portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

Meacher: 'Both Wars Were Planned In Advance Before 9/11'

In an exclusive cooperation, GlobalFreePress arranged an Interview with former British Minister Michael Meacher, which will be broadcast by INN News Report on Friday, 6PM EST on U.S. Television.

 http://new.globalfreepress.com/article.pl?sid=03/09/19/1527251
"US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11."
"At least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks."
We met Meacher in Boston: "Both Wars were planned in advance before 9/11"

posted by ewing2001  http://new.globalfreepress.com/ on Thursday September 18, @08:53PM
from the INN-Report/GFP dept.

In an exclusive cooperation, GlobalFreePress arranged an Interview with former British Minister Michael Meacher, which will be broadcasted by INN News Report on Friday, 6PM EST on U.S. Television.

Meacher explained, that both Wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were planned in Advance before 9/11; he spoke about the role of PNAC, Oil and Cheney's controversial Energy Task Force in 2001.

The Interview will be broadcast on Friday at 6PM, 9415 dish network  http://www.freespeech.org/ (Free Speech TV) and Public Access Channels  http://www.publicaccesstv.net/ (i.e. in New York on MNN, Cable #34)

New York/Boston, INN Report/GFP -September 19th, 2003

On Thursday, GFP has learned, that former British Environment Minister Michael Meacher, was invited in Boston to speak at the Coolidge Room in Ballou Hall, Tufts University, Medford,  http://www.projo.com/ap/ma/1063827342.htm a few miles away from Boston.

Obviously, Meacher was already invited a while ago, to talk about U.S. and European trade conflicts over genetically modified food.

We called University Assistant Siobhan Houton and got an okay in the late afternoon.

Lenny Charles, Producer of New York's INN News Report, took off on Thursday morning and arrived in time at 5PM, when Meacher was happy to give him an exclusive TV-Interview.

Two weeks ago, Meacher claimed in British Paper Guardian,  http://news.globalfreepress.com/article.pl?sid=03/09/06/0621250 that the US government knew in advance about the September 11 attacks but, for strategic reasons, chose not to act on the warnings: "At least 11 countries provided advance warning"  http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html (Guardian 09/06).

With only one exception by Orlando Sentinel, the U.S. Media ignored completely the story of Meacher.

In Charles' interview, Meacher mentioned the important role of NeoCon Think Tank PNAC, around current U.S. Government Members Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff), who were thinking about a war in Iraq already years before the September 11th attacks.

Meacher said, he found most of their documents in public domain and reviews on that in mainstream outlets.

One of their documents, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was already written in September 2000.

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

It also pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system"

This blueprint furthermore states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

In a Guardian article from September 6th, he furthermore debunked the so called Incompetence Theory as Bogus.
 http://news.globalfreepress.com/article.pl?sid=03/09/06/0621250&mode=thread
 http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

He said, that it was "clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks."

He also found a BBC article, which expressed, that "Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia."

Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden.

INN News Report asked Meacher also about the role of Dick Cheney, who established an Energy Task Force in early 2001.

Already on April 19th, 2001, Rep. Waxman and Rep. Dingell expressed their concern and wrote to to Andrew Lundquist,  http://web.archive.org/web/20020202082524/http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_energy/energy_cheney_chrono.htm the executive director of the White House's energy task force, asking for information on the task force's operations.

President Bush established the task force in January 2001 under the Vice President's leadership, and entrusted it with the task of developing a national energy policy. Also on April 19,  http://web.archive.org/web/20030918130732/http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs/pdf_inves/pdf_energy_cheney_chrono_april_19.pdf Reps. Waxman and Dingell wrote to the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, asking it to investigate the conduct, operations, and funding of the task force.

But Cheney refused to talk about the content of the meetings.

Meacher responded on Charles question, that Cheney's ignorance was very disturbing to him, too.

The congressional investigation of the task force was prompted by news reports that the task force had met privately with major campaign contributors, such as Kenneth Lay, the CEO of Enron, to discuss energy policy.

According to these reports, major Republican contributors attended private sessions with Vice President Cheney and the task force met secretly with other contributors in formulating the President's National Energy Policy.

Meacher decided to look deeper into this case and read in a BBC Report, that also the War against Afghanistan was planned before the U.S. had any reason to "retaliate".

During his research, he found out, that already in at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001, Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials, that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October".

"Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.

But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

For INN News Report, Meacher explained that the U.S. Government needed a Cover-up for their real Interest about Oil.

Already mentioned in Guardian, the PNAC document considered to develop biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".

As we learned, the U.S. later claimed, that Saddam Hussein had a huge stock of Weapons of Mass Destraction, which was denied by the former Iraqi Leader.

In fact, the WMD haven't been found yet and a recent draft report  http://news.globalfreepress.com/article.pl?sid=03/09/18/1642229 from Wednesday on the search for WMD provided no solid evidence that Iraq had any when the United States invaded in March.

This was also supported by former U.N. Inspector Hans Blix, who said this week, that Iraq destroyed its weapons 10 years ago and that intelligence agencies were wrong in their weapons assessment that led to war.

Meacher said, that the U.S. was "a prisoner of its energy dilemma".

They needed a reason to start this war.

Iraq remained for the U.S. a destabilising influence to... "the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East".
Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, one report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary.

The full Interview with Michael Meacher will be broadcast on Friday at 6PM, 9415 dish network  http://www.freespeech.org/ (Free Speech TV) and Public Access Channels  http://www.publicaccesstv.net/ (i.e. in New York on MNN, Cable #34).

One week later, Meacher will talk about Modified Food.

homepage: homepage: http://new.globalfreepress.com/article.pl?sid=03/09/19/1527251

what it comes down to... 19.Sep.2003 16:20

this thing here

>Iraq remained for the U.S. a destabilising influence to... "the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East".<

more importantly, and given the obvious importance of oil in this task force report, the real question is WHY was iraq a destabilizing influence to "the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East."?

my theory is that iraq was "destabilizing" because it was under embargo. which is to say, the second largest reserves of oil in the middle east could not be brought to market because they were under embargo. furthermore, this embargo created no incentive whatsoever for the iraqi's to even try to develope their oil, to invest in infrastructure and refineries, and therefore, to make a usable product. as well, all the oil money went to saddam hussein's regime. the more oil that did get out, the more money hussein's regime had, and the stronger he got. and finally, the worldwide context of that oil. there ain't a lot of it left. period. and when it starts to run out, you better have the biggest stash of it in your hands or in the hands of your friends, or else you're going to have to go begging on hands and knees for the last drops.

so essentially, from the point of view of the bush admin., you have the second largest reserves of oil in the middle east, yet it's stuck and jammed behind an oil for food embargo (which is destabilizing), it's "unexploited" because of a decrepit, useless iraqi oil industry (which is destabilizing), the money it generates (or would generate) serves only to strengthen an evil regime (which explains the focus on taking saddam out), and you better get your hands on the second largest reserves while it's still hot or you'll have to go begging for it... which is really to say that all that oil and it's only coming out in tiny little trickle, right at the same time america NEEDS it to come out in gushes and gushes, because time is running out (which is destabilizing). an intractable log jam...

could this log jam be broken by keeping saddam in power? no. could this log jam be broken by having that embargo in place for another 10 or 20 years, or as long as saddam is in power (when ever saddam goes, so goes the embargo)? no. do another 10 years of weapons inspections, another ten years of saddam and another ten years of embargo help to break the log jam? no. therefore, if you're in the bush admin., can you see any possible peaceful solution to this log jam? i say this because i think it explains the insane urgency and warmongering antics of the bush admin.. from the point of view of the bush admin., they were frantic. they were junkies without a hit. they would do anything or say anything to get what they wanted, whether it was attacking france, lying to americans, lying to the u.n., threatening the u.n., anything, anything at all...

so if you want a solution to the log jam, you come up with pretexts for taking out saddam, you take out saddam, you remove the basis of the embargo, and you unlock the flow of oil...

so, can you say threat to national security and secret energy task force (unless we weren't pitifully addicted to oil)? can you say military option with post war occupation and rebuilding of key industries to ensure smooth flow to markets of key resource? can you say we need an excuse to go into iraq, such as a non-existent and irrelevant WMD program, such as non-existent ties to al-qaida? hmm, such as september 11th, 2001...

when a junkie is without his or her daily junk, and can't get anymore for some reason, would you characterize them as being stable? sometimes, it's the lack of something that's "destabilizing"...