Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

French book claims Bush provoked 9/11 for oil pipeline
salon.com ^ | 2/8/02 | Nina Burleigh

Posted on 05/19/2002 7:28:58 AM PDT by xlib

Bush, oil and the Taliban Two French authors allege that before Sept. 11, the White House put oil interests ahead of national security.

- - - - - - - - - - - - By Nina Burleigh

Feb. 8, 2002 | PARIS -- In a new book, "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth," two French intelligence analysts allege the Clinton and Bush administrations put diplomacy before law enforcement in dealing with the al-Qaida threat before Sept. 11, in order to maintain smooth relations with Saudi Arabia and to avoid disrupting the oil market. The book, which has become a bestseller in France but has received little press attention here, also alleges that the Bush administration was bargaining with the Taliban, over a Central Asian oil pipeline and Osama bin Laden, just five weeks before the September attacks. The authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, see a link between the negotiations and Vice President Dick Cheney's energy policy task force, with its conclusions that Central Asian oil was going to become critical to the U.S. economy. Brisard and Dasquie also claim former FBI deputy director John O'Neill (who died in the attack on the World Trade Center, where he was the chief of security) resigned in July to protest the policy of giving U.S. oil interests a higher priority than bringing al-Qaida leaders to justice. Brisard claims O'Neill told him that "the main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia."

The authors also allege that the Sept. 11 attacks were a calculated response to Western pressure on the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and permit the return of the long-exiled Afghan leader, King Shah. They say the terror attacks were aimed at sparking a widespread war in Central Asia and thereby reinforcing the Islamic extremists' grip on power.

Brisard, a private intelligence analyst who once worked for the French conglomerate Vivendi, compiled a report in 1997 on the financing behind the al-Qaida network. Dasquie is a journalist and editor of Intelligence Online. The authors are negotiating with American publishers now to get the book translated and published in England. They recently discussed their book with Salon.

[click salon link above for interview]


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: binladen; forbiddentruth; guillaumedasquie; jeancharlesbrisard; johnoneill; lailihelms
This is somewhat old news (the book was published in France in November) but I found nothing on FR by searching the title and authors. Although this interview doesn't mention it, one of the allegations apparently made in the book is that secret US/Taliban negotiations over an Afghan oil pipeline broke down in late summer 2001 when the US demanded the Taliban choose between a "carpet of gold" and a "carpet of bombs," provoking the 9/11 attacks as a pre-emptive strike. Lots of holes in this scenario, but it's gaining momentum internationally. I found lots of fawning references to the book on the web, and little in the way of debunking, presumably because it's largely below the radar screen in the US so far except among the loony left. But a translation is in the works, and the claims will have to be addressed.

Other links:
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK20Ag01.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0124/ridgeway.php

1 posted on 05/19/2002 7:28:58 AM PDT by xlib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xlib
Keep in mind that in France, with almost 10% of its population now muslim, there is a huge market for paranoid anti-US theories. The above story was written by Nina Burleigh, who was working for Time when she said she would gladly go to the White House to give Clinton oral sex because she liked his approval of abortion.
2 posted on 05/19/2002 7:33:50 AM PDT by thucydides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thucydides
No argument about France; the book claiming the attack on the Pentagon was faked came from France. But these guys seem to be a little more reputable than that. It may be that much of what's in the book is being selectively quoted out of context to make the US actions seem more sinister than they were. I have no problem with the idea that backchannels between the US and the Taliban existed pre-9/11, or neccesarily with the possibility that oil pipeline plans were discussed during that time. But it would be tempting for W's political enemies to spin such contacts to their advantage.
3 posted on 05/19/2002 8:02:57 AM PDT by xlib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thucydides
The author's behavior and prior statements have totally discredited anything she might report about. Even the least sophisticated Democrat knows this woman cannot be trusted! That's why there is such widespread disinterest in her stuff!
4 posted on 05/19/2002 8:17:35 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xlib
Negotiations with your enemies are commonly referred to as "bridging differences" or "calming waters" etc.
At some level, concerning many types of mutual interest or concerns, any reasonable nation will continue some level of discussions before and throughout a war.
5 posted on 05/19/2002 8:20:19 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xlib
"French intelligence"

These 2 words do not belong together these days...sorry to those of French decent who may be offended.

6 posted on 05/19/2002 8:20:43 AM PDT by little rebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xlib
Salon.com death watch.


7 posted on 05/19/2002 8:27:15 AM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
There are lots of links to this on the web (do a google search on any of the keywords and you'll see what I mean.) I posted the Salon article because, aside from a transcript of a very brief January CNN interview with Richard Butler, Salon was the closest thing to a "mainstream" US outlet that covered it. Whether that is due to the book's lack of veracity or its lack of an english translation remains to be seen. I'm hoping some on this forum are familiar with this and can comment on the substance of the allegations, and on the seeming logical inconsistencies (example: if the Taliban was engaged in such talks and was threatened by the US, why didn't they use that when they were trying to justify themselves to the world after 9/11?)
8 posted on 05/19/2002 8:42:03 AM PDT by xlib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thucydides
BIG BUMP and what can anyone expect from a bunch of SUCKER BLOWERS, we should have let the Germans keep them after the war, they would have screwed them into what they wanted them to be instead of being a bunch of Back Stabbers and Wimps.....
9 posted on 05/19/2002 9:03:27 AM PDT by Wave Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: norton
Asia Times

November 20, 2001

US policy on Taliban influenced by oil - authors
By Julio Godoy

PARIS - Under the influence of United States oil companies, the government of President George W Bush initially blocked intelligence agencies' investigations on terrorism while it bargained with the Taliban on the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.

In the book Bin Laden, la verite interdite (Bin Laden, the forbidden truth), that was released recently, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.

The authors claim that O'Neill told them that "the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it". The two claim that the US government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.

They affirm that until August, the US government saw the Taliban regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. Until now, says the book, "the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that."

But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a military one", the authors claim.

"At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'" Brisard said in an interview in Paris.[emphasis added]

According to the book, the Bush administratin began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. US and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.

To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a US expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of US intelligence organizations, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The last meeting between US and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain. On that occasion, Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for the US government, met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad.

Brisard and Dasquie have long experience in intelligence analysis. Brisard was until the late 1990s director of economic analysis and strategy for Vivendi, a French company. He also worked for French secret services, and wrote for them in 1997 a report on the now famous Al-Qaeda network, headed by bin Laden.

Dasquie is an investigative journalist and publisher of Intelligence Online, a respected newsletter on diplomacy, economic analysis and strategy, available through the Internet.

Brisard and Dasquie draw a portrait of the closest aides to Bush, linking them to the oil business. Bush's family has a strong oil background, as do some of his top aides. From Vice President Dick Cheney, through the director of the National Security Council Condoleezza Rice, to the ministers of commerce and energy, Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham, all have for long worked for US oil companies.

Cheney was until the end of last year president of Halliburton, a company that provides services for oil industry; Rice was between 1991 and 2000 manager for Chevron; Evans and Abraham worked for Tom Brown, another oil giant.

Besides the secret negotiations held between Washington and Kabul and the importance of the oil industry, the book takes issue with the role played by Saudi Arabia in fostering Islamic fundamentalism, in the personality of bin Laden, and with the networks that the Saudi dissident built to finance his activities.

Brisard and Dasquie contend that the US government's claim that it had been prosecuting bin Laden since 1998. "Actually," Dasquie says, "the first state to officially prosecute bin Laden was Libya, on the charges of terrorism."

"Bin Laden wanted to settle in Libya in the early 1990s, but was hindered by the government of Muammar Gaddafi," Dasquie claims. "Enraged by Libya's refusal, bin Laden organized attacks inside Libya, including assassination attempts against Gaddafi."

Dasquie singles out one group, the Islamic Fighting Group (IFG), reputedly the most powerful Libyan dissident organization, based in London, and directly linked with bin Laden. "Gaddafi even demanded Western police institutions, such as Interpol, to pursue the IFG and bin Laden, but never obtained cooperation," Dasquie says. "Until today, members of IFG openly live in London."

The book confirms earlier reports that the US government worked closely with the United Nations during the negotiations with the Taliban. "Several meetings took place this year, under the arbitration of Francesc Vendrell, personal representative of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan," says the book. "Representatives of the US government and Russia, and the six countries that border with Afghanistan were present at these meetings," it says. "Sometimes, representatives of the Taliban also sat around the table."

These meetings, also called Six plus 2, because of the number of states (six neighbors plus the US and Russia) involved, have been confirmed by Naif Naik, former Pakistani minister for foreign affairs.

In a French television news program two weeks ago, Naik said that during a Six plus 2 meeting in Berlin in July, the discussions turned around "the formation of a government of national unity. If the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they would have immediately received international economic aid. And the pipelines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would have come," he added.

Naik also claimed that Tom Simons, the US representative at these meetings, openly threatened the Taliban and Pakistan. "Simons said, 'either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use another option'. The words Simons used were 'a military operation'," Naik claimed.

(Inter Press Service)

10 posted on 05/19/2002 9:43:28 AM PDT by xlib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xlib
bump
11 posted on 05/19/2002 11:09:00 AM PDT by xlib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xlib
America's dirty Afghan secret: it's a war over oil

Here's a thread from back in November where some inconsistencies are pointed out (amidst much hilarity). There is a more thorough review of the book.

It's really too obviously stupid a conspiracy theory because the Pak's wanted the pipeline, Bush increased US cooperation with Taliban opponents, etc. etc.

12 posted on 05/19/2002 11:23:00 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: Goldhammer
One recent development that is breathing new life into this conspiracy theory is the lawsuit filed by FBI agent Robert G. Wright alleging the FBI is unwilling to prosecute terrorists. This is being spun as evidence that W reined in the FBI to promote the pipeline. This despite the fact that the lawsuit concerns Hamas, not Al Qaeda, and Wright claims no knowledge of FBI activities outside the Hamas unit. In fact, the suit seems to focus on tactics, not objectives. Wright wanted more indictments, while his superiors claim they are focusing more on the big picture. They argue that indictments would dry up sources of info, a plauisible point.
14 posted on 05/20/2002 4:24:53 PM PDT by xlib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Goldhammer
Can you direct me to any FR discussion of the Vidal version?
15 posted on 05/21/2002 5:24:23 PM PDT by xlib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson