Last Friday, after I finished reading McClatchy’s ‘juicy story’ based on some Ex-Polish spy’s recent ‘revelations,’ I kept going back and forth between several theories to explain the ‘real factors and purposes’ behind this entire nonsense. Of course, in coming up with my possible ‘possibilities’ I kept the paper’s own dictated agenda (factor) constant (not among the variables) making my approach semi-scientific. After all, we are talking US mainstream media, the ‘always constant’ when it comes to establishment-dictated narratives. That left me with the source, possible factors influencing or completely shaping the source’s revelations, and most importantly, the benefactors-who may be benefited from this so-called revelation and how.
Now, here is the link, some highlights from McClatchy’s juicy story, and a few comments from me (All emphasis are mine):
In late 1999, two years before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people, a group of Afghan agents loyal to an anti-Taliban guerrilla leader proposed assassinating Osama bin Laden. All they wanted was the $5 million reward the Clinton administration had offered for bin Laden’s capture, says a former Polish spy who was the Afghans’ go-between on the plot. The CIA rejected the plan, however, saying, “We do not have a license to kill.”
First, I thought McClatchy was being cute—an attempt to be sarcastic and humorous. Later, a few sentences down the junk piece, I realized they were actually serious. For God’s sake someone please tell me: since when, from day one of its inception, this evil agency has murdered, butchered, illegally assassinated, bombed . . . based on having a license to do so? Let me put it differently, as far as the establishment (those who gave birth to this terror organization and have sustained its evil existence) goes, the license with no ifs or buts, and one with no expiration date, has always been there. So what license are they referring to in this junk-story? Congressional mandate/blessing? I don’t know of any ‘formally’ granted congressional blessing for all the terror work this agency has been carrying out for over half a century. And of course, there are no constitutional, international laws, human rights bodies . . . that has the power or right to issue or withhold a ‘Killing License’ to this terror agency. Are they talking about the Commander in Chief? If so, when it comes to hierarchy, the establishment and its agency, our ever-present and constant shadow government, has always come first.
Next, the junk-story goes into junk-theories on why the United States (and the CIA) did not pursue Bin Laden, ignored intelligence on his whereabouts and movements, and chose fundamentalist Taliban to side with:
But on Oct. 14, 1999, a CIA officer whom Makowski identified as “Jim” flew to Warsaw with a response. “I would like everyone here to be absolutely clear on one thing: We do not have a license to kill,” “Jim” told top officials at the headquarters of Polish intelligence. Makowski, at the time a businessman, said he was at the meeting.“We have to capture bin Laden safe and sound so that he can stand trial and be sentenced legally,” Makowski quotes the officer as saying. “Any other solution is out of the question. CIA operates within the American legal order.”
. . .
But Makowski’s book isn’t about the world that might have been. Instead, he uses the aborted bin Laden assassination plot as the basis for a much broader criticism: that the U.S. government, including the CIA, faced with a choice between a fundamentalist Taliban regime that had taken power in 1996 and the Taliban’s main rival, guerrilla leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, sided with the Taliban.
For a second let’s put this ‘license to kill’ BS aside, and look at the big picture. The CIA was not in any need of additional outside intelligence on Bin Laden’s whereabouts and movements. Why would they be?! During this period US operatives and NATO were working directly with Bin Laden; carrying out almost daily operations in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and some parts of the Balkans. Our CIA operatives, our State Department operatives, select NATO commanders including the Turkish branch, select Saudi officials including Bandar, and including two high-level ISI top officials, had several meetings with Zawahiri, including a critical meeting in Baku-Azerbaijan in late 1998. These are FACTS. In light of the facts, the idea that Polish guys were tipping off this same CIA on Bin Laden’s whereabouts and movements is simply comical. Nonsense.
And let’s check this out wearing our critical thinking-reasoning hat:
Makowski thinks that was why Massoud granted him the access to his network in the first place. But the CIA didn’t warm to Massoud, Makowski said, and it’s unclear whether the information reached all the CIA analysts who were monitoring bin Laden. Scheuer, for one, said he couldn’t recall “hearing of any information from a Polish government source on al Qaida.” He added, “I know that period pretty well.” Makowski now thinks that Massoud held back intelligence about bin Laden and the 9/11 plot because of the CIA’s lack of interest. “I am aware of the fact that the development of modern Afghanistan doesn’t matter to the Americans,” Makowski recalls Massoud telling him in August 1999.
. . .
Unfortunately, Massoud missed a key part of bin Laden’s 9/11 planning: Massoud’s own assassination, which took place on the eve of the Sept. 11 attack.
Eliminating Massoud was one of many ‘clean up’ operations to erase (wipeout) as much evidence/trace as possible. Otherwise, the official plot on 9/11 would have been much harder to sell. Just think who stood to gain/benefit from Massoud’s elimination?
Anyhow, the junk-story goes on to quote an unnamed CIA guy and the usual despicable CIA front-man (the guy who was commissioned to write a book under the name ‘Anonymous’;-), and . . . well, the juicy junk ends with some idiotic and convoluted mesh.
I can quickly see one of the intended conclusions the newspaper is trying to sell to the majority who are uninformed and lack critical thinking ability:
See, if the CIA was given this ‘license to kill,’ if we had a guy like Obama who assassinates and murders globally men-women-children with his drones without having to have any justification, we might have eliminated 9/11. So, let’s maintain the current un-licensed and unjustified murdering . . .
Now, the other secondary theories I have deal with this Polish Ex-Spy guy:
Is he gullible and ultra naïve?
Does he really believe this nonsense?
Is he so uninformed and unable to put the already-established facts together connecting many of the dots dealing with 9/11?
Are this guy’s so-called revelations totally calculated and scripted?
And most importantly:
How many Polish spies does it take to connect simple obvious facts and dots?
Now your turn. Let us hear your take.
In addition to publishing Boiling Frogs, where this article originally appeared, Sibel Edmonds is the founder and president of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), a nonprofit organization dedicated to aiding national security whistleblowers. She has appeared on national radio and TV as a commentator on matters related to whistleblowers, national security, and excessive secrecy & classification, and has been featured on CBS 60 Minutes, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and in the New York Times, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, The American Conservative, and others. Her book, ‘Shooting the Messenger,’ co-authored with Professor William Weaver is forthcoming from Kansas University Press.