During the 2016 televised Presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the following exchange occurred:
“It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” Clinton intoned.
“Because you’d be in jail,” Trump quipped, to gasps and applause from the audience.
The comment came in a discussion of Clinton’s handling of sensitive information via email, but it could have been made about the Russia collusion. In truth, it could have been made about a great many things, for Clinton and her cronies’ criminality doesn’t begin and end with Russia. It runs far deeper, and far more dangerous than that, all the way up to regime change.
The name ‘Joseph McCarthy’ has become a by-word for paranoid political persecution. McCarthyites are supposedly irrational, fearful, hateful.
On February 11, 1950 McCarthy said this: “The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer – the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give.”
A full seventy years later, his words are more relevant than ever. The real Russian collusion perpetrated by Clinton and her cronies alone proves that. But it goes much deeper than Russia.
If America is to wake itself up from the slumber it has fallen into, if WE, THE PEOPLE are to protect and uphold our Republic, one truth needs to be well understood: for the last century there has been a concerted effort made by communists and their sympathisers to capture America for themselves. This has been waged on two fronts: by the subversion of American culture by socialism, and by the weaponisation of Islam to create instability and regime change both abroad and at home. It is the latter front that this document is concerned with.
We pick up where we left off: with Robert Mueller’s FBI.
Mueller Covers For FBI Errors
Robert Mueller was appointed to the position of Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation by President George W. Bush, taking up the appointment one week before the 9/11 terror attack, and he was “worse than clueless” after the towers fell, according to author James Bovard.
Three days after 9/11, following the revelation that some of the terrorists had trained for the mission in America, Mueller said “The fact that there were a number of individuals that happened to have received training at flight schools here is news, quite obviously. If we had understood that to be the case, we would have — perhaps one could have averted this.”
A further three days on he went further in emphatically insisting that the FBI held no evidence which could have averted the attack, announcing: “There were no warning signs that I’m aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country.”
According to Bovard, his insistence on this matter gave direct leverage to the Bush Administration to railroad the Patriot Act through Congress, vastly expanding the FBI’s remit to spy on innocent Americans. The Act was signed into law by Bush on October 26, 2001, barely six weeks after 9/11.
PATRIOT ACT Affects Us today
However, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — a nonprofit organization founded in 1920 “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States,” — found that during his 11 year tenure as FBI Director, Robert Mueller had a track record of routinely violating federal law and the Bill of Rights.
In their 2013 report: Unleashed and Unaccountable: The FBI’s Unchecked Abuse of Authority, ACLU detailed how, during his tenure, the FBI was “transformed […] into a domestic intelligence and law enforcement agency of unprecedented power and international reach.”
Under Mueller, the agency widened its remit from searching for criminals, terrorists and spies to gathering vast quantities of data on law-abiding Americans, retaining the information in huge data banks.
Mueller therefore welcomed these new powers. Under his directorship, the Bureau issued up to 50,000 National Security Letters (NSLs) to citizens, business, and nonprofit organizations, a hundredfold increase on previous numbers. NSLs officially allow for the collection of data on phone and email records, financial records, and credit information. The statutes ruling the instruments also allow for gag orders, preventing the subjects of the NSLs from revealing that they have received the letters.
While this information sounds innocuous, according to The Washington Post, in practice the letters allow the FBI to seize records detailing “where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work.”
In 2007, the Justice Department’s inspector general told a House Committee that the FBI may have violated the law through the issuing of NSLs as many as 3,000 times over a four year period, with 600 of those cases constituting “cases of serious misconduct.” There is no indication that this situation improved under Mueller.
Yet even as this massive surveillance operation on law-abiding citizens was going on, justified by terrorism fears following 9/11, Mueller was obfuscating the fact that the FBI had gathered evidence which could potentially have prevented 9/11 – and specifically that at least one of the terrorists involved in the attack was known to have had flight training, no less.
In May 2002, an FBI whistleblower from the Minneapolis field office named Coleen Rowley wrote to Mueller in the hope of him correcting his statements made following the attacks. In her letter, she detailed how the Minneapolis branch had arrested one of the men later found to have been connected to the plot, under suspicion of terrorism.
Agents were alerted to Mr Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen after the alarm was raised over him receiving flight training. According to Ms Rowley, “the Minneapolis agents who responded to the call about Moussaoui’s flight training identified him as a terrorist threat from a very early point.” He was arrested on August 15, 2001. Moussaoui refused to allow agents to search his computer.
The agents sought to obtain a criminal search warrant, but in order to gain one they needed FBI Headquarters’ approval to ask for the Dept. of Justice Office of Intelligence Policy Review’s approval to contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota. FBI HQ refused to approve the request.
Even after the French Intelligence Service confirmed Moussaoui’s affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and activities connected to Osama Bin Laden, FBI HQ prevaricated. Consequently, the agents did not receive the search warrant until September 11.
Moussaoui later pled guilty to conspiring to kill American citizens as part of the 9/11 attacks, and is currently serving six life sentences without parole in Colorado. At his sentencing hearing in 2006, FBI agent Harry Samit told jurors that he had informed his superiors in the FBI about 70 times that Moussaoui might be plotting to hijack an airplane in an attack against America. He added that a colleague, Greg Jones, had tried to get HQ to act on the information by urging them to “prevent Zacarias Moussaoui from flying a plane into the World Trade Center.” Jones apparently later dismissed the comment as “a lucky guess.”
“This is not a case of everyone in the FBI failing to appreciate the potential consequences,” Rowley wrote to Mueller. “It is obvious, from my firsthand knowledge of the events and the detailed documentation that exists, that the agents in Minneapolis, who were closest to the action and in the best position to gauge the situation locally, did fully appreciate the terrorist risk posed by Moussaoui and his possible co-conspirators even prior to September 11th.”
Despite this, when the letter came to the attention of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowan Republican, said of Mueller: “I believe that his heart is in the right spot,” the New York Times reported
Grassley agreed to investigate Rowley’s claims, but then added: “I’m willing to forgive him [Mueller]. But I’m not willing to forgive the agents who gave him the information.”
Similarly Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and member of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees at the time, said she was perplexed by some of the inaccuracies that were uncovered in Mueller’s public statements, and that she was concerned that they might reflect an unwise decision to “take on the burden of defending what has been done in the past.” But she then dismissed any concern as “a few first chaotic weeks on the job,” adding “I have no concerns that he is up to the task.” She then suggested the new director “be given a fair chance to prove himself.”
In her May letter, Rowley wrote that when Mueller made his initial statements, she and her colleagues had been alarmed and tried to contact Mueller’s office “to quickly make you aware of the background of the Moussaoui investigation and forewarn you so that your public statements could be accordingly modified.”
However, when Mueller and his deputies repeated the comments over the following weeks, the agents ”faced the sad realization that Mueller’s remarks indicated he tried to protect the FBI from embarrassment.”
This was the beginning of Mueller’s FBI career.
The Moussaoui affair was not the only 9/11 cover-up perpetrated by Mueller.
Two weeks before 9/11, a Saudi family living in a gated community in Sarasota, Florida, abruptly abandoned their luxury home taking almost nothing with them. Abdulazzi al-Hiijjii and his wife Anoud left so abruptly, along with their three young children, that when the attack happened some weeks later, both a neighbour and Larry Berberich, the senior administrator and security officer of the community raised the alarm.
According to Florida Bulldog, a non-profit which uncovered the affair, “Berberich was with the group that received President Bush during his aborted visit to a Sarasota school on the morning of 9/11.” He alerted sheriff’s deputies.
When law enforcement officers turned up they found brand new cars still parked on the drive way, the pool still running, fruit on the counters, food in the refrigerator, clothes still hanging in the closet, and toiletries still in place.
It was “like they went out to a movie … [But] the safe was open in the master bedroom, with nothing in it, not a paper clip. … A computer was still there. A computer plug in another room, and the line was still there. Looked like they’d taken [another] computer and left the cord.”
An investigation into the family subsequently uncovered extensive links between the al-Hijji’s and the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attack. Phone records showed that calls had been made between the two parties dating back more than a year, while records kept by the community’s security office revealed that Mohamed Atta, one of the ringleaders in the attack, had personally visited the house.
Atta and two others involved in the attack had been living a mere ten miles away for over a year, learing to fly planes nearby. Further investigation revealed links to another 11 suspects, including Walid al-Shehhri, one of the men who, along with Atta, hijacked the first plane to hit the towers.
However, when questions began to be asked in public, the FBI under Mueller sought to discredit the story, denying that any links had been found between the family and the terrorists, Judicial Watch reported.
Court documents later revealed that, a week after a news story about the al-Hijji’s abandonment of their home was published, a briefing was sent to Mueller on the case. Despite this, local agents in Miami and Tampa continued to deny the investigation existed, a move apparently sanctioned by Mueller.
Judicial Watch noted: “Though the mainstream media has neglected to report this relevant development, it’s difficult to ignore that it chips away at Mueller’s credibility as special counsel to investigate if Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election.”
But the conservative, non-partisan think tank then went further, accusing Mueller of appeasing Islamist terrorists by calling off his own agents, preventing them from properly investigating Islamic terrorism.
“Back in 2013 Judicial Watch exclusively obtained droves of records documenting how, under Mueller’s leadership, the FBI purged all anti-terrorism training material deemed “offensive” to Muslims after secret meetings between Islamic organizations and the then-FBI chief,” the think tank wrote on it’s blog. “Judicial Watch had to sue to get the records and published an in-depth report on the scandal in 2013 and a lengthier, updated follow-up in 2015.
“As FBI director, Mueller bent over backwards to please radical Islamist groups and caved into their demands. The agency eliminated the valuable anti-terrorism training material and curricula after Mueller met with various Islamist organizations, including those with documented ties to terrorism. Among them were two organizations — Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).”
The CIA Green-Lights Terrorism
While Robert Mueller’s links to 9/11 could generously be put down to complacency within the FBI and a Director willing to cover for his agents, former CIA Director John Brennan’s role in the most devastating attack ever to take place on American territory cannot be so easily dismissed.
John Brennan and his disdain for the President was aired nightly by the mainstream media throughout the duration of the Russia Hoax. When his history is laid bare, it’s not difficult to see why.
Brennan received a B.A in Political Science from Fordham University which provides internship programs for the CIA and is a major recruiting university for intelligence agencies and think tanks. He would obtain his M.A. from the University of Texas at Austin.
Specialising in Middle Eastern studies, he spent his junior year abroad learning Arabic and taking courses at the American University in Cairo. Brennan has admitted that in the 1976 presidential election, he voted for the Communist Party. He says he viewed it as a way “of signaling [his] unhappiness with the system, and the need for change.”
Brennan began his career with the CIA in 1980. By the early 90s he was directing terrorism analysis at the Director of Central Intelligence’s Counterterrorist Center, moving on to become the CIA’s daily intelligence briefer for Bill Clinton between 1994 – 1995.
Between 1996 and 1999 he served as the agency’s station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Four years later he was appointed as the first chief of the National Counterterrorism Center under Bush. Eventually Brennan would rise through the ranks to become Director of the CIA, holding the post between March 2013 and January 2017 under President Obama.
However, these promotions become suspect when one realises that, as station chief in Saudi Arabia, Brennan green-lighted the visas used by the 9/11 terrorists to gain entry to America.
On September 18, 2014, on the Ground Zero radio program, a whistle blower named Greg Ford of the 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion effectively ‘outed’ Brennan as a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks, naming him as the CIA officer responsible for issuing visas to the terrorists, despite the concerns of his subordinates.
A caller phoned in to the radio show to ask whether there was a “grand conspiracy” surrounding 9/11. At 1:32:56 into the interview, Ford says: “Find out who – you’re gonna love this – find out who… All 19 hijackers. Where did they get their visas stamped before they came to this country to launch 9/11? […]
“They got their visas stamped in the CIA station in Jeddah. And the second in command said “No way, absolutely not. We are not going to stamp these visas.” And the fellow who was in charge, his name was John Brennan. And if you look up to see who the director of the CIA is now, that is the same person who over-rode those concerns and cautions and ordered those visas stamped in Jeddah. Do I need to say anything more?”
As it happens, the visas were physically stamped by a new recruit to the station, Shayna Steinger. She was appointed and confirmed by the Senate under the Clinton administration as Shayna Steinger Singh, and assigned to Jeddah to start her first Foreign Service assignment on July 1 2000.
In an interview with the Department of State’s Office of Inspector General on January 20, 2003, Steinger told investigators that “Jeddah had a policy of interview by exception for Saudi nationals,” which amounted to a “virtual visa waiver program” for Saudi citizens.
“Saudis were asked to submit their passport and applications – no evidence was required,” the report reads. “All a Saudi needs to prove is that he is a Saudi,” Steinger told the interviewers.
Steinger ended up approving visas for 12 of the 9/11 hijackers, and told the Inspector General that, after 9/11 very little changed in the way visas were handled, other than superficially. “Have I already issued visas since September 11 to the next bunch of terrorists?” she wondered.
Steinger’s testimony makes it sound as though the visa approval was routine and could not have been avoided. However, her testimony clashed with that of her colleague, David El Hinn. El Hinn had a much higher rate of refusal for visa applications than Steinger, which got him into trouble at the embassy.
It also clashes with the findings of a report titled 9/11 and Terrorist Travel, compiled by staff at the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, who wrote: “A consular officer who served in Jeddah in 1996 estimated that they interviewed 50–60 percent of Saudi visa applicants. A consular officer in Jeddah two years later told us that they interviewed “a majority” of male Saudi visa applicants between the ages of 16 and 40. When we asked why, the latter officer said that they knew who Usama Bin Ladin was, they knew that he was dangerous, and they were concerned about the possibility that Saudi visa applicants might be intending to go to the United States to participate in terrorist attacks.”
The report continues: “Another officer corroborated the existence of an interview policy in Jeddah in 1998 that focused on potential Muslim extremists. He said it was instituted “in about August 1998, a month after I arrived,” and described the policy somewhat differently. He said they would interview 100 percent of Saudi citizens who were first-time student visa applicants, 80 percent of all students, and 5 percent of all other Saudi applicants.
“The 1998 interview policy in Jeddah apparently continued, though somewhat less aggressively, into the early fall of 2000. According to [El Hinn], when he arrived in August 2000 they were interviewing a significant percentage of Saudi citizen visa applicants and all first-time students.
“[El Hinn was rebuked by the Consul General in Jeddah for denying too many Saudi visa applicants. [El Hinn] and his supervisor told us that notwithstanding this criticism, [he] did not alter his approach to visa adjudication during his time in Jeddah, and that his approach was “validated” by the events of September 11. [Steinger] issued visas to 11 of the 9/11 hijackers.”
Steinger did interview one of the terrorists, Hani Hanjour, whose initial application for a tourist visa was incomplete. Steinger refused the visa over concerns he may overstay it. However, when Hanjour returned to the consulate two weeks later with a different application, Steinger issued the visa. Why the reversal?
On July 3, 2002, Michael Springman, a former State Department official who headed the US Visa Bureau in Jeddah, told CBC (Canada) that he was “repeatedly told to issue visas to unqualified applicants,” adding “This went on for quite some time, during most of my tour there.”
Initially he thought the anomalies were visa fraud. However, “once I got back to the United States, and was out of the foreign service, I ran across a couple of people with ties to the American government, that told me another story,” he said, then explained.
“The CIA was recruiting fighters for the Afghan war against the then Soviets, and […] their asset, Osama bin Laden was working with them. They had a recruiting office in Jeddah, they had a recruiting office in Riyadh, and third one somewhere in the Eastern province. And they would send these people to Jeddah, the fifth largest visa issuing post in the Middle East, for visas. They would apparently run these people straight over from their recruiting office over to my visa window. Well obviously, when they were not good solid businessmen, or good upstanding upper class people I would refuse them.
“There was one instance of two Pakistanis who came to me, and they wanted to go to an American auto parts trade show. They couldn’t name the show, and they couldn’t name the city in which it was going to be held. And then the case officer came over and called me on the phone, and said, “Give them a visa”. I said “No, it doesn’t wash”. “Well, we need it, I’m sorry.” Then he went to the head of the consular section and got me overruled, and they got their visas. But when I complained to the powers in the consulate, and the people in Riyadh, I was told to keep quiet, that there was reasons for doing this, that it wasn’t a case of my poor judgment, it was this and it was that. This simply fueled my suspicions that something untoward was going on.
“They seemed to basically [be] people with no real skills. Their nationalities for the most part were Pakistani, Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese. They were young, in their 20s and their 30s say, and they seemed to have no ties to any place in particular.
“Afghanistan was the end user of their facilities. My sources told me that they were coming to the United States for training as terrorists, and they would be sent back to Afghanistan. But then the countries that had originally had supplied them certainly didn’t want them back. These were people that had been given skills in overthrowing governments, destroying armored columns and things like this, and the various governments in the region frankly didn’t want them back, because they thought they might apply these skills at home.”
His interviewer responded: “If your theory is true, you can demonstrate a relationship between the CIA and Osama bin Laden dating back as far as 1987.”
“That’s right,” Springman replied, adding “It [the issuing of visas] could have been a mistake, it could have been a misjudgment. Or for all that we know, it could have been an effort to get the US directly involved in some fashion. I mean it’s only a few thousand dead, and what’s this against the greater gain in the Middle East?”
Springman said that as many as 100 people entered the US illicitly through the CIA back door during his time, prompting him to raise alarm bells far and wide, throughout the State Department and Washington, and to submit Freedom of Information requests with both the State Department and the CIA. Eventually his employment with the State Department was terminated “and I was never given a coherent reason why,” he said.
The CBC interview was not the first time Springman had spoken out against CIA involvement with al-Qaeda.
On November 6, 2001, the BBC’s flagship news program, Newsnight, broadcast a segment titled ‘Has someone been sitting on the FBI?’ in which they interviewed a number of security operatives who told them that the FBI were prevented from investigating potential Saudis for terrorism by the CIA, who claimed that they were using them as operatives.
The journalist who compiled the report, Greg Palast, told viewers: “Newsnight has uncovered a long history of shadowy connections between the State Department, the CIA and the Saudis.”
Springman then tells the BBC: “In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Inspector General’s office. I was met with silence.”
He continues: ““The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 did not shake the State Department’s faith in the Saudis, nor did the attack on American barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia three years later, in which 19 Americans died. FBI agents began to feel their investigation was being obstructed. Would you be surprised to find out that FBI agents are a bit frustrated that they can’t be looking into some Saudi connections?”
Springman’s mention of the Khobar Towers bombing is notable, given that it connects Brennan to the picture a second time.
In 1996, as the Saudi station chief, Brennan supposedly ‘missed’ intelligence that could have prevented the bombing of the Khobar Towers, a housing complex used by American, British and French military personnel. As Springman said, 19 American servicemen were killed and nearly 500 others were injured, 148 severely, when a bomb attached to a fuel truck was driven to the housing complex.
At the time, President Bill Clinton created a task force to study the Khobar Towers bombing and assess threats elsewhere. The Assessment Task Force was led by General Downing. Retired Air Force Lieutenant General James Clapper served as the head of the intelligence assessment team. The task force was not asked to do a criminal investigation but only to report instances of malfeasance to the chain of command. It would seem necessary for the
Downing’s team reported that the chain of command: “did not provide adequate guidance and support to the commander” who “was ill-served by the intelligence arrangement within his command…” Not ironically, from 1999-2000 he was the Chief of Staff to then-CIA Director George Tenet. Slowly but surely, the loudest Russian Hoax cheerleaders begin to become exposed. Could the whole Russian Hoax have been to protect these people from being found out of all their ‘malfeasance’ through their appointed careers?
An objective truth seeker cannot rule this out. WIthin a matter of only five years, America was attacked on September 11, 2001. With so much malfeasance happening, it is easy to begin to understand how a group of psychopathic terrorists’ would be successful in attacking New York City.
Following the Khobar Towers attack, it was found that there had been significant shortcomings in planning, intelligence and basic security, which had left the troops vulnerable, the New York Times reported.
Specifically, the CIA vastly underestimated the bomb-making capabilities of the Saudi militants, telling the Air Force that they were not able to make a bomb larger than a 200 pound device which had killed five Americans and two Indians in Riyadh in November 1995. They later admitted that they had no basis for that assumption, as they did not know what the militants’ capabilities were.
As it happened, the bomb that exploded outside the complex left a crater 85 feet wide and 35 feet deep, suggesting it had been packed with as much as 5,000 pounds of explosives.
Michael Wildes, a lawyer representing one of the bombers, later suggested to the BBC’s Newsnight, in the same report that Springman featured in, that the CIA was covering for the Saudis. He said that he was not surprised the FBI had been called off investigating Saudis by the CIA. “They’re cut off at the hip sometimes by supervisors or given shots that are being called from Washington at the highest levels,” he said.
Wildes also represented a Saudi diplomat who defected to the USA with 14,000 documents alleging Saudi financing of terrorism. According to the BBC, he tried to give the FBI the documents, only to be stonewalled. The agents took them but were told to “see no evil.”
“You see a difference between the rank-and-file counter-intelligence agents, who are regarded by some as the motor pool of the FBI, who drive following diplomats, and the people who are getting the shots called at the highest level of our government, who have a different agenda – it’s unconscionable,” he said.
Lessons Not Learned
On Christmas Day 2009 another potential atrocity was narrowly avoided when Nigerian national Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab failed to detonate plastic explosives sewn into his underwear onboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253.
The plane was over U.S. territory with 290 souls on board when passengers spotted smoke emanating from Abdulmutallab’s pants and wrestled him to the ground. It was later revealed that the device only failed to detonate because the bomber wore the same underwear for two weeks straight and soiled the device, degrading it.
The son of one of the richest men in Africa, Abdulmutallab first came to the attention of security services while studying Engineering and Business Finance at University College, London, as president of the school’s Islamic Society. There, MI5 noted “multiple communications” between Abdulmutallab and known extremists.
In August 2009 he travelled to Yemen, possibly under the direction of al-Qaeda In The Arabian Peninsula member Anwar al-Awlaki, telling his family that he was going to study there. However, he quickly dropped out of his classes, telling his father in October: “I am never coming back.”
A video released by al-Qaeda shows Abdulmutallab and others at a military training camp in Yemen, shooting at the Star of David and the British flag. The video includes a martyrdom statement by Abdulmutallab.
On November 11, 2009, British intelligence sent a cable to the U.S. reporting that Abdulmutallab had spoken to al-Awlaki, although it failed to give his last name. A week later, his father reported his son’s extremist views to two CIA officers at the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria. Consequently, Abdulmutallab’s name was added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database, which contains half a million names, but it was not added to the FBI’s terror watchlist, nor the No Fly list, nor was his visa for Yemen revoked.
A U.S. State department official named Patrick F. Kennedy later told a Congressional hearing that the State Department had wanted to revoke Abdulmutallab’s visa, but that the CIA specifically asked for it not to be revoked so as not to ruin an investigation into al-Qaeda.
“Revocation action would’ve disclosed what they were doing,” Kennedy said, arguing that, by contrast, Abdulmutallab was just “one soldier.”
Brennan claimed mea culpa following the failed bombing, telling the media in early January 2010 “I told the President today I let him down.”
However, according to a report at the time by the New York Daily News, “Brennan confessed they [the CIA] underestimated an obscure terror group in Yemen and didn’t connect it to air bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.”
This is clearly not true given that Abdulmutallab’s visa was preserved to lure in al-Qaeda. The attempted bombing took place nearly a whole decade after 9/11, when everyone in the world knew who al-Qaeda were. Therefore Brennan’s statement to the media raises three questions:
- Why was the CIA “underestimating” the group known to have perpetrated the biggest attack ever waged against America?
- Why did Brennan dismiss al-Qaeda as an “obscure group”?
- Why did he cover up the fact that the CIA had explicitly connected al-Qaeda to Abdulmutallab?
On May 24, 2018 a former CIA operations officer named Sam Faddis wrote an open letter to John Brennan, published in And Magazine, calling on Brennan to stop posing as an impartial commentator from the intelligence community to comment on President Trump’s supposed involvement with Russia during the 2016 election.
“I beg you [Brennan] to stop attempting to portray yourself as some sort of wise, all-knowing intelligence professional with deep knowledge of national security issues and no political inclinations whatsoever,” Faddis wrote, adding: “You were never a spy. You were never a case officer. You never ran operations or recruited sources or worked the streets abroad. You have no idea whatsoever of the true nature of the business of human intelligence. You have never been in harm’s way.”
He goes on to explain that Brennan, as an intelligence officer, was merely responsible for compiling information collected by field agents into reports – a desk job, although he adds: “in truth you never truly mastered this trade either.”
Then he lays out the kicker: “While still a junior officer, you [Brennan] were designated to brief the President of the United States who was at that time Bill Clinton. As the presidential briefer, it was your job to read to the president each morning finished intelligence written by others based on intelligence collected by yet other individuals. Period. While serving as presidential briefer you established a personal relationship with then President Bill Clinton.”
Now it becomes clear why Brennan, despite repeated intelligence failures or worse, was so consistently promoted through the ranks of the CIA.
“Everything that has transpired in your professional career since has been based on your personal relationship with the former president, his wife Hillary and their key associates. Your connection to President Obama was, in fact, based on you having established yourself by the time he came to office as a reliable, highly political Democratic Party functionary,” Faddis writes.
Unlike Diana West on the Clintons, Faddis doesn’t openly accuse Brennan of treason. However, he does say this: “It should be noted that not only are you most decidedly not apolitical but that you have been associated during your career with some of the greatest foreign policy disasters in recent American history.
“As CIA Director for Barack Obama you:
- Presided over the Iran nuclear deal, which allowed Iran to escape from decades of containment and set the Middle East on fire.
- Watched while Russia annexed Crimea and then re-established itself as a hostile force in the Middle East.
- Dithered and tinkered with organizational wiring diagrams at Headquarters while China annexed and fortified the entire South China Sea.
“The extent to which you are tied directly to the Clintons, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party is clearly evident in the emotional nature of your recent commentary [on Trump and Russia collusion].”
When we add Brennan and Mueller’s roles in covering for intelligence failures which could have prevented 9/11 and other terrorist activities from going ahead to the Clintons’ collusion with Russia to aid them in the arms race against America, a picture begins to emerge not of incompetence, but of collusion on a much grander scale.
You don’t have to buy into any Alex Jones style conspiracy theories or believe those who say the towers were detonated from the inside to start to grasp what’s going on here: both the FBI and the CIA had opportunities to stop 9/11 from going ahead; those opportunities were not missed. Agents were warning their superiors of the attacks before they happened, and those warnings were shut down by the same people who are now attacking President Trump.
9/11 was not directly an inside job. It was carried out by Islamist extremists trained by al-Qaeda. But those who are supposed to be working to protect the American public instead aided and abetted the perpetrators of the single biggest attack against America to date. More lives were lost that day than at Pearl Harbour, the only other time America’s enemies have struck a decisive blow on American soil.
And they weren’t done there.