Bush Admin Didn't Pursue Bin Laden Post 9/11

Here is an interview with journalist Gareth Porter which states a point of view that many of us here on ATS have been aware of for some time.

In a nutshell, he explains that the "National Security Apparatus" needs conflict, preferably with states as enemies, in order to justify the enormous budgets given to them, and ensure that they continue.

He summarizes the post 9/11 reality that the Taliban offered the Bush administration to hand over Bin Laden to The Islamic Conference upon the showing of evidence that he, indeed, was connected to the attacks. However, it is claimed that U.S. interests via Pakistan, encouraged the Taliban to NOT follow through on the capture of Bin Laden. Apparently, once the bombing began, the Taliban even offered to take away the condition of proof, and hand him over anyway (being now in self-preservation mode), but the U.S. refused.

Our favorite trio of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz opposed any effort to fight Al-Queda and capture Bin Laden, as they were more interested in state warfare against Iraq and Iran... as the "big ticket" items are used in state warfare, not counter-terrorism. Porter finishes this claim with "there was a lack of planning by design to let Bin Laden get to Pakistan". (paraphrased)

Both journalists agree that a new investigation into the events and cover-ups of the 9/11 events are necessary.
With special emphasis on documents which showed direct financing by members of the Saudi Royal Family, and the Pakistani ISI, of the 9/11 terrorists. Historically, there is a very, very cozy relationship between Pakistani military and Saudi Arabia. (Not to mention anyone in the administration with personal oil interests.)

As usual, enjoy and discuss...


the Billmeister

reply to post by Billmeister


And yet people still believe Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11?? How?? Our own president didn't even go after him, doesn't that tell everyone something??

I am a FIRM believer that the Bush administration was the mastermind behind it all, for oil, money, and to invade Iraq to finish what daddy started....


This thread I discuss why I believe this more in depth if interested.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A Huffington Post contributor being anti-Bush? Tell me it's not so!

2nd line.

reply to post by Billmeister


Word..

The first 15 seconds of this video has an interview with Cheney talking about the absence of evidence linking to Bin Laden...

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


Remember Clinton did'nt go after him either!

Now, I wonder why none of them went after him???? Let me think...............

Wait, I thought that they really went after him and he was killed in 2001? I thought that the events surrounding 5/1/11 were a "false flag" since they have known he was dead the entire time? I sure wish you people would quit changing your stories and putting out such disinformation! How can I be expected to trust in or believe my conspiracy brethren when they are so obviously lying to me about everything!

Sarcasm very much intended.

reply to post by rstregooski


I must admit that I am somewhat confused as to the tie between Osama Bin Laden and the events of 9/11.

It is claimed he is responsible for the attacks, but he obviously was not in any of the planes, so how exactly was he responsible?
Did he book the flights, the travel agent of sorts?
If he was the mastermind (i.e. having drawn out all the plans to the finest detail) was he in constant communications, controlling the whole operation via Twitter?

(ex: @papabear.cave "there is a sale on box cutters at the Office Depot, but the utility knives at Wal-Mart have just been rolled back... awaiting orders" -Goldilocks
@goldilocks "take the boys to r&r at a western pole dancing show, will prepare them for virgins in afterlife, leave Koran as gift to establishment." -Papabear)

Not make any light of the tragic events, but in honest questioning of Bin Laden's actual role in the events.

the Billmeister

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


Nooooooooooo, Bush went straight in to Iraq remember!

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


I posted an interview of Gareth Porter. The post includes a summary of the discussion, these are not, I repeat, not my own words.

I agree that there are many conflicting versions of the events on, following and attached to 9/11, perhaps this is by design, or perhaps not, but I am not claiming in any way to have the "true" version of events, or that this interview does, I simply think it brings up some very interesting discussion points which would be of interest to some here on ATS.

the Billmeister

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

 

Remember Clinton did'nt go after him either!

The interview does state that the elements in the Bush administration concerned with counter-terrorism were arguing against the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz clan to concentrate on Al-Quaida, many of whom were remnants of the Clinton administration.

That said, you are very correct, this is not a partisan issue, as those who profit from conflict do not change with elections.

the Billmeister

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

 

Remember Clinton didn't go after him either!

But that's not important in this 'journalist's' opinion because it wouldn't sell in the world he 'writes' for.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Understood, you dislike the messenger.

Do you have anything to discuss concerning the message?

They seem to be backed up by reliable sources... that said, I understand that the "reliability" of sources is a major issue of contention here on ATS and in life. Rightly so, because, unless we are first hand eye witnesses to an event, we are dependent on interpretations of various sources which we may choose to place more or less weight on.

the Billmeister