How to enforce a conspiracy -- Gen. Ahmad as "tarbaby"

[HamdenRice]

Usually I post "facts" gathered from mainstream media sources and don't engage in pure speculation. So be forewarned, this post is pure speculation.

Recently I posted about the fact that Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI and paymaster of al Qaeda and bin Laden was meeting with the Pentagon, CIA, National Security Council and Congressional chairmen of the intelligence committees, Sen. Graham and Rep. Porter Goss in the days before 9/11.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x65908

But something just didn't seem right about this. It seems too reckless. Why do something so reckless that would have the potential to incriminate everyone who came in contact with Gen. Ahmad.

Also, I honestly don't think that either Sen Graham or Rep Goss, however wrong they may be as republicans on other issues, are as heinous as the conspirators involved in 9/11. Frankly, I don't even think CIA chief Tenet -- recently described as someone who wanted everyone to think he was a tough Greek from Queens, but in reality was a guy who just wanted everyone to like him -- was involved. Wasn't Tenet one of the people who, Richard Clarke said, was acting like his "hair was on fire" in the days before 9/11 trying to get Bush's attention about the impending attack?

Then it hit me: Gen. Ahmad was shopped around Washington purposely to incriminate various people and intimidate them into participating in the coverup after the fact.

As in most high level conspiracies, most "conspirators" probably did not even know what they were signing up for.

The post 9/11 conversation would have gone something like this. Someone actually involved, like Rumseld, says to, for example, Sen. Graham, right after 9/11: "Bob, we have learned some disturbing news. The Pakistani general you were meeting at the moment bin Laden's terrorists were flying planes into the towers was bin Laden's paymaster. This is going to look really bad for you, for all of us. We're looking into some really bad possibilities, here Bob. There may have been some blowback from our Afghan operations, rougue agents -- even we don't know all of it. The country would be devasted. But above all we need your help in keeping certain things under wraps. There's going to be an investigation in the Senate or the House, that kind of stuff. Can we count on you for the good of the country?"

Or to George Tenet: "George, we just found out that Gen. Ahmad was the paymaster of the hijackers. People are going to go ballistic if they find out you met with him the day before 9/11. There were a lot of screwups all around, George, but if this gets out, not only will you be fired, but any jury will jump to conclusions, and probably convict you of treason. George, we need your help on this. And down the road, we're going to need you to help us out on Iraq .... etc etc."

People like Graham, Goss and Tenet sign up for the coverup, and only later discover that they are covering up high level administration complicity in 9/11. But by then it's way too late.

That's how you enforce a conspiracy. You get people involved, implicated, too deeply before they even know what they have signed up for.

There was no operational reason for Gen. Ahmad to be in DC on 9/11. Not in the age of phones, secure teleconferences and the internet. He was the tarbaby. His job, probably unknown even to him, was to set up potential patsy's and forced co-conspirators.

The real villains play chess, and they play it dozens of moves in advance.

[democraticinsurgent]

1. Kicked and wanna recommend

but we are still in the root cellar here...grr.

good perspective. some of the tracks are just too obvious, this clearly being one of them. and it explains why Graham's been somewhat muted on 9/11; he's spoken out, but only in a limited way.

also might explain why Tenet lied for Bush during the 9/11 hearings. gotcha.

[Bushwick Bill]

2. Wow.

I pretty much agree with all of it. I never thought Graham (a Dem) could be involved, I doubted it with Goss...Tenet is the one I can never figure out. Anyway, this may also explain why there is very little backing for Sibel Edmonds' cause. The dirty drug/terrorist money laundering probably connects to some high level Democrats, so you end up with a 9/11 Commission snowjob endorsed by both parties. I mean, she flat out says up to ten high profile Americans would be nailed if she could tell her story. What I can't figure out is the MSM failure to cover General Ahmad or even Sibel for that matter.

[Beam Me Up]

4. The MSM are complicit in the coverup.

Understand what I'm saying. Not that the average talking head has given this matter a great deal of thought. They've been told what the official story is and most everyone, including the media and the politicians, buy it. Life is so much easier when you go along to get alone, ya know. Only a few would be skeptical and even fewer would KNOW from their own research that the official story can not possibly be true -- and they are probably smart enough to keep their mouths shut.

[Beam Me Up]

3. I've suspected this myself but hadn't thought it through as clearly as you

have. I think you are on to something.

But what is interesting is in this particular example all we're dealing with here is the BACK STORY--taring someone with the back story.

What does al Qaeda and bin Laden--and general Ahmad--have to do with the clear evidence that the WTC was demolished with explosives? In other words, one may be tarred with or implicated in the back story, but the back story is irrelevant if the WTC was demolished. Explosives play NO role in the official lie and therefore can not be accounted for by it. Anyone implicated by its details need no longer fear too much in this regard, IF the official story can be shown conclusively to be not only false but impossible.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

5. I wish I could recommend this....

wow. it totally puts a lot of tangential "facts" into view, if this speculation is true :thumbsup:

[Wilms]

6. Plausible Culpability n/t