Bulletin #27

From: Francis Feeley <Francis.Feeley@u-grenoble3.fr>

"Bush and Cheney Are Involved"

USA is becoming quite cozy with the only country in the world (apart from
itself), against whom there is incontravertible evidence of having been
involved in September 11. The USA has been prepared to pound Afghanistan
into the ground, despite having not a shred of evidence against Bin Laden,
while showing a total lack of interest, in pursuing an individual whose
complicity in September 11 has become a matter of public record, not denied
by anyone. The US is also totally uninterested in pursuing the country
which harbours him. In fact it considers that country to be a close ally in
the war AGAINST terrorism!

On reflection, it is also curious how little real damage was done to the
USA, by the September 11 attacks. It is worth reflecting on what probably
could have been achieved by the hijackers, had they really wanted to do the
maximum possible damage. It seems to me that a plan to organise the
hijacking at such a time that they could have crashed a plane into the
senate or congress while it was sitting, thus wiping out a significant part
of the USA's government in one hit, could have been just as easily
achieved, as what they actually did on Sept 11. Or crashing the planes into
a nuclear power plant, causing a catastrophic meltdown and release of
radiation, as well as serious disruption to power supplies. It is not
credible to suggest that these plans were not carried out, because they
thought the security would be too tight, considering that they were
confident enough to go for the pentagon.

In the final analysis, in spite of all the shock, horror, and grief caused
by September 11, not one member of the US administration was killed, or
injured, not even a single senator, congress member, or governor, or any
local official. No damage was done to military capability, and no damage to
power, trasnsport, communication or water supplies. In fact, the damage was
so trivial, that the US was(allegedly) able to organise a war in record
time, despite having had a plane crashed into the pentagon. (Funny about
how that reshuffle a week before, meant that the Pentagon was able to get
on with business, almost unhampered!) While the loss of (civillian) lives,
and the symbolic and psychological damage to general public was enormous,
in the larger scheme things, the attacks, while giving the US a huge
propaganda weapon, made zero impact upon the USA's ability to continue its
role as an aggressive world superpower. This would seem to be an
extraordinarily poor return, considering the near technical perfection of
the operation, when the damage could have been devestating, simply by
choosing the targets more sensibly.

It needs to be realised that the war in South Asia is more than just a
continuation of US foreign policies which are estimated by disgruntled
ex-CIA personal to have murdered (as of 1990 )a minimum of 6 million
civillians around the world, in covert CIA operations ,over the previous 30
years, and to have , at any one time, been sponsoring terrorist
organisations in around 50 countries. ("The Praetorian Guard" by John
Stockwell) Up until now, people in the West have been safe. The game has
now changed. Not only have they randomly murdered thousands of their own
citizens, for the purpose of unleashing a new intensity in the wave of
terrorism against people in South-Asia and the Middle East, but they are
using those very same murders as a lever to reduce the rights and freedom
of speech in the west, to levels not seen since the fascist era.

Consider the following domestic developments since September 11.
In the USA: Laws for indefinite detention without trial, charge or
evidence, laws which any Third World dictator would be proud of. Unlimited
power to monitor and freeze finances. Unlimited power to monitor and
intercept email and internet traffic. Hugely increased funding for covert
law enforcement agencies, as well as sweeping new powers of arrest,
surveillance and telephone tapping. "Terrorist" organisations to be defined
according to political belief not according to any evidence that they are
prepared to use terrorism. My understanding is that anti-globalisation
activists, such as Naomi Klein, can now be classified as terrorists under
the new laws. I have been told that the president of the American Greens
party is now banned from air travel. Foreigners accused of terrorism to be
tried in military, rather than civilian courts, with no public scrutiny of
the trial, and no right of appeal, and the power to monitor conversations
between the accused and their solicitors. (That's if they even get a trial)

In Britain: Tony Blair has attempted to introduce similar laws. The House
of Lords has frustrated some of them, but nevertheless sweeping rollbacks
of civil liberties have been acheived. A senior member of the British
cabinet recently described civil liberties as an "airy fairy thing of the
past, in the post-

September 11 world. "In Australia: laws for 48 hours detention of anyone,
without legal representation, even if they are not suspected of terrorism,
but may have information which might be useful. At the time of writing
this, it had been recently announced that the Australian government will
shortly freeze the finances of 200 individuals and organizations, decreed
by the US PRESIDENT as being supporters of terrorism. My understanding is
that there will be no charges, evidence, trial or right of appeal. In the
west now, anybody who is accused of terrorism, automatically loses all
civil rights, and anybody can be arbitarily accused.

Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin would approve enthusiastically.

All of this would be scary enough, even if it were genuinely an
over-reaction to an act of foreign terrorism. When you realise that these
laws are being drawn up by the same people who actually organised the act
of terrorism which triggered it, the scenario is truly chilling.

And on the subject of the USA president, it should be noted that for the
first time ever, the man who won the US election was not appointed
president, while the man who LOST it, was. When this is added to the
extraordinary resources which were poured into George W Bush's republican
nomination push, against other candidates, who were far better qualified to
take on Gore, followed by an election which was clearly rigged, it becomes
obvious that George W Bush was always going to be president, no matter
what. It is therefore clear that this plan goes back well before November
2000. Whether or not the September 11 atrocities had been specifically
planned by then, I can't say, but it's clear that the wider agenda had
been. Note that the current, unelected president is the son of a man who is
a major shareholder in the huge arms corporation Carlyle group, which is
set to profit from this war, the same man who is an ex-director of the CIA
which helped to put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, and the same man
who was meeting with Osama Bin Laden's (not estranged) family, presumably
for business purposes, as recently as 2000. The scandalous aspect here, is
that the President is the presumed heir to a fortune being amassed on the
back of this war, and it would appear that the alleged target of the war is
also set to make a tidy profit. Along with the secretary of state. A
conflict, scripted by the protaganists, where they are the only people who
don't get hurt.

The profit motivation for Carlyle group has been mentioned . In fact Donald
Rumsfeld, is already telling European countries that they need to boost
defence budgets. I'll bet that Carlyle group, and Rumsfeld's old buddy, the
chairman of the company, will get a tidy share of it. Colin Powell appears
to have the snout in the trough as well, unless he's severed all his former
ties with Carlyle group and disposed of his shareholding, in which case I
apologise. Can someone find out if this is the case?The president's father
will certainly be making a lot of money, out of increased European defence
budgets. (Incidently, Bush senior's grandfather was also an arms dealer,
and didn't mind doing business with the Nazis.)
(http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas5.htm ) But the wider
agenda is the pursuit of the huge unexploited reserves of oil and gas under
the Caspian sea. They are currently owned by Russia and Iran, I would
suggest, not for much longer if the USA has it's way. It has been US policy
since at least 1996, that a pipeline to carry this gas and oil to the
Indian ocean, for transport to the West, must be built through Afghanistan.
Whoever controls Afghanistan, controls the Caspian sea reserves. For years
now, US covert foreign policy has been to sponsor terrorist organisations
in the south of the former Soviet Union, in order to nibble away the area
of Russian territory which borders the Caspian sea, and Afghanistan. This
process is now almost complete with breakaway governments having been
succesfully formed in Kazakshtan, Turkemenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
Krygyzstan, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Only the the area to the North of the
last two, now needs to be broken off, for Russia to lose it's territorial
rights to the Caspian Sea. Please note that I have no problem, in principle
with local regional governments being formed to free people from the
hegemeony of large powers such as Russia, but the reality is that the local
breakaway movements, which may have been genuine in their origin, have been
distorted into self-interested terrorist movements by covert CIA action,
and the new autonomous countries will now simply become subject to US
hegemony, rather than Russian, and rather than being genuine expressions of
local culture, identity and self determination, will be dominated by local
tyrants and terrorists doing corrupt deals for the sake of their own power.
The US is more than happy to talk business, in fact that's the whole idea
of setting up these local tyrants. Jimmy Carter's national security
advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, at the time, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan,
proudly described his policy achievements in Afghanistan, in the following

The USA, by stirring up local uprisings, did everything possible to goad
the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, and once it had achieved this, then
backed the other side (The Taliban). This had a twofold purpose. It wasted
Soviet resources in a long war of attrition, which they couldn't win, and
it destabilised a part of the world which was strategically important, to
the USA

Some direct quotes from Brzezinski:
"We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the
probability that they would. "

"Regret what? The secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect
of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you want me to regret
it?The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to
president Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving the USSR it's
Vietnam war."


So, the 20-year civil war which has ravaged Afghanistan, and caused such
apalling death, poverty and misery, was a deliberate policy on the part of
the USA, who backed the Taliban all the way through, and is now giving
them, their final "reward. " Furthermore, the last quote from Brzezenski is
a tacit admission that much of the antagonism towards the West, amongst
Muslims, was deliberately engineered by the US, as part of its
destabilisation plans for the Middle East and South Asia. I won't go into
this, any further, but considerable coverage is given to this aspect of the
history, at the first website referred to, at the end of this document.
This US plan is so far-reaching that they may find it neccesary to pound
the whole of South Asia into the ground, in order to achieve it. One way or
another, they must control all of the aforementioned countries, as well as
Iran and Pakistan. Some are likley to cave in out of a combination of
intimidation and bribery, as is so far the case in Pakistan. Others may
need to be attacked. The September 11 events gave the USA a blank cheque to
attack any country in the world, simply by uttering the word "terrorist".
The three latest countries(at the time of writing this) to be named as
targets in the war against terror, are Yemen, Somalia and Sudan, three
countries we've heard very little about, previously, in relation to
terrorism. But surpise, surprise, one only needs to glance at a map of the
world, to see their strategic significance. Somalia and Yemen, between
them, form both sides of the mouth of the gulf of Aden, which is the
entrance to the Red Sea, and the Suez Canal, and therefore, the shortest
route, between Europe, and the Indian ocean, where it borders South Asia.
Control of these countries, by the US would also place extra pressure on
Saudi Arabia, and Eygpt to continue with US-friendly policies. Sudan forms
most of the southern edge of the Red Sea. Iraq is strategic because it
borders Iran on the west. The September 11 attacks also give the US and
allies such as Britain, a blank cheque to roll back civil liberties to the
extent that any of their own citizens, who might make a fuss, can be
silenced, simply by uttering the word "terrorist". It also places extreme
pressure on other allies, such as Australia to do the same. Presumably,
they remember the bitter lesson they learned about the power of domestic
opposition, during the Vietnam war. When President Bush said "You are with
us or against us," it was a thinly veiled warning to every other country in
the world, including Australia, that unless the US recieves absolute
unquestioning obedience, anybody is fair game.

Doubtless, all world leaders, including Australia's, have heard the message
loud and clear. It would also appear that the ALP heard it loud and clear.
During the election campaign, Kim Beazley was falling over himself, to make
it clear that an ALP government would obey the US totally, and without
question. His motivation may well have been more than simply oppotunistic
electoral popularity. The USA's actions in Afghanistan, are not only
directly stategic, they are delivering a stark warning to every other
country in the world, that they must be obeyed.

Anything which I've neglected to directly reference, can be found with full
referencing on the web sites mentioned below, except for some things which
were heard on the radio. Where possible, I've tried to write down at least
some clues for these, so that a persistent searcher may be able to find
them in Archives. This is not designed to be a serious academic work, with
academic credentials. It's designed to expose the truth. Those who wish to
do the work to verify this information, in an academically acceptable
format, will find it easy enough to do so. While the case does pivot around
a number of key facts, a lot of it is also common-sense interpretation, of
general knowledge. The Bush administration has left a huge trail of
evidence about September 11. The main reason that it has not become obvious
to the majority of people yet is, apart from the obvious influence of the
media, that everyone has been too shocked by the speed and brutality of the
events to think clearly. For myself, it took about 2 weeks for the shock to
begin to wear off sufficiently, for things that should have been obvious at
the time, to become so. Once the initial breakthrough is made, in this
regard, the inconsistancies and implausible explanations begin to develop
from a "trickle" to a "flow to a "torrent".

For example, this cracker was reported on the ninemsn website on Nov 28. An
article saying that US officials had received information that Bin Laden
may be planning a major terrorist attack on US energy facilities, in
particular gas pipelines. However, the very same article reported that the
"noose around Bin Laden's neck" had tightened, to the point that he was
pinned down to a 30 km2 area, running for his life, constantly on the move,
in a desperate bid to avoid death or capture. Pardon me, but exactly how
does anyone launch a sophisticated terrorist operation against targets on
the other side of the world from this position? Only people in a deep state
of shock could fail to see that this is a ridiculous lie. And the next day
it was reported that he "may" have chemical or nuclear weapons (although
they admitted, late in the article of course, that they didn't actually
have any evidence of this at all). So this man, allegedly desperately on
the run, is carrying truckloads of intercontinental missiles and missile
launchers, constantly between cave and cave? And they're not being picked
up by US spy sattelites, which we were earlier told could detect the
faintest trace of heat in a cave where he may be hiding? Or does he have
some sophisticated radio network, sending out instructions to supporters,
to launch attacks from safe undisclosed locations? Signals which his
supporters can pick up, from somewhere far away, not under US control, but
somehow can't be picked up by the US and British forces which have him
surrounded, like a "noose around the neck"? The lies and inconsistencies in
this campaign are so obvious, that I suspect that those behind it are going
to need a sophisticated strategy of continuing to keep people in a state of
constant shock, fear and confusion, otherwise the obvious truth will come
out. The anthrax campaign springs to mind. And the continual false alarms
about renewed attacks from Bin Laden(remember the golden gate bridge false
alarm!), and continual, totally unsubstantiated rumour-mongering about
nuclear or biological attacks. Soon there will be attacks on other
countries, along with a torrent of propaganda about the terrorist threats
from whatever villain is identified as the latest evil murderer, who must
be hunted down at any cost. Perhaps Bin Laden has now outlived his
usefulness and will now be killed, although it is more likely that he will
conveniently escape to another country, giving the perfect excuse to for
the US attack there.

This will all add to the confusion, the fear, the distraction. The ball
must be kept rolling at any cost. If neccesary, they can always launch more
terrorist attacks against their own people, to renew the shock and fear.
After all, they are playing for the highest possible stakes. Not only what
they stand to gain, which was their original motive, but now, given what
they've done, Bush senior, Bush junior, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and
probably quite a few others, all face the possibility of charges of treason
and murder and would almost certainly face death penalties.

I'm not sure what can be done, but the first step, is that people must know
the truth.



add your own comments and send to <stevegreyau@yahoo.co.u

"A good case"
by Judge Judy 9:18am Tue Dec 25 '01

"At the very least, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice, should be
brought before a tribunal to answer for their incompetence in defending the
WTC and Pentagon, at the most they should be brought before an
International Court, to answer charges of complicity in mass murder of
American citizens and subsequently invading a foreign country and commiting
war crimes, against humanity.
Very interesting.
by Constantly Sceptical 2:57pm Tue Dec 25 '01

"Very interesting article. The kind of questions I have been asking myself
(and others) for a long time (well since Sept 11 at least). I would like to
make reference to this article when arguing on the issue at various
mediums. Please excuse my ignorance but I have no idea who the author,
Steve Grey, is. It would help if he could tell us a bit about himself...
Who are you, a journalist, academic, researcher...?
by sceptic 3:22pm Tue Dec 25 '01

"This is in no way evidence;it is merely conjecture. All the points that
the author is making can be read in many different ways.

"No, it is not possible to get fighter aircraft off the ground in one
minute flat. I suggest the other visit an airforce day early one morning in
the middle of peacetime - which is what this was. He might get a surprise.
I have spent weekends on RAF bases in the 70s and 80s, in the Cold War
period. Everyone, but everyone, goes home.

"For a start, the engines will not be running. For another point, the
aircraft will not be carrying live ammunition. Peace time regulations
demand this. Go and look them up. The US Air Defence system is geared up to
an attack from abroad. The notice of an attack by hostile aricraft from
outside the US borders would be of the order of some hours. That is why
fighters are not kept at one minute's notice.

"And the idea of using long rage missiles - can you detail me any "long
range missiles" in the vicinity and what they might be?

"In addition, shooting down aircraft has its hazards. Remember Lockerbie?
Shoting down a 747 or similar over an inhabited area will also create

"Using the logic applied above, Stalin colluded in the invasion of the USSR
by Hitler. And no doubt Mrs Thatcher colluded in the invasion of the
Falklands. Amy more good ideas?
to sceptic
by somewhat less sceptical 3:49pm Tue Dec 25 '01

"The evidence surrounding the interception of hijacked aircraft or civilian
aircraft in toruble comes from FAA regulations whicha are publicly
available. They have been posted on this website before but I can't
remember the article ID. As to whether or not they can scamble in 1 minute
flat is indeed debayable but the time frame we are talking about here is
more than enough for the jets to have been scrambled.
What exactly is your point about RAF bases at weekends. You expect us to
believe that because the RAF goes home for the weekend that on Sept 11th
that the US airforce chiefs that protect the Pentagon- the largest office
block in the world, were all safely tucked up in bed, cos no-one attacks in
the morning.
Yes this is conjecture. But it is asking some serious questions. That have
not been answered in the mainstream press or by the military in the US. Ask
yourself why not. If the conspricay theory that this represents were based
on non-truths then why is it so hard to dispell the arguements made by the
Your question about long range missiles for example. How close to the
target would you wnat them to be? Well how about the fairly well publisied
anti-anticraft missiles located on and around the Pentagon. Presumably
these weren't on when the aircraft entered the no fly zone around the Pentagon.
I am a sceptic. A sceptic of the propaganda put out in the mainstream-
designed to stop us askig the real questions about Sept 11th. And that does
include who did it- be they American or Islamic fundamentalists.
by Garcon 6:46pm Tue Dec 25 '01

"it's a very good article which puts a whole load of shit together under
one roof. Sceptic's comment is really scraping the barrel. Who the fuck
said anything about scrambling fighters in 1 minute ??? we are talking
about two hours while the dictate moron is reciting billy goats gruff to a
bunch of school kids, W's reaction was something akin to a Fonzy impersonation.
There is not much that i would query about this article but quite a bit to
add. I reckon the the author is right on the spot or if not very very close.

"As beam me up scotty is not an option anyone got any suggestions ????????
i suggest a half-way theory
by corvus 1:34pm Wed Dec 26 '01

"what ?
that is to say, the USA was expecting something to happen, but had fatally
underestimated the scale. whatever they WERE expecting (perhaps a
relatively run-of-the-mill incident) it would possibly have been used for
justification for TWAT (The War Against Terrorism). Maybe even Mossad was
involved in some way. But I DONT think anyone guessed the details of it.
There is a similar case, dating back to 1871. When the Franco -Prussian war
ended, Paris, which had been under siege for a year, had fallen out of
control of the imperial regime and was being run in part by socialists and
other left-leaning republicans. The official French premier, Adolphe
Thiers, set about finding a way to provoke the self-governing city into
conflict and underestimted the depth of hatred ordinary Parisians felt for
the empire. The result was the Paris Commune, one of the high points in the
world revolutionary chronicles, which left the city in flames and about 20
thousand dead.