freethemedia2002

The mystery surrounding the death of John O'Neill:
The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11
by Chaim Kupferberg

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca , 13
June 2002 (revised 19 September 2002)
Read more in Global Outlook September 11: Foreknowledge or Deception?
Stop the Nuclear Threat, Issue no 2, Summer 2002. Now available (click
here to order)

In the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the World Trade
Center, the finger of guilt was directed toward the only plausible
author for such a sophisticated and ruthless act of terror - Osama bin
Laden.

Throughout the late '90's, we were informed that bin Laden had
declared war on America by reason of the American military presence on
Saudi soil in the wake of the Persian Gulf War. We were told how bin
Laden, ensconced in Afghanistan, headed up a world-wide terror
franchise whose sophistication and global reach dwarfed that of the
Iranian-financed Hizballah or Islamic Jihad (previously, the most
widely known of the terror organizations among the masses in the
Middle East). Bin Laden's organization, al-Qaida, was presented to us
as something entirely new in the annals of terrorism - a far-flung,
sophisticated empire of terror, possessing - possibly - weapons of
mass destruction, while having no clear or viable state sponsor behind
it (as the Afghani Taliban were merely its resident protectors). In
short, by September 11, the United States now had a bona fide enemy -
and, as they say in criminal justice parlance, a suspect with motive,
means, and opportunity.

And while I was a bit taken at how quickly - and confidently - the
fingers were pointing only hours after the 9/11 bombings, I was
positively shaken by the first red flag that popped up. His name was
John O'Neill - or more precisely, he is the seam that shows. Dated
September 12, in a Washington Post article by Vernon Loeb, it was
revealed that O'Neill, who died in his capacity as head of security
for the World Trade Center, was also formerly the New York FBI
Counterterror chief responsible for the investigation into Osama bin


in that "there's nothing to see here, folks" tone - that gave me that
sinking feeling. Apparently, O'Neill had a falling-out with the
Ambassador to Yemen over his investigative style and was banned from
returning there. But then there was that other nugget that I had
trouble digesting - that O'Neill had resigned from a thirty-year
career in the FBI "under a cloud" over an incident in Tampa - and then
left to take up the security position at the WTC (only two weeks
before!).

The seam that shows...

For the bulk of his career, like most of his FBI colleagues, John
O'Neill was largely unknown to the public at large - respected in his
circle, to be sure, yet scarcely meriting much mention in the media -
beyond being referenced now and then as an expert on counterterrorism.
Yet in the few months leading up to September 11, O'Neill was now
suddenly the subject of a series of seemingly unrelated controversies
- the first, in July, involving his dispute with the State Department
over the conduct of the bin Laden investigation in Yemen; and the
second, in August, in which he was reported to be under an FBI probe
for misplacing a briefcase of classified do***ents during an FBI
convention in Tampa.

In the light of the aftermath of this second controversy - the
do***ents were found, "untouched", a few hours later - one wonders why
this seemingly minor news would merit such lengthy coverage in the
Washington Post and New York Times. Keeping in mind the fact that
these latter articles on O'Neill appeared a mere three weeks before he
was to die in the rubble of the Twin Towers, one wonders if this
wasn't a well-orchestrated smear campaign against O'Neill, with a bit
of unintended "blowback" - as this now-discredited counterterror chief
in charge of all bin Laden bombings would finally make the news as a
fatal casualty of bin Laden's final bombing. Coincidence? Or was there
something more here that would bear investigating?

My gut told me that, in the months preceding September 11, somebody
was out to either discredit John O'Neill or, alternatively, to plant
disinformation that could later be used to divert any investigator
from a fruitful reconstruction of the forces behind 9/11. Or, quite
possibly, was a mistake made - one pointing the way toward a plan
whose scope goes well beyond the designs of Osama bin Laden? In other
words, could we spot the telltale fingerprints of a propaganda
campaign preceding 9/11?

Well, as they say, a hypothesis is only as good as its usefulness in
ferreting out reality. My hypothesis: that the events of September 11
were planned by those who not only had the motive, means, and
opportunity to carry out the plan, but also were best placed to manage
the consequences stemming from it, as well as managing the flow of
information. If this were an "inside job", the first thing to do was
to look at who conveyed specific information on bin Laden before - and
I stress, before - 9/11, for they were most likely involved wittingly
or not with those who masterminded it.

Virtually the first "smoking gun" was presented the day after 9/11,
when Vernon Loeb and Dan Eggen reported in the Post that Abdel Bari
Atwan, editor of the Al-Quds al Arabi newspaper in London, "received
information that he [bin Laden] planned very, very big attacks against
American interests" only three weeks before 9/11. Moreover, the
article reported that Atwan "was convinced that Islamic
fundamentalists aligned with bin Laden were 'almost certainly' behind
the attacks." Incidentally, Atwan had personally interviewed bin Laden
in Afghanistan in 1996 - among the very few to do so. As reported by
Michael Evans in the August 24, 1998 issue of The Times, Atwan "is
trusted by bin Laden."

Curious, perhaps, that Atwan seemed to be one of the major "point men"
used in elaborating the Osama bin Laden "legend", as they say in
intelligence parlance. In a U.S. News article dated August 31, 1998,
Atwan informs us that bin Laden "is a humble man who lives simply,
eating fried eggs, tasteless low-fat cheese, and bread gritty with
sand. He hates America." No flash in the pan, this interviewer.
Apparently, bin Laden kept Atwan's business card tucked away in his
toga pocket. "Bin Laden phoned this newspaper, phoned me last Friday,"
Atwan revealed in an ABC News LateLine Transcript dated August 25,
1998. We'll come back to ABC News shortly.

While solidly implicating bin Laden the day after 9/11, Atwan was also
the media's "go-to" guy back in 1998 when he informed us, after
President Clinton bombed tool sheds in Afghanistan, that bin Laden
issued this threat against the United States: "The battle has not
started yet. The response will be with action and not words." In the
same article (which I took from Nando Times), ABC News is the source
for an additional threat called in by Ayman al-Zawahiri, a senior bin
Laden aide: "The war has just started. The Americans should wait for
the answer." Only a few months before that, ABC had conducted its
televised interview of bin Laden. By the summer of 1998, primed by
Atwan, ABC NEWS, and a surprisingly small clique of well-worn sources,
we had come to know bin Laden as America's latest "Saddam", "Qaddafi",
"Noriega" - take your pick and set your bomb sites.

By October 2000, when the U.S.S. Cole was bombed in Yemen, in case
there was any doubt, Atwan offered Reuters his helpful ****ysis with
regards to the source of blame: "I do not rule out that this was
undertaken by Osama bin Laden. Yemeni groups don't have the experience
to carry out this kind of operation." Atwan informed Reuters that bin
Laden "was unlikely to claim direct responsibility for Thursday's
attack for fear of U.S. reprisals." One can imagine, then, that Atwan
gave his trusting phone mate cause for many a sleepless night. With
friends like these...

Leading up to 9/11, by the Spring of 2001, an incriminating wedding
videotape, apparently implicating bin Laden in the Yemen bombing, was
circulating around the Middle East after being broadcast on the
ubiquitous al-Jazeera television station (reconstituted from the BBC
TV Arabic Service - more on them later). In the video, bin Laden,
according to the Saudi-owned al-Hayat newspaper (more on them later,
too), recited a poem celebrating the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole
(shades of deja vu here?) This from the ABCNEWS.com site dated March
1: "Al-Hayat, which carried a photo of bin Laden and his son at the
wedding, said its correspondent was the only journalist at the
ceremony, also attended by bin Laden's mother, two brothers and sister
who flew to Kandahar from Saudi Arabia."

And yes, here, too, Atwan offers his thoughtful review of the bin
Laden video, courtesy of PTI, datelined London June 22, 2001: "[Atwan]
said the video was proof that the fugitive Saudi millionaire [the
Bruce Wayne of terrorists] was fit, well equipped and confident enough
to send out a call to arms." Why this sudden need for proof? According
to Atwan in the same article: "There have been rumours that [bin
Laden] is ill and that he is being contained by the Taliban in
Afghanistan. It is quite clear from the film that he is in good health
to the point where he can fire a rifle, and is free to operate as he
chooses." In other words, limber enough for his starring role in the
months ahead.

So who is Abdel Bari Atwan and why is he anxious to tell us so much?
According to the Winter 1999 issue of INEAS (Institute of Near Eastern
and African Studies), Abdel Bari Atwan, a Palestinian, was born in a
refugee camp in the Gaza Strip in 1950. Educated at the American
University of Cairo, Atwan moved to Saudi Arabia and worked as a
writer for the al-Madina newspaper. In 1978, he moved to London, where
he became a correspondent for the Saudi-owned Asharq Al-Awsat
newspaper. In 1988, after shuffling around between Saudi-owned papers,
Atwan was offered a position as editor of al-Quds al-Arabi. By his
account, he was offered a position as the executive editor of the
Saudi-owned al-Hayat (of the bin Laden wedding video coup), yet turned
it down to produce a more independent newspaper as a challenge to the
"empires" of the Saudi-dominated dailies.

Al-Quds began production in April 1989. A little more than a year
later, Saddam invaded Kuwait and al-Quds stood alone as the only Arab
newspaper opposed to the Persian Gulf War - at least by Atwan's
account. According to Atwan: "Without the Gulf War, we wouldn't have
taken such political lines, which made us well recognized and well
respected." In November 1996, Bari-Atwan braved a twelve-hour car ride
through muddy roads, attired in shabby Afghani rags in below-zero
weather, and gave us the early scoop on bin Laden, conducting a
one-on-one interview in bin Laden's [bat]cave. From then on, the
mainstream media - CNN, ABC, BBC, Sky News - looked to Bari-Atwan and
al-Quds as the "independent" voice of the Arab street.

..........
....... http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html