelligent, honest Americans like Julie Hiatt Steele, and that certainly explains why he is such a 'fine investigative journalist' in the eyes of Clinton haters like like Lucianne Goldberg.
The media has never demonstrated the slightest interest in helping to bring Chandra Levy's murderers to justice, and the interview between Michael Isikoff and Gary Condit clearly illustrates the point.
Isikoff: Has anybody at the White House talked to you about the difficulties you've found yourself in? [Why would a 'gotcha' journalist ask such a question? He obviously knew the answer to the question, and he was trying to catch Gary Condit in a lie. Does anything else make any sense?]It is not very likely that the White House considers Condit to be an important ally, but it's reasonable to assume that when Condit was politically viable, Karl Rove had tried to make him defect to the Republican side. After all, the Republicans were still upset over the Senate defection and Karl Rove is a tit-for-tat strategist who stretches everything to the point where he justified the use of the butterfly-ballot in Florida, because Daly had allegedly used it to steal votes for Kennedy. Kennedy did not have to steal votes to win the election, and the only reason that Richard Nixon did not contest the election in 1960 was because the hands of Nixon's operatives were far dirtier than Daly's butterfly ballot.
In terms of the disappearance of Chandra Levy, the media has entirely ignored the criminal aspects of the Chandra Levy disappearance and focused almost exclusively upon the viability of Gary Condit's political career. In the process, the media has inadvertently demonstrated the fact that the determination to destroy Gary Condit's political prospects is the clear, unchallenged motivation behind the disappearance of Chandra Levy, and the terrorists who are responsible for making Chandra Levy disappear can no longer hide behind the capacity to point the finger at Gary Condit. To be sure, Barbara Olson is no longer around to be an advocate of misinformation, but twin mouthpieces like Anne Coulter are, and their contacts and associates should be able to shed light on the motivation behind the disappearance of Chandra Levy. According to Anne Coulter, Barbara Olson was the most intelligent and the most knowledgeable critic of the Clintons, and that is merely Coulter's way of saying that she is just as smart as Barbara was.
On September 10, 2001, Barbara Olson's friends from 'Judicial Watch' betrayed the obsession to hang Gary Condit through the tactics that were deployed in the effort to destroy President Bill Clinton, and that is a clear betrayal of the mindset of terrorists who never fail to revise their failed tactics. In particular, one of the reasons that Clinton's enemies failed to destroy him was that Monica Lewinsky was never the victim that Chandra Levy became, and they were obviously determined to avoid the same "mistake". As a matter of fact, the media had floated the rumor that Monica Lewinsky would potentially commit suicide, and given the fact that there is no distinction between a staged suicide and murder, Monica Lewinsky did not become another Chandra Levy because she was lucky. Given the absolute zeal to destroy President Bill Clinton, it is resasonable to assume that Clinton's relentless enemies had entertained the prospect of turning Monica Lewinsky into a tragic victim, but the spotlight on Monica was evidently too bright to make it an acceptable risk, and that "contingency plan" was abandoned. Unfortunately, Chandra Levy did not receive the 'media circus' spotlight until after she disappeared, and the lack of media attention made it easier to exploit her life.
How was Chandra Levy exploited? If, as it is reasonable to assume, Chandra Levy was as loyal to Gary Condit as the rest of his staff was, Chandra Levy did not threaten Congressman Gary Condit's political invulnerability. Chandra Levy was a young, beautiful, enthusiastic, ambitious woman who wanted to be a CIA or an FBI Agent, she was not the sort to brag about having had a sexual relationship with Congressman Gary Condit. There is no evidence that Chandra Levy was anything but very happy, very stable and very enthusiastic about her life, and a woman with her integrity was not subject to be manipulated by those who use malleable pawns like Paula Jones, for political purposes. Correction. Chandra Levy was not subject to be manipulated, as long as she was alive.
Chandra Levy is now gone and forgotten, but as late as September 10, 2001, she was the dominant newsmaker. Between July and September 10, 2001, Barbara Olson and her cohorts routinely and repeatedly used the media on a daily basis, to promote the claim that Gary Condit was responsible for the disappearance of Chandra Levy. As late as September 10, 2001, Geraldo featured Barbara Olson's Judicial Watch soulmate Larry Klayman, who like Ms. Olson, was desperately seeking to mobilize private resources to compensate for the fact that there was no credible basis to blame Gary Condit for the disappearance of Chandra Levy. Incidentally, if you follow the money trail, Richard Melon Scaife funds both Larry Klayman's Judicial Watch and Barbara Olson's Independent Women's Movement and there is a lot of talk about following the money trail lately.
The concept of shopping around to find a Grand Jury to accept the claim that Gary Condit is guilty of obstruction of Justice and to simultaneously suggest that he is guilty of murder is unheard of in American history, and the extremists who promote one obsession after another are forever raising the bar of absurdity. Indeed, when one Grand Jury denied the jurisdiction to make Gary Condit a target, Larry Klayman was heartened because he had evidently managed to hog the spotlight and to prolong the hoax of an effort to manipulate the legal system for political purposes. According to Larry Klayman's preposterous spin;
"We can go to San Fransisco, where the act occured, to San Mateo County, in fact now we have precedent that Anne-Marie [a Paula Jones wanabe] can in fact start a Grand Jury proceeding."Larry Klayman will go anywhere if he thinks that NBC will cover it, and if it was merely for the opportunity to get on the News, Larry Klayman would go to ground zero in New York. But Larry Klayman is very deliberate and calculating, and he is always after publicity, not public service. The fact that his sole preoccupation is to control public opinion was graphically illustrated as late as September 10, 2001, when Larry Klayman said;
"Clearly they [the Grand Jury] dodged this for political reasons. And of course, with a show like your own Geraldo, getting it out to the American people, there's going to be tremendous pressure brought to bear, for these Grand Juries to take action because that's the will of the people, and that's exactly why the California system in this respect is so unique -it allows the people to exercise their will."Needless to say, politically motivated wackos like Larry Klayman represent everything except the "will of the people" and let's hope that "the tremendous pressure" of September 11, 2001 buries morons like Larry Klayman forever. It is very difficult to develop a clear sense of national purpose when ignorant pundits hog the airwaves, and there is no shortage of the propaganda they routinely espouse. Immediately after the horrific terrorist assault, Morality Czar, Bill Bennet calmly [without the slightest sense of outrage] appeared on national television, to tell the world that America had finally achieved moral clarity. According to Bill Bennett, we now clearly understand the difference between good and evil. The entire nation was grieving, and after eight years of trying to convince the world that Bill Clinton was a moral degenerate, the pompous author of the Death of Outrage used an unthinkable tragedy, as a method to illustrate the difference between good and evil. It is really eerie to watch people exploit an unspeakable tragedy for the sake of promoting their political agendas. Indeed, even the campaign to create a coalition to declare war prior to identifying the actual terrorists, is ultimately obscene. We do not need Bill Bennett, to tell us the difference between good and evil. Spare us the lecture. Come to New York and recover the bodies. How could anybody be so insufferable, self-satisfied and so pompous, to in fact look relieved after the Trade Center horror, because it allegedly demonstrated the clear difference between good and evil? Was that the point? When you have a one track mind, you evidently believe that you can exploit an unspeakable horror for political purposes, and that comes out loud and clear, whenever Bill Bennett speaks. Bill Bennett routinely pollutes the airwaves with ignorant rants like "JFK should have been disqualified from the presidency and Bill Clinton should have resigned" and he ultimately betrays the frustrations and the delusions of ignorant Clinton haters who would destroy the United States for the sake of creating it in their own image.
Bill Bennett and his shadow government Empower America lead a charge that is so preposterous, that it is clearly the path to mutually assured destruction. Bill Bennett thinks that having clearly demonstrated what evil is, we are no longer in a position to dispute it, and we are supposed to demonstrate the noble resolve to win a war that has no border, no nation, no state and no name. Hitler said "The cause for which we fought during the War was the noblest and highest that man could strive for. We were fighting for the freedom and the independence of our country, for the security of our future welfare and the honour of the nation... Germany was waging war for its existence. The purpose of its war propaganda should have been to strengthen the fighting spirit in that struggle and help it to victory." Who is more extreme? Needless to say, New York does not need a Morality Czar like Bill Bennett. New York has heart and spirit and leadership and love and compassion and despite the fear that terrorists have imposed, New York's selfless heroes sacrificed their lives seeking to save fellow New Yorkers, while Bill Bennett preached morality. New York does not need Bill Bennett to lecture the world about good and evil. New Yorkers battle the smouldering ashes 24 hours a day, in the hope, no matter how bleak and remote, that still another life will be pulled out of the smouldering ashes. The New York City fireman who lost two brothers and is still seeking survivors amongst the body parts, illustrates the heart and soul of New York. And from the comfort of their cozy offices, on September 12, 2001, Bill Bennett, Jack Kemp and Jeane Kirkpatrick called on Congress to pass a formal Declaration of War. Come to New York and pull out the survivors, there will be plenty of time to smoke out the terrorists that September 11, 2001 has betrayed. In the final analysis, it is not blind loyalty and proof of evil, but the refusal to abandon the same old thinking, which denies the opportunity to contain the cycle of violence that meets the comfort level of bloodthirsty dinosaurs like Jeane Kirkpatrick. Jeane Kirkpatrick may like to shape American foreign policy and to renew patriotism, but this is a whole new world. The tactics of the past are the sources of our current problems, we do not need her input. Needless to say, the relative peace of the Clinton years was far more than Jeane Kirkpatrick could stand.
The Central Intelligence Agency secretly began to send teams of American officers to northern Afghanistan about three years ago in an attempt to persuade Ahmed Shah Massoud, who was the military leader of the largest anti-Taliban group in the northern mountains of Afghanistan, to capture and perhaps kill Osama bin Laden. The covert effort, which was not widely disclosed, was based on an attempt to work with and to have Mr. Massoud's forces go after Mr. bin Laden. Mr. Massoud was fatally wounded only two days before the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, and that is one coincidence that deserves a serious investigation. It is very difficult to believe that bin Laden would selectively target a military leader without targeting his entire army at the same time, and if Jeane Kirkpatrich can explain any connection between the assassination of Mr. Massoud on September 9, 2001 and September 11, 2001, it would help us all understand this situation better. If Jean Kirkpatrich can declare war on September 12, 2001, she should be able to tell us who we are fighting and why, unless of course, it's all classified.
The disappearance of Chandra Levy was not a typical murder, it was the act of terrorism that preceded the World Trade Center disaster. Some of the same terrorists are evidently involved in both instances and that is dramatically betrayed by the fact that nobody is claiming responsibility for either occurrence and in the case of Chandra Levy, her disappearance was mysteriously traceless. Terrorists who claim responsibility want to make a point that is direct and obvious, but these barbarians routinely evade criminal prosecution because they hide their motivations and they use all their resources in the media to blame a scapegoat and to consequently deny the opportunity to smoke them out of their holes. But in the United States of America, everything is possible and nothing is ever beyond recognition, and that is what makes the USA the greatest country in the world. No other country with the military confidence and might of the United States, would simultaneously demonstrate the twin determination to avenge this slaughter and to patiently wait for the opportunity to get it right. This is America's greatest tragedy and its finest hour, and every single cowardly terrorist, both domestic and foreign, will clearly fail to exploit the chaos that is carefully planned and executed, for the sake of controlling a political outcome or manufacturing public opinion. Every single terrorist, both domestic and foreign, has been put on notice and that has produced a unity that is so unqualified that there is not a single barbarian on this planet who is not absolutely terrified to claim responsibility for the World Trade Center disaster. It is time for these cowards to find a new line of work, because it is a big mistake to rely upon the opportunity to scapegoat or to hide behind secrecy.
It is popular to assert that in the case of the so called Gary Condit fiasco, there is no Ken Starr involved and it is therefore not possible to "demonize" Gary Condit's enemies. The truth of the matter is that Ken Starr never mattered. Ken Starr was merely a vehicle of the privately funded conspirancy to destoy the political prospects of a politician, he was never the operational villain. In the course of the campaign to destroy Clinton, Deputy Whitewater independent counsel W. Hickman Ewing Jr. had several meetings with a private eye employed by Richard Mellon Scaife, and it is ultimately these secret, private maneovers that are responsible for everything that Ken Starr did and said. A law enforcement official called the meetings between Ewing, who is Starr's chief deputy in Little Rock, and private investigator, Rex Armistead, "either the worst case of judgment or something worse," and "something worse" foreshadowed the murder of Chandra Levy. It is now quite obvious that if law enforcement was given the resources it required to dismantle the politically motivated destruction machine that Ken Starr manifested, Chandra Levy would be alive today.
Chandra Levy was abducted sometime between May 1, 2001, when she was free to email her parents, and May 6, 2001, when the Police checked her Washington apartment and found her partially packed bags. Chandra Levy was planning to go to California for her graduation, and those plans were violently reversed. The person or persons who are directly responsible for the murder of Chandra Levy were obviously in Washington during this time period. The actual date of her disappearance was probably May 1st or 2nd, because by May 5th, the Levys had contacted their daughter's answering machine for 3 days, and none of their messages were returned.
The people who have the most to gain for pointing a finger at Gary Condit are those who are trying to cover up the truth. Anybody who visited Oliver North's homepage on September 14, 2001, would have noted that he is using it to promote what he calls the Congressional Honor Roll. His page hosts a ribbon beside a red, white and blue banner titled "Congressional Honor Roll" and he has awarded the prize to Trent Lott, Bob Barr and David Weldon because they are the "Congressional leaders who have called for Representative Condit to resign". It is really remarkable that a loudmouth like Oliver North is not using his website to tell the world "I told you so." After the USS Cole terrorist attack, Oliver North called the tragic assault an 'act of war' and September 11, 2001 has created the opportunity for him to tell us what he meant because everybody has indeed been shocked and horrified by a brutal, horrific terrorist attack or another 'act of war'.