From Ian Henshall, chair INK. INK is the umbrella organisation for the UK alternative press and is primarily a trade asociation. Comment is written in a personal capacity and not necessarily the opinion of INK members. Reply to inkchair@pro-net.co.uk. To go on Ian Henshall's newsletter (approximately fortnightly) email to inkchair@pro-net.co.uk with subscribe in the subject line. For more comment go to www.coffee.uk.com/crisis For INK administration contact steve@inkadmin.fsnet.co.uk
Finally the US government has been forced to admit that it knew last summer that something like the 911 attacks was on its way. This is a damage limitation exercise, miles from the whole truth; there is a mass of hard evidence (described pathetically in the corporate press as conspiracy theories) which would make this conclusion inevitable to any serious enquiry.
This admission confirms what many have suspected: the lightning reaction to 911, the resort to war against Afghanistan, the instant accusations against Iraq, the Enron coverup, the corporate ripoff of the US budget and the effective abolition of the US Bill of Rights were probably all prepared beforehand.
It has been known for some months that the anthrax attacks came from a source within the US military establishment. The goal was clearly to implicate Iraq, increase the fear levels in the US, and obliterate any demand for a genuine enquiry which might have come from Democrat Senate leader Tom Daschle or the National Enquirer, the main targets of the attacks.
Given that the G8 summit in Genoa a few weeks earlier was surrounded by anti-aircraft batteries, the failure of USAF Andrews Airbase to even scramble fighter planes to intercept the Washington attack, along with the subsequent doctoring of the base's website, opens up the question of whether Mohammed Atta's group was detected and then helped.
It is clear to even the most politically naive that if Atta's group had been foiled (as every other Al Quaida operation was last summer, even the simplest ones), this would have led to disaster for Bush, who would now be facing impeachment over the Enron scam.
With the official story unravelling fast, many independent investigators are taking Cheney's statement that there could be an even worse attack not as a warning but as a threat.
Look out for a detailed guide to the mountain of evidence that suggests the 911 attack was either passively or actively aided and abetted by Bush/Cheney in a future newsletter.
Via Conspiracy Nation, not by Conspiracy Nation.