toc.jpg (1739 bytes) home.jpg (1035 bytes)
WB00938_1.GIF (1017 bytes)


"Who is Osama bin Laden?" This is one of the many questions I posed in the introduction to this work when I wrote it in August of 2001. Little did know that events in the following month would make that question all the more pressing. The events of September 11, 2001 have also impressed upon me even more deeply the importance of finding answers to the primary question addressed by this anthology: To what degree is the government of the United States of America in the control of the black marketeers? Former CIA Director Bill Colby ought to know. He was legal counsel for one of the banks that laundered the CIA's drug money (see "Dateline Australia," "Langley's Revenge", "State-Organized Crime.") In the Fall 1995 Strategic Investment Newsletter Colby said, "The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government." Colby was reported missing in April 1996 and found dead a week later in an apparent canoeing accident. John DeCamp, a lawyer and state legislator from Lincoln, Nebraska, and Colby's close friend and confidant, said Colby's death was not an accident. He stated that Colby was prepared to disclose that American  P.O.W.'s missing in Southeast Asia were working for a drug smuggling operation run by Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, and George H. W. Bush.

Richard Armitage has been accused of involvement in the Southeast Asian heroin trade for many years. The earliest indicator I saw that George W. Bush's campaign for the presidency had the backing of the drug-smuggling interests was in January 2000, when I read of Armitage's inclusion in Bush's foreign policy advisement team. After the election, Armitage was confirmed in Senate hearings as Bush's nominee for Deputy Secretary of State, the number two position under Colin Powell. Armitage had resigned from his position as Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, having been under investigation in the Iran-Contra affair. As Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Office of International Security Affairs under President Bush, Armitage held the rank of Ambassador and worked with the Newly Independent States after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Armitage served in both the State and Defense departments under President Bush. The Progressive Review writes, "Bush nominated Armitage to be Secretary of the Army in 1989 but Armitage withdrew before the confirmation hearing following reports that Perot and veteran organizers were gearing up to oppose him."

Ross Perot also knew that Armitage's preoccupation with drugs was getting in the way of "bringing the boys back home." While working with Armitage in a POW location program in 1986, Perot tried to pressure Armitage into resigning after learning of allegations of Armitage’s involvement in narcotics smuggling. In May 1987, as a green beret on a mission to rescue American POWs in Southeast Asia, Col. James "Bo" Gritz met General Khun Sa. The general commanded a remnant of Chiang Kai-Shek’s nationalist Chinese army in the region’s opium-growing "Golden Triangle." Khun Sa told Gritz that Armitage was the "money-man," one of a few American officials supervising the purchase and distribution of his opium to support his anti-Communist army. Also involved were CIA officer Ted Shackley and Florida mob chief Santos Trafficante. Khun Sa offered to cut off the opium supply if he could receive foreign aid in the form of money and a crop substitution program, but his offer was refused at the White House.

One by one, other figures in the Iran-contra scandal began showing up as Bush appointees. The Bush Administration began to smell extremely bad by Summer 2001 with the appointment of Asa Hutchinson to head the DEA. Hutchinson's inaction as US Attorney had allowed Barry Seal's drug-smuggling operation to thrive in Mena, Arkansas (see "The Crimes of Mena," "Langley's Revenge").

It was, I wrote in July 2001, like watching the progression of "a train wreck happening in slow motion." I had no idea how hard the moment of impact would shake us all.

When the planes hit the World Trade Center, I had no idea what to think. No conceivable explanation made sense. The government story was full of holes, but I just could not imagine any that any American official body, no matter how corrupt, could have sanctioned such a horrific event. I decided that, despite my reservations, I would operate on the assumption that the attacks were simply the work of Arab-Muslim extremists seeking to punish America for its support of Israel.

It took me a month to change my mind. One extremely influential article was Michel Chossudovsky's "Osamagate," which showed not only that Osama bin Laden had been an instrument of U.S. foreign policy in the Afghan War of the 1980s, but that bin Laden and Al Qaeda cooperated with the Clinton administration's efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo. Recalling Oliver North's use of drugs to fund the contras, Chossudovsky wrote, "The same pattern was used in the Balkans to arm and equip the Mujahideen fighting in the ranks of the Bosnian Muslim army against the Armed Forces of the Yugoslav Federation." Congressional Testimony was cited in the article, stating that the CIA-supported Kosovo Liberation Army was linked to both Osama bin Laden and the drug traffic originating in Afghanistan.

. . .  the KLA raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo lie at the heart of the "Balkan Route" that links the "Golden Crescent" of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 percent of heroin destined for Europe.

The "final straw" for me was seeing the familiar players back at their timeless game, this time in Afghanistan and neighboring countries. From The Wilderness reported in early October 2001 that CIA proprietaries Southern Air Transport and Evergreen Air had been "establishing a presence in the Uzbek capitol of Tashkent for more than a year;" that two separate sources had indicated that Richard Secord had "recently traveled to Tashkent;" and that our Afghan allies were rapidly taking control of the opium trade.

History was repeating itself. In the years after World War II, the CIA had slowly worked its way up the heroin supply chain from Marseilles through Vietnam to Laos. After the Kennedy Assassination had removed the greatest obstacle to the growth of the enterprise, Richard Secord and the CIA's Air America helped get our Laotian allies' opium to market (see "Rogue Elephant"). In the years following the Cold War, I was seeing the CIA moving up the supply chain from Bosnia through Kosovo to Afghanistan, with the attacks on the World Trade Center paving the way for a war in Afghanistan.

The Bush Administration expressed its belief that Osama bin Laden was behind the World Trade Center attacks only hours after the towers were struck. Bin Laden denied responsibility immediately. According to an article appearing on on September 12th, bin Laden "denied responsibility for Tuesday's attacks, and a Pakistan-based newspaper quoted bin Laden as blaming 'some American group.'" By October, I was beginning to find that theory more plausible than the one being promoted by our government.

With this paradigm shift, all the unanswered questions regarding the September 11th hijackings then became more urgent; but the Bush Administration insisted on keeping secret its "evidence" linking the so-called hijackers to Al Qaeda. I suspected, but did not yet know for certain, that such evidence never existed, as FBI Director Mueller would finally admit on April 19th. I did not know that the plans for the destruction of Al-Qaeda had been submitted to George Bush's office two days before the attacks and that the attacks merely provided the pretext for carrying out these plans. MSNBC reported in May 2002 that these plans "included efforts to persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden over to the United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused." But at this point, I merely suspected that the attacks provided the pretext for the carrying out of such a pre-planned agenda. I wrote in an open letter on October 13th:

I was somewhat dismayed to find that I had a lot of catching up to do. I hadn't spent enough time getting the facts on most of the relevant events of the 1990s, from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to Bosnia, the Oklahoma City bombing, TWA Flight 800,  Kosovo, and the Clinton administration's skirmishes with Al Qaeda. So I dusted off the unread materials I had been gathering over the years and did some more searching in hopes of catching up. I also started a newsletter to share what I was finding. On October 28, I wrote:


With the majority of the September 11th hijackers now identified as Saudi nationals, attention should be given to the possible role of the Saudi Arabian government in the attacks and to their known financial support of Islamic terrorism. "The cover of their complicity has been removed," said a guest on CNBC Thursday night. But will American political and financial entanglements in Saudi Arabia prevent an earnest investigation?

Osama bin Laden was, until the revocation of his citizenship in 1994, a Saudi Arabian citizen. The stated purpose of his war on America is to drive U.S. troops from that country, the land of Mohammed and Mecca. The displeasure of many Muslims at the American presence in the Islamic Holy Land is something that until recently the US government has studiously ignored - even covered up. American occupation on its present scale began in 1991 during the Gulf War and has made America a target ever since. Perhaps the government's silence regarding this fact is linked to its potential embarrassment over the long decade during which US-led sanctions have prevented Iraq from getting necessary medical supplies. Innocent Iraqis of all ages have been dying due to the sanctions, and the evidence suggests that Iraq has long been allied with bin Laden's mujaheddin and with other Saudi extremists to have its vengeance.

On November 13, 1995 seven people were killed when a bomb exploded at the U.S. training mission in Riyadh. This incident followed a threat faxed to Iraqi-owned London paper earlier that year stating that "crusader forces" and influential members of the Saudi royal family would be attacked if foreign forces did not leave the country by June 28. The threat was repeated on Iraqi state radio the following day. After the June deadline passed, the same paper reported receiving a second fax from the "Islamic Change Movement" declaring that the attacks would soon begin.

On June 25, 1996 nineteen American military personnel were among those killed when another bombing took place in Dharan. The size of the Dharan bomb indicated state sponsorship, with the two main suspects being Iraq and Iran. In October of that year, American authorities leaked word that their suspicions focused on Osama bin Laden, who had reportedly been in contact with Iraqi intelligence. President Clinton vowed "to make sure those responsible are brought to justice."

Breaking their long silence since the Riyadh bombing, the "Islamic Change Movement" surfaced again on July 16, faxing a message to Al Hayat, a London-based paper owned by Saudi Arabia's Prince Khalid. According to an April 1997 article in The American Spectator (which I have already paraphrased extensively):

"The message took credit for the Riyadh and Dharan bombings . . . and concluded, 'The movement will give a decisive reply to the threats of the stupid American president and everyone will be surprised by the size of the response and the mujahedin's choice of the time and place. The invaders must prepare to leave alive or dead. Their appointment is the morning. Is the morning not near?'

"The next day was Iraq's national day. Saddam's speech that morning was the most ferocious he had given since the Gulf War. . . Within hours, TWA Flight 800 exploded off the coast of Long Island. Never before had a plane, without warning or indication of any malfunction whatsoever, dropped from the sky, amid a fireball, no less . . . [without the cause having been] terrorism."

On August 15, 2000 the "TWA Eyewitness Alliance" ran a half-page ad in the Washington Times declaring that "We Saw TWA Flight 800 Shot Down By Missiles - And We Won't Be Silenced Any Longer."   What was the government attempting to accomplish by ignoring evidence of terrorism? To avoid public demand that US forces return home from Saudi Arabia? To keep attention from being drawn to the sanctions against Iraq, which by then even officials as high as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark were publicly denouncing as inhumane? To avoid public curiosity about Osama bin Laden, a drug-smuggling monster created by the CIA during the Afghan War? Or to avoid the very crisis in which we now find ourselves?

The bombings of two U.S. embassies and the USS Cole have followed since that time, with the U.S. government finally beginning to strike back and growing ever more accusatory of Osama bin Laden - but still careful to avoid discussion of the policies that seem to be precipitating these attacks: the occupation of Saudi Arabia and sanctions against Iraq.

Because I had not had time to do an appropriate amount of research on the subject,  I omitted from my article what I had found regarding the Oklahoma City Bombing and its possible connection to Iraq. I will do likewise here. Suffice it to say that many responsible people - not only the "conspiracy nuts"  on which the media are wont to blame any rumors of government conspiracy - have been doing their best to force a reinvestigation of the bombing. It appears that the Justice Department knew of the bombing in advance and  planned to foil the plot  in a last-minute "sting" operation, but something went horribly amiss. Original reports of "middle eastern" men at the scene of the bombing were suppressed and eventually Timothy McVeigh became the government's primary suspect. Evidence of these "middle eastern" suspects and McVeigh's possible contacts with Iraqi intelligence was reportedly among the 3,000 pages of government documents released to McVeigh's lawyers just before his execution in spring of 2001.

In the October 28th newsletter, I continued:


The trail of evidence in the September 11th attacks leads to more suspects than Osama bin Laden and his army of religious fanatics. At the Mad Cow Press website ( and in the electronic newsletter of the same name, journalist Daniel Hopsicker reports the connections between the South Florida mob and members of the Saudi royal family. Hopsicker also reports that the suicide pilots were trained at U.S. military bases, likely at the behest of the Saudi Arabian government. We already know that the bin Laden family owns the contracting business favored by the Saudi royal family and that one of the bin Ladens was a partner in George W. Bush's first energy company. All three of these parties (the Bushes, bin Ladens, and the House of Saud) figure heavily in the BCCI banking scandal of 1991 and the U.S.' former war in Afghanistan against the Soviets. The same three parties, as well as BCCI, have much to do with the drug trafficking that occurred in Pakistan during the Afghan War. During that time, the U.S. was inundated with South Asian heroin as a result of CIA support for the opium-growing Mujahideen and the Pakistani military, which operated the heroin labs across the border.

It was the Saudi royal family to which the Reagan administration turned to keep the Nicaraguan contras together while the National Security Council and CIA organized round-trip flights between Central America and the U.S., with guns going south and cocaine coming back north. CIA and drug trafficking? That brings us full circle to the South Florida mob, which has worked in that business hand-in-hand with the Bushes and the CIA since before the days of Castro's revolution in Cuba (See "Rogue Elephant" by this author).

And now we come to Southern Air Transport. For those unfamiliar with the CIA's drug-smuggling proprietary airline, a brief history is in order. Southern Air Transport, based in Florida, flew cocaine into the US from Central America during the Iran-Contra years. The flights were often manned by former Air America pilots, Air America being the CIA-owned airline which flew raw opium from the hills of Laos to refineries in Vientiane and Saigon during the Vietnam conflict. Air America grew out of Civil Air Transport, the airline which had performed the same service for Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalist Chinese forces in the 1940s and 1950s. Mike Ruppert ( reports that Southern Air Transport and many similar enterprises were already in position in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan's opium-producing neighbor, before the September 11 attacks. Vietnam and Iran-Contra conspirator Richard Secord is reported to have traveled to Uzbekistan's capital, Tashkent.

Mike also quotes the Wall Street Journal (Sept. 28, 2001) regarding another Bush family tie to the Bin Ladens: "George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm." And we might begin to wonder: is Osama bin Laden the "black sheep" of his family or is that just a convenient story meant to cover an uglier reality? Family is family, and the bin Laden family may be of two minds on this issue, just as the House of Saud is sharply divided between those who value their close relationship to the U.S. and those who cannot tolerate our presence.

At Mad Cow and also at Global Research (, we read that the mob and the CIA have been doing business with the very terrorists that the Bush administration is promising to eradicate.

Given the history of the above individuals and institutions, we must consider the possibility that elements of the CIA, the Bush family, the Florida mob, the House of Saud, and the Bin Laden family are playing both sides of this conflict and playing us for fools. Do they and their bankers stand to make several fortunes in heroin? Stay tuned.

America has so few authentic journalists covering political affairs. Mike Ruppert is one. Dan Hopsicker is another. Each of these two men has written more valuable material than any dozen  national TV news anchors or newspaper columnists. Thanks to their reporting, it was apparent within a month of the September 11th attacks not only that we were being deceived but that the attacks were linked to some very familiar sources - many of them American or allied with the U.S. I continued writing about the Saudi and Iraqi angles on November 4:


As they have since the beginning, reports continue to surface showing that the power behind the attacks on the U.S. is much bigger and much more complicated than al Qaeda.

Joseph A. Kechichian began an October 29th Op-Ed article for the Christian Science Monitor thus: "LOS ANGELES - In its effort to curb the spread of anti-American hatred, Washington has called on Saudi Arabia to end certain activities, including financial support of extremist Islamic institutions. Less erudite critics have called on the Saudi regime to 'stop lying' to the United States." In its November 5 issue, US News and World Report ran some 30 column inches regarding the Saudi Arabian connection to the current conflict and pointed out that the oil-rich kingdom "played a critical role in building up some of the very forces the United States is now committed to destroy."

According to a 1998 article by The Nation (Lahore, Pakistan), the Saudis have been funding the Taliban since a secret 1996 visit to Pakistan by Prince Turki, head of Saudi intelligence ( It is well-known that the government of Pakistan, particularly their intelligence service, has been one of the major sources of support for the Taliban. The Saudi support is less frequently reported in the American media.

We have heard for many weeks that hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi officials in the Czech republic. On page 18 of the same issue of US News (November 5) we find an account suggesting that Atta may have been caught literally red-handed as the source of some of the anthrax now surfacing in the U.S. In August of this year, Atta and one of his fellow hijackers visited a Florida pharmacist to get some medication for restoring damaged skin. Atta's hands were flaming red. Gregg Chatterton, the pharmacist who sold the bottle of medication to Atta, said he believes the redness was due to frequent washing with a harsh chemical such as bleach. Was Atta using bleach to kill anthrax spores left on his hands after filling envelopes? Such a crude method of decontamination would suggest that Atta may have been working with the non-weaponized Anthrax discovered in Florida. If this was the case, did Atta get the spores from Iraq? More importantly, who was behind the more deadly spores mailed after his death?

Laurie Mylroie, author of the new book The War Against of America and of Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America, appeared on Fox News on October 28th, recommending that the U.S. redirect its military campaign toward Iraq as soon as possible. Ms. Mylroie correctly points out that the 1991Gulf War never ended, with Iraq having been kept in a state of siege by US-led sanctions and air strikes. She sees Saddam Hussein behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as well as the incidents in Riyadh, Kenya, and Tanzania. The Clinton administration, she says, failed to look hard enough into state sponsorship of these attacks, and the United States can not afford to continue making that mistake.

There has been no solid evidence linking the so-called 19 hijackers to Osama bin -Laden or Al Qaeda. For that matter, I have seen no evidence putting any of those 19 men on the hijacked airplanes, much less in the cockpit with boxcutters at the throats of the pilots. With such a weak case, one would have expected the government to be under some pressure. But the question of what really happened that day took a definitely lower priority for the American media once the anthrax letters began showing up. In the October 28th newsletter, I began discussing the anthrax mailings:


It's the word on everyone's lips and the problem on everyone's mind. In their October 29 issue, US News and World Report titled its coverage of the phenomenon "Tools of Mass Distraction: An outbreak of terror that dances on the head of a pin." As the average American sits down to watch the news in the evening, he or she cannot avoid coverage of the anthrax scare. Let us click through the news channels on our local cable system together, hoping to find something else.

Click. MSNBC. Do we find a discussion of the US sanctions against Iraq and how many deaths are caused by Iraq's shortage of medical supplies? No. It's the postmaster general telling America that he cannot guarantee the safety of the mail.

Click. CNBC. Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary. Perhaps he will tell us what stance the administration is taking with regard to Saudi Arabia's sponsorship of Islamic terrorists? Nope. He's "clarifying" the remarks made by the postmaster general.

Click. CNN. Coverage of the Northern Alliance's involvement in the heroin trade? Nope. More anthrax coverage.

Click. Fox News. Some mention of the Florida recount showing that Al Gore won the election after all? I didn't think so.

And so it goes on.

Now let us for a moment place ourselves in the shoes of the party perpetrating the anthrax scare. Since we still don't know who is mailing this material, let us first assume that we are an Islamic terrorist cell bent on breaking America's will. If we were terrorists trying to achieve some political aim, would we prepare envelopes containing a "non-weaponized" form of anthrax - a non-contagious disease - and then mail them to high-profile Americans, failing to make any demands or to even claim credit for our deeds? Or would we instead do something that we are good at, like placing car bombs in areas of high traffic? After all, killing as many infidels as possible is supposed to be what this is all about. And bombs are much cheaper than bio-weapons. Anyone can make a bomb, but to get access to bio-weapons, you would have to be a government or something . . . Anthrax doesn't sound like the rational choice for us to make, does it?

Let us then try another assumption. If we were a white-collar criminal cabal trying to cover our complicity in the September 11th attacks and to distract the public from a developing heroin-smuggling operation in Asia Minor, while keeping real damage at a minimum, would we place car bombs in areas of high traffic or would we mail envelopes containing a non-weaponized form of a non-contagious disease to several high-profile Americans?

By January 6, my suspicions about the true source of the anthrax mailings were beginning to be confirmed. Federal investigators determined that the anthrax spores had likely originated with a CIA contractor. And No, the FBI said, we will not be investigating this lead. Army sources were also named as likely points of origin in an article in the Washington Post. Jeff Rense's website summed it up on January 3rd:

FBI officials may be implicated in a conspiracy to impede justice in the anthrax mailings case, if not treasonous dereliction of duty, according to a growing number of scientists and consumer advocates. After officials cited the likeliest origin of the powdered anthrax was the U.S. Army's Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah, or its Ohio-based supplier and CIA-contractor, Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI), FBI Director Robert Mueller announced the bureau has no intention of investigating anyone with, or formerly with, their chief suspect-BMI.
Just weeks ago, major progress in the FBI's investigation seemed forthcoming. The New York Times and Washington Post revealed that BMI, Dugway's anthrax facility supplier and chief administrator had contracted with the CIA (in project "Clear Vision") to produce, albeit illegally, the 1 trillion spore-per- gram strain of anthrax under investigation. BMI, while heading the U.S. military's "Joint Vaccine Acquisitions Program" worth more than $1 billion in vaccine contracts, commissioned America's top anthrax expert, William C. Patrick, III, to deliver a report on the powdered anthrax's prospects for being spread through the mail.

I wrote the following commentary on the development:


It is time that America became familiar with the term "state terrorism." Why? Because we are all living with it.

Yes, you say; you already knew that. You looked up the definition of terrorism in your dictionary and found that it means "use of terror as a means of coercion." And you have seen former CIA director James Woolsey and other notable persons on the cable news at least half a dozen times saying that the terrorism America is now experiencing is state-sponsored.

Actually, he is right. And guess which state is sponsoring it? Afghanistan? Not even close. Iraq? No. Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? You’re getting warmer. Israel? Close. Almost ready to give up, you ask: The United States? Bingo.

When vague warnings are issued from the FBI from time to time directing the American people to remain alert, that might be construed as terrorism, but you had something weightier in mind.

When Attorney General John Ashcroft steamrolls our civil liberties and insists that anyone who opposes his agenda is merely helping America’s enemies . . . "That," you say, "is an act of terrorism. Is that what you mean?"

That, dear reader, is the merest beginning of what I mean. Those of you who have paid even passing attention to past issues of this newsletter know that there are abundant holes in the government version of September 11th and that there is reason to suspect that government officials had foreknowledge of the attacks and did nothing to prevent them – perhaps even preventing the military from responding to the attacks as they took place. We have seen the government ignore and cover up evidence linking so-called "allies" to the attacks. We are aware that events now unfolding in Afghanistan are designed to channel billions of dollars in drug money to the Bush administration and its allies.

And now this.

The FBI is refusing to investigate the facility which is the likely source of the anthrax spores mailed to members of the US Senate. These mailings have not only put America in a state of panic and distracted the people from the alarming policies being pursued by the Bush administration; they have not only provided the perfect climate for the granting of unconstitutional powers to law enforcement; but they have also effectively neutralized an entire branch of government and disrupted communications between the people and their elected representatives. These mailings were, after the September 11th attacks, the second step along the path to a new and dictatorial form of government.

That is only the beginning of the story. The facility in question is Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI). BMI was one of only five laboratories whose anthrax stocks genetically matched the spores found in the Senate letters. All five of those labs got their stock from an Army facility at Fort Detrick, Maryland. BMI, which came under particular suspicion, illegally developed biological weapons under contract with (who else?) the CIA. BMI, says a recent article, produced "the 1 trillion spore-per- gram strain of anthrax under investigation." Most alarming of all, BMI "commissioned America's top anthrax expert, William C. Patrick, III, to deliver a report on the powdered anthrax's prospects for being spread through the mail."

According to the Washington Post, a CIA spokesperson asserted that the purpose of its anthrax research was to find ways to defend against bioterrorism. Yet the Post article does not include any explanation regarding why the CIA would be involved in an undertaking so far beyond the scope of its charter, nor why the Agency failed to register its work with the Centers for Disease Control.

The FBI has a responsibility to address these questions.

Dan Hopsicker again proved that he's worth his weight in Pulitzer Prizes on January 7 by reminding us of an earlier incident in which the CIA had exposed "problem" individuals to anthrax when those individuals were standing in the way of the Agency's drug profits. In Fall 2001, it was the media and Congress. But in the 1980s it was Russell Welch, an Arkansas State Police officer investigating the CIA drug operation at Mena. In Anthrax and the Politics of Terror, Hopsicker wrote:

Russell Welch was exposed to weaponized  anthrax over a decade ago when he opened a letter which released electrostatically charged floating spores in his face.

"I got so sick that my wife had to help me to the car," Welch told us several years ago, when we interviewed him for our two-hour documentary (banned from TV) about the Mena Scandal called "The Secret Heartbeat of America."

"Luckily we had a doctor in town, a Vietnam vet, who when he saw me immediately called the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta." . . .

Later his doctor's office was burglarized, and test results and correspondence with Center for Disease Control officials in Atlanta were stolen.

By this time, the CIA was not only the best suspect in the anthrax case,  but it was beginning to look like the best suspect in the World Trade Center attacks as well. The line between "us" and "them" in the "War on Terrorism" was getting extremely blurry. I wrote on November 4th:


On November 2, FBI director Robert Mueller pleaded for public help in the anti-terror investigations, admitting that the Bureau has been unable to identify any living accomplices in the September 11th attacks. You mean President Bush is keeping his al Qaeda evidence secret from the FBI as well as from Americans at large? Maybe Mueller can get the evidence from British PM Tony Blair [who publicly announced that there was incontrovertible - but secret - evidence linking Al Qaeda to the WTC attacks].

Or perhaps Mueller can ask the administration's Secretary of Heroin, Richard Armitage. On the third of October, Armitage appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America" to assure the public that there was "clear, compelling evidence" linking bin Laden to the September 11th attacks . . . we just aren't allowed to see it. What evidence has Armitage seen? The United States is now invading what was until this spring the world's foremost opium-producing country - and as justification for this invasion are we expected to rely on the sole word of a man who has been implicated in heroin-smuggling conspiracies from Burma to Russia? No, we also have the assurance of Orrin Hatch, the Senate's apologist for CIA-connected drug conspirators such as the Iran-Contra gang and BCCI.

Of course, Mueller will not bother to ask either Armitage or Hatch for their evidence - because Armitage's October 3rd statement was made at the very same time Mueller's own FBI was confirming evidence pointing in another direction: documents presented by the government of India showed that at least $100,000 of the approximately $500,000 which funded the September 11th attacks came through Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, then head of Pakistan's heroin-smuggling / intelligence service, the ISI. Ahmad resigned under pressure from the U.S. on the 8th of October. Global Research ( reports that Ahmad was in the United States on an unpublicized visit in the week preceding September 11th. On the 12th and 13th, Ahmad held meetings with Armitage.

Having failed to make Pakistan's guilt public before the bombs began dropping in Afghanistan on the 8th of October, Director Mueller now faces a considerable dilemma. The administration expects the FBI to justify the American bombing of Afghanistan by proving that al Qaeda is responsible for the September 11th atrocities when the money trail points instead to Pakistan, the United States' chief ally in the campaign. Good luck, Bob.


You would think that Osama bin Laden would be pretty hard to find after being named Public Enemy Number One for his role in the bombings of the USS Cole and the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Maybe you noticed his face this summer on the FBI's "Most Wanted" clipboard at your local U.S. Post Office. I did. Apparently, though, the CIA never got the word.

Bin Laden was treated in a Dubai hospital this July. He was visited by relatives as he was treated for a serious infection. He was also visited by a CIA official, apparently the local chief of station ( ; see also Was this a case of mistaken identity? Or is it further proof that Osama bin Laden continues to be a tool of American intelligence and that the justification for this war is a lie? Bin Laden was our man during the last Afghan war, where by no coincidence the CIA used Pakistan's ISI to transport the opium grown by the mujaheddin and refine it into heroin. Professor Michel Chossudovsky has shown that since then, bin Laden's Islamic terrorists have also supported U.S. objectives in Bosnia and Kosovo (, where the CIA allied itself with the heroin-trafficking KLA. Now Osama bin Laden provides us with a pretext for massive military intervention in Central Asia's opium-growing heartland. As Dana Carvey might say, "How conveeenient . . ."

Since late 2001, Mike Ruppert has done an amazing job of building a timeline showing that the government must have known that the September 11th attacks were coming. Ruppert documents the many warnings that were received before the attacks, and the moves made by the Bush Administration indicating plans for an invasion of Afghanistan. It wasn't until much later that the CIA briefing given to George Bush became publicly known and Colleen Rowley, an FBI employee, began talking about the FBI's mishandling of advance warnings. In December 2001, I read of a strange set of circumstances which suggested to me that someone may have arranged the death of an FBI whistleblower who could have told a story much more devastating than Colleen Rowley's. On December 8, I wrote:


It's a mystery that may never be solved. By what whim of fate, design of providence, or scheme of man was former FBI counterterrorism chief John O'Neill at the World Trade Center on September 11th?

O'Neill was promoted to head the FBI's counterterrorism section in 1995 and was involved in every FBI case concerning Osama bin Laden since that time, including the Dharan bombing, the USS Cole incident, and the attacks on the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. O'Neill retired from the Bureau in late August of this year and was on the second day of his job as security chief for the World Trade Center when the planes hit. O'Neill died trying to save others. This is the story of John O'Neill as read in the newspapers and magazines: one hero among dozens, but with a disturbing twist.

But then there is, as Paul Harvey says, "the rest of the story." It hits you like a ton of bricks.

I first read it at Global Research ( O'Neill's retirement from the FBI was not under the happiest circumstances. O'Neill resigned in frustration after his efforts to nail bin Laden were blocked by the US State Department. He revealed his complaints to the authors of Bin Laden: The Hidden Truth
, published in Paris in mid-November.

Clearly, it would be a matter of some controversy
[for]  the former head of America's counterterrorism efforts [to be] alive on the afternoon of September 11th and talking about how his efforts to have Osama bin Laden prosecuted had been persistently blocked by the same government which was now blaming bin Laden for the attacks.

So, the question is: who arranged that job at the World Trade Center for O'Neill?

Further reading:

Also on December 8, I began writing about the possibility of Israeli sponsorship of the September 11th attacks.  It still amazes me that the October 10th story (below) received no attention in the major media.


The two-month silence has been deafening. The media blackout hurts the eyes. On October 10th, two Israelis were arrested inside the Mexican Congress building. They were armed with automatic firearms, hand grenades, and dynamite. One of them is a former Colonel in Israel's military. Both are suspected of being agents for the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency.

Hello? Tom Brokaw? Peter Jennings? Larry King? Chris Matthews? Anyone at home? Nothing.

The men were later released by the Mexican government under intense pressure from the Israeli Embassy in Mexico City.

Further reading:

I continued this line of thought in the December 23rd newsletter:


I was pleasantly surprised that the last newsletter didn't draw any unsubscribe requests or accusations of anti-Semitism, but I'll press the issue further and then see what happens. Readers who were able to digest all the material in the December 8th issue will recall my assertions that 1) Israeli hawks are determined to destroy the Palestinian Authority, 2) Israel has penetrated the US intelligence community, and 3) Israel may have had a hand in the September attacks on the U.S. I will develop these themes further in this issue, drawing on recent news as well as recent history.

Israel's penetration of the U.S. intelligence community became most apparent in the 1980s. No, I'm not talking about the Jonathan Pollard spy case. I'm talking about Iran-Contra. During this period, "former" Mossad officers Michael Harari and Amiram Nir worked with the White House and CIA to smuggle cocaine into the U.S. through Central America. In the process, they gave the Mossad everything they would ever need to personally blackmail every U.S. President since that time. George H. W. Bush helped run the operation and Bill Clinton participated as governor of Arkansas, where much of the import operations took place. I could name lesser officials who were involved, but the point is already made. Israel and the U.S. have been bedmates and business partners in the cocaine trade for a long time. Anyone who denies the foregoing facts after examining all available evidence is either a liar or a fool.

Vince Foster is also thought to be both the beneficiary and victim of the Mossad. Forbes magazine was pursuing the story in 1995, but eventually backed off. Forbes' Senior Editor at the time wrote the following letter to the White House Press Secretary:

Dear Mr. McCurry:

Forbes Magazine is preparing an article for immediate publication. We would like to offer the White House an opportunity to comment on the following assertions.

1.) That Vincent W. Foster, while White House Deputy Counsel, maintained a Swiss bank account.

2.) That funds were paid into that account by a foreign government, specifically the State of Israel.

3.) That shortly before his death and coincident with the onset of severe and acute depression, Vincent Foster learned he was under investigation by the CIA for espionage.

4.) That this information was made available to him by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

5.) That while he was White House Deputy Counsel and for many years prior, Vincent Foster had been a behind-the- scenes control person on behalf of the National Security Agency for Systematics, a bank data processing company integrally involved in a highly secret intelligence effort to monitor world bank transactions.

6.) That Systematics was also involved in 'laundering' funds from covert operations, including drug and arms sales related to activities in and around Mena, Ark.

7.) That through Systematics' relationship with E-Systems, Vincent Foster may have had access to highly sensitive code, encryption and data security information of strategic importance.

8.) That both prior to and after his death, documents relating to Systematics were removed from Vincent Foster's office in the White House.

9.) That the meeting at the Cardozo (Landau) estate on the eastern shore of Maryland on the weekend before Vincent Foster's death was attended by, among others, George Stephanopolous.

10.) That Hillary Rodham Clinton was also a beneficiary of funds from Foster's Swiss account.

Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this matter. Please fax your written response before end-of-business Tuesday, April 18, to Forbes at 212-620-2417. If you have questions, please call me at 212-620-2215.

Respectfully yours,

James R. Norman, Senior Editor

Recently, reports have emerged of a massive and diversified espionage effort by Israel against the United States and in the United States. Consider the following items, reported during the past two weeks:

1. Dozens of Israeli residents of the US were picked up by the Justice Department both before and after the 9/11 attacks in connection with a massive campaign to enter US defense facilities and private homes. The Israeli spies were posing as art students and sought to enter the homes of US officials under the pretext of selling art.

2. The National Security Agency released a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information report expressing alarm at the fact that the majority of American phone calls were logged by an Israeli-owned billing and software firm. Add to that Israel's efforts to electronically monitor world banking transactions, and you have an unnerving situation indeed.

3. 100 Israeli citizens are being held by the Justice Department in what may become the most notorious spy case in United States history: individuals linked to Israeli organized crime, intelligence, and the military breached the system of US federal law enforcement wiretaps, in some cases even enabling criminals to eavesdrop on law enforcement. In one incident, a Los Angeles Police Department drug investigation was totally compromised.

If Israel was able to subvert the efforts of narcotics investigators, it is likely they also had the capability to protect terrorists operating in the United States.

You may have heard early accusations of Mossad involvement in the 9/11 attacks. The first one I heard was, I believe, from an Egyptian source and came within days of the attacks. This was easy to dismiss, because Egypt is particularly keen on tawdry anti-Semitic conspiracy literature like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Then the sources from which I was hearing the accusations started to migrate away from the center of anti-Israeli hatred. The Times of India reported a Saudi newspaper's accusation against the Mossad. Then a former German parliament member alleged that the Mossad had organized the 9/11 attacks, using Moslem henchmen in order to turn public opinion against the Arabs, and boost military and security spending.

Such vague commentaries prove nothing, but it is hard for me to imagine how such a watershed event could have take place without the Mossad's foreknowledge; nor could the attack plots have gone unexposed and unobstructed without the Mossad's indulgence. Of course, that judgement could be applied almost equally to the Mossad's American counterparts in the CIA, FBI and military intelligence, since there is a close transnational relationship when it comes to matters such as these. One would expect that the American side would have had much more motivation to stop the attacks, but as I have said before, some very twisted individuals at the top of the American power structure expect to benefit from the attacks. I must add that the possible guilt of Israel has no bearing on the question of whether American treason was a factor in the attacks. We should not be satisfied to punish foreign conspirators alone.

As for what Israel has gained from 9/11, it finally has complete U.S. acquiescence in its plans to destroy the Palestinian Authority. As the Bush Administration and its henchmen are once again waving the flag to distract the public from their international activities to organize the narcotics trade, the Mossad may also profit as a U.S. business partner.

You may recall the suppressed news story (carried in the December 8th issue) regarding the Mossad terrorists arrested in the Mexican congress building this winter, armed with automatic weapons and explosives.

The Mossad had the means, motive and opportunity to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks. The degree and nature of its involvement remains to be seen. Regardless of what the eventual findings are, the United States has good reason to end its favorable treatment of Israel now. That would solve the problem of pro-Palestinian terrorism against the U.S.; We can deal with Israeli terrorism as the evidence warrants.

It is not my intention to blame the September 11th attacks on Israel nor on the CIA as an organization.  My intent is to show that it is precisely at that nexus where Israeli and American intelligence agencies cooperate in drug smuggling operations where we are most likely to find the true authors of the attacks. CIA and Mossad cocaine smuggling dates back at least as far as the late 1970s with Operation Watchtower, in which US Army Special Forces men were dispatched into Colombia to install radio beacons which could guide drug-carrying cargo planes to Allbrook Air Station in Panama. CIA personnel such as Ed Wilson, Frank Terpil, and Thomas Clines were reportedly involved in this operation, as was Mike Harari, a "former" Mossad agent acting as an adviser to Manuel Noriega in Panama.

Both the CIA and Mossad had a hand in the drug smuggling operations at Mena, Arkansas (see "Langley's Revenge").  The two men laundering the greatest amount of the drug money were bond trader Dan Lasater and Jackson Stephens, a major shareholder in Worthen Bank. Stephens also owned Systematics, the firm mentioned in the Forbes letter above. Systematics provides software to financial institutions, and this aspect of Jackson's operations leads to the Vince Foster murder, the NSA, Mossad, and the stolen PROMIS software, for which there is no time here. Orlin Grabbe has written over 30 articles on the relationship between these subjects, and his series is a good place for the curious to begin.

Ever the one to find the connections that escape the notice of others, Dan Hopsicker has pointed out that the Venice, Florida flight school where the alleged "terrorist pilots" received their training was only a stone's throw from a building which once served as the national headquarters of Jackson Stephens' Beverly Enterprises (a nursing home chain) and still houses his former law firm ( Hopsicker, "Jackson Stephens 'Active' in Venice Florida").  After two Israeli citizens in a rented moving truck were pulled over near Whidbey Naval Air Station in Oak Harbor, Washington,  were detained on suspicion of illegally transporting explosives, and then had their alibi backed up by a nearby nursing home resident (who then promptly disappeared), Hopsicker pondered on the fact that Richard Boehlke had owned some nursing homes in the Northwest and one just down the block from Stephens' Beverly Enterprises in Venice (Hopsicker, "Israelis' Alibi Has a Few Problems"). Boehlke had also gone into business with Rudi Dekkers, the owner of one of the two Venice "terrorist flight schools" (Hopsicker, "Death in Venice"). Boehlke's looting of retirement pension funds in Portland, Oregon, Hopsicker writes, made money for Alvin Malnik, a South Florida mob figure related by marriage to the royal House of Saud (Hopsicker, "Was CIA Running Terrorist Flight School?").

The Oak Harbor incident has an interesting precedent: in a June 21st article on, we find that some Israelis sitting on top of a moving van were seen gleefully filming the destruction of the World Trade Center:

The men were taking video or photos of themselves with the World Trade Center burning in the background, she said. What struck Maria were the expressions on the men's faces. "They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange," she said.

She found the behavior so suspicious that she wrote down the license plate number of the van and called the police. Before long, the FBI was also on the scene, and a statewide bulletin was issued on the van.

The plate number was traced to a van owned by a company called Urban Moving. Around 4 p.m. on Sept. 11, the van was spotted on a service road off Route 3, near New Jersey's Giants Stadium. A police officer pulled the van over, finding five men, between 22 and 27 years old, in the vehicle. The men were taken out of the van at gunpoint and handcuffed by police.

The arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign passports. A box cutter was found in the van. But perhaps the biggest surprise for the officers came when the five men identified themselves as Israeli citizens.

Though the answers always spawn more questions, the answers with regard to September 11th are beginning to come. In the February 3rd newsletter, I wrote the following responses to the questions I had posed on October 13th:

May this book contribute to public awareness of the corruption that has allowed tragedies such as September 11th, the Kennedy assassination, and the wars that followed to take place; and more importantly, may it in some way help to prevent anything similar from happening again.

Kent Heiner
July 2002
Bellingham, WA