Old Article but I think it should be re-posted

The following article was published in "The New Yorker". After you read it, I think that you will agree with me that I did the right thing by re-posting it again. It can still be part of the escalation of the violence in Iraq.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040628fa_fact?040628fa_fact

"PLAN B
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
As June 30th approaches, Israel looks to the Kurds.
Issue of 2004-06-28
Posted 2004-06-21

In July, 2003, two months after President Bush declared victory in Iraq, the war, far from winding down, reached a critical point. Israel, which had been among the war’s most enthusiastic supporters, began warning the Administration that the American-led occupation would face a heightened insurgency—a campaign of bombings and assassinations—later that summer. Israeli intelligence assets in Iraq were reporting that the insurgents had the support of Iranian intelligence operatives and other foreign fighters, who were crossing the unprotected border between Iran and Iraq at will. The Israelis urged the United States to seal the nine-hundred-mile-long border, at whatever cost.

The border stayed open, however. “The Administration wasn’t ignoring the Israeli intelligence about Iran,” Patrick Clawson, who is the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and has close ties to the White House, explained. “There’s no question that we took no steps last summer to close the border, but our attitude was that it was more useful for Iraqis to have contacts with ordinary Iranians coming across the border, and thousands were coming across every day—for instance, to make pilgrimages.” He added, “The questions we confronted were ‘Is the trade-off worth it? Do we want to isolate the Iraqis?’ Our answer was that as long as the Iranians were not picking up guns and shooting at us, it was worth the price.”

Clawson said, “The Israelis disagreed quite vigorously with us last summer. Their concern was very straightforward—that the Iranians would create social and charity organizations in Iraq and use them to recruit people who would engage in armed attacks against Americans.”

The warnings of increased violence proved accurate. By early August, the insurgency against the occupation had exploded, with bombings in Baghdad, at the Jordanian Embassy and the United Nations headquarters, that killed forty-two people. A former Israeli intelligence officer said that Israel’s leadership had concluded by then that the United States was unwilling to confront Iran; in terms of salvaging the situation in Iraq, he said, “it doesn’t add up. It’s over. Not militarily—the United States cannot be defeated militarily in Iraq—but politically.”

Flynt Leverett, a former C.I.A. analyst who until last year served on the National Security Council and is now a fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, told me that late last summer “the Administration had a chance to turn it around after it was clear that ‘Mission Accomplished’ ”—a reference to Bush’s May speech—“was premature. The Bush people could have gone to their allies and got more boots on the ground. But the neocons were dug in—‘We’re doing this on our own.’ ”

Leverett went on, “The President was only belatedly coming to the understanding that he had to either make a strategic change or, if he was going to insist on unilateral control, get tougher and find the actual insurgency.” The Administration then decided, Leverett said, to “deploy the Guantánamo model in Iraq”—to put aside its rules of interrogation. That decision failed to stop the insurgency and eventually led to the scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison.

In early November, the President received a grim assessment from the C.I.A.’s station chief in Baghdad, who filed a special field appraisal, known internally as an Aardwolf, warning that the security situation in Iraq was nearing collapse. The document, as described by Knight-Ridder, said that “none of the postwar Iraqi political institutions and leaders have shown an ability to govern the country” or to hold elections and draft a constitution.

A few days later, the Administration, rattled by the violence and the new intelligence, finally attempted to change its go-it-alone policy, and set June 30th as the date for the handover of sovereignty to an interim government, which would allow it to bring the United Nations into the process. “November was one year before the Presidential election,” a U.N. consultant who worked on Iraqi issues told me. “They panicked and decided to share the blame with the U.N. and the Iraqis.”

A former Administration official who had supported the war completed a discouraging tour of Iraq late last fall. He visited Tel Aviv afterward and found that the Israelis he met with were equally discouraged. As they saw it, their warnings and advice had been ignored, and the American war against the insurgency was continuing to founder. “I spent hours talking to the senior members of the Israeli political and intelligence community,” the former official recalled. “Their concern was ‘You’re not going to get it right in Iraq, and shouldn’t we be planning for the worst-case scenario and how to deal with it?’ ”

Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister, who supported the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq, took it upon himself at this point to privately warn Vice-President Dick Cheney that America had lost in Iraq; according to an American close to Barak, he said that Israel “had learned that there’s no way to win an occupation.” The only issue, Barak told Cheney, “was choosing the size of your humiliation.” Cheney did not respond to Barak’s assessment. (Cheney’s office declined to comment.)

In a series of interviews in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States, officials told me that by the end of last year Israel had concluded that the Bush Administration would not be able to bring stability or democracy to Iraq, and that Israel needed other options. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government decided, I was told, to minimize the damage that the war was causing to Israel’s strategic position by expanding its long-standing relationship with Iraq’s Kurds and establishing a significant presence on the ground in the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan. Several officials depicted Sharon’s decision, which involves a heavy financial commitment, as a potentially reckless move that could create even more chaos and violence as the insurgency in Iraq continues to grow.

Israeli intelligence and military operatives are now quietly at work in Kurdistan, providing training for Kurdish commando units and, most important in Israel’s view, running covert operations inside Kurdish areas of Iran and Syria. Israel feels particularly threatened by Iran, whose position in the region has been strengthened by the war. The Israeli operatives include members of the Mossad, Israel’s clandestine foreign-intelligence service, who work undercover in Kurdistan as businessmen and, in some cases, do not carry Israeli passports.

Asked to comment, Mark Regev, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said, “The story is simply untrue and the relevant governments know it’s untrue.” Kurdish officials declined to comment, as did a spokesman for the State Department.

However, a senior C.I.A. official acknowledged in an interview last week that the Israelis were indeed operating in Kurdistan. He told me that the Israelis felt that they had little choice: “They think they have to be there.” Asked whether the Israelis had sought approval from Washington, the official laughed and said, “Do you know anybody who can tell the Israelis what to do? They’re always going to do what is in their best interest.” The C.I.A. official added that the Israeli presence was widely known in the American intelligence community.

The Israeli decision to seek a bigger foothold in Kurdistan—characterized by the former Israeli intelligence officer as “Plan B”—has also raised tensions between Israel and Turkey. It has provoked bitter statements from Turkish politicians and, in a major regional shift, a new alliance among Iran, Syria, and Turkey, all of which have significant Kurdish minorities. In early June, Intel Brief, a privately circulated intelligence newsletter produced by Vincent Cannistraro, a retired C.I.A. counterterrorism chief, and Philip Giraldi, who served as the C.I.A.’s deputy chief of base in Istanbul in the late nineteen-eighties, said:

Turkish sources confidentially report that the Turks are increasingly concerned by the expanding Israeli presence in Kurdistan and alleged encouragement of Kurdish ambitions to create an independent state. . . . The Turks note that the large Israeli intelligence operations in Northern Iraq incorporate anti-Syrian and anti-Iranian activity, including support to Iranian and Syrian Kurds who are in opposition to their respective governments.

In the years since the first Gulf War, Iraq’s Kurds, aided by an internationally enforced no-fly zone and by a U.N. mandate providing them with a share of the country’s oil revenues, have managed to achieve a large measure of independence in three northern Iraqi provinces. As far as most Kurds are concerned, however, historic “Kurdistan” extends well beyond Iraq’s borders, encompassing parts of Iran, Syria, and Turkey. All three countries fear that Kurdistan, despite public pledges to the contrary, will declare its independence from the interim Iraqi government if conditions don’t improve after June 30th.

Israeli involvement in Kurdistan is not new. Throughout the nineteen-sixties and seventies, Israel actively supported a Kurdish rebellion against Iraq, as part of its strategic policy of seeking alliances with non-Arabs in the Middle East. In 1975, the Kurds were betrayed by the United States, when Washington went along with a decision by the Shah of Iran to stop supporting Kurdish aspirations for autonomy in Iraq.

Betrayal and violence became the norm in the next two decades. Inside Iraq, the Kurds were brutally repressed by Saddam Hussein, who used airpower and chemical weapons against them. In 1984, the Kurdistan Workers Party, or P.K.K., initiated a campaign of separatist violence in Turkey that lasted fifteen years; more than thirty thousand people, most of them Kurds, were killed. The Turkish government ruthlessly crushed the separatists, and eventually captured the P.K.K.’s leader, Abdullah Ocalan. Last month, the P.K.K., now known as the Kongra-Gel, announced that it was ending a five-year unilateral ceasefire and would begin targeting Turkish citizens once again.

The Iraqi Kurdish leadership was furious when, early this month, the United States acceded to a U.N. resolution on the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty that did not affirm the interim constitution that granted the minority Kurds veto power in any permanent constitution. Kurdish leaders immediately warned President Bush in a letter that they would not participate in a new Shiite-controlled government unless they were assured that their rights under the interim constitution were preserved. “The people of Kurdistan will no longer accept second-class citizenship in Iraq,” the letter said.

There are fears that the Kurds will move to seize the city of Kirkuk, together with the substantial oil reserves in the surrounding region. Kirkuk is dominated by Arab Iraqis, many of whom were relocated there, beginning in the nineteen-seventies, as part of Saddam Hussein’s campaign to “Arabize” the region, but the Kurds consider Kirkuk and its oil part of their historic homeland. “If Kirkuk is threatened by the Kurds, the Sunni insurgents will move in there, along with the Turkomen, and there will be a bloodbath,” an American military expert who is studying Iraq told me. “And, even if the Kurds do take Kirkuk, they can’t transport the oil out of the country, since all of the pipelines run through the Sunni-Arab heartland.”

A top German national-security official said in an interview that “an independent Kurdistan with sufficient oil would have enormous consequences for Syria, Iran, and Turkey” and would lead to continuing instability in the Middle East—no matter what the outcome in Iraq is. There is also a widespread belief, another senior German official said, that some elements inside the Bush Administration—he referred specifically to the faction headed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz—would tolerate an independent Kurdistan. This, the German argued, would be a mistake. “It would be a new Israel—a pariah state in the middle of hostile nations.”

A declaration of independence would trigger a Turkish response—and possibly a war—and also derail what has been an important alliance for Israel. Turkey and Israel have become strong diplomatic and economic partners in the past decade. Thousands of Israelis travel to Turkey every year as tourists. Turkish opposition to the Iraq war has strained the relationship; still, Turkey remains oriented toward the West and, despite the victory of an Islamic party in national elections in 2002, relatively secular. It is now vying for acceptance in the European Union. In contrast, Turkey and Syria have been at odds for years, at times coming close to open confrontation, and Turkey and Iran have long been regional rivals. One area of tension between them is the conflict between Turkey’s pro-Western stand and Iran’s rigid theocracy. But their mutual wariness of the Kurds has transcended these divisions.

A European foreign minister, in a conversation last month, said that the “blowing up” of Israel’s alliance with Turkey would be a major setback for the region. He went on, “To avoid chaos, you need the neighbors to work as one common entity.”

The Israelis, however, view the neighborhood, with the exception of Kurdistan, as hostile. Israel is convinced that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, and that, with Syria’s help, it is planning to bolster Palestinian terrorism as Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip.

Iraqi Shiite militia leaders like Moqtada al-Sadr, the former American intelligence official said, are seen by the Israeli leadership as “stalking horses” for Iran—owing much of their success in defying the American-led coalition to logistical and communications support and training provided by Iran. The former intelligence official said, “We began to see telltale signs of organizational training last summer. But the White House didn’t want to hear it: ‘We can’t take on another problem right now. We can’t afford to push Iran to the point where we’ve got to have a showdown.’ ”

Last summer, according to a document I obtained, the Bush Administration directed the Marines to draft a detailed plan, called Operation Stuart, for the arrest and, if necessary, assassination of Sadr. But the operation was cancelled, the former intelligence official told me, after it became clear that Sadr had been “tipped off” about the plan. Seven months later, after Sadr spent the winter building support for his movement, the American-led coalition shut down his newspaper, provoking a crisis that Sadr survived with his status enhanced, thus insuring that he will play a major, and unwelcome, role in the political and military machinations after June 30th.

“Israel’s immediate goal after June 30th is to build up the Kurdish commando units to balance the Shiite militias—especially those which would be hostile to the kind of order in southern Iraq that Israel would like to see,” the former senior intelligence official said. “Of course, if a fanatic Sunni Baathist militia took control—one as hostile to Israel as Saddam Hussein was—Israel would unleash the Kurds on it, too.” The Kurdish armed forces, known as the peshmerga, number an estimated seventy-five thousand troops, a total that far exceeds the known Sunni and Shiite militias.

The former Israeli intelligence officer acknowledged that since late last year Israel has been training Kurdish commando units to operate in the same manner and with the same effectiveness as Israel’s most secretive commando units, the Mistaravim. The initial goal of the Israeli assistance to the Kurds, the former officer said, was to allow them to do what American commando units had been unable to do—penetrate, gather intelligence on, and then kill off the leadership of the Shiite and Sunni insurgencies in Iraq. (I was unable to learn whether any such mission had yet taken place.) “The feeling was that this was a more effective way to get at the insurgency,” the former officer said. “But the growing Kurdish-Israeli relationship began upsetting the Turks no end. Their issue is that the very same Kurdish commandos trained for Iraq could infiltrate and attack in Turkey.”

The Kurdish-Israeli collaboration inevitably expanded, the Israeli said. Some Israeli operatives have crossed the border into Iran, accompanied by Kurdish commandos, to install sensors and other sensitive devices that primarily target suspected Iranian nuclear facilities. The former officer said, “Look, Israel has always supported the Kurds in a Machiavellian way—as balance against Saddam. It’s Realpolitik.” He added, “By aligning with the Kurds, Israel gains eyes and ears in Iran, Iraq, and Syria.” He went on, “What Israel was doing with the Kurds was not so unacceptable in the Bush Administration.”

Senior German officials told me, with alarm, that their intelligence community also has evidence that Israel is using its new leverage inside Kurdistan, and within the Kurdish communities in Iran and Syria, for intelligence and operational purposes. Syrian and Lebanese officials believe that Israeli intelligence played a role in a series of violent protests in Syria in mid-March in which Syrian Kurdish dissidents and Syrian troops clashed, leaving at least thirty people dead. (There are nearly two million Kurds living in Syria, which has a population of seventeen million.) Much of the fighting took place in cities along Syria’s borders with Turkey and Kurdish-controlled Iraq. Michel Samaha, the Lebanese Minister of Information, told me that while the disturbances amounted to an uprising by the Kurds against the leadership of Bashir Assad, the Syrian President, his government had evidence that Israel was “preparing the Kurds to fight all around Iraq, in Syria, Turkey, and Iran. They’re being programmed to do commando operations.”

The top German national-security official told me that he believes that the Bush Administration continually misread Iran. “The Iranians wanted to keep America tied down in Iraq, and to keep it busy there, but they didn’t want chaos,” he said. One of the senior German officials told me, “The critical question is ‘What will the behavior of Iran be if there is an independent Kurdistan with close ties to Israel?’ Iran does not want an Israeli land-based aircraft carrier”—that is, a military stronghold—“on its border.”

Another senior European official said, “The Iranians would do something positive in the south of Iraq if they get something positive in return, but Washington won’t do it. The Bush Administration won’t ask the Iranians for help, and can’t ask the Syrians. Who is going to save the United States?” He added that, at the start of the American invasion of Iraq, several top European officials had told their counterparts in Iran, “You will be the winners in the region.”

Israel is not alone in believing that Iran, despite its protestations, is secretly hard at work on a nuclear bomb. Early this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is responsible for monitoring nuclear proliferation, issued its fifth quarterly report in a row stating that Iran was continuing to misrepresent its research into materials that could be used for the production of nuclear weapons. Much of the concern centers on an underground enrichment facility at Natanz, two hundred and fifty miles from the Iran-Iraq border, which, during previous I.A.E.A. inspections, was discovered to contain centrifuges showing traces of weapons-grade uranium. The huge complex, which is still under construction, is said to total nearly eight hundred thousand square feet, and it will be sheltered in a few months by a roof whose design allows it to be covered with sand. Once the work is completed, the complex “will be blind to satellites, and the Iranians could add additional floors underground,” an I.A.E.A. official told me. “The question is, will the Israelis hit Iran?”

Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A. director, has repeatedly stated that his agency has not “seen concrete proof of a military program, so it’s premature to make a judgment on that.” David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector who is an expert on nuclear proliferation, buttressed the I.A.E.A. claim. “The United States has no concrete evidence of a nuclear-weapons program,” Albright told me. “It’s just an inference. There’s no smoking gun.” (Last Friday, at a meeting in Vienna, the I.A.E.A. passed a resolution that, while acknowledging some progress, complained that Iran had yet to be as open as it should be, and urgently called upon it to resolve a list of outstanding questions.)

The I.A.E.A. official told me that the I.A.E.A. leadership has been privately warned by Foreign Ministry officials in Iran that they are “having a hard time getting information” from the hard-line religious and military leaders who run the country. “The Iranian Foreign Ministry tells us, ‘We’re just diplomats, and we don’t know whether we’re getting the whole story from our own people,’ ” the official said. He noted that the Bush Administration has repeatedly advised the I.A.E.A. that there are secret nuclear facilities in Iran that have not been declared. The Administration will not say more, apparently worried that the information could get back to Iran.

Patrick Clawson, of the Institute for Near East Policy, provided another explanation for the reluctance of the Bush Administration to hand over specific intelligence. “If we were to identify a site,” he told me, “it’s conceivable that it could be quickly disassembled and the I.A.E.A. inspectors would arrive”—international inspections often take weeks to organize—“and find nothing.” The American intelligence community, already discredited because of its faulty reporting on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, would be criticized anew. “It’s much better,” Clawson said, “to have the I.A.E.A. figure out on its own that there’s a site and then find evidence that there had been enriched material there.”

Clawson told me that Israel’s overwhelming national-security concern must be Iran. Given that a presence in Kurdistan would give Israel a way to monitor the Iranian nuclear effort, he said, “it would be negligent for the Israelis not to be there.”

At the moment, the former American senior intelligence official said, the Israelis’ tie to Kurdistan “would be of greater value than their growing alliance with Turkey. ‘We love Turkey but got to keep the pressure on Iran.’ ” The former Israeli intelligence officer said, “The Kurds were the last surviving group close to the United States with any say in Iraq. The only question was how to square it with Turkey.”

There may be no way to square it with Turkey. Over breakfast in Ankara, a senior Turkish official explained, “Before the war, Israel was active in Kurdistan, and now it is active again. This is very dangerous for us, and for them, too. We do not want to see Iraq divided, and we will not ignore it.” Then, citing a popular Turkish proverb—“We will burn a blanket to kill a flea”—he said, “We have told the Kurds, ‘We are not afraid of you, but you should be afraid of us.’ ” (A Turkish diplomat I spoke to later was more direct: “We tell our Israeli and Kurdish friends that Turkey’s good will lies in keeping Iraq together. We will not support alternative solutions.”)

“If you end up with a divided Iraq, it will bring more blood, tears, and pain to the Middle East, and you will be blamed,” the senior Turkish official said. “From Mexico to Russia, everybody will claim that the United States had a secret agenda in Iraq: you came there to break up Iraq. If Iraq is divided, America cannot explain this to the world.” The official compared the situation to the breakup of Yugoslavia, but added, “In the Balkans, you did not have oil.” He said, “The lesson of Yugoslavia is that when you give one country independence everybody will want it.” If that happens, he said, “Kirkuk will be the Sarajevo of Iraq. If something happens there, it will be impossible to contain the crisis.”

In Ankara, another senior Turkish official explained that his government had “openly shared its worries” about the Israeli military activities inside Kurdistan with the Israeli Foreign Ministry. “They deny the training and the purchase of property and claim it’s not official but done by private persons. Obviously, our intelligence community is aware that it was not so. This policy is not good for America, Iraq, or Israel and the Jews.”

Turkey’s increasingly emphatic and public complaints about Israel’s missile attacks on the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip is another factor in the growing tensions between the allies. On May 26th, Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, announced at a news conference in Ankara that the Turkish government was bringing its Ambassador in Israel home for consultations on how to revive the Middle East peace process. He also told the Turkish parliament that the government was planning to strengthen its ties to the Palestinian Authority, and, in conversations with Middle Eastern diplomats in the past month, he expressed grave concern about Israel. In one such talk, one diplomat told me, Gul described Israeli activities, and the possibility of an independent Kurdistan, as “presenting us with a choice that is not a real choice—between survival and alliance.”

A third Turkish official told me that the Israelis were “talking to us in order to appease our concern. They say, ‘We aren’t doing anything in Kurdistan to undermine your interests. Don’t worry.’ ” The official added, “If it goes out publicly what they’ve been doing, it will put your government and our government in a difficult position. We can tolerate ‘Kurdistan’ if Iraq is intact, but nobody knows the future—not even the Americans.”

A former White House official depicted the Administration as eager—almost desperate—late this spring to install an acceptable new interim government in Iraq before President Bush’s declared June 30th deadline for the transfer of sovereignty. The Administration turned to Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations special envoy, to “put together something by June 30th—just something that could stand up” through the Presidential election, the former official said. Brahimi was given the task of selecting, with Washington’s public approval, the thirty-one members of Iraq’s interim government. Nevertheless, according to press reports, the choice of Iyad Allawi as interim Prime Minister was a disappointment to Brahimi.

The White House has yet to deal with Allawi’s past. His credentials as a neurologist, and his involvement during the past two decades in anti-Saddam activities, as the founder of the British-based Iraqi National Accord, have been widely reported. But his role as a Baath Party operative while Saddam struggled for control in the nineteen-sixties and seventies—Saddam became President in 1979—is much less well known. “Allawi helped Saddam get to power,” an American intelligence officer told me. “He was a very effective operator and a true believer.” Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former C.I.A. case officer who served in the Middle East, added, “Two facts stand out about Allawi. One, he likes to think of himself as a man of ideas; and, two, his strongest virtue is that he’s a thug.”

Early this year, one of Allawi’s former medical-school classmates, Dr. Haifa al-Azawi, published an essay in an Arabic newspaper in London raising questions about his character and his medical bona fides. She depicted Allawi as a “big husky man . . . who carried a gun on his belt and frequently brandished it, terrorizing the medical students.” Allawi’s medical degree, she wrote, “was conferred upon him by the Baath party.” Allawi moved to London in 1971, ostensibly to continue his medical education; there he was in charge of the European operations of the Baath Party organization and the local activities of the Mukhabarat, its intelligence agency, until 1975.

“If you’re asking me if Allawi has blood on his hands from his days in London, the answer is yes, he does,” Vincent Cannistraro, the former C.I.A. officer, said. “He was a paid Mukhabarat agent for the Iraqis, and he was involved in dirty stuff.” A cabinet-level Middle East diplomat, who was rankled by the U.S. indifference to Allawi’s personal history, told me early this month that Allawi was involved with a Mukhabarat “hit team” that sought out and killed Baath Party dissenters throughout Europe. (Allawi’s office did not respond to a request for comment.) At some point, for reasons that are not clear, Allawi fell from favor, and the Baathists organized a series of attempts on his life. The third attempt, by an axe-wielding assassin who broke into his home near London in 1978, resulted in a year-long hospital stay.

The Saban Center’s Flynt Leverett said of the transfer of sovereignty, “If it doesn’t work, there is no fallback—nothing.” The former senior American intelligence official told me, similarly, that “the neocons still think they can pull the rabbit out of the hat” in Iraq. “What’s the plan? They say, ‘We don’t need it. Democracy is strong enough. We’ll work it out.’ ”

Middle East diplomats and former C.I.A. operatives who now consult in Baghdad have told me that many wealthy Iraqi businessmen and their families have deserted Baghdad in recent weeks in anticipation of continued, and perhaps heightened, suicide attacks and terror bombings after June 30th. “We’ll see Christians, Shiites, and Sunnis getting out,” Michel Samaha, the Lebanese Minister of Information, reported. “What the resistance is doing is targeting the poor people who run the bureaucracy—those who can’t afford to pay for private guards. A month ago, friends of mine who are important landowners in Iraq came to Baghdad to do business. The cost of one day’s security was about twelve thousand dollars.”

Whitley Bruner, a retired intelligence officer who was a senior member of the C.I.A.’s task force on Iraq a decade ago, said that the new interim government in Iraq is urgently seeking ways to provide affordable security for second-tier officials—the men and women who make the government work. In early June, two such officials—Kamal Jarrah, an Education Ministry official, and Bassam Salih Kubba, who was serving as deputy foreign minister—were assassinated by unidentified gunmen outside their homes. Neither had hired private guards. Bruner, who returned from Baghdad earlier this month, said that he was now working to help organize Iraqi companies that could provide high-quality security that Iraqis could afford. “It’s going to be a hot summer,” Bruner said. “A lot of people have decided to get to Lebanon, Jordan, or the Gulf and wait this one out.” "

The "Spitzer Team" to take a fresh look at ...

...the Freedom Tower.

One of the points in the 12-16-2006 NY Times article located at:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/nyregion/16spitzer.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fRefrence%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fP%2fPort%20Authority%20of%20New%20York%20And%20New%20Jersey%20&oref=slogin[/url]

NYS' "Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer’s choice to lead the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said yesterday that the Spitzer team would take a “fresh look” at the Freedom Tower project at ground zero.

Mr. Spitzer cautioned that it was premature to say whether plans would change, but the new Port Authority leader, Anthony E. Shorris, said there was little flexibility to make a major overhaul.

The comments came at a news conference where Mr. Spitzer named Mr. Shorris to be executive director of the Port Authority and also tapped 11 others for top jobs in his administration. Half of the appointees are current or former members of Mr. Spitzer’s staff in the attorney general’s office...."

".... Mr. Shorris’s remarks about a top-to-bottom review of the Freedom Tower reflected private comments made recently by some Spitzer advisers. They have vowed to examine everything from the project’s cost and leasing viability to its height, which Gov. George E. Pataki helped set at 1,776 feet.
Both the Port Authority, which owns the World Trade Center site, and the state have many other significant infrastructure needs, from the Second Avenue subway to the rebuilding or replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge. And Mr. Spitzer is on record, as a candidate last spring, as saying the Freedom Tower could become “a white elephant” because it seemed to lack “economic viability."
“We’ll be looking at every aspect of it, both the plan and the execution of it, we’ll take a fresh look at the whole thing,” Mr. Shorris said yesterday. “But I also think the No. 1 priority of the governor is to get ground zero moving. The last thing that any of us wants to see is a slowing down of the progress.”

Apparently, Mr. Spitzer may be thinking that there is no need to replace the old white elephant Twin Towers with another possible one in the "Freedom Tower". I commend him for looking at it. As a matter of fact, I hope that it leads to an investigation. Personally I think at least some of, if not all of, Mr. Silvestein's insurance claims should be disallowed by the insurance companies who, to the best of my knowledge as of this writing, have neglected to perform their own investigations. Investigations which, in my humble opinion, would have proven Mr. Silverstien's claims as invalid. Investigations which were required by laws which were ignored. I also feel that the executives of the insurance companies involved are guilty of violating their own corporate internal contol procedures by approving the claims and making payments of those claims from the stockholders earnings.

Mr. Spitzer was Attorney General for the State of New York on or about 9/11/01. I wonder why he didn't investigate then and wonder if this might be his way of looking to cover his tail. You know shake a few trees and see what falls out. At least there is sufficient room for hope that Mr. Spitzer can order an investigation. An investigation that is long overdue. An investigation which if it does interfere with the construction of the Freedom Tower, would be welcomed by not only the families of the victims but other citizens all over the world.

Just as it is apparent that some of the Legislation that went through Congress and became law had been drafted prior to 9/11/01. The Air Transportation Safety & System Stabilization Act was approved by both Houses of Congress on 9/21/01. The USA Patriot Act was signed on 10/26/01. The Terrorist Risk Insurance Act was introduced in November 2001. There may be more. I just started reading the Congressional Record for September 10, 2001.

Mr. Silverstein's well knowm remark about "pull-it" is a clear indication that he was aware that WTC 7 had been rigged for Controlled Demolition. I wonder what story he prepared for the insurance companies with his original claims. I wonder what incentive he gave to the claims adjusters of the insurance companies that prevented them from doing their jobs and investigate the claims.
Do the insurance companies still have the right to investigate the claims? Perhaps there is an insurance company that has come to its senses and will fund an independent investigation.

I was not in favor of the Twin Towers being built in the first place. There were just to many people to fit in to small of an area which would create to much pollution and cost to much money. I didn't think that they were a very economic investment for the Port Aurhority of New York and New Jersey. The funds to cover the millions of dollars in annual losses that were experianced by the towers came from higher tolls and NYC & NYS income taxes. The State of New York had rented several floors before construction was completed. Shortly thereafter they relocated several departments to other areas of New York City and/or New York State only to move back into the buildings that were looking at a possible billion dollar asbestos removal project in accition to the rising costs and rising vacancies. I read an article one day which indicated that NYS had already committed for space in the Freedom Tower.

9/11/2001 in NYC, in my humble opinion, had been planned years before it happened. It was one of the reasons why the Bush 2000 presidential appointment by the supreme court was so important. It was one of the reasons why the State of Florida had to stoop to having Third World Elections and became a Bush family affair. The clock was already ticking, arrangements had been made, people had been paid, everything was going according to the plans.

FEMA was "deployed" to NYC and was there on 9/10/01 expecting a biohazzard exercise the next day (the pulverized tower concrete, furniture, asbestos, floresence light blubs, computers, etc.}.

Confirmation Panel did not ask the right question.

As I see it, every person appointed for any position in the government should be asked the following question.

Do you believe that an airplane crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001?

The Senate confirmed President George W. Bush's choice for Donald Rumsfeld's replacement as Secretary of Defense without asking that question.

I believe that they have confirmed just another soft spoken C.I.A. insider willing to play the game for a few more years. I believe that he is the only C.I.A. agent to have made it to the top. I wonder why ??? Was he recruited by this President's father ? It couldn't be patriotism because he didn't bring up the subject either.

I am very disappointed, but not surprised, that none of the Senators that were on the Confirmation Committee dared ask that question. Especially the ones that have 2008 Presidential aspirations. I will be looking for someone who will ask the tough questions.

Maybe the new Democrat takeover of both houses of Congress isn't going to be as effective as we wanted it to be. We can still hope that when they open their first session that I will be proven wrong.

I heard that the new 110th Congress is going to legislate some of the recommendations that were suggested by the Official 9/11 Commission.

As I see it, doing that would be putting the cart before the horse. The 110th Congress has enough to do without creating more of a legislative mess like cleaning up 5 years of legislation passed on lies and bribery (lobbyists).

I think they should appoint a committee to re-open the investigation which could be funded in part by the insurance companies who were told to pay fraudulent claims before doing their own investigations and given new legislation that created a new line of business "Terrorism Risk Insurance".

Specifically, Mr. Silverstein and associates whose insurance claim and court documents submitted before the end of 2001 that happened to match what the 9/11 Commission reported a few years later, followed by faulty FEMA and NIST reports.

Congress & Speedy Legislation for 9/11 Air Carriers

Here is another amazing set of coincidences that relate to the 9/11/2001 events.
The President signed Public Law 107-42 on 9/22/2001.
It an Act "To preserve the continued viability of the United States air transportation system" and is commonly known as the "Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act".

Amazingly, someone kept their head enough through all the surprise 9/11 "attacks" and realized that there would be a need for this type of legislation. Apparently, these approximately 12 pages of technical legislation were not only drafted but it had also been printed and circulated it to both the House (H.R. 2926) and Senate (S.1450), where, on 9/21/01 it was considered and passed by both Houses of Congress in just 10 days.

In TITLE I - AIRLINE STABILIZATION
It provides, in part, for the President "shall take the following actions to compensate air carriers for losses incurred by the air carriers as a result of the terrorist attacks on the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001."
"(1) Subject to such terms and conditions as the President deems necessary, to issue Federal credit instruments to air carriers that do not, in the total aggregate, exceed $10,000,000,000 and to provide subsidy amounts necessary for such instruments in accordance with provisions of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2U.S.C. 661 et seq.)
(2) Compensate air carriers in an aggregate amount equal to $5,000,000,000 for
(A) direct losses incurred beginning on September 11, 2001 by air carriers as a result of any Federal ground stop order issued by the Secretary of Transportation or any subsequent order which continues or renews such stoppage; and
(B) the incremental losses incurred beginning September 11, 2001 and ending December 31, 2001, by air carriers as a direct result of such attacks."

TITLE II - AVIATION INSURANCE (partial listing of 2 sections)
(a) amended certain sections of Section 44302 of title 49, United States Code.
(b) REIMBURSEMENT OF INSURANCE COST INCREASES

TITLE III - TAX PROVISIONS - 1 Section
TITLE IV - VICTIM COMPENSATION - 9 Sections
TITLE V - AIR TRANSPORTATION SAFETY - 2 Sections
TITLE VI - SEPARABILITY - 1 Section

As you can see from the above there is quite a bit of detail that needed thought and legislation specific language as well as familiarity with the Sections of the other laws that were amended.

This piece just deals with the (2) part of Title I that deals with the $5,000,000,000 approved for compensation for losses to air carriers.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has posted a listing of payments made to 427 Carriers totaling $4,638,361,045.1.

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/carrierpayments.htm

The "Questions or Comments" link provides a non-existent email address. At least the email that I sent from there was returned by a MAILER DEMON. The latest date provided by the above page is October 13, 2003.

On December 4, 2006 I sent the following email from the ATSB section of the Treasury Department website:

"Hello,

The Department of Transportation has a listing of payments that was made in accordance wilt public law 107-42 at the following link. http://www.dot.gov/affairs/carrierpayments.htm

The latest date shown on the page is October 10, 2003.

I tried to contact them from the “Question or Comments” spot at the bottom of that page and received a reply from a MAILER DEMON that the address was not correct.

I am trying to find out:
1- If that list is considered a full and final listing ? If not when and where will it be posted?
2- Were the “applications” for damages net of any insurance claims that had been filed with the entities private insurance companies ?
3- Are the “applications” available ?
4- If they are to whom and in what format should the request be made for selected companies ?

Thank You for your reply."


On December 12, 2006 I received the following email

"Dear Mr. -----

You had addressed a number of questions to the Air Transportation Stabilization Board concerning payments to air carriers under P.L. 107-42, which were referred to me. Here’s the answers:
1) The 2003 payments schedule posted on DOT’s website is virtually complete. There have been a number of changes that occurred thereafter as a result of claim settlements, lawsuit results, repayment installments from carriers, etc., as these data trickled in. There is only one major case now outstanding, and we are hoping to resolve that within the next month or so. At that time we may do an additional accounting if resources are available, even though there are a few installment repayments and one bankruptcy resolution yet outstanding that would not enable a final rendering to be made. The most significant change to the 2003 table is a repayment of $28,820,841 by FedEx Express, in connection with that company’s unsuccessful litigation against the United States. As of this time, $4.603 billion has been obligated of the $5 billion made available, with most of the balance rescinded by Congress and so put to other purposes.
2) Yes. (Carriers were required to disclose insurance payments, and payments were net of those.)
3) No. Most companies requested confidentiality with their applications, because they contained information about their financial losses, forecasting methods, etc. that could cause them competitive harm if released. As a result of those requests, and because the submissions on their face appeared to meet the criteria for withholding of the information from public release under 5 USC 552(b)(4), DOT extended confidentiality to the substance of all applications. We responded to the legitimate issues of public interest in fiscal responsibility, program administration and responsiveness by publishing the amounts of payments to each carrier on the DOT website.
4) A copy of the application forms are in the Code of Federal Regulations, at 14 CFR Part 330 (Appendices), so you can see the nature of the information requested and the method of computing the tentative compensation amount. If you wish to see selected applications as filled out, I would suggest writing to each of the companies you are interested in and asking them for the information. DOT would have no objection if companies voluntarily provided their information to you.

James R. Dann
Deputy Assistant General Counsel
USDOT"

I find it remarkable that the documents that were passed by both Houses of Congress in 10 days contained an accurate figure for what the losses would be through December 31, 2001.

Since the Deputy Assistant General Counsel has suggested that I write to each of the 427 entities listed to ask them for the information, I am wondering if anybody else has another suggestion.

New Congress sets a goal to Enact 9/11 Commission's security recommendations

According to the Yahoo News http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061125/ap_on_go/democrats_iraq
The new Democrat Congress has set as one of their goals"_Enacting the Sept. 11 Commission's security recommendations".

We all are aware that the Commission was faulty. I think that if the new Congress Enact's any legislation that resulted from the faulty investigation is a mistake. Politically for them, financially for us and we may lose more of our Constitutional Rights in the process.

The correct way would be for Congress to form their own independent investigation and arrive at their own recommendations (if any are necessary).

I think that by them releasing this information we are obligated to respond that we do not want any legislation that came out of the faulty Commission until they have an independent Congressional Committee with "Subpoena Power" and a multi-million dollar budget to arrive at their own conclusions and recommendations, if any are really necessary.

Perhaps the funding can come from the insurance companies that failed to investigate the claims filed or did the insurance companies have a magic ball that showed that the investigation of the Commission would agree with cause on the claims that were filed and argued in Court before the end of 2001. How many billions of dollars did that cost us in higher insurance rates for the new Terrorism Risk product that the Bush Administration gave them to sell which covered the losses.

I think at the minimum what we have to do is go on record with our Congress representatives that we do not want any legislation related to any of the recommendations that resulted from the Commission that was formed and subject to the influence of the evil doers in the Bush Administrations.

Some suggestions are as follows:
1) Call your Congressperson (both the Republican and Democrats) and express your interest in a new investigation.
2) Contact all your friends and relatives and ask them to call their Congressperson also and if they don't want to call ask them for their permission for you to call their Congressperson on their behalf and call their congressperson and use their names. One call per person.
3) Place additional calls for each of your non voting age children. It affects their future and they do have rights despite their young age.
4) Go to the Boston Tea Party in December 2006.

Don't let your Congressperson do something that they will regret when the truth comes out and it will.
GOD SAVE AMERICA

Insurance Claims - Official Story used

It is my understanding that most, if not all, of the insurance claims filed for the 9/11 events in NYC are based on the original theory that terrorists hijacked commercial passenger planes. These commercial passenger planes crashed into the 110 story towers and that each tower collapsed as a result of the fires that were created by jet fuel.

The 9/11 Official Commission had not even been appointed before those claims were filed. Is it really any wonder why the Commission came to the conclusion that it did? I believe that the Official Commission was told to come up with results that could support that insurance claims that had already been filed if not partially paid by then. This would ensure that the fraudulent claims would not be questioned. The FEMA & recently released NIST reports were designed to support the Official Commission Report.

I have not heard that any one of the more than 20 insurance companies that are involved ever asked for an investigation. I have not heard anything that any of the owners of the publicly traded stock have asked the Board of Directors of those companies why they did not ask for an investigation or why the company has not considered the claims invalid. I believe that people who own stock in any of the insurance companies can start to pressure management of the insurance companies because the claims are being paid from the earnings owned by the stockholders.

I have not seen any court document from any insurance company that indicates that the original claims filed were misleading, if not fraudulent, and therefore the court awarded payment should be reversed.

Initial Reason for Blogging

A funny thing happened during my research to find the Truth about the events of 9/11/01. I ended up creating this Blog with the hope that I won't lose anymore of my 9/11 research.
After settling a lengthy litigation with a large national bank in the fall of 2005 I had a great deal of free time. Someone suggested to me that I watch the video "911: In Plane Site". So I did. There was no turning back from there. I ended up devoting most of my time to trying to seek the Truth about that day. I am a forensic accountant and in seeking answers to questions more questions would be raised.

I tried working with the "Pilots For 911 Truth" forum but was banned from there unexpectedly. I believe that it was because of my belief that the four airline flights are still missing and the Administrator did not like some of the reply postings that I gave to other members who were requesting information. I was answering with the truth rather than supporting the Official 9/11 Commission Report that the Administrator and other members of "Pilots For 911 Truth" were pushing.
Unfortunately I lost all of the information that I post and the sources of new information that I had received in the those forums. To be honest part of it might also have been a reply that I posted that suggested that Mr. Gates should be asked at his confirmation hearings as Mr. Rumsfeld's replacement in the Pentagon if Mr. Gates believed that Flight 77 crashed into the building and if so would he arrange to release the security camera pictures that actually showed the crash.

Then on 11/13/2006 I attempted to register with "9/11 Oddities Discussion Forums". I was informed that they required an email confirmation to activate my username NJcpaTOM. Somehow I never received the email. This morning I went to log in and could not get past the log in screen. I went to register again and found that I was listed as a member but would not be granted access because the membership was inactive and that I would have to contact the Administrator. Of course there wasn't any clear way to contact the Administrator. In order to send the Administrator an email I was required to log in and I couldn't log in until I contacted the Administrator.

So here I am. Username NJcpaTOM. I don't believe in sneaking into where I don't want to be by using another email address and another username. That only takes time away from my real goal of seeking the Truth about 9/11. I like to think that I can be considered a "Truther".

I am an Eagle Scout (class of 1959). I have relatives that have graduated from West Point. I am one of the first of the Baby Boomer generation. In the early 1960's I to Unemployment where to go because they wanted me to cut my hair in order to get a job.
I went to night school and graduated from Baruch College in January 1975 with a 3.87 out of 4.0 in Accounting (3.26 overall). When the business that I worked for in 1972 moved to Virginia they asked me to go with them. Knowing that I'd never finish college if I went I supported myself driving a taxi in NYC and tutoring every accounting course that I took and registered for full time. $65.00 a semester no limit to the number of credits other than time. I was Vice-President of the Accounting Society at Baruch College. I am a card carrying member of the Benevolent Protective Order Of Elks, a Third Degree member of the Knights of Columbus, a Certified Public Accountant and a Diplomat of the American Board of Forensic Accountants.