Sept. 11 Commission Report Has Huge Credibility Problem

JUL 15 - 30, 2004

VOL. 2 ISSUE 14

M/I BREAKING NEWS

SEPTEMBER 11 REPORT'S INTEGRITY SUSPECT

Claims With Regard To Past US/Bin Laden Connection Brings Entire Report's Credibility Into Question

by Samuel A. Stanson

JULY 23, 2004 – This is where we at The Moderate Independent have a huge advantage. While people at all the other media sources are obligated to put up summaries within minutes of receiving something like the September 11 Commission report, we at M/I realize there is no possible, accurate way to present a summary of this detailed, complex, 550+ page document within a few mere hours.

This result has been wonderful. One major media source ran a headline saying the report faults Clinton and Bush, the other says the report avoids faulting Clinton or Bush. And already, by the second day, the report is completely moved off of websites like ABC News.

But this is a vitally important document for our nation which should not be given short shrift. So today we will begin to break it down for you and highlight things that you should be aware of.

The report starts with a narrative, novel-like summary of the hijacking of the planes and the events of 9/11, giving painstaking detail. Minute by minute, quoting air traffic controllers and detailing the military's response, it makes for an interesting read but doesn't shed any real light on anything new.

Then, we get to something the press has ignored since the beginning - the root causes of 9/11. It details Osama bin Laden, his rise to power, the development of al Qaeda, and the history of the Middle East.

The parts about the region's political and economic history are a must read for anyone seeking to understand the reason the region is as it is today. It is a nice, concise (just a handful of pages long) summary of how conquests and specific economic policies have created a hot box that has been exploited by the likes of bin Laden.

It makes clear that the logic we have been fed by President Bush and the media - that 9/11 occurred simply because some people exist who hate America and freedom - is complete nonsense. 9/11 occurred because a group that had been set up and trained to battle the Soviets in Afghanistan decided, such as with the Dean and Clark campaigns after the primary season was over, that they had something very powerful that they should not let simply dissolve. (No, this is not an insult to Dean or Clark, just a parallel about not wanting to let powerful organizations set up for one cause go even after the cause has left.)

As the report states on page 55, bin Laden was part of the majahideen in Afghanistan.

For those of you who don't know what that was, we recommend watching Rambo III.

Why go watch an cheesy Sylvester Stallone movie from 1988? Well, look at this plot summary from Amazon.com :

Sylvester Stallone, who can't seem to draw flies unless he's playing Rocky Balboa or John Rambo, went back to the Rambo well (or septic system, as it were) to show his well-known solidarity with the Afghan freedom fighters who battled the Soviet army in the 1980s.

Notice something? No, not that Stallone milks movie characters until they turn to cheese, but that the great American hero, Johnny Rambo, was fighting with what were considered by us at the time to be the good guys, the Afghan "freedom fighters," otherwise known as, you got it, the majahideen, the majahideen that bin Laden was a part of.

From page 55 of the 9/11 Commission report:

Young Muslims from around the world flocked to Afghanistan to join as volunteers in what was seen as a “holy war”—jihad—against an invader.

No, the report is not talking about the situation we have now created in Iraq, but the one the Soviets had created in Afghanistan by invading that country.

The report continues:

The largest numbers came from the Middle East. Some were Saudis, and among them was Usama Bin Ladin.

So, brilliant Soviet foreign policy set up a mess which attracted the likes of bin Laden. And as we all know, we then financed, armed, and trained bin Laden, right?

Well, not according to the 9/11 Commission's report.

In a very troubling turn that puts the entire report's credibility into question, the report, on the very next page, goes ahead to detail America's role in aiding Johnny Rambo's buddies, the majahideen.

From page 56 of the report:

The international environment for Bin Ladin’s efforts was ideal. Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation. This assistance was funneled through Pakistan: the Pakistani military intelligence service (Inter- Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISID), helped train the rebels and distribute the arms.

Ok, here it is at last, right? Our government is finally going to own up to the fact that bin Laden is our Frankenstein, that bad Reagan/Bush/Rambo foreign policy and the resultant "blowback" is what led to 9/11? Wow, what a moment for truth, honesty, and reality.

Not so fast. Check this one out, the very next sentence of that paragraph in the report:

But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.23

Notice the little "23" after that sentence? That is called a footnote reference - a link to the source of this claim. Generally, people assume most readers will be too lazy to actually go look at what the reference is - heck, the rest of the media already had their reports posted and have moved on to other topics before they likely even got to reading this part of the report.

But we didn't. And when you follow the footnote, you see the source the September 11 Commission used as the credible source of this shocking claim that challenges the basic notions of reality and fact.

From the footnotes to chapter 2, here is the source for the Commission including, as if simple fact, that our government, even while giving, "billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan," apparently gave this money and assistance to everyone except bin Laden:

23. In his memoir, Ayman al Zawahiri contemptuously rejects the claim that the Arab mujahideen were financed (even “one penny”) or trained by the United States. See Zawahiri,“Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner,” Al Sharq

al Awsat,Dec.2,2001.

Yes, our government suddenly, in writing the report about the terrorist attacks of September 11, turned to the autobiography of a man named Ayman al Zawahiri as a reliable source. For those of you who somehow don't know who this man is, follow this link: http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/teralzawahiri.htm Notice the phrases "mostwant" and "terrorists" in the link's title. Yes, this is the al Zawahiri who is among the al Qaeda terrorists most wanted by our government.

Next I suppose they will be using bin Laden as a credible source.

Notice something ironic: in reporting on our government's actions during the 1980's, our government didn't simply ask our government what its actions were but instead went reading memoirs written by most wanted terrorists.

Notice something else. Look at this quote from the above note:

...Ayman al Zawahiri contemptuously rejects the claim that the Arab mujahideen were financed (even “one penny”) or trained by the United States.

So we get al Zawarhiri's rejection of "the claim" that we financed and armed Osama and friends, but we never get the claim to begin with. In fact, the report doesn't even mention that such a claim exists - in fact, they directly write as if clearly intent on pretending such a "claim" doesn't exist. Read again what they wrote as the actual text of the report:

But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of

support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the

United States.

There is no mention that anyone claims otherwise - until you get to the footnote. For the actual report, they simply choose to give al Zawahiri's rejection credibility while entirely dismissing whoever or whatever claimed otherwise. A voice for the terrorist but none for Americans who care to differ with him - in the very report on September 11. This is an outrage and a massive insult.

Perhaps realizing how absolutely asinine that would seem and that someone at some point might actually go and read the reference to such a shocking claim as this one, the note goes on to say:

CIA officials involved in aiding the Afghan resistance regard Bin Ladin and his “Arab Afghans” as having been militarily insignificant in the war and recall having little to do with him. Gary Schroen interview (Mar. 3, 2003).

This is where they got the "little" part in the, "Bin Ladin... received little or no assistance from the United States."

Which CIA officials did they ask? The the ones who were "involved in aiding the Afghan resistance," who happen to be, as luck would have it, the ones who need to now cover their butts because they would have been the very people who directly helped build up bin Laden and his network - and the ones who would know which leaders gave them, such as past Presidents, gave them the orders to do so..

Well there you go. Some unnamed CIA officials with lots of reason to try and cover their butts by downplaying how much they aided bin Laden say they recall bin Laden, recall having something to do with him, but say, nah, it wasn't that much, bin Laden was just a little guy we didn't see as important enough to have more than, well, just a little to do with.

There's only one problem with this claim. It is contradicted by the very report it exists in.

From page 55 of the report:

(bin Laden) became known chiefly as a person who generously helped fund the anti-Soviet jihad.20 Bin Ladin understood better than most of the volunteers the extent to which the continuation and eventual success of the jihad in Afghanistan depended on an increasingly complex, almost worldwide organization. This organization included a financial support network that came to be known as the “Golden Chain,” put together mainly by financiers in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states. Donations flowed through charities or other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Bin Ladin and the “Afghan Arabs” drew largely on funds raised by this network, whose agents roamed world markets to buy arms and supplies for the mujahideen, or “holy warriors.”

So the report says bin Laden was the money man for the resistance and worked with agents who, "roamed world markets to buy arms and supplies for the mujahideen." Not something the CIA would have anything to do with, right? I mean, just because he was from an extremely wealthy family and became one of the top money men and world-wide organizers for the resistance, helping it obtain "arms and supplies," it doesn't mean he was a conspicuous man who stood out as someone the CIA would know about and be involved with, does it?

From page 55:

Bin Ladin was conspicuous among the volunteers not because he showed evidence of religious learning but because he had access to some of his family’s huge fortune.

Well but still, just because he was "conspicuous," the money man, and involved with helping develop the world-wide network of financial support and arms and supplies for the resistance we were aiding, it doesn't mean we considered that he played an important part in aiding the resistance.

From pages 54-55:

Mosques, schools, and boardinghouses served as recruiting stations in many parts of the world, including the United States. Some were set up by Islamic extremists or their financial backers. Bin Ladin had an important part in this activity. He and the cleric Azzam had joined in creating a “Bureau of Services” (Mektab al Khidmat, or MAK), which channeled recruits into Afghanistan.

Ok, so he was a conspicuous son of a magnate, "understood better than most of the volunteers the extent to which the continuation and eventual success of the jihad in Afghanistan depended on an increasingly complex, almost worldwide organization," was involved with the Golden Chain that funded the resistance, was involved with a network "whose agents roamed world markets to buy arms and supplies for the mujahideen,” and "had an important part" in recruiting the soldiers for the resistance, setting up a worldwide network - in such places as right here in the US - to channel recruits to the resistance.

But if the most wanted terrorist al Zawahiri says he had nothing to do with us, then hey, it must be a fact and we should put that claim right into the report.

And despite the fact that we know that, as the report itself reports, "Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation," and that, in particular, bin Laden was "conspicuous," "important," and involved with the big bucks, arms and supplies network, and world-wide organization and recruitment for the resistance, if a couple CIA guys who have reason to lie tell us, "Bin Ladin and his “Arab Afghans," were, "militarily insignificant in the war," and so we had "little to do with him," - at least so far as they can "recall" - the Commission should simply print that as if it is fact (rather than perhaps talking to some guys with better memories and no reason to try and cover things up.)

Again, compare, from page 55 of the report:

Bin Ladin and the “Afghan Arabs” drew largely on funds raised by this network, whose agents roamed world markets to buy arms and supplies for the mujahideen, or “holy warriors.”

With this from footnote 23 for Chapter 2:

CIA officials involved in aiding the Afghan resistance regard Bin Ladin and his “Arab Afghans” as having been militarily insignificant in the war and recall having little to do with him.

Well, at least we see they both are talking about "Bin Ladin," and the "Arab Afghans," so we are on the same topic.

So you see, when the report states plainly that the U.S. had "little or nothing" to do with bin Laden, the "little" comes from this claim by unnamed CIA guys who do remember him, but don't seem to remember him too much, and the, "or nothing," comes, apparently, from their Sunday reading group's assessment of the autobiography of a most wanted terrorist.

And the fact that the report itself contradicts the very basis of the CIA guys' claims, that those silly "Afghan Arabs" bin Laden was involved with, and bin Laden himself, didn't play a significant role in the war, the Commission I guess was nice enough to decide that what they are telling us should not be considered when considering what they are telling us, at least with regard to this "insignificant" bin Laden guy.

And no, this is not one silly little fact that we shouldn't be too concerned if the Commission itself is lying about, because... well, let them tell us what happened next.

From page 56 of the report:

April 1988 brought victory for the Afghan jihad. Moscow declared it would pull its military forces out of Afghanistan within the next nine months. As the Soviets began their withdrawal, the jihad’s leaders debated what to do next.

Bin Ladin and (Abdullah) Azzam (a Palestinian cleric) agreed that the organization successfully created for Afghanistan should not be allowed to dissolve. They established what they called a base or foundation (al Qaeda) as a potential general headquarters for future jihad.

If we had financed and trained bin Laden, then, according to this passage, we ourselves helped lay the foundation of al Qaeda - and set the stage for 9/11. It is a simple fact, but one that, unfortunately, even the bi-partisan September 11 Commission lies to avoid, completely burying any such "claims" within a footnote of a statement saying unequivocally that we had "little or nothing" to do with bin Laden back then.

In fact, the report itself states directly how important this period back in the 1980's was with regard to bin Laden and his ability to be the terrorist leader he now is.

From page 54 of the report:

Other extremists had, and have, followings of their own. But in appealing to societies full of discontent, Bin Ladin remained credible as other leaders and symbols faded. He could stand as a symbol of resistance... He could present himself and his allies as victorious warriors in the one great successful experience for Islamic militancy in the 1980s: the Afghan jihad against the Soviet occupation.

We hear again and again that 9/11 occurred simply because evil people exist out there who hate freedom and democracy, the values we love. Indeed, this is President Bush's constant claim and rallying cry.

Yet this very report tells us otherwise, that there are "other extremists" out there but that Osama bin Laden is the one with the know-how and who was able to, "(remain) credible as other leaders and symbols faded," thanks to the hero status he earned fighting with us to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan.

From page 55:

Bin Ladin had another advantage: a substantial, worldwide organization. By the time he issued his February 1998 declaration of war, Bin Ladin had nurtured that organization for nearly ten years. He could attract, train, and use recruits for ever more ambitious attacks, rallying new adherents with each demonstration that his was the movement of the future.

Notice where it says, "...had nurtured that organization for nearly ten years." Then notice the date from which they are talking about: "1998." What happened exactly 10 years earlier? "April 1988 brought victory for the Afghan jihad... Bin Ladin and Azzam agreed that the organization successfully created for Afghanistan should not be allowed to dissolve. They established what they called a base or foundation (al Qaeda) as a potential general headquarters for future jihad."

We hear again and again that 9/11 occurred simply because evil people exist out there.

Yet from page 51 of the report:

Bin Ladin’s grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper.

An actual mention that it was specific U.S. policies that is helped lead up to 9/11. Which policies?

From page 48:

Bin Ladin had issued his own self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia.

Yes, he was pissed we put troops in his country, in his holy land. He considered it an unjust occupation.

Again on the next page, the report talks about what turned Osama against the US:

From page 49:

(Bin Ladin) inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.

Notice what is not included: the signing of a Constitution by the US that declares it a democracy. Also not included in Osama's list of grievances: the addition of ten amendments to the US Constitution that set up a Bill of Rights, ensuring freedom and justice for all Americans.

Yes, we are constantly fed the lie that we were attacked on 9/11 because some random people out there exist who hate freedom and democracy, the very ideals we Americans hold so dear. We at The Moderate Independent have clarified again and again that 9/11 was simply "blowback," bad Reagan/Bush foreign policy coming back to kill thousands of innocent Americans.

Yet while the 9/11 Commission finally puts down comprehensively in a single document that this all is undisputed fact, they themselves then destroy their own credibility by playing a game to cover for the failures of the Reagan and Bush I years, pretending it is a fact that we had "little or nothing" to do with Osama back in the Afghanistan days, omitting all claims to the contrary. By doing this, they are attempting to take the lynchpin out of the simple argument, made by many in the world, that we are being attacked for things we have done and do, not simply by random beige people who are jealous of us.

We will continue to analyze the report, in the manner a useful news source should. But analysis of this report clearly must be done with an eye to intentional deletion and misstatement of even the most basic facts for the sake of giving a pre-selected impression, with regard to at least certain vital issues. That is big news, and a big let down for the nation.

REFERENCE: The September 11 Commission's report

HELPING M/I EXPAND

Many of you have expressed an interest in helping The Moderate Independent grow.
If you wish to contribute to help M/I grow, click the button below.