top
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Henry the Great on September 11

by I Berg
Henry Kissinger posts the Anti-Terror battleplan at washingtonpost.com at 9:04 pm on September 11. When did he write it?
Henry the Great on September 11

HENRY THE GREAT ON SEPTEMBER 11

Reprinted below is a remarkable text by that remarkable man, Henry Kissinger. It was posted online at washingtonpost.com not much more than twelve hours after the first airliner struck the north tower of the World Trade Center. The text is notable for a number of reasons, but has gone largely unnoted to date. It seems to express the measured, even reassuring, view of a major, widely (not universally!) respected statesman, calling for a new approach to the threat of terrorism, reassessed in the light of the morning’s events. Its publication didn’t elicit much comment – it was just a drop in a mass media tidal wave.

Since September 11, however, a long list of unanswered questions and suspicions have floated to the surface. The unrelenting media flood still serves to distract most people, but many are starting to wonder. Coming out of a state of shock as time has passed, with difficulty shaking off the mesmerism induced by television and corporate newspapers, a growing number of people are starting to look more carefully at the situation we find ourselves in. As part of this process, I’d like to look more closely at this short utterance of Henry Kissinger, posted at 9:04 pm on September 11.

A quite extraordinary aspect of the text is its succinct expression, before Pres. Bush had collected his breath after his day’s extensive travels, of the entire "anti-terror" battle plan. With no time for the many experts on terror in the many branches of the federal government to discuss what had happened, let alone what to do, with Bush back in DC for just a couple of hours, Cheney hunkered in a bunker somewhere, and everyone presumably in a state of shock at the unexpected calamity, Henry Kissinger is able to articulate in careful, composed tones the overall structure of the US response, from which there has been no official deviation since: a war on the terrorists wherever they lurk, including attacks on "any government that shelters" them. It’s as if Henry had won the lottery. Good guess, big guy!

As a Washington "insider", of course, it isn’t surprising that Kissinger still has the clout to post his views immediately at the Washington Post. We are supposed to accept at face value that his statement was inspired by and written after the horrific mass murders of the morning. It is a very well-written statement, calm, rational, and broad-minded. Kissinger’s considerable experience at top levels of state decision-making and intelligence analysis authorize him to draw probative conclusions very rapidly, such as his very first sentence: "An attack such as today’s requires systematic planning, a good organization, a lot of money, and a base." Not much to argue with here; maybe his moderate adjectives ("systematic", "good", "a lot") could be upgraded a bit (you know, like "incredible", "superb", "unlimited"). But he is being measured; not a guy to fly off the handle, despite the PROVOCATION!

So cool is he in fact that he doesn’t forget, in this moment of our agony, to mention others in a "similar" situation: "we should henceforth show more sympathy for people who are daily exposed to this kind of attack." Daily?! Who? Where? Oh, he means the Israelis! Palestinian suicide bombers commit atrocities like this on a daily basis (oh please!), and "we" just don’t show enough "sympathy" for the state of Israel ($3 billion a year is not enough!). Funny he should interpolate this digression. But maybe AIPAC paybacks are never digressions.

Then he’s straight back to business. Providing now historical perspective, he calls for a "systematic response" by the US Government "that, one hopes, will end the way that the attack on Pearl Harbor ended." It appears Henry isn’t keeping up with recent historical evaluations of the attack at Pearl Harbor, now known to have been encouraged and permitted by FDR and the Chiefs of Staff to rally the domestic population behind US entry into World War II. As a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, however, Kissinger should be sensitive about mentioning Pearl Harbor. His co-member on the Council, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his book The Grand Chessboard (1997), called for the US to launch a conquest of Central Asia, pointing out repeatedly that such a venture would require an attack on the US comparable to Pearl Harbor to noodge the population into a "supportive mood." This naked imperialist Machiavellianism raised a bit of a stink when the book was published, that Henry should be careful to avoid being tarred by, don’t you think?

Finally Kissinger gets to the point. He briefly outlines the main parameters of the subsequent US Government consensus on how to "respond" to the terror. "Of course there should be … retaliation, … but it cannot be the end of the process and should not even be the principal part of it. The principal part has to be to get the terrorist system on the run…any government that shelters groups capable of this kind of attack, whether or not they can be shown to have been involved in this attack, must pay an exorbitant price….It is something we should do calmly, carefully, and inexorably."

Just like Henry Kissinger. Calmly, carefully, and inexorably he lays out our future. The plan hatched full-grown from his wrinkled bald brow, while those woosses in the Government are still hiding under tables and flying from one underground bunker to another. If he wasn’t so homely, he’d no doubt be giving Rumsfeld some competition in the female fantasy market.

washingtonpost.com

Destroy the Network

By Henry Kissinger

Tuesday, September 11, 2001; 9:04 PM

An attack such as today's requires systematic planning, a good organization, a lot of money and a base. You cannot improvise something like this, and you cannot plan it when you're constantly on the move. Heretofore our response to attacks, and understandably so, has been to carry out some retaliatory act that was supposed to even the scales while hunting down the actual people who did it.

This, however, is an attack on the territorial United States, which is a threat to our social way of life and to our existence as a free society. It therefore has to be dealt with in a different way – with an attack on the system that produces it.

The immediate response, of course, has to be taking care of casualties and restoring some sort of normal life. We must get back to work almost immediately, to show that our life cannot be disrupted. And we should henceforth show more sympathy for people who are daily exposed to this kind of attack, whom we keep telling to be very measured in their individual responses.

But then the government should be charged with a systematic response that, one hopes, will end the way that the attack on Pearl Harbor ended – with the destruction of the system that is responsible for it. That system is a network of terrorist organizations sheltered in capitals of certain countries. In many cases we do not penalize those countries for sheltering the organizations; in other cases, we maintain something close to normal relations with them.

It is hard to say at this point what should be done in detail. If a week ago I had been asked whether such a coordinated attack as today's was possible, I, no more than most people, would have thought so, so nothing I say is meant as a criticism. But until now we have been trying to do this as a police matter, and now it has to be done in a different way.

Of course there should be some act of retaliation, and I would certainly support it, but it cannot be the end of the process and should not even be the principal part of it. The principal part has to be to get the terrorist system on the run, and by the terrorist system I mean those parts of it that are organized on a global basis and can operate by synchronized means.

We do not yet know whether Osama bin Laden did this, although it appears to have the earmarks of a bin Laden-type operation. But any government that shelters groups capable of this kind of attack, whether or not they can be shown to have been involved in this attack, must pay an exorbitant price.

The question is not so much what kind of blow we can deliver this week or next. And the response, since our own security was threatened, cannot be made dependent on consensus, though this is an issue on which we and our allies must find a cooperative means of resistance that is not simply the lowest common denominator.

It is something we should do calmly, carefully and inexorably.

The writer is a former secretary of state.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

by Ah-Hah!
Already suspected of war crimes since at least the Indo-China conflict, Henry Kissinger posted this "anti-terror battle plan" just 12 hours after 9/11 attack? We will probably never find out just when he wrote this, but it sure reads like a script, because Dubya and Co. have followed it to the letter!

And then there's Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, "The Grand Chessboard", published fully four years before 9/11, calling for a U.S. invasion of Central Asia, complete with REPEATED observations that such an operation would require an attack on U.S. soil comparable to Pearl harbor to generate public support!

Is this the smoking gun behind 9/11 we've been looking for?
by just another anomoly
I don't think it's a "smoking gun." It's indeed very strange how Kissinger seemed to lay out the plan so soon in advance. But one could always argue that he was just thinking along lines current within the administration, or that the thinking of the administration was along lines established long ago by men like Kissinger.
by Jeff Burke
On the question of 911 there are many 'smoking guns':

1) Bush publicly stated several times that he saw the first plane crash on live TV- the first crash was not on live TV!

2) on 911 the white house staff was given antibiotics against anthrax (Cipro)- yet the first anthrax letter didn't sppear till OCT!

3) the head of FEMA arrived in NYC the night before 911! He happens to be one of the president's long time right hand men even before he was Governor of Texas.

4) there was a woman in Virgibia who was arrested for providing ID's for 5 of the 'supposed' hijackers (many of whom are actually still alive in their respective Middle Eastern Countries!)- this woman was killed in a supposed 'accident' before her trial. Investigators later determined that she was dead before the car crash which incinerated her body. Also, the fire was determined to have been caused by accelerants, rather than the crash. Clearly she was murdered to prevent her giving evidence. YET the federal US authorities would write this off as an accidental crash?!?! IF they truly were looking for terrorists, then we would expect them to invesitgate the mysterious death of a potential witness, Obviously, they aren't looking for terrorists at all.

5) How is it that 'heads weren't rolling' when 911 occurred? Massive failures in the Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence sector allowed this to happen, yet no one resigned or was fired? Obviously, our government was behind the attacks! It is known that the anthrax came from a US military lab. Not to mention the complete failure of the Afghanistan military action- supposedly to capture bin Laden and Omar- yet both myteriously escape?!?! Obviously they were not really trying to capture them, or General Franks would be relieved of command ASAP!

Jeff Burke
Austin, TX
by Jeb Bush
My brother is a dumb ass!!!!!!
by Johnny Wizard
God Bless America

Mr. bush and rumsfeld need to be immediately arrested
as traitors for the terrorist acts of 9/11, or to be
executed by true American patriots, who believe in
Justice for all. We all are painfully aware of
corporate America's refusal to report on the relevant
FBI, CIA, and DEA investigations, and too, the
irrationality of the bushmob's contentions, while
forbidding all democratically elected officials from
viewing the evidence that they have confiscated, only to
thwart our struggles for freedom as legitimate
democracies being toppled into dictatorship. In the
essay "Muslims suspend the laws of physics" by J.
McMichael, we are reminded that not only were the WTC
towers built with what architects call a "tube within a
tube" design, where the central spindle interconnects
iron columns that bare the weight of the buildings,
relatively untouched by the explosions, but that steel
doesn't start melting until it reaches a temperature of
1538 degrees Celsius, and that burning jet full maxes
out at 900. Then there is the fact it took the first
tower 104 minutes to fall, and the second, which was
struck nearly at the corner, only a mear 47 minutes.
Both collapsing with the disintergration of concrete,
indicating explosive demolition charges. Also, why
would a would be terrorist group of flunky pilots, work
diligently to steal ID's of only actual accomplished
professional pilots, who we now know to actually be
alive as not involved as the bushmob still insists in
evil stupidity? Read essay, "Alleged hijackers - Alive
and Well." What purpose would the bushmob have to seize
as much of the evidence possible and the attempt to stop
all the criminal ih
and rumsfeld blamed an entire nation of millions for a
crime without any evidence, but to steal and plunder,
over crimes they were responsible for, murdering
everyone, while I wrote every real proud and strong
American should help our police detachments, stand up
and shoot the two nazi bastards in good lighting
immediately, for trying to undermine everything the
American flag represents, while purposefully leveraging
the general populace to remain in ignorance, as CNN just
refuses to report on anything
by Carl Starr
Kissinger's comments add still another puzzling element to the events of 9/11. Why has there been no full investigation? (A traffic accident at a local intersection has a more in-depth examination of cause, event and effect than the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon appear to have had.) In particular, I would like to have the simplest of questions resolved. Where WAS everybody who should have been working at the WTC that morning? We're told that over 50,000 people were employed at the complex, plus passer-bys on the streets below, in the parking garages, and in the underground mall. In 1993 it took over 7 hours to evacuate everybody from just 1 building. Yet, on 9/11, with explosions, raging fires, (reportedly) locked stairwells and hundreds of rescue workers moving AGAINST the tide of evacuees up narrow stairways, the death toll, tragic though it was, still stood at under 3000. Did over 45,000 people successfully escape those buildings somehow? How? Were they all late for work that day? Why? Fire departments have been among those most stridently calling for a full investigation so that they may isolate important aspects about their role in future high rise fires. Why are so many calls for an in-depth investigation almost immediately characterized as the ravings of the unpatriotic, or worse?
by S. Baum
I was also asking this question a few months back, so I
did a bit of searching on the web. From what I found from
multiple sources, the short answer is that there were
only around 20,000 or so people in the buildings when
the first plane hit (as opposed to nearly 50,000 in 1993
when the explosion happened around noon), many improvements
were made in evacuation procedures and equipment since
1993 (e.g. battery lighting in the stairwells, improved ventilations in the stairwells, twice-yearly
evacuation drills that people actually paid attention to
post-1993, etc.), and many of the same people who'd been
through the 1993 bombing were there on 9/11 and basically
kept their cool and helped out others.
<P>
Particularly interesting sites include a
huge page of
evacuation stories and excerpts from 9/11 stories
, and
a Sara Kugler item called Evacuation plan saved thousands at World Trade Center.
by LaRouchein2004
Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. Identified Zbignew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Samuel P. Huntington as the kind of people who would launch this type of operation, and wrote an EXPLOSIVE special report "Zbignew Brzezinski and Sept. 11th". These men are sick, crazy, power starved utopians and have incriminated themselves with their "Clash of Civilizatoins". We must stop this push for a global war in this financial collapse through bankruptcy re-orginization! Watch t Wednesday, May4th webcast on http://www.larouchepub.com and http://www.larouchein2004.com
by mike (aka Henry the VIII)
<How is it that 'heads weren't rolling' when 911 occurred?>

Take it from me--heads will roll !!!

Sincerely yours,

Henry the VIII (via mike, his "channeler,")
by Bernie Busch (bbusch [at] iprimus.com.au)
Jeff Burke and I agree. The whole US Air defense system collapsed. Kissinger says 'An operation like this requires planning....you can't do this without a base'

Osama and his mates, burning Camel dung in Afghanistan.. this is a base?

There is something very un-kosher going on here.

The truth will out.

Bernie Busch
Australia





by SlackerSlayer
They changed the link, go to the very bottom to the "Attack on America" section, "Weapons of mass destruction", then choose the "flight paths of four highjacked planes".


http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gattack/index.htm

Mr. Bush and company should be arrested quickly.
Like I said, if I were to divert a police officer from a bank robbery, I shall become a defendant in that bank robbery by means of conspiracy.
The officer might buy an excuse of, coincidence, but if the bank robber was your business partner, the officer might clamp your legs together too, he would not buy the coincidence excuse at all.

Remember all the words all of them made. They all made it seem we were under some new threat that needed special handling. They were not telling the truth, why lie? We have many plans that fit nicely into what we have for defensive procedures, they were ignored that day, the only way procedures in our military would be diverted from the norm, would be from orders to do so.

I don't see evidence to support the Presidents contentions, do you?
by Johnny Wizard

All Wrapped Up

CBC as managed has deliberately with intent, worked to
misinform and propagandize our community on what is as,
documented provable fact, regarding Mr. bush's
complicity to the murder of US as the innocent in New
York City. CBC has refused to live up to our
responsibility to protect our democracy, and in silence,
has pirated our names to murder those understood to be
innocent of the accused offence. CBC has refused to
allow ourselves as the public to understand, Mr. bush
forbade the FBI from pursuing bin Laden investigations,
just prior to 9/11 with secret Presidential directive
W199I (199I WF213589), which had John O'Neil, the
anti-terrorism head for the FBI publicly protest by
resigning over. This W199I directive was put into place
after the administration had been warned by the BND, and
several other legitimate intelligence agencies, of an
impending terrorist plot involving the high-jacking of
American airplanes to be used as weapons and flown into
land marks. In addition to these unreported top
priority political issues that stand to be true as
documented factually, the bush administration had also
secretly put together a sinister war strategy, that was
revealed to ourselves as the public, by Canada's own Jim
Miklaszewski at MSNBC, to have existed without any doubt
as Presidential Directive documents, two days prior to
9/11 at the WhiteHouse. A planned strategy to invade
specifically Afghanistan, by blaming bin Laden for a
crime, but providing no evidence to back up the
allegations. That's right. The super evil criminal
bush dictatorship had a plan in place to not follow the
actual evidence to arrest the true culprits for a crime
that hadn't even yet taken place, but that they were
prepared for to close investigations on, as an
opportunity to invade specifically Afghanistan, propping
up the Northern Alliance who still practice the
barbarity of sharia law, with the bush bonuses of
selling heroin to our world, and most importantly,
building a liquefied natural gas pipe line for bush and
his Enron friends, to rob even more further from us all.
Legitimate FBI officers unrepresented by Mueller claim
General Amad was the principle terrorist funder of
Muhammad Atta, responsible for a wire transfer of
$100,000, who, incidentally was in unusual meetings, the
General was, with the bush administration a week prior
to 9/11, who also not only particcape criminal conviction
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network