Bob Herbert: Rumsfeld and the degradation of the U.S. military

Bob Herbert The New York Times

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2005 NEW YORK

How does Donald Rumsfeld survive as defense secretary?

Much of what has happened to the U.S. military on his watch has been catastrophic. In Iraq, more than 1,600 American troops have died and many thousands have been maimed in a war that Rumsfeld mishandled from the beginning and still has no idea how to win. The generals are telling us now that the United States is likely to be bogged down in Iraq for years, and there are whispers circulating about the possibility of "defeat."

Potential recruits are staying away from the armed forces in droves. Most Americans want no part of the administration's hapless venture in Iraq. A woman in Connecticut with two college-age sons said to me recently: "My boys should die in Baghdad? For what?"

Parents from coast to coast are going out of their way to dissuade their children from joining the military. Recruiters, desperate and in many cases emotionally distraught after repeatedly missing their monthly goals, began abandoning admission standards and signing up individuals who were physically, mentally or morally unfit for service.

The abuses became so widespread that the army suspended recruiting last Friday so recruiters could spend the day being retrained in the legal and ethical standards they are supposed to maintain. The army is going through its toughest year for recruiting since the nation went to an all-volunteer military in 1973.

The military spent decades rebuilding its reputation and regaining the respect of a vast majority of the American people after the debacle in Vietnam. Under Rumsfeld, that hard-won achievement is being reversed. He invaded Iraq with too few troops, and too many of them were poorly trained and inadequately equipped. The stories about American troops dying on the battlefield because of a lack of protective armor have now been widely told.

The insurgency in Iraq appeared to take Rumsfeld completely by surprise. He expected to win the war in a walk. Or, perhaps, a strut.

Now the military is in a fix. Many of the troops have served multiple tours in Iraq and are weary. The insurgency remains strong, and the Iraq military has proved to be a disappointing ally. A senior American officer, quoted last week in a New York Times article, said that while he still believed the effort in Iraq would succeed, it could take "many years."

As if all this were not enough, there is also the grotesque and deeply shameful issue that will always be a part of Rumsfeld's legacy - the manner in which American troops have treated prisoners under their control in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. There is no longer any doubt that large numbers of troops responsible for guarding and interrogating detainees somehow loosed their moorings to humanity and began behaving as sadists, perverts and criminals.

The catalog of confirmed atrocities is huge. Consider just one paragraph from a long and horrifying recent story by Tim Golden of The Times about the torture and brutal deaths of two Afghan inmates at the hands of U.S. troops:

"In sworn statements to Army investigators, soldiers describe one female interrogator with a taste for humiliation stepping on the neck of one prostrate detainee and kicking another in the genitals. They tell of a shackled prisoner being forced to roll back and forth on the floor of a cell, kissing the boots of his two interrogators as he went. Yet another prisoner is made to pick plastic bottle caps out of a drum mixed with excrement and water as part of a strategy to soften him up for questioning."

These were among the milder abuses to come to light. The continuum of bad behavior that has been a hallmark of the so-called war on terror extends from this kind of activity to incidents of extreme torture and death.

Neither the troops nor the American public signed on for a war in Iraq that would last many years. And I can't believe there are many Americans who wanted their military sullied by the wanton behavior of the torture crowd.

The troops who do their jobs honestly and diligently, and who fight bravely when they have to, have been betrayed by leaders who encouraged abusive behavior and allowed atrocities to flourish.

Rumsfeld has driven the military into a ruinous quagmire, and there is no evidence at all that he's capable of finding a serviceable route out.

How does the pro-War, pro-Bush II contingent on this Board reconcile the above picture of American public opinion and the state of the US Military with the frequent posts suggesting that the US is gaining the upper hand in Iraq.

Lambasting the New York Times as a looney left rag will not wash.

????? The article doesnt represent American public opinion and unlike the author, most Americans are not surprised by the fact that wars can be difficult. MARK

War is hard. Liberals are wussies. Conservatives however, are not.

Just to play devil's advocate - The fact that he's doing a bad job is covered up by the fact that "war is hard" and "liberals are pussies"?

In any case, the reason that Rumsfeld is still in there is Bush jr.'s phenomenal loyalty to his underlings, no matter what. Its provided a solidarity that has been totally unheard of in a cabinet.

I think that if there were rumors with some evidence that Rummy was a pedophile that Bush would still back him. Thats why he's in there.

How is he doing a bad job, exactly?

In two years he has both fought a guerilla war and built a nation in record time.

He can only seem to be doing a bad job to the historically ignorant.

Please elaborate.

The charges that Rumsfield is not doing a good job are unfounded. In fact, he is making changes that are opposed by both the Left AND the main TO&E Military. So I am not surprised.

Where He is changing the most is with the use of Special Ops and fast response Units, at the expanse of the old military establishment. As a former Special Operations weenie, I can remember when anyone wearing a Green Beret(perish the thought of wearing a coloured viginia on one's head) almost guaranteed a commissioned officer that his move to Field Grade or higher was almost impossible. Line Officers looked upon us as an aboration because we did not play the game and were not under their direct control.

Naturally, when the Donald cancelled the Crusader program, and other multi billion dollar projects, only to increase the number of Ops units, the Military establishment raised a stink.

So, forget about what you see in the NY Times. They have a political agenda, and the main military is in the process of getting leaner and meaner, with less centralization. naturally the Generals don't like it.

Think Afghanistan and remember that a couple of hundred "Operators" won that war on the cheap and on the quick. That is what the Donald is working on, and I support him completely.

Unfortunately, it takes a special individual to become an Operator, and there are only so many that can cut the grade. Too Bad!

Perhaps he is refering to Afghanistan. A land that has know only conflict and anarchy for decades built into a nation where-

Sixty-four percent of those surveyed said they thought Afghanistan was heading in the right direction,

Nearly two-thirds of Afghans (64%) interviewed said they rarely or never worry about their personal safety, while under the Taliban only 36% felt that way.

53% of Afghans surveyed rated the security situation in their areas as excellent or good

A majority of Afghans surveyed approved of the performance of President Karzai and the Transitional Government. 62% of those surveyed rated President Karzai’s performance as either good or excellent, while 57% rated as good or excellent the work of the Transitional Government as a whole.

75% of those surveyed held an unfavorable view (62% very unfavorable) of the Taliban,

Roughly two-thirds of Afghans surveyed were positive towards the US
http://www.asiafoundation.org/Locations/af...tan_survey.html


MARK

Iraq as well.

Nation Building takes a long time. Nation Building is down and dirty work. Nation Building is NOT A PRETTY JOB.

But somebody's gotta do it. And Rumsfeld is doing is pretty well.

the REbuilding process is incredibly bogged down, however. After Gulf War 1 Saddam, without the might of the US taxpyers to help him, rebuilt the entire infrastructure in 4 months. how long did it take us? Are we even done yet? Does all of Baghdad have full power all the time now? Yet?

re: building a government ... I doubt that is record time - sorry to disappoint, mate. You might note that they aren't quite done yet, either, so at any rate you are counting your chickens.

Re: Afghanastan - a couple hundered operators didn't win the war. The main forces of the Afghan rebels "won" the war with US support. The other problem is that they still haven't "won", exactly. The Taliban is still aruond and controlling territory. They COULD hve been completely wiped out by nowm, if anyone actually cared. That is, if Rumsfeld was doing a good job....

Rummy is one of the head neocons who used his wild funny arm gestures to fool dumb american rednecks that iraq was evil and needed to be terminated (via "shock and awe") which excited his pseudo -nazi right wing moron support base.

He is a complete fool, a complete failure and a war criminal not too far from Milosevic.

Rumsfeld was against Nation-Building Iraq, jackass.

The Nation Building is incredibly bogged down? How so?

In two years we have toppled Saddam's government, built up a new one, held free and fair elections, transferred control of the state to the Iraqi government, removed the Iraqi Insurgency's ability to attack hard targets, reducing them to soft target terror, trained to the Iraqi Security Forces to the point where there are now more ISF troops in Iraq than US troops, and have already begun our troop reduction campaign.

Its funny how right wing morons continually brainwash themselves with lies. What "new gov't" The puppet one like Afganistan?? The "insurgents" are being held at bay alright, how many car bombs are going off every day? (we know that USA is planting them anyway)

Are you capable of making a post that has a SINGLE claim in it than can be reliably proven? I don't think I have ever heard you say something that is true.

Yes, I made many benny... how many posts have you made that proves your points (lies)??

Of course.

Anything and everything that paints Muslims or Islam in a light that is anything but positive is a lie.

Anything and everything that paints the west or westerners in a light that is anything but negative is a lie.

The arrogance and childishness of Muslim society never ceases to amaze me. Do you people ever get around to wondering why, exactly, if you're religion, you're culture, and you're people are so inherently superior than those found in the west, the west has enjoyed global hegemony for centuries, while you have been wallowing in poverty and desperaction since the days of Suleiman I?

Oh, right, the Jews.

What are you ranting about now Benny? You have some kind of mental problem, some kind of inferiority complex! Read some books on islam, learn, get a life!

My knowledge of Islam, Middle East culture, and Middle East history leaves very little to be desired. My interest in the culture and history of the Middle East, as well as the faith of Islam, began long before 9/11, when I was a child, in my first learnings about the Crusades ( I am a Catholic and my family descends from the Knights Templar.) There was in fact a time in my life when I considered conversion to Islam as a very real possibility. Overall I admire and respect the Islamic Culture of yesteryear, and feel a certain pity for the Islamic culture of today.

And I have what you would term a life.

Islamic culture of today does not concern you. You think it concerns you because the zionist jews want you to believe that islam is your enemy and not them... who have repeatedly attacked USA (Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, 9/11 etc)
The Crusaders were a bunch of barbarians... this is the current US mentality today. Islam never occupied and oppressed people like the christian, roman, or other empires. This is testament to Islam’s greatness.

The Holy Land was the sovereign territory of the Byzantine empire and had been so, and had been at peace, for a course of centuries. The Islamic Empire invaded and annexed the Holy Land. That a large portion of the Crusaders were barborous is a more or less accurate claim.

The current US mentality is not that Islam is our enemy. It is that select groups of radical Muslims, as well as key Middle East governments, including ones that are almost totally secular, like, for example, the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, are our enemies. The mentality is accurate. If the US mentality was simply that Muslims were our enemies, we could on a whim simply turn the entire Middle East into a pool of bubbling glass and melted sand. We have done no such thing.

Since 9/11 the US has more or less stayed out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except to act as a peaceful mediator for negotiations. The US provides large amounts of funds to both sides of the conflict, and has always advocated a peaceful two state solution as the best way to resolve the conflict. The myth that the US has a sinister and unfair alliance with Israel against the Palestinian people is just that, a myth, mainly born out of the fact that the US supported Israel in the Israeli-Arab wars, largely because Israel was a democracy, while the Arab nations were not, and also largely because the USSR was supporting the Pan-Arab coalitions.

1. The Holy Land was occupied by the oppressive Byzantines and was liberated by the Islamic armies. Proof is the fact people accepted islam is mass. This is the bottom line. We will see how many will accept "americanism" or "christianity" in iraq after this mess is done.......

2. Lies. USA cannot turn the mid-east in a glass because a). The Creator will not allow it. . It will be completely isolated from the world. c). would affect Israel. d). They would loose an oil supply.

3. Since 9/11 USA gave Ariel the green light (or should I say it was Ariel telling USA to shut the hell up) while he murdered over 4000 palestinian, razed thousands of palestinian homes, and annex even more Palestinian land in the West Bank.

I don't want them to accept Christianity, they should be free to choose whatever faith they desire. Indicators show that the large majority of them are at least tolerant of the US, which is all we ask.

Had the Byzantines been oppressive as the Muslims made them out to be, there would have been some semblance of civilian uprising against Byzantine rule. The fact of the matter is the land had been perfectly at peace for centuries before the Islamic Empire showed up.

Using that logic, the people of the mid-east would have uprised against the muslims, instead, Islam ruled the mid-east in peace and prosperty for many centuries!

No, the Muslims were not particuarly oppressive in those days.

Neither however, were the Byzantines. Humanitarian Liberation is not a practicle justification for the Islamic Empire's annexation of The Holy Land.

There was no "annexation", there was a change of admistration and an over improvement in people's lives!

How exactly were people's lives improved by taking down crosses and putting up crescent moons? The Islamic Empire ended centuries of peace and brought about centuries of war.

It's interesting to me that you use the same justifications to defend the annexation of the holy land that you so abhor others using to justify US Mideast actions. Not meant to be an insult, just reveals the way different people look at the world in different ways.

Centuries of war?? Benny, what history do you read? The main source of war was from the Crusaders (invading barbarians.... your relatives apparently) that spanned in the centuries during the height of islamic power! We should also add the Mongols who were also invaders!

The muslims never behaved in the fashion USA and israel are behaving today. NEVER!
You are a LIAR, as usual!

The main source of war was from the Crusaders, yes.

Can you blame them? They were answering a call from Emperor Alexius I to take back the land that had originally belonged to Byzantine.

One cannot simply invade and annex an area of land belonging to another nation and then act surprised when those who are the rightful rulers of the land try to take it back.

Oh calm down Skipper, you aren't obligated to defend every Muslim in the history of the world anymore than I am obligated to defend every Christian.

Now we are into the "chicken and the egg" cycle!

There was peace in the Holy Land BEFORE the crusades, there was peace AFTER the crusades... case closed.... no need to make up new versions of mythical history.

The Crusaders did not own the holy land, infact, they SACKED CONSTANTINOPLE (Byzantine)!!! (so much for that argument)

The Fourth Crusade was hijacked by a rogue band of Sicilians who basically wrested power from the Pope and more or less tricked the Crusaders.

The was peace in the holy land before the Islamic Empire came. There has been a neverending series of wars there ever since, with only short breaks (short in the historical sense that is)

Things were better after the islamic empire. There are volumes of texts written on this subject!

Where? From what sources? Either way why is this relevant to the discussion? There is no question that the Crusades were as series of wars over a area of land the Islamic Empire had in fact annexed.

You forget that the Ottoman Empire existed from 1299 to 1923 (634 years).

During that time there may well have been periods of conflicts around its borders, which extended at one time stretched from the Persian Gulf in the east to Hungary in the northwest, and from Egypt in the south to the Caucasus in the north, but generally within the 'Holy Land' there was peace.

That peace ended with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the European powers squabbled over the pieces.

That and the supply of arms to Isreal. I'm curious ... what is the diffrence in aid levels between Isreal and Palestine? Overlooking the nuclear program? perhaps? If you mean stayed out as in "did not invade", then I see your point .....



Anyway, if you think that the support that Jews here in the States have for the State of Isreal isn't a big motivating factor, you REALLY need to go back to school. Just like the anti-Castro Cubans in Florida are important, politically. When you have a voting block that deeply cares about something, and no opposing voting block, then that is an easy nd politically motivated stance for a politician to take. When those same group happens to have some very rich and influental members....

Think if it like the NRA, except that no one else cares about guns.

This is a long way away from TOT's assertain that the Isreali's are governing the US. BUT Sharon can tell the US to "go to hell" and get away with it because he has got lot of support back home whereass the Palestinies don't.

The US supplies arms and money to both Israel and Palestne.

Of course the Palestinians don't have support with the average American. Why would they? They are constantly doing things such as dancing in celebration on 9/11. They don't DESERVE the support of the average American.

benny, you need to understand something about the non-muslim definition of annexation. The basic premise is that one who is annexed is "taken over" from the annexing power for the sole purpose of benefiting the annexing power. This is conquest. People under islamic rule did not feel that they were conquered, because the islamic mentality is totally different. It does not conquer for material gain, rather, for a spiritual gain by which they can spread the message and religion to those how want to accept it. Otherwise, the Byzantines would have continued to throw muslim missionaries into vats of boiling oil or water (nice Byzantines :-) )

There is a saying from the christians who lived under islamic rule: "better the sultans turban then the bishop's staff"... in other words, christians were better off under muslim rule then the previous christian rulers!

So you need to stop the negative portrayal of islamic empire because you are only fooling yourself for self created lies.

Benny," the dancing Palestinians on 9/11" is a myth. The ones who were dancing on 9/11 were zionist jews who were Mossad agents inside USA

CNN showed footage from 1990 and said it was on 9/11!!.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm

Are you actually implying that There were not widespread celebrations in the Muslim world as a reaction to 9/11?

Yes, that is exactly the case. The zionist jew media tried to create this hysteria by using old footage.... and you conveniently deny the fact that the zionist jewish agents who were captured on 9/11, were witnessed their jewish dancing as the planes hit the towers!

The Zionist Jew Media. Rofl.

Yeah and everything in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is 100% accurate.

So you deny israeli agents were caught dancing on the Jersey side of the river, watching and filming the planes as they crashed into the WTCs??

Link?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/Sh...sID=0&listSrc=Y

These links seem to all come to the same conclusion:

Five Israeli men were detained after 9/11. The US Government questioned them extensively and came to the conclusion that there was nothing to suggest that they had had prior knowledge or had cooperated in anyway with the September 11th attacks.

In the case of the first two links, the authors then embark on a trail of innuendo and conjecture about what these Israelis "Might have been doing."

Last time I checked, being accused of a crime did not, in and of itself, make one guilty of that crime.

In the case of the first link, www.whatreallyhappened.com is a widely discredited website, and in the case of this article, it provides very little to back up it's claims.

If there was any real evidence to suggest that Israel had had prior knowledge or had cooperated with the attacks on 9/11, it would have become a media explosion, both on the internet and in the foreign press ( I know you think the US press is Jew-controlled.)

Not even Al Jazeera had a whole lot to say about this story.

Ok Benny, but you right wing emotional lunatics were ready to bomb arabs when CNN showed fake footage of arabs dancing because of 9/11, now we have israelis dancing and you people continue to support them in every possible way. The zionists are laughing at you pitiful fools!. They attacked you on the Lavon Affair, you turned the cheek, they attacked you on the USS Liberty, you turned the cheek, but when those sons of bitches tell you to attack iraq, you run and do it!

You talk about "american interests abroad", you how stupid are you people to work for a foreign nation who's interests lie with the well being of that nation? Why do you give Israel 4 billion every year? What is the return for thus?

But the problem is that you did not read the sites and see the evidence that does show them as being suspects in 9/11. You just made up your own conclusion and dismissed the entire issue which is profound:

"One official of the present administration stated that the “evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.” [Fox News 12/12-13/01]"

I dont know if CNN used fake footage or not, it is possible they did. I do know that Palestine was far from the only place celebrations broke out, and news agencies all over the world reported it, not just CNN.

As of June 21st, 2002, the FBI's investigation into the matter was still going on at full swing, and had thus far been unsucessfull in finding anything to suggest that the Israeli government had had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks:

http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%2...pt_11_Spies.htm

So if CNN used fake footage (which resulted in burnt mosques and dead muslims in USA), you don't seem to think its a huge problem? Benny, you need get some help.

Next on the israeli spy ring, it is a massive issue, that is being bottled up by the media and powerful zionist lobby AIPAC and the supporting "think -tanks" like JINSA and PNAC. The probe is now investigating AIPAC but, nothing will surface, as war criminal Ariel blurted out "We control america"

If the dancing israeli agents have no connection to 9/11, why did they behave like they were celebrating? And why were they filming it? (as if they were waiting for it, as if they knew??)

Also interesting, these videos resurfaced on those infamous "islamic websites".... makes you wonder who is actually running them.

With a motto "by deception, thou shall do war", the Mossad is a clear suspect... beside, what have they contributed on the "global war against terror"??

I think its a VERY large problem if Americans lash out at innocent Muslims, regardless of why they do it. Thankfully those who did it in the US were arrested and tried for their crimes.

The ABC news report says that the Israelis in fact arrived at the scene AFTER the attack.

The celebration charge is given by one witness named "Maria" who the hell is this "Maria" ?

Benny, you are shooting in the dark! You cannot argue you way out if facts. It is amazing the length you people go to defend zionists, which means you are a zionist, these are the facts:


The men set up cameras by the Hudson River and trained them on the twin towers. (1)

Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming “middle-eastern” men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2)

"They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. (3)

[T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. (4)

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6)


"It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." (7)

One anonymous phone call to the authorities actually led them to close down all of New York's bridges and tunnels. The mystery caller told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that a group of Palestinians were mixing a bomb inside of a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel. Here’s the transcript from NBC News:

Dispatcher: Jersey City police.
Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building.
Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform.
Dispatcher: He has what?
Caller: He's dressed like an Arab. (8)

(*Writer’s note: Why would this mystery caller specifically say that these “Arabs” were Palestinians? How would he know that? Palestinians usually dress in western style clothes, not “sheikh uniforms”)


Based on that phone call, police then issued a “Be-on-the-Lookout” alert for a white mini-van heading for the city’s bridges and tunnels from New Jersey. When a van fitting that exact description was stopped just before crossing into New York, the suspicious “middle-easterners” were apprehended. Imagine the surprise of the police officers when these terror suspects turned out to be Israelis!
According to ABC’s 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers:


"We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem." (9)

Why did he feel that Palestinians were a problem for the NYPD?

The police and FBI field agents became very suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers supposedly used), $4700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives. (10)

The FBI seized and developed their photos, one of which shows Sivan Kurzberg flicking a cigarette lighter in front of the smouldering ruins in an apparently celebratory gesture. (11)

The Jerusalem Post later reported that a white van with a bomb was stopped as it approached the George Washington Bridge, but the ethnicity of the suspects was not revealed. Here’s what the Jerusalem Post reported on September 12, 2001:

American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington Bridge. The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge. Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey and New York, Army Radio reported. (12)

TCM Breaking News reported that the van was laden down with tonnes of explosives (13).

What's really intriguing is that ABC's 20/20 (14), the New York Post (15), and the New Jersey Bergen Record (16) all clearly and unambiguously reported that a white van with Israelis was intercepted on a ramp near Route 3, which leads directly to the Lincoln Tunnel.

But the Jerusalem Post, Israeli National News (Arutz Sheva) (17), and Yediot America, (18) all reported, just as clearly and unambiguously, that a white van with Israelis was stopped on a ramp leading to the George Washington Bridge, which is several miles north of the Lincoln Tunnel.

It appears as if there may actually have been two white vans involved, one stopped on each crossing. This would not only explain the conflicting reports as to the actual location of the arrests, but would also explain how so many credible eye-witnesses all saw celebrating "middle-easterners" in a white van in so many different locations. It also explains why the New York Post and Steve Gordon (lawyer for the 5 Israelis) originally described how three Israelis were arrested but later increased the total to five.
Perhaps one van was meant to drop off a bomb while the other was meant to pick up the first set of drivers while re-crossing back into New Jersey? If a van was to be used as a parked time-bomb on the GW Bridge, then certainly the drivers would need to have a "get-away van" to pick them up and escape. And notice how the van (or vans) stayed away from the third major crossing -the Holland Tunnel- which was where the police had originally been directed to by that anti-Palestinian 9-1-1 "mystery caller". A classic misdirection play.


From there, the story gets becomes even more suspicious. The Israelis worked for a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems. An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the The Record of New Jersey that a majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were joking about the attacks.

The employee, who declined to give his name said: "I was in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me." These guys were like, "Now America knows what we go through." (19)

A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities (20).

It was later confirmed that the five detained Israelis were in fact Mossad agents (21). They were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released. Some of the movers had been kept in solitary confinement for 40 days. (22)

[S]everal of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home.
Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." (23)


How did they know there would be an event to document on 9/11?

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots of the dancing Israeli Mossad agents - here's the most logical scenario:

1. The Israeli “movers” cheered the 9-11 attacks to celebrate the successful accomplishment of the greatest spy operation ever pulled off in history.
2. One of them, or an accomplice, then calls a 9-1-1 police dispatcher to report Palestinian bomb-makers in a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel.

3. Having thus pre-framed the Palestinians with this phone call, the Israeli bombers then head for the George Washington Bridge instead, where they will drop off their time-bomb van and escape with Urban Moving accomplices.

4. But the police react very wisely and proactively by closing off ALL bridges and tunnels instead of just the Holland Tunnel. This move inadvertently foils the Israelis’ misdirection play and leads to their own capture and 40 day torture.

5. To cover up this story, the U.S. Justice Department rounds up over 1000 Arabs for minor immigration violations and places them in New York area jails. The Israelis therefore become less conspicuous as the government and media can now claim that the Israelis were just immigration violators caught in the same dragnet as many other Arabs.

6. After several months, FBI and Justice Department “higher-ups” are able to gradually push aside the local FBI agents and free the Israelis quietly.


Osama bin Laden was immediately blamed for the 9/11 attacks even though he had no previous record of doing anything on this scale. Immediately after the Flight 11 hit World Trade Center 1
CIA Director George Tenet said "You know, this has bin Laden's fingerprints all over it." (24)

The compliant mainstream media completely ignored the Israeli connection. Immediately following the 9-11 attacks, the media was filled with stories linking the attacks to bin Laden. TV talking-heads, “experts”, and scribblers of every stripe spoon-fed a gullible American public a steady diet of the most outrageous propaganda imaginable.

We were told that the reason bin Laden attacked the USA was because he hates our “freedom” and “democracy”. The Muslims were “medieval” and they wanted to destroy us because they envied our wealth, were still bitter about the Crusades, and were offended by Britney Spears shaking her tits and ##### all over the place!

But bin Laden strongly denied any role in the attacks and suggested that Zionists orchestrated the
9-11 attacks. The BBC published bin Laden's statement of denial in which he said:

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." (25)

You never heard that quote on your nightly newscast did you?

[A] number of intelligence officials have raised questions about Osama bin Laden's capabilities. "This guy sits in a cave in Afghanistan and he's running this operation?" one C.I.A. official asked. "It's so huge. He couldn't have done it alone." A senior military officer told me that because of the visas and other documentation needed to infiltrate team members into the United States a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved. (26)


To date, the only shred of “evidence” to be uncovered against bin Laden was a barely audible fuzzy amateur video that the Pentagon just happened to find "lying around" in Afghanistan. How very convenient, and how very fake. (27)

There is no evidence, be it hard or circumstantial, to link the Al Qaeda "terrorist network" to these acts of terror, but there is a mountain of evidence, both hard and circumstantial, which suggests that Zionists have been very busy framing Arabs for terror plots against America.


One last thing. At 09:40 on 9/11 it was reported that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attacks (28). This claim was immediately denied by the DFLP leader Qais abu Leila who said it had always opposed "terror attacks on civilian targets, especially outside the occupied territories." (29)

9/11 CNN streamed RealVideo item mentioning a Palestinian claim of responsibility


Why would a Palestinian organisation comprising of less than 500 people (30) make the suicidal move of immediately claiming responsibility for the attacks?

Sharon and the other Israeli leaders aspire to fulfill what the goals of the political Zionist movement have been since its origin a century ago: to turn all of historic Palestine into an exclusively Jewish state. A central tenet of the Zionist ideology is expressed in the racist slogan, "A land without people for a people without a land." (31)

The implication of Palestinians in the 9/11 attacks would have handed Zionists a golden opportunity to achieve the above because all Palestinians would have been labelled terrorists.