A Crack in the Alliance?

Some shots across the bow are being fired against the Bush neocons this week: the indictment of Larry Franklin , the filing of a bill calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and, most importantly, an ex-Bush adminsration official calling the official story of 911 “bogus.” Interestingly, this story also appeared in the (moonie-controlled) Washington Times.

Ex Bush official casts doubt on cause of Sep 11 attacks
Greg Szymanski

Tuesday 14th June, 2005
A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

'If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling,' said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding that scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.

'It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7,' said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. 'If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

'More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right.'

However, Reynolds said 'getting it right in today's security state' remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.

From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9/11.

Now, as Kurt Nimmo wrote:

Are you surprised? The Morgan Reynolds story about nine eleven being an "inside job" has received nada coverage beyond the original UPI story—that is to say nada coverage in the corporate media (it was covered immediately by Conspiracy Planet and Collective Bellaciao and I'm sure other alternative news sites). Google news search results are pathetic. You'd think this would be a HUGE story—a former Bushite declaring it is distinctly possible America was attacked by its own government—but instead we get the following (posted on the KLAS TV site):

The Michael Jackson verdict is was the lead story across the world. The Jackson trial was found not just on tabloids but also more high-minded newspapers.

But the fact that it appeared at all, and in a major newspaper created by a fascist faction of the CIA and Korean intelligence in alliance with Rev. Moon, no less, raises some questions.

Is something going on here behind the scenes? The indictment of Franklin for giving secrets to Israeli intelligence, a Bush figure saying the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition, the press referring to a growing rift between Israel and the United States over arms sales to China, leads to the question: Is there a backlash brewing against Israel in the upper reaches of the U.S. power structure? Is is coincidental that a lawsuit was filed by the survivors of the Israeli attack on U.S.S. Liberty?

The China arms sale by Israel issue is telling. It looks like Israel, after getting the U.S. and Great Britain to do their dirty work for them by attacking Iran, may be noticing that the U.S. Empire is about to crumble and may be beginning to tilt towards the new superpower: China. Here is Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/588863.html on the dispute:

Rice says U.S. irked by Israeli arms sales to China
By The Associated Press

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged Thursday that the United States has a sharp disagreement with Israel over its sale of military technology to China.

Israel "has a responsibility to be sensitive" to U.S. concerns, Rice said, adding that American officials have had "difficult" discussions on the subject with the Israelis.

"I think they understand now the seriousness of the matter," Rice said at a news conference.

She noted that there is increasing concern in Washington about military modernization in China.

China must not be allowed to undertake a "major military escalation" before there are assurances that it will be a "positive force" on the international scene, Rice said.

According to Israeli officials and recent media reports, the United States has imposed a series of sanctions on the Israeli arms industry in recent months because of it sales to China.

The United States has halted cooperation on several projects, frozen delivery of sensitive equipment, and is even refusing to answer telephone calls from Israeli defense officials, Haaretz reported this past weekend.

And,

Last update - 12:29 16/06/2005
Report: PM nixed U.S. request for news conference with Rice
By The Associated Press

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has rejected an American request that he hold a joint press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when she visits Israel and the Palestinian Authority next week, Army Radio reported Thursday.

According to the report, officials in Israel are exhibiting a "lack of enthusiasm" regarding the impending visit, stemming from criticism by administration and by EU officials over the level of cooperation Israel is displaying toward the Palestinians.

Could it be that some officials in the U.S. power structure are offended that Israel, for whom the U.S. has gotten ensared in Iraq and who still wants the U.S. to invade Iran for them, is tilting to China? Could that be why they are indicting Larry Franklin for doing what has been standard practice for the Bush administration neocons? Could that be why they are allowing little cracks in the official story of 911 to appear? Are they threatening Israel with revealing Mossad’s complicity in the 911 operation? Is this why the U.S.S. Liberty story is back in the news with the filing of war crimes charges against Israel by the head of the Liberty veterans’ association (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=11137&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported)?

Or, could it be that the two countries’ interests are diverging in Iraq. The United States has always wanted an Iraq under the control of a military strongman under the control of the United States. Israel, on the other hand, has always wanted Iraq broken into small, ineffectual pieces. See this comment from Signs of the Times http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs20050613.htm:

It is no secret that, in the early 1980's under Reagan, many of the same staunchly pro-Israel NeoCons that currently occupy positions of power in the Bush administration were, in league with their Israeli couterparts, calling for an extensive restructuring of the Middle East map.

An ambitious report entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," which appeared in the World Zionist Organization's periodical Kivunim in February 1982 disclosed a strategy aimed at making the whole of the Middle East a kind of "living space" for Israel. The report, drawn up by Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist and formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel, set out the scenario of the "division of Iraq" in these terms:

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria… Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi'ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren't for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq's future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past… In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.

Israel Shahak, The Zionist Plan for the Middle East; from Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" Published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982 Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8);

In this case, the 9/11 attacks take on a whole new meaning. No longer can they be considered a freak occurrence, but rather as part of a decades-old plan, if not the core event that would open the door to the plan's full implementation.

There are a lot of questions and few answers at this point. This “dispute” between the United States and Israel could be all for show. Again, the Signs of the Times commented under the name Ignatius O’Reilly :

Ah, tis a hornet's nest in the pyramid of entropy: so many different factions competing for control. Who is at the top?

…Clearly there is a very strong influence of Israel in US foreign policy. The Jewish lobby is doing effective work. The article above suggests that this influence has not been "impacted" by the Franklin revelations.

However, the Jewish lobby is not the only force at work. There are other interests with views that do not always coincide with it. There is a jockeying for position and power in the upper echelons ranging from the use of personal contacts and contributions to political campaigns, to dirty tricks, disinformation, spying, blackmail and other illicit means. The oil industries support for Saudi Arabia appears to be one such bone of contention, and the efforts we have seen attempting to tie the Saudis to 9/11 by the likes of Michael Moore and Daniel Hopsicker may be shots fired by the Jewish lobby against the oil lobby.