One of the 19 WTC Hijackers "Alive and Well" in Casablanca; British WMD Memo Shows President Bush Manipulated Intelligence Reports to Justify Iraqi Invasion
Mainstream media stays silent on stories, 'scooped' by foreign press and internet news hounds; Has the U.S. press become 'government's lapdog' on stories of explosive importance to the American people?
May 7, 2005 By Greg Szymanski
If Americans want to find out the truth about the war in Iraq and other important stories like the 9/11 scandal, they’ll have to rely solely on the foreign press or alternative sources on the internet.
Two major news stories broke this week, bringing this sad state of media affairs to light as the British press acted like America ’s "leading news hound" while the heavyweights of the U.S. journalism looked like "the government’s lapdog."
Supposedly the shining light of free _expression throughout the world and able to leap tall journalistic buildings in a single bound, the U.S. press resembled the state-controlled, communist-run propaganda media machine of the past with its nonchalant posture of news reporting.
While the foreign press was busy shooting over two "scoops," equilavent to the military’s Silver Star for excellence in reporting, our own press seemingly sat on the stories like a fat hen on an egg and then casually followed-up with second-hand accounts downplaying the importance of the stories.
In fact, regarding one major story, Congress heard about it first from foreign sources and shot off a letter of concern to President Bush prior to any major stories appearing stateside. In the past, journalists’ heads would have rolled for such a lackadaisical approach. But today sleeping through stories of major concern to the American people seems to be rewarded.
Five of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers are "alive and well."
First, a major story broke last week in Casablanca , Morocco , being reported by the Saudi and British press then circulated. To date major American newspaper and television stations have not said a word, covering it like a second-rate dog show in Hoboken , NJ .
It concerns the controversy over whether 19 Arab hijackers, without help, outfoxed American intelligence and defense systems when they rammed jetliners into the WTC and Pentagon. This story, of course, goes to the heart of the truth behind the WTC attacks and should be focus of media attention and investigation. But it isn’t, the mainstream media again covering it like a beauty contest held for the 55 and over crowd in Miami Beach .
Since 9/11 is the "mother of all stories" and the identity of the perpetrators one of the main elements of the case, the mainstream media should be following-up on important events like bees on honey. But instead they appear to be purposely ignoring any type of evidence contradicting the government’s official version of how 9/11 took place.
In the case of the recent Casablanca story, alleged hijacker Waleed Al Shehri surfaced "alive and well," claiming his innocence after the government quickly reported days after 9/11 that he perished, being one of the five hijackers that deliberately crashed Flight 11 into the WTC.
He recently told journalists there that he had "nothing to do with the attacks" on New York and Washington , and had been in Morocco when they occurred. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports but not a word surfaced in the mainstream press about any of this.
Although the alleged hijacker acknowledges attending flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States and is the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring, he vehemently denies any part in 9/11. He adds, "If I was one of the hijackers how could he still be alive."
To bolster his story and lay incredible suspicion to Homeland Security’s and the FBI’s efforts to uncover the truth, he claims leaving the United States in September of last year then becoming a well-known pilot with Saudi Arabian Airlines. He currently is in Morocco on a further flight-training course.
Besides the media not uncovering Al Shehri’s whereabouts since he has a rather high profile, what does this say about the 9/11 investigation efforts and Homeland Security if one of the alleged hijackers can remain stateside up until last September three full years after the tragedy without being found?
It says there’s a "fox in the hen house." It says people in the media and government are turning a "blind eye" for their own self-interests. It appears to say this since this goes way beyond any type of gross negligence or incompetence imaginable.
Not only has the media and the government ignored Al Shehri, but what about the four other hijackers who have come forward with similar stories?
For example, Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been recently quoted in Arab news reports as being "alive and well." Al Omari claims he lost his passport while studying in Denver and is now an engineer with Saudi Telecoms.
Meanwhile, Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi, who has been listed by the FBI as a dead hijacker in the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania .
And furthermore the Arabic daily reported there are suggestions that another hijacker, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive, adding to the credibility of the famous words of American writer Mark Twain when he said: "The accounts of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
However, four years after the biggest tragedy in America history, all that FBI Director Robert Mueller can say is that "the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt."
Conversely, though, why hasn’t there been a better effort by the American press to cover the "doubtful identities" of the hijackers while, at the same time, admitting there is much doubt in the credibility of the official government story about 9/11?.
But, sadly, stories about Al Shehri and others are left off the front pages, ether ignored or hidden on back pages. At the same time, Americans are left uninformed, essentially ignorant of the major issues facing our country.
And, through the whole mess, the mainstream media continues to collect billions in advertising revenues or should it be called "legal hush money" while it gives the government, in return, a free ride to lie, steal and cheat both at home and abroad.
President Bush manipulates intelligence reports about WMD to justify Iraqi invasion
Further evidence of this corrupt manipulation of the news came this week when the London press broke an explosive story with credible evidence and documentation that President Bush "doctored" intelligence reports concerning WMD in Iraq to justify an invasion.
The explosive British intelligence memo leaked to the press made its way to the London papers, but strangely again the U.S. London bureau was a sleep at the wheel. Since the story broke last week, internet accounts first surfaced on www.arcticbeacon.com and www.globalnewsmatrix.com as well as making their way stateside by way of reporters like American Greg Palast, who is able to have more freedom in reporting by working for the British press.
All of this internet and foreign based reporting came prior to the mainstream media echoing a single word about an explosive story which should have been front page news and considered one of the biggest "scoops" in a long time.
To date there has been no television coverage of the potentially damaging memo by Former British foreign policy aide, Matthew Rycroft, who sent a message to British officials of Bush’s deceptive posture towards WMD in Iraq only months prior to the invasion.
The memo also reveals how Prime Minister Tony Blair was aware of the deception needed to sell the war idea to both the American and British population and signed onto the deal lock stock and barrel.
What’s even more troubling is that the U.S. Congress acted first before a major newspaper here picked up the story. Acting on foreign press accounts, eighty-eight congressmen led by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), authored a letter of serious concern, demanding an explanation from President Bush on May 5, 2005, a day before any U.S. newspapers even bothered to run the story.
Consider the importance of the WMD issue and then ask how could the mainstream media be "scooped" by the British press and local internet reporters if there isn‘t a conscience decision being made to "hold off" on news damaging to the war effort and the Bush administration.
Here is a portion of the story than now the mainstream media can join in on as a "Johnny Come Lately" instead of leading the way in exposing government corruption:
Just prior to U.S. invasion of Iraq, Rycroft, a foreign policy aide privy to highly classified U.S. intelligence reports, wrote an internal memo to Blair and other British officials clearly revealing a deceptive strategy on the part of the Bush administration to topple Sadaam Hussein by any means necessary and skirting international law. He wrote in the highly classified memo:
"As reported in recent talks in Washington , there was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Sadaam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Regarding the memo, the Bush administration refused to comment specifically on the allegations, saying it was unaware of its authenticity and contents. Critics, however, claim this memo clearly rebukes the justification of Bush’s war on Iraq , resulting in a clear violation of international law as well as possible criminal violations against the President.
The memo, verified as authentic by the British press, goes on to warn all recipients that it should remain "secret" to all others in light of the highly sensitive material.
"This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents," writes Rycroft to Blair.
He further added " The Defense Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."
The memo went on to delineate two possible U.S. war strategies, Iraq’s most likely response and Bush’s personal awareness of the whole plan.
For more informative articles, to to www.arcticbeacon.com.