Official Pre-911 Documents

[freedomfiles]

Defend Against the Shadow Enemy
United States Senate Hearing
September 5, 2001
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_hearings&docid=f:75040.wais

[obeylittle]

Can't get the link working. What is it?

[dilbert_g]

gotta use IE, not Fox or other, it's a "GetFile" command
try this: http://www.Takeoverworld.info/bioterror_hearing_2001,09-05.htm

THE THREAT OF BIOTERRORISM AND THE SPREAD OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES

===============================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION
__________

SEPTEMBER 5, 2001
__________



(not CFR Council on Foreign Relations)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland JESSE HELMS, North Carolina
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota BILL FRIST, Tennessee
BARBARA BOXER, California LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
Virginia
Edwin K. Hall, Staff Director
Patricia A. McNerney, Republican Staff Director


I have not read it all, yet. Some sounds ominous, some is critical of Bush. In particular, given Bush's 1999 speech posted elsewhere by Freedomfiles, on scrapping the outdated ABM treaty and emphasis on Homeland Defense against terrorism, these guys are writing like it's a surprise.

National security, to state the obvious, is the first
obligation of every government. And the test of how well we
meet that obligation is whether whatever action we take makes
us more or less secure in the end.
There are some very difficult decisions with hard choices
relating to strategic doctrine, foreign policy, threat
assessment and economic constraints that every President and
every government has to face.
And just as we would all agree that we would provide for
the health care of all if we had unlimited funds, when there
are not unlimited funds we have to make difficult choices. We
have to make the same kinds of decisions in terms of our
national security.
One aspect of our sacred responsibility to our fellow
citizens, to provide for the physical security of our Armed
Forces and to protect our homeland, is how we go about this
process.
This is the first in a series of hearings on what have been
termed ``Homeland Defense and Protecting U.S. Military
Forces,'' where we will focus on the threats to our homeland
and attempt to assess what those threats are and prioritize
them to be able to make rational recommendations to our
colleagues.
These hearings have taken on an added sense of urgency in
my view for two reasons: The most ominous reason is there
appears to be an overwhelming focus, I would subjectively
characterize as a myopic focus, on national missile defense by
the Bush administration.
We appear to be about to jettison 50 years of strategic
doctrine grounded on three basic principles: One, reduce the
number of nuclear weapons in the world and prevent
proliferation to other countries; Two, stop all nuclear weapons
testing, because only with new testing can new weapons of mass
destruction be developed. And the United States is far ahead of
the game.
And, Three, diminish or eliminate the reliance on those
nuclear weapons which are most vulnerable and therefore the
least stable because they are most likely to be used on short
warning. These have been at least three of the basic principles
of our strategic doctrine for the last five decades.
But, for example on August 16, Secretary Rumsfeld told the
``Lehrer News Hour'' that he didn't care if other countries
responded to a U.S. missile defense by MIRV'ing or re-MIRV'ing
their ICBMs. He added, ``What really counts is the total number
of weapons.''
In doing so, the Secretary threw out decades of rightful
concern over crisis stability which lead to the landmark
efforts by the Reagan and Bush administrations to get the
Soviet Union to give up MIRVed ICBMs. In the interest of
missile defense, Secretary Rumsfeld reduced our nuclear
strategy to a simple numbers game.
Later last month, Under Secretary of State Bolton suggested
that we might withdraw from the ABM Treaty if President Putin
does not agree by November to scrap the treaty.
(this is the blackmail Bush previously talked about -- we'll either dump it bi-laterally or uni-laterally, your choice)
Russian officials had publicly declared their willingness
to amend the ABM Treaty. But obviously an amendment does
nothing.
...
But I have yet to hear any serious U.S. proposals or any
rational explanation of why we cannot amend the ABM Treaty to
permit the testing that the administration wants conducted.
(just give it a few more days, rational explanation's will no longer be necessary or tolerated)
...
something that the administration may be
willing to pay in order to be able to move forward with an
untested, undeclared national missile defense.
A few months ago, and I don't want to get in the middle of
this but there is a former famous Senator who may testify today
who warned against making missile defense an issue of theology.
Looking at recent administration actions, I'm beginning to
wonder whether we run into theology or technology.
...
Obviously, we don't have enough money to do everything. The
estimates for the 10-year cost for modernizing our conventional
forces range from $250 to $650 billion over 10 years. So these
are the two reasons for the urgency of these hearings.
(if $250 to $650 billion over 10 years was considered shocking and impossible, where the fuck are we NOW?!!)
...
This hearing will give us insight into how well prepared we
are to engage those [accidental or intentional bioterror] threats and what we need to do
if we are not fully prepared, and hopefully we'll have some estimate of
the costs of doing all this.
Our first panel will focus on the truly harrowing
consequences that a bioterrorist attack would have on our
people and indeed on our democratic political system. Former
Senator Sam Nunn and former Director of Central Intelligence
Jim Woolsey have participated in a chilling simulated exercise
called "Dark Winter.''
...

So this committee is opposing some of this, or pretending to. Again, ASSUMING they were seriously in opposition at this point, then I can see how Sept 11 was intended to be used as a PSYOP on ALL of Congress and the Military as well --- I mean those NOT in the know, and those not ALREADY committed to the PNAC (or DLC) vision of the American Century. Not only used on "us rabble", everyone got hit with shock and awe. It is unfathomable that KEY foreign Intell and Security Intell people would not be in-the-know. It's not as though stuff that I know about Gladio and Northwoods would be a secret to them, especially after their official release. I can see the chickenshit fear they might have of even mentioning Northwoods or "questions" about Sept 11. However I might concede that every Jr. Congressman or maybe even Senator from Podunk on some domestic committee might not really have been clued in, before or after.

What if a group of Congress had been serious enough to band together and make a public statement, form a committee, break from party lines? Not to be.

I guess I'll read the rest of it later, this is MANY pages long.

[freedomfiles]

Sorry, the article is indeed rather long. I found this part the most interesting however, about the World Trade Center and about events similar to Pearl Harbor, especially since it was published in the days preceding the 9/11 attacks :

[obeylittle]

Thanks guys, IE will never be an option for me. Appreciate it a bunch.

[freedomfiles]

Rumsfeld on June 21, 2001 :

[dilbert_g]

I have to go to a local meeting on Iran, but here's the original:

try this: www.Takeoverworld.info/bioterror_hearing_2001,09-05.htm

[freedomfiles]

Here are a number of radio broadcasts from National Public Radio, predating the 9/11 attacks, in which the defense plans of the GWB administration were discussed. Very interesting to hear what experts had to say on this issue before the 9/11 attacks took place.

The first clip includes Joseph Nye, the author of the piece above "Defend against the Shadow Enemy" and Thomas Donnelly (Project for the New American Century, on 9/10 about the American hegemony :