graham-v-chossudovsky copy.jpg


Conspiracy to Breakfast?

Graham v. Chossudovsky

by Joe Giambrone

Professor Michel Chossudovsky (who has published my pieces in the past) has his own unique take on 9/11, one which I believe clouds his judgment. Over at the Global Research site the contentious issue of Senator Bob Graham is front and center, and when it comes to the September 11th attacks that is no small matter.

For over a decade Professor Chossudovsky’s case against Senator Bob Graham was that he was having breakfast with the Pakistani ISI head during the 9/11 attacks. That’s it. That’s the entire case. Not one specific piece of information about what was exchanged, the conversation is unknown. Chossudovsky has speculated and assumed that the Senator must be a traitorous co-conspirator based upon meeting with an intelligence chief of an allied nation, one whom may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks, as if breakfast meant complicity. The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence should be expected to meet with foreign intelligence officials as part of his oversight duties. There is nothing out of the ordinary about that, as we do not have any idea whatsoever what was discussed. It’s a completely speculative denunciation.

Lacking these specific details to support his charge, Chossudovsky has inserted “red carpet treatment” in lieu of actual quotes from any of the breakfast participants.

Senator Bob Graham could have simply shut his mouth beginning on September 12 of 2001 and not written books and appeared in countless television interviews demanding an end to the 9/11 cover-up. If the Senator was involved in the crime in any way, as Chossudovsky repeatedly claims, there is no reason at all for him to work diligently for fifteen years to expose the cover-up. In fact he would be expected to cheer for the second cover-up report from the 9/11 Commission.

These allegations against the Senator are lacking evidence at the least, and are counter-intuitive and counterproductive at the worst. Graham is the highest profile US official to demand that the September 11th investigation be re-opened. He has, since the start, been open and candid about the wide extent of the cover-up—much larger than 28 pages—and it is because of him that we know that “foreign governments” plural were somehow involved in the attacks. Essentially he provides credibility to a movement that lacks it. Reasons the 9/11 Truth Movement lacks gravitas are precisely because of speculative claims and the lack of concrete evidence.

Professor Chossudovsky says, “It is fairly well established that Al Qaeda could not have been behind the 9/11 attacks.” That may depend upon the definition of “behind,” but the implication―probably false―is that Al Qaeda wasn’t involved at all. That’s what many so-called “Truthers” glean from these hyperbolic arguments, a false belief that discredits the speaker.

There is much evidence that Al Qaeda participated, and if one cares about the truth that is indeed a part of the truth. Full stop.

“This is confirmed by the analysis of Richard Gage and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.”

That is in dispute of course. The preponderance of evidence suggests this may have been a large part of the attack, but Gage is not the Pope. Only one of them is infallible.

Professor Chossudovsky:

“Al Qaeda is known to be supported by Saudi Arabia in liaison with the CIA.”

That’s a murky grey area that desperately needs corroboration. Coincidentally, Senator Bob Graham has been poking at and trying to expose secret Saudi operations since 9/11. What is the benefit to humanity in undermining him and his efforts?

Chossudovsky makes the following claim with zero evidence to back it up:

“While Graham is now heralded by the mainstream media as a 911 Truther, the evidence suggests that immediately in the wake of 9/11, he was involved (together with Porter Goss) in a coverup on behalf of Bush-Cheney.”

What evidence?

Graham’s Joint Inquiry report forced Bush to commit Treason in order to hush it up. The evidence suggests exactly the opposite of that above claim. Lacking further support, this is simply libelous.

“The 28 pages have nothing to with 9/11 Truth.”

If they concern 9/11 and they are true then this claim is nonsensical.

“The objective of the Saudi connection propaganda ploy is to ultimately sustain the official narrative which states that Islamic terrorists were behind the 9/11 attacks, which has been disproved by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.”

The actions of the Saudis are irrelevant to the building forensics, and vice-versa. These are separate issues. It is not a “propaganda ploy” if it is the truth of what happened. Denigrating the 28 pages of the Congressional investigation, before even reading them no less, is premature and irrationally biased.

Professor Chossudovsky simply assumes that Senator Graham knows for a fact that the buildings were blown up and that he is knowingly trying to deflect blame onto Saudis. This claim relies on speculation firstly, and it seeks to dismiss the most promising avenues of breaking open the 9/11 cover-up, which are the Saudi support inside the US, the CIA’s hiding of the Al Qaeda cells from the FBI, and the full extent of surveillance of purported hijackers before the attacks even occurred. A huge paper trail already exists.

If Michel Chossudovsky is interested in the truth he should be cheering for Senator Graham and not making unsupported accusations against him. Breakfast is not Treason.

“The 9/11 narrative in the mainstream media has taken on a new slant. The FBI is now accused of whitewashing Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks.”

And Coleen Rowley has been livid for fifteen years. That isn’t new. By making it about the so-called “mainstream media” it becomes less about the truth of the matter and more about spin.

Beyond breakfast, here’s what Senator Graham actually said in 2002:

“I agree with what Senator Shelby said the degree to which agencies were not communicating was certainly a surprise but also I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.

I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots.

To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. That would motivate the government to take action.”

The Senator alerts the nation that there is a cover-up, “stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that,” and that the key agencies are not doing their jobs to protect us. Here’s what he said a decade later:

“Sadly, those 28 pages represent only a fraction of the evidence of Saudi complicity that our government continues to shield from the public, under a flawed classification program which appears to be part of a systematic effort to protect Saudi Arabia from any real accountability for its actions.”

Does that sound like a co-conspirator to anyone? Anyone other than Professor Chossudovsky? Senator Graham clearly alerts us, once again, that the 28 pages are only a “fraction” of the story.

The next speculative claim in the Global Research article comes from Kevin Ryan, who is usually more careful with his words and sourcing:

“The FBI did not cooperate [with the Joint Inquiry] but that didn’t seem to bother Goss and Graham.”

“Seem to bother?”

Apparently it did, because further down in Kevin Ryan’s own article Senator Graham is quoted:

“The letter caused Graham to comment, ”We were seeing in writing what we had suspected for some time: the White House was directing the cover-up.’”

And again:

“Looking back at it, I think we were clearly set up by Dick Cheney and the White House. They wanted to shut us down. And they wanted to shut down a legitimate Congressional inquiry that might raise questions in part about whether their own people had aggressively pursued al-Qaeda in the days prior to the September 11 attacks. The vice president attempted to manipulate the situation, and he attempted to manipulate us. But if his goal was to get us to back off, he was unsuccessful.”

I repeat: Does that sound like the statement of a co-conspirator? A man who has betrayed his country? If so, what is the logic at work for his calling attention to a cover-up and working endlessly ever since to expose it to the world?

That is an absurd, unfounded accusation against Senator Graham. Professor Chossudovsky spins Graham again:

“And because Bob Graham accuses the FBI and the federal government, the 9/11 Truth movement applauds without realizing that these accusations directed against the FBI are ‘framed’ with a view to sustaining the mainstream 9/11 narrative.”

That is Bob Graham’s perspective on the matter based upon what he knows, clearly. He received information from official sources and yet admitted time and again that much was withheld from him. That is how he formed his view.

We are lucky that he is still doing his job, now years out of office. People have perspectives formed by their experiences. That one is Graham’s. He’s a politician and a diplomat. If you want the actual truth you must pursue all the leads, and not pick and choose the ones you prefer while defaming all the others. The truth is the truth, and it will win out in the end, in no-small part thanks to the efforts of Senator Bob Graham.

Finally, Professor Chossudovsky claims:

“The issue of Saudi financial support of al Qaeda is not only known and documented since the heyday of the Soviet Afghan war, it is irrelevant in establishing who was behind the terror attacks.”

When it leads back into the Oval Office? When it exposes Treason, as the 9/11 cover-up has given “aid and comfort” for over a decade?

I have to break away from Professor Chossudovsky’s line of overconfidence, speculation, and unsupported claims. One is either in favor of the full unvarnished truth or against it. The only criteria we should concern ourselves with is: what is true and what is not? Unfounded bias helps no one.

Your Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s